LOL...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...cruz/83831470/

Sounds fair???
Are you on crack? Why should things you earn over your life time be returned "to the people" on what planet would this work. I love how Libs make up this "magical Utopia" where they play God and tell you all what to do and say! Where programs like giving everything you earned over your life time "to the people"

Well this planet is a good example. It's called an estate tax.

an estate tax doesn't take "everything you own."

Thank you for enlightening us with what we already know. Like I said.... this is entirely philosophical. Bottom line is the estate tax is pretty much consistent with the principal that you can't take it with you, and you can't concentrate wealth until only the rich and powerful have it all. The more that wealth gets concentrated, the more you can expect the voting majority to up that tax.

Ownership of the planet is a compromise between people who believe that you should be able to take all you want within the legal constraints of the power you possess, and those who believe that nobody should be able to own as much as you want within the constraints of the power they possess. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the former or the latter. What matters is who has the most power to create the legal constraints.

CRUZ DROPS OUT
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...al-race-222763

There you have it kids, we now get to see what trump can bring to the general.

Now Fiorina can do what she does best... fire the campaign staff.

Wow, Hillary or The Trumpster. Its like choosing between dick or **** flavored icecream

I guess Fiorina wasn't the spark the Cruz campaign needed. Hopefully, they didn't print too many of those Cruz/FIorina campaign signs.

Cruz probably wanted her more as a mate than a vice president;)

It still pretty amazing that the two best candidates this country has to offer is an idiot loud mouth reality TV star and a lifelong corrupt as hell political whore that should have been in jail by now.

Pretty freaking scary.

I was just following up on what you stated.

Thank you for enlightening us with what we already know.

Whatever.

Wow: Cruze OUT then Kasich OUT . And just like that TRUMP's got the nomination. You have to admit this has been no cake walk for TRUMP I can't think of Any pesendital ellection cycle that has been this hard fought.

It was a total cakewalk for Trump. Trash talking is the easiest thing in the world, and the Republicans literally had no candidate worth a crap.

exactly. Grant explain one difficult and nuanced policy position that trump came out with. Then try to think of anything he's said that hasn't been a boast, a lie or an insult. Just yesterday he claimed that Cruz's dad was involved in the JFK assassination! Yesterday!

In a normal year I'd be very happy to see a loony like Cruz gone. But at least he had an ideological backbone. I have absolutely no idea what Trump stands for other than his own ego.

Once again the Libral Justice Warriors are right.
It was a total cake walk for Trump LOL that's a joke, it might he seemed easy blowing threw guys like Jeb Bush who spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars getting no where. At one point there was 16 people going after the POTUS position. People like Jeb IMO were pushing a rock up hill. Trumps message seemed to connect with people, love it or hate it,

Surely you aren't endorsing the criminal political whore as a candidate worth a crap for the democrats are you?? :eek:

They both suck arse.....

Remember my advice about using "through" instead of "threw"?

Endorse is too strong a word to use in this case.

Grant Trump got "threw' those other guys, no doubt about it, and that's definitely no small "feet" (maybe small hands but whatcha gonna do).

It's the "how" he got "threw" them that's so disappointing/concerning/unimpressive/worrisome. Not on the merits of policy or ideas, but by "$chlongng" people with silly promises (build a wall) insults (little marco, low energy jeb, and on and on) and innuendo (cruz's infidelity, cruz's citizenship, etc). And his supporters gobble it up and ask for more.

So I agree his "message" connected.

Shawn So the people like yourself & Wake that are so quick to Insult & call name's here are critical of TRUMP's name calling??? Wow pot meet kettle.I guess that's another trait of your Moment sure can dish it out but cant take it. I for one could care less about the "name calling" along the campaign trail. Mudslinging is nothing new in the political election process. I'm way more insulted with Lies & the political status quoe system currently offers. Im 1000% more offended by people like Hillary and Bill then anything Trump has ever said.

Maybe we should just let Trump win.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/24/...-donald-trump/

Grant, I think I'm pretty good about not calling anyone names. If I have, honestly, you have my sincerest apologies (really). You are a very good sport and are pretty immune to getting butthurt, which I appreciate. I don't agree with you, but I respect you individually and I want to understand your thinking.

