Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[mheslep]

If Trump doesn't have half by the convention, and still doesn't win on the first ballot, I hope that's the end of any static about how he deserves to win, how it should be a golf gimme. Otherwise, the gimme argument becomes delusional, as if the nominee is chosen by a giant referendum and not the reality of a convention of delegates with an enormous rule book.

It's done that way for a reason, to get an enormous majority of the party behind a nominee for the general. Trump has drawn out new voters, but he has done so with an in your face, you're all losers, Mussolini said cool stuff campaign style. Typically voters supporting others can make their peace the leader, but not with Trump, and he has only himself to blame.

 

[jim hardy]

Are you saying the RNC will throw that rule out? Is there any rational reason to suspect a conspiracy theory that would require hundreds of delegates to break the current rules that are in place for the convention?

Haven't you heard, republican bigwigs are meeting today to figure out how to "stop Trump" ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/rnc-weighs-scrapping-convention-rule-book-to-head-/
Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/
Did you miss the meeting at Sea Island ?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...et-meeting-with-top-republicans-to-stop-trump
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/aei-world-forum-trump/

 

[jim hardy]

And look how they spun the Washington Times headline !

RNC weighs scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers

 

[Dembadon]

Haven't you heard, republican bigwigs are meeting today to figure out how to "stop Trump" ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/rnc-weighs-scrapping-convention-rule-book-to-head-/

That article discusses throwing out the current rule book in favor of a more "transparent" process, whatever that means. It talks about efforts to prevent someone from outside the race being selected. There is no mention of the intent to "unbind" the delegates Trump has already won. In any case, the article contains too much speculation for my taste.

[Peter Feaman] said that even if Mr. Trump arrives at the July convention in Cleveland just shy of 1,237 delegates, he would still be “the odds-on favorite to be the nominee.”

RNC committee members across the country echoed that sentiment.

The convention rules allow a series of ballots if none of the candidates has the requisite 1,237 delegates, and the eventual nominee would not necessarily be the candidate with the most delegates heading into the convention. But that is where Rule 40b would come into play, limiting the alternative names that could be considered.

"Scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers" seems pretty shady to me. Why not follow the rules currently in place? Changing things could have the unintended effect of actually giving him an advantage.

Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/

Forgive me, I don't find this dubious article convincing. I don't see anything in there saying Trump is going to be robbed of a legitimate nomination at the convention. That article looks like an out-of-context discussion about the upcoming primaries in Florida and Ohio, which are now over.

Did you miss the meeting at Sea Island ?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...et-meeting-with-top-republicans-to-stop-trump
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/aei-world-forum-trump/

So a bunch of tech CEOs and Karl Rove get together about how to "stop" Trump? So what? That could mean something as simple as propaganda.

I don't think it's rational, given the information we have right now, to fear some back-door deal is going to rob Trump of his delegates.

 

[Astronuc]

Ascribing the origin of the threat to Trump is not honest reporting..

I'm going by Trump's words that he spoke. I expect journalists and others, including his rivals, are also going by his words.

In a few cases, Trump is getting close to 50% of state primaries and caucuses. In most cases, he's getting less than 40% of the vote. That means the majority of republican voters prefer someone else. If the other candidates (and their supporters) decide they would prefer someone other than Trump, then that's democracy.

Iowa             24.3%  Cruz(won)
New Hampshire    35.4%
South Carolina   32.5%
Nevada           45.9%
Alabama          43.4%
Alaska           33.5%  Cruz(won)
Arkansas         32.8%
Georgia          38.8%
Massachusetts    49.3% 
Minnesota        21.3%  Rubio(won)
Oklahoma         28.3%  Cruz(won)
Tennessee        38.9%
Texas            26.7%  Cruz(won)
Vermont          32.7%
Virginia         34.7%
Kansas           23.3%  Cruz(won)
Kentucky         35.9%
Louisiana        41.3%
Maine            32.6%  Cruz(won)
Hawaii           42.4%
Idaho            28.1%  Cruz(won)
Michigan         36.5%
Mississippi      47.3%
Washington DC    13.8%  Rubio(won)
Wyoming           7.2%  Cruz(won)
Illinois         38.2%
North Carolina   40.2%
Ohio             35.6%  Kasich(won)
Florida          45.7%
Missouri         40.9%

We have yet to see results from Arizona (58), New York (95), Indiana (57), California (172), New Jersey (51) and various other states.