Now what I will do is assail your (or whomever's) logic.

I understand that your outrage about "the system" and "the clintons" and "barack HUSSEIN obummer" exists, but when pressed for real facts about why the outrage really seems to fizzle.

Here's an example: the big criticism of Bill was his personal promiscuity. Doesn't Trump, who has personally (and publicly) celebrated his own promiscuity sorta undercut that whole line of argument? I mean in retrospect Clinton seems like our last president who was capable of working across the aisle to get anything done. Crime bill, significant welfare reform, budget surplus, etc etc.

If I didn't feel deep in my heart that Trump will cause a recession worse than 2008, I almost would not have any problem with Trump as president. He will be liberal on social issues, less likely of any of the GOP candidates (other than Paul; and yes, I am going out on a limb here) to cause some giant military quagmire, and be (again, going out on a limb here) more likely to address the trade deficit, in either party. These are three big things I use to pick my candidate and I think Trump will be very similar to Hillary. His plan to address the debt is doing 90 mph over the side of a cliff.

So many things for Trump to clean up. Only he could even think about doing it.

Problem will be how much things get worse before they get better...

Establishment sells out constituents for funds.
Trade agreements gave away wealth and employment.
Bringing back jobs will take some time.
Nation building failures have dug a big hole.
Syria and Lybia failures have dug a deeper hole.
Radical Islam (aka Islam) is out of control.
National Debt is 17 trillion (that's 17 million million).
Military has been weakened.

A few surprises will come with ease...

Mexico will indirectly pay for the wall.
North Korea will shut up quickly.
Russia will become our friend again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY You can thank me later.

So much delusion is this post, where can one begin?

...And you wanna talk about delusion in GD's post??? Priceless!

we went through a lot of this baloney during the last election cycle

John and Jeremy want to slam anyone who votes Republican, trash the candidate (sometimes deservedly so sometimes), and rarely say anything bad about the democratic guy.

you just have to accept and roll with it. They are both well spoken and like to talk circles.

but here is their messiah's latest

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-k...bailout-scheme

He's taken power privilege precedent to the next level. It's scary to extrapolate this behavior to future Presidents.

Hillary scares the piss out of me with what she will do. Trump certainly doesn't invoke warm fuzzies.....

and no, I have no way to substantiate the article

Cliff that's just the way it works. For example, you just referred to Obama as our messiah. I'm a big fan of turnabout is fair play, because simply trying to be rational all the time becomes ineffectual. You say it's scary to extrapolate Obama's behavior to future Presidents, but some of us think it's way scarier to extrapolate the last Republican's President's behavior to future Presidents. Especially when so many Republicans still cling to the idea that he was pretty good.

And why should I trash Hillary when Republicans are so over the top about trashing her? Remember you cannot judge a politician in a vacuum. You have to have some comparative behavior to make an analysis. And the only comparative behavior is other politicians. It appears that Republicans are resistant to making fair comparisons because the history of their politicians is so bad. Therefore they judge in a vacuum. For example they make a huge issue out of 4 people dying in an embassy attack while ignoring the 60 or so embassy employees that died in attacks under Bush's reign.

Watch Hillary start to sound like Trump -- it will happen very soon. She will be spouting something similar to "America First" and start to bash bad trade/defense deals. Hillary is a slimy chameleon with no vision for America.

No Doubt. Only Sanders and Cruz really seemed to be dedicated to a specific audience. And Trump will probably be doing his best not to look like a xenophobic maniac to attract the normals.

Im voting Gary Johnson. Do your research, and my guess is most other repub's will too. I don't care if he wins, I'm voting in good conscious. 2 term Governor, successful business person, fiscally conservative, socially liberal and not bat**** crazy.

https://garyjohnson2016.com/

Name one thing in my post that is "delusional". I will defend and explain any of my posts or any section you care to discuss.

The problem I have with all of the Trump supporters is that you ignore about 50 years of the man's life and only focus on what he says on the campaign trail. Trump is/was a personal friend of the Clinton's. He has always been very liberal on most issues. Romney tried the same BS last election. If I didn't feel that Obama had the country headed in the right direction and if Romney would not have tried to portray himself as a conservative, I would have strongly considered voting for him. He was very politically-centered during his time as governor of MA and showed a willingness to work across the aisle. Same way with Trump. Only he is pandering even more to the far-right, with the nonsensical talk of a "wall" being the solution to our immigration problem. Also, Trump is going to have to start appealing to the independents and the more moderate Republicans if he wants to have any chance of winning the election. He is actually going to have to start sharing some coherent plans and stop insulting his way out of debates.

I have always been a fan of certain aspects of Johnson's platform, but I can't get behind a straight consumption tax or efforts to leave education solely in the hands of the states (look at what's happening in Texas for example, frightening for the future of kids there).

What's Trump's vision? To build a giant wall around the country a la Berlin? To make "America Great Again", when America is still the greatest country in the world? It's funny that you give Trump a pass for being a "chameleon" yet Hillary is "slimy" because of it.

Dane I think you branded Hillery toxic and in my opinion that is a perfect analogy of her. A career politician that is rotten to the core.

I love Wake's dismissal of Bengazzi, One thing is for sure she can deflect damage like no other.
She has scandal after scandal under her belt and nothing seems to ever stick but that doesn't mean there isn't something rotten

Here is an example of Hillary at work

http://youtu.be/qNyUz08mtBg

I think he said/did that stuff to get the GOP on his side and get nominated. He will come back to center to gather the independents now that its too late. We'll see.

I kind of like Gary too. But I went to his site and there is zip about trade policy/deficit. He also talks about stopping the penalization of saving and investment. That's really weird because investment is taxed lower on capital gains, and pension tax exemptions are a form of govt welfare.

His claim about moving from earnings to consumption tax is a penalty on the poor unless all of the essentials are tax free, and a gift for the well to do. And moving tax to consumption is a sure way to damage the consumption based economy. Take Cliff, the restaurant owner.... How is he going to like collecting another tax on the sale of his meals? Instantly his services and products become more expense, so he'd better be catering to the well to do because they are the ones benefiting from a lack of tax on earnings.

Without addressing trade policy all he has done is help the rich and hurt the poor. That's not going to be a sustainable political philosophy. Lastly, if there is no tax on earnings then there can be no tax deductions for pension saving or health insurance. That's really going to be interesting. Right off the bat I would expect a big decline in stock prices, which is going to be a shock to the economy and mess for all the state govts with their defined benefit pension plans that are no longer viable under the current benefit schedule. Maybe that's what he means by cutting entitlements. Also as a employed person at a company with HI the govt is giving me HI welfare to the tune of about 40% of the cost. That means HI will now cost me 66% more right out of the gate. The only way to compensate will be to cut consumption of other products.

Quite frankly the anarchy that will ensue is a bit attractive to me because it's just what Americans need to "see the truth" about how govt policy.

Flat taxes and only-sales taxes are a waste of discussion time. They will never happen.

What we have works. A progressive tax that caps out under 50%. It's a form of socialism. It's OK but it should be simplified and cleaned up.

The problem is with companies/employment leaving because of capitalistic pressure. If company A moves to Mexico for cheaper labor then company B must move to mexico to complete. Americans get a slightly cheaper product but at the expense of less employment. A LOSS for the USA. Free trade == unfair trade OR bad-for-the-usa trade.

While a fiscal conservative and a Republican, I believe in a healthy minimum wage and employment protectionism within the USA. But, I would like to also see the UAW dissolved as a trade for protecting the American auto industry (just as China does for their Auto industry)..

I tend to agree about not needing unions, as in laws that protect unions. We now have in place laws that protect workers across the board so unions don't really represent any sort of reasonable protection for workers anymore as long as the trade deficit is addressed.

Trump puts an interesting twist in the Merrick Garland nomination. Some repubs are calling for republican senators to go ahead and confirm Obama's choice since he's older and relatively milquetoast compared to the younger, more liberal justice Clinton would likely put forth, potentially with stronger democratic numbers in the senate...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...catch-22.html#

Unions are employment killers. GM should be out of business. With strong proper employment minimums from the government, the worker should not need a union. Unions further ruin the competitive landscape within a global economy.