 

[jim hardy]

That means the majority of republican voters prefer someone else. If the other candidates (and their supporters) decide they would prefer someone other than Trump, then that's democracy.

I absolutely agree with that.

In a few cases, Trump is getting close to 50% of state primaries and caucuses. In most cases, he's getting less than 40% of the vote.

Let's not fib with statistics, though.
In most states he's getting more than the other two or three or four candidates, but not more than all of them combined.
Turning that around to imply he's the least popular of the candidates is , well, "spin".

 

[Astronuc]

s

Turning that around to imply he's the least popular of the candidates is , well, "spin".

And I certainly didn't to that. I simply looked at his percentage, and indicated as the raw numbers do, that the majority prefer someone else. There were several other choices, now there are fewer. Individually, Trump is more popular than the others (one-on-one), in most states - so far.

 

[lisab]

There are plenty of immoderates threatening it .

Ascribing the origin of the threat to Trump is not honest reporting.

I expect mob violence outside the convention, mostly AFL-CIO backed.

What makes you think labor unions are planning mob violence? Source, please.

Plenty of suggestions to resort to violence come directly out of Trump's mouth! Take a look:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

 

[mheslep]

Haven't you heard, republican bigwigs are meeting today to figure out how to "stop Trump" ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/rnc-weighs-scrapping-convention-rule-book-to-head-/
Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/
Did you miss the meeting at Sea Island ?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...et-meeting-with-top-republicans-to-stop-trump
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/aei-world-forum-trump/

Whats wrong with ten guys or a thousand guys opposing Trump? Why don't they have a say? Again, Trump wins half the delegates, like every other nominee for the last half century, and he's the nominee, the end. He doesnt, and the fact that the game goes into overtime doesn't mean some conspiracy is in play.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't think it's rational, given the information we have right now, to fear some back-door deal is going to rob Trump of his delegates.

Fear ? Not the right verb. Anticipate or suspect .

There's plenty of gabbling about it in the news.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held. ...

"The rules haven't kept up," Haugland said. "The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That's just the way it is. I can't help it. Don't hate me because I love the rules."

Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he's proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer's convention.
...

Emineth, also a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party, told "Squawk Box" in the same interview that he's concerned about party officials pulling "some shenanigan."

"You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee," he warned. "[That] could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated."

 

[jim hardy]

What makes you think labor unions are planning mob violence? Source, please.

The organized and funded protesters at Trump rallies.

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/npo/5469737201.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/moveonorg-raising-funds-from-trump-protests-warns-/

time will tell.

 

[jim hardy]

Whats wrong with ten guys or a thousand guys opposing Trump? Why don't they have a say?

This isn't a thousand guys at a football game cheering the away team.. It's the referees moving the goal lines .

Again, Trump wins half the delegates, like every other nominee for the last half century, and he's the nominee, the end.

If that's the rules, fine. Do you change the rules because your guy isn't winning ?

I provided links stating that's being considered.
Dismiss them if you don't like them.

Time will tell.

 

[WWGD]

Here is Nate Silver's 538's take:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

 

[Astronuc]

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/npo/5469737201.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/moveonorg-raising-funds-from-trump-protests-warns-/

But there is nothing about Work America or MoveOn.org funding protests at Trump rallies. It's possible that either do, but neither link provides any evidence.

It looks like Work America is an advocacy group (activism and community organizing). Working America explains what they do:

Working America organizes crucial issue and electoral campaigns at the national, state and municipal level on behalf of working families. Our highly successful outreach models have raised the minimum wage in New Mexico, won a much needed earned sick day law for workers in Portland, OR and a new law preventing wage theft in Houston, TX was just passed unanimously by mobilizing members to pressure city council (to name a few).

From the Washington Times, " MoveOn.org is quoted as writing, “We’re being flooded with aggressive emails and social media posts from Trump supporters. Some of them are threatening."

 

[zoobyshoe]

But there is nothing about Work America or MoveOn.org funding protests at Trump rallies. It's possible that either do, but neither link provides any evidence.

It looks like Work America is an advocacy group (activism and community organizing). Working America explains what they do:From the Washington Times, " MoveOn.org is quoted as writing, “We’re being flooded with aggressive emails and social media posts from Trump supporters. Some of them are threatening."

Jim Hardy seems to have been caught up in a conspiracy theory:
http://www.snopes.com/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/
Currently there is no proof there is any such conspiracy.

 

[jim hardy]

Jim Hardy seems to have been caught up in a conspiracy theory:
http://www.snopes.com/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/
Currently there is no proof there is any such conspiracy.