When he "comes back to center", what happens to the conservatives that support him? I live in TN and many of the conservatives that support him, expect him to stay firm on these issues. I think he needs to come back to center, but that could result in low voter turnout on the GOP side.

I guess that is where you and I differ. There is no reason that Americans should have to compete with 3rd world countries when it comes to labor. I also don't feel that unions were the undoing of GM. Ford is union and didn't need a bailout.

"There is no reason that Americans should have to compete with 3rd world countries when it comes to labor"

Duh. Did you miss this:

A problem with unions are they are discriminatory in the sense they are only benefit a small segment of the working force, which just creates more income inequality. If you create trade laws that prohibit unregulated competition with substandard (safety,wage,environment,HC,SS) countries, then all domestic workers are protected equally.

Trade unions have their place. Auto industry is not really one of them. They killed Detroit. I used to be anti union but I see a good benefit in the construction trades. You have workers that need a representative for jobs, benefits and retirement. They also verify skills and training. It basically is like a company.

Trump will not change his position because even moderate democrats can see that trade imbalance and bad trade pacts are killing us. They also know that illegals are not taking jobs that Americans won't do. That is an old myth. The construction unions are full of illegals especially when there is a building boom. I know Trump does not say things properly and he can clean that up with a speech writer. His is spot on and it sells to middle America. The people who are pissed are the ones who profit from illegal immigration, legals who may be trying to get illegal family members in, and globalist democrats who want to "share the wealth". As far as Syrian immigration, he is spot on. They need to be vetted. You see what is happening in Europe. He did not say keep all brown people out. He said to make sure we know who we are getting. Immigration by law has historically been about bringing in people legally who will be assets to the country.

Pandering buffoon? I didn't think he could top Hillary and her hot sauce, but he did it.

I'm well aware that he made it part of his platform. The problem is that implementing these protections is going to be a very tricky and will require a thoughtful approach. Something that Trump doesn't seem capable of.

I've been preaching this for a long time on this forum (and other places). For years... And had to argue with people who thought draining the economy was not an issue. So one would expect that I would have been the first to be thrilled with Trump making it an issue. But I've also been aware that this is a huge doubled edged sword. It's not an issue that will be solved with arrogance and bravado. Not only will the American public need to be educated that increased prices are a price to pay for the health of the nation, but foreign countries and Americans will need to be persuaded into understanding that balanced trade is necessary for us to balance our budget. This is the correct approach to getting control over entitlements. We need a smooth talker like Obama for this. Except an Obama that the GOP isn't going to trash no matter what he says.

This is a very interesting point, John. I know obama has disappointed a lot of conservatives, but there are an equal number of libs who think he's totally ineffectual. He's a decent enough speaker, and he's pretty brainy. But just being right hasn't been enough to crack the opposition's "wall of no."

So maybe it is a Trump (or some sort of equally brash buffoon who can sway public opinion quickly) that's needed to actually break the logjam? The problem for me is trusting that there's any kind of underlying policy discipline, and that the name calling and threats don't permeate the whole process of governing.

But yeah, would things have been different if obama had just started referring to McConnell as "old turtlehead" and boehner as "leatherface"? I dunno.

Trump's absolute unpredictability is actually his greatest asset IMHO.

SRSLY, that pic oozes with soooooo friggin much irony. Of all the "hispanic" dishes he could've chosen, he chose a taco bowl. Probably tastes just like the ones the conquistadors used to order.

Isn't Cinco de Mayo a Mexican holiday? I don't believe that all Hispanic countries celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

Didn't you say this?

Among many many many other problems, yes, you are correct

I suspect there are Mexicans that are not Hispanic too.

O" Paleeeeze, so Wes you think Trump having a Taco salad on Cinco de Mayo is some how gonna win over the Hispanic vote?? Wow so you think The Hispanic voter is so stupid that a picture of Trump pounding down on a Taco Salad is gonna hit home with them??? After all We all know what a traditional dish "Taco Salad" is in the Latino Comunity, and how they are just going to jump on the Trump Train gawd that's rich even for you.

Speaking of pandering! No on panders more then Hillary, she pretends to be whatever. Here in this video she admits to pandering for the Black Vote. She says she keeps hot sauce in her bag.

http://youtu.be/fWPZ2TFr1Uk

And what about her stupid CPT (color people's time) joke

http://youtu.be/NY1HnVerxfw

This about what the social justice warriors would be yelling and screaming if trump did a CPT joke!!

Grant, did you even read my post? You're echoing me.

And did you read Trump's own caption on his photo? I think no such thing, but Trump clearly does...

^^^Gotta love the Libral Doubble standard adgenda & reddric ^^^^

Wes what you might see NOW as pandering, it's typical Trump jibber jabber!
Look at the very First post in this long long thread in the 45 min video where trump puts his foot in his mouth for almost the entire time
One min he says "The Chinese are killing us in trade" they are taking advantage of us, we need to re negotiate the trade deals" and the Very next min he is saying "I love the Chinese" they rent all my property! LOL both statments are TRUE!

Trump's nomination just swung 13 states blue... Question is when will he start his ads (these oughtta be every bit as good as superbowl ads) and how effective they will be... And whether or not a 3rd party enters the race (Romney is in talks about this strangely enough)...

http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

Trump's solution to too much US debt is to default on debt. What a dumba**.

Should he win, I feel we will see a recession worse than anything we have seen since the Great Depression. Interest rates in the double digits.

That will be great for my retirement investments.:D

If you think losing 75% of your money is "great", then yes, I guess Trump would "be great for your retirement investments".

What "dismissal of Bengazzi (sic)"? I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but I cannot bring myself to vote for a man that thinks defaulting on our debt is a solution.

People still harping about Benghazi are just doubling down on their stupidity.

John. I'm not sure how you can say that about Benghazi.
Republicans feel like they lost a President (Nixon) for a LOT less.

but Democrats seem to be above the law. Hillary can do whatever she wants with not only No repercussion.......but still be allowed to sit behind the most powerful desk in the world.

so to think that it's about emails or Benghazi...or whatever......is very short sided

If you understood investing you would realize you can self direct them. Double digit returns are good.

Returns must be considered relative to inflation, double digit or otherwise. I thought if you understood investing you would realize that. ....

Nixon did much worse than you know. He committed treason to win the executive office. Then proceeded to kill thousands of Americans as a result of his treason. Bush had 60 embassy deaths during his reign. GOP led investigative committees found nothing of substance in the Benghazi case. I guess the phony Benghazi narrative was so strong that many Americans can't recover from it.

Still think Nixon wasn't that bad? Here's the first hit on a google of Nixon Treason....

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...ietnam-treason

I never said that Nixon wasn't bad, or that I even liked him as President. I didn't think that he was "forced" out of office over the issues outlined in that article. I thought it was all about the Watergate coverup. If I'm wrong about that, then I stand corrected. Hillary seems to be the master at the cover up. Her, and her dog toto too

No, Nixon never paid for his treason. He was a bad guy. Prolonged the war in Vietnam and killed thousands of Americans so he could be President. So far Hillary is maybe guilty of covering up a bunch of crap that has little bearing on the important issues. Any covering up in Benghazi had no impact on the attack or it's outcome.

I hope you leave the management of your retirement accounts to a financial adviser...

You do understand that there are things that the government will always "cover up", regardless of who is president? I think Benghazi was a tragic event (any time an American loses their life working for the country is tragic), but I don't believe that Clinton was in any way responsible for what happened. I think the State Department handled the aftermath poorly, but to point all of the blame on Clinton and Obama was a political move, plain and simple. There is no way that after all of the money and time the GOP has devoted to finding some sort of misstep, that they still haven't come up with anything substantial. It's been almost 4 years; millions of dollars have been spent. The GOP overplayed their hand and the Dems. called their bluff.

I'm not a Benghazi probe supporter.

but are you saying that Clinton isn't a dishonest, shiesty person? I'm not asking as compared to who. Just her, do you trust her and think that she is Presidential?

If you do trust her and think that she will uphold or improve the Office, I can't help but think that you aren't being honest with yourself.

We need a President that is going to be held to a higher standard than the average Joe. Neither side has done that for years. Bill was caught lying under oath. If you and I had done that, we would land in jail. The behavior is unacceptable. When forced to pick the lesser of evils, Clinton is the worst of the entire field.