Hmmm. That possibility cannot be denied. I'll move on.

If this stays peaceful i'll have to eat my words.
http://www.democracyspring.org/

The moment is ripe. Poll after poll shows transpartisan public frustration with the corrupt status quo reaching new, nearly unanimous highs. Voters in Maine and Seattle just passed bold new anti-corruption laws to enact citizen funded elections. A growing democracy movement has lifted this issue into the public debate. Yet Congress refuses to act.

The stage is set for a bold intervention to turn the tinder of passive public frustration into a fire that transforms the political climate in America, that sparks a popular movement that can't be stopped. How?From Selma to Occupy Wall Street, the Tar Sands Action to Black Lives Matter, everyday people have proven the power of mass, escalating nonviolent action to rapidly shift the political weather and open the door to reforms previously considered impossible.

Now it's our turn.

http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/EC-Statements/The-2016-Democracy-Spring-Awakening-and-Congress-of-Conscience

This April (11th-18th) in Washington, D.C., and across the country, thousands of working people, advocates and activists will be united under the banner of more than 200 labor, civil rights, human rights and environmental organizations as part of two waves of activism: the Democracy Spring (www.democracyspring.org) and the Democracy Awakening/Congress of Conscience (www.democracyawakening.org).

 

[jim hardy]

Forgive me, I don't find this dubious article convincing. I don't see anything in there saying Trump is going to be robbed of a legitimate nomination at the convention. That article looks like an out-of-context discussion about the upcoming primaries in Florida and Ohio, which are now over.

The question was

Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/

and this is the first paragraph of the link:

In order to defeat Donald Trump, The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol admits he is prepared to hand Hillary Clinton the Oval Office. On Wednesday’s “Morning Joe,” the Republican Establishment leader laid out his plot to deprive Trump of the 50% of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. From there, the idea is to go into a brokered convention and cut a kamikaze deal that awards enough delegates to an “acceptable” candidate (who will have won far fewer votes, states, and delegates than Trump).

I understand Brietbart is controversial
is CNN more palatable ?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

(CNN)Prominent conservatives led by Erick Erickson on Thursday called for a unity ticket and a convention fight to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump, a sign of the growing desperation in the party establishment to find an alternative to the billionaire businessman.

"If that unity ticket is unable to get 1,237 delegates prior to the convention, we recognize that it took Abraham Lincoln three ballots at the Republican convention in 1860 to become the party's nominee and if it is good enough for Lincoln, that process should be good enough for all the candidates without threats of riots," Erickson wrote in a statement after conservatives gathered in Washington to discuss ways to thwart Trump's march to the nomination.
...
The group left the door open to potentially supporting a third party race if Republicans are unable to stop Trump.

"We intend to keep our options open as to other avenues to oppose Donald Trump," the statement said.

www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/primary-results-republican-party/index.html
"He is not Superman" who can only be destroyed "by kryptonite," Singer said, according to several sources who heard the call and provided previously undisclosed details to CNN.

Singer and members of the Ricketts family — among the first top donors to get behind the anti-Trump effort — believed the "real" Donald Trump had not been unmasked to the American public. They had to make an impact by March 15 to unravel a brand Trump had been building for decades, but they felt the facts were on their side
Joining Singer's plea for an unrelenting assault portraying Trump as the self-serving foe of "the little guy" was Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Meg Whitman. Trump, she said forcefully, was driving an agenda of "hate and intolerance" that demonstrated he was unfit to be president.

Sound fair and balanced to you?

Now i realize
Electors are the constitutional "check and balance" on us masses, on democracy run amuck.

James Madison - “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams - “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

So, using Delegates and Electors assures a representative republic with democratic input.

Ostensibly the RNC feels it necessary to assert its power to check and protect us ignorant masses from ourselves by stopping Trump.
Obviously a lot of us masses feel the RNC is disingenuous, is protecting its donor class, and ought instead to acknowledge 'we the voters' preference by nominating the winner of the primary elections.

What will RNC do ?
Whatever, it must have the appearance of respectability.

Same drama might well play out in Electoral College, which exists for the same reason.
It is there to protect the masses from a "Pied Piper", and to protect small states from large ones.
(Heaven Help us if a few more states pass "National Popular Vote" which undoes those electoral college protections)

(edited for clarity)

 

[Astronuc]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/companies/cisco-ceo-hillary-clinton-john-kasich/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-rubio-and-reagan-20160315-story.html
By David Horsey • Contact Reporter

I don't think the headline, "Republican Party rejects Marco Rubio and the spirit of Ronald Reagan" isn't quite accurate. Some certainly rejected Rubio in favor of Trump, Cruz, Kasich and others, but the party is splintered. Yet some still favor Rubio.

Horsey writes, "Of all of the 17 Republican candidates who mounted campaigns in the last year, Rubio, arguably, was the most Reaganesque. Like Reagan, Rubio is a doctrine-driven movement conservative."

One of Rubio’s biggest demerits in the eyes of much of his party is that he was part of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” who crafted a compromise immigration reform bill that would have provided a path to legalization for millions of undocumented immigrants now living in the country. Even though Rubio eventually disavowed the bill, the anti-immigrant forces who love Trump never relented in their attacks.

I think Rubio lost support from colleagues in his backtracking on a bill in which he was initially involved.

 

[Astronuc]

Kasich on a brokered convention: ‘Everybody chill!’
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/kasich-brokered-convention-chill-183023670.html

“I don’t think anybody is going to get there with the delegates that they need to win,” the Ohio governor said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “So, let’s just everybody chill out.”

Kasich, with 143 delegates, trails GOP frontrunner Donald Trump (678) and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (423) in the race for the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — who suspended his campaign after losing the primary in his home state — has 169.

Interesting commentary from Kasich, although I disagree with his assessment of Reagan.

I do think that Kasich is the most presidential of the GOP group.

 

[lisab]

Ugh.

This election is making me dizzy and nauseous.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton edges closer to nomination with Arizona win
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-edges-closer-to-nomination-with-arizona-033001123.html

In Arizona, with 81% of precincts reporting:
Clinton 58.4% 225,341
Sanders 39.1% 150,692

Hillary Clinton continued her march toward the Democratic presidential nomination with a win over Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the coveted Arizona primary on Tuesday evening.

Sanders was projected to win the Utah and Idaho caucuses.

Clinton came into Tuesday ahead of Sanders by more than 300 delegates, after winning all five states that voted on March 15. Her existing delegate lead is so big, he would have to win all remaining contests with at least 60 percent of the vote to overtake her. Any loss, or victory with a smaller margin, puts Sanders farther behind.

Sanders wins in Idaho
Sanders 78.0% 18,640
Clinton 21.2% 5,065

Sanders is ahead in Utah.

 

[Astronuc]

In winner-take-all Arizona (58 delegates), Trump won. He currently has 47.1% of the vote, with Cruz second at 24.2%. Kasich is a distant third.

In Utah, Cruz leads with 69.4% of the vote, Kasich is second at 16.6% and Trump is third a 14.0%.

Nate Silver - How The March 22 Primary Elections Went Down
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-22-primaries-arizona-utah-presidential-election-2016/

 

[Derek Francis]

I originally supported Sanders, but it looks like he won't be winning the Democratic primaries. His campaign has really taken flight with young, white, male and educated voters, but he's failed to expand his base.

Bernie, particularly, had difficulty getting black (and other non-white) voters for the following reasons. First, he only reached out to urban blacks but there are also rural/suburban/evangelical which he ignored. Second, he falsely assumed that most black voters are as liberal as white college student activists. Third, he's only been traveling to black neighborhoods since last year while his opponent has been doing it for decades. Fourth and most important, many black voters want a candidate who is consistent and can get things done. I'm sure plenty of politicians visit black areas and make huge promises, only for those promises to never materialize. Sanders needed more time. Considering his unknown status, he should have campaigned a year earlier than he did.

 

[Derek Francis]

On the Republican side, it looks like Trump is the clear winner. Cruz won't win Independent voters, plain and simple. Kasich could possibly have been a competent president but he started gaining momentum way too late. Carson was inexperienced and seemed exhausted the whole race. Rubio probably has a future, but his youth and inexperience resulted in several mistakes which hurt his campaign. Jeb was done in by his last name and general cluelessness. Christie was a sharp debater but not presidential material. Rand Paul had a limited base of supporters. Fiorina was smart but there's a double standard on women candidates. What I'm essentially saying is that Trump is winning because the competition was terrible and because there was so much pent up frustration in the GOP base. The Republicans lost 4 out of the past 6 presidential elections, and when they won them, they got George W. Bush. Trump was eager to capitalize on this.

 

[Derek Francis]

As an independent (who is liberal by American standards ; centrist by European standards), I have a tough time this election if I'm going to choose between the two major candidates, since it's very likely that Bernie Sanders won't win.

I would say I agree with more of Hillary's policies, since I am more liberal. At the same time, I relate to Trump's anti-establishment message and I feel like we need to get the lobbyists and Super PACs out of politics. Here's the downsides. Trump is dense on policy and is effectively fueled by the neo-KKK. But Hillary voted for Iraq War (which vastly outweighed any good that came out of her career).

 

[jim hardy]

Trump is dense on policy and is effectively fueled by the neo-KKK.

Back that opinion?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

I worry Hillary will out-neocon the neocons.
http://www.cfr.org/radicalization-and-extremism/hillary-clinton-national-security-islamic-state/p37266

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

Actually that was a pretty good speech,
though here's an opposing opinion
oops - forgot to link it
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/no_author/queen-chaos/

MÓC: If the so-called “responsibility to protect,” or R2P, is to be the organizing principle of Hillary’s foreign policy, can you explain why this would be bad for human rights around the world?

DJ: The Libyan disaster proved to most of the world—although not to Hillary—that R2P is a dangerous doctrine. Supposedly to “protect” certain Islamist rebels in Benghazi, the NATO R2P intervention totally destroyed the modern city of Sirte, provided cover for a racist lynching of Libya’s black population, killed thousands of civilians and left the country in a shambles.

R2P might make sense if there really existed a neutral, all-knowing world police force to intervene on the basis of solid, unbiased evidence. This is most surely not the case

In the case of Libya, the evidence for the “humanitarian emergency” was manufactured by internal opponents of the regime and relayed to the world by a docile mainstream media. It was almost entirely untrue, but conflicting sources were ignored. (See Maximilian Forte, Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa.)

With the current relationship of forces in the world, R2P can only be applied by a great power to a smaller one, according to the great power’s own interpretation of events in the smaller one. In reality, R2P is simply used by the United States against regimes it doesn’t like, period.

The CFR speech i first cited calls for that " neutral, all-knowing world police force ... " led of course by US.

Sounds fine on paper.

I'm in the 'US needs to quit trying to run the world' camp.

my two cents, and probably overpriced...

old jim

 

[Derek Francis]

For several months into his campaign, Trump didn't even have any platforms on his web page. Just one saying he was in favor of the 2nd amendment and that's it. I'm glad his policy advisors wrote down his positions for him, but as we've seen him in the interviews and debates, he tends to struggle when pressed on details of his plans. Typically, he either says a cute quote, insults people or changes the subject. And even by his own volition, he rarely gets into policy specifics. Also, he unveiled his list of 5 foreign policy advisors last week and that's pretty sparse too. At least Kasich had a long list of experts on foreign policy who endorsed him.

 

[mheslep]

... But Hillary voted for Iraq War (which vastly outweighed any good that came out of her career).

Trump might well have too. Three months before the invasion, he was asked about Bush and Iraq. You decide:

"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."

Source Politifac

 

[jim hardy]

At least Kasich had a long list of experts on foreign policy who endorsed him.

This poll doesn't say which scholars endorsed him
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/19...oreign-policy-president-trump-syria-scholars/
but it shows what they considered

Here's his talk at CFR. He seems a realist.

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/conversation-john-kasich/p37304

 

[phinds]

Cruz calls Trump a 'sniveling coward' over wife tweet
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/24/cruz-calls-trump-sniveling-coward-over-wife-tweet.html

Kind of hard to think a Trump/Cruz ticket is likely.

 

[Dembadon]

I feel like we need to get the lobbyists ... out of politics.

The first amendment of the US Constitution establishes our right to lobby our government. It's important and I wouldn't want it changed. Not all lobbyists are bad.

 

[jim hardy]

Not all lobbyists are bad.

What are your thoughts on the ones who practice influence-peddling and bribery ?

 

[Rick21383]

Cruz calls Trump a 'sniveling coward' over wife tweet
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/24/cruz-calls-trump-sniveling-coward-over-wife-tweet.html

Kind of hard to think a Trump/Cruz ticket is likely.

lol Not a chance. I have a feeling Cruz is about to get SKEWERED once this affair story picks up.

 

[Derek Francis]

Trump baited Cruz, and he fell for it.

 

[phinds]

Trump baited Cruz, and he fell for it.

Yes, how very presidential of them both. The Republican Party is SUCH fun this year. Too bad it's so serious in the long run.