Right on Shirley and that's all Trump is asking for. I'm not wild about Trump either but I'm wondering if he'll stop his antics when he gets away from the podium and from campaigning. He acts like a different person in a one-to-one interview. He's respectful, makes sense, holds his own against tough questions, and doesn't make goofy expressions. The Hillary/Obama/Media team is powerful and downright scary. They are more about cover-ups in my estimation. I like Cruz. There's still time. I haven't decided. I'm still open to Rubio and Christie too.
Trump was also clear that if an American citizen is a Muslim and he goes overseas, of course he can return; he's a citizen. In many ways, Trump is an egotistical ass, but of course you pretty much have to have an inflated ego if you're going to run for president. If Trump were to be elected, I am sure that I would disagree with much of what he does, as I often disagree with him on policy issues. However, I am not so interested in a candidate's position on issues anymore because most of them are lying about their positions anyhow. Given that he is not afraid to offer opinions that he knows might be unpopular, such as closing up the Internet (whatever he meant by that), I think there's a good chance that he might not be just another lying politician. Greater evidence for that are the party elite and media, who hate him, and are afraid of him. I am not going to rejoin the Republican Party in order to vote for him, largely because the RNC simply replaced half of Maine's delegates in 2012, so it seems like a lot of work for nothing. But if he is on the ballot in 2016, whether as a Republican or as an independent, I'll vote for him.
I have admired Donald Trump for decades because of his business sense and his success with the "American Dream." I always felt that he might be a genuinely nice man. Until recently, I have not agreed with him politically at all, but now he seems to be echoing everything I've been saying for years! We cannot have Muslims running back and forth, in and out of America, while we're at war with radicals, who claim to be Muslim! (BTW, we also need to close our Southern border!) The idea of temporarily banning Muslims from our country is not unlawful, nor is it unprecedented. If you all remember, during the Iran hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter placed a moratorium on Iranians coming in to America. Of course, being a liberal Democrat helps keep Carter from being demonized for it. I can't think of one instance where Donald Trump has expressed bigotry or racism, but I see lots of people desperately looking for it every time he opens his mouth. I am very interested in hearing from someone who is unafraid and willing to speak honestly. I've had enough of polished "orators" who stand for nothing.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) recently discussed a brokered convention in the event that Trump goes into the Republican Convention with enough delegates to be nominated, giving the nomination to someone other than Trump, and Mitt Romney has been suggested. By way of history, they laid the groundwork for this in the 2012 Convention, replacing half of Maine's delegates, all of whom were pledged to Ron Paul, with scab delegates willing to vote for Mitt Romney. This led to a walk out of several national delegates, led by the Texas delegation, but it wasn't covered at all in the media. Despite the fact that delegates from several states walked around the Convention hall, chanting, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation," then walking out and continuing the protest for several blocks outside, Fox News reported that the Convention had gone off without a hitch, and no other news media reported on it at all. Here are a couple of articles about the RNC's current discussions for cheating Trump out of the nomination if he is able to garner enough delegates to win fairly. BuzzFeed: The Secret Plan to Nominate Mitt Romney From The Convention Floor Politico: Ben Carson Blasts RNC; Threatens to Leave Republican Party Regardless of how individual Republicans might feel about Donald Trump, this would not be a popular move, as it would demonstrate what I have said here before, that the Republican Party does not represent registered Republicans. Rather it represents large global corporations who control both major political parties, as well as the media, and who don't really care whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected as long as it is someone who can be bought. Such a move would throw the election to Hillary Clinton, but major GOP donors have publicly discussed that they would rather the party lost two decades of election than elect Donald Trump as president. They can't own Donald Trump, so he could be a game changer, and this is a game they don't want changed. Ben Carson says that he would leave the party if the RNC went ahead with a brokered convention. I think a lot of people would, but unless people can understand that both major political parties are owned by the same global corporations, that would simply elect Democrats and, quite frankly, the Republican elite would be okay with that. Looking at things positively, the best we could hope is that people from both major political parties would realize that the political party system is a scam, and start looking at candidates rather than parties
I've always looked at candidates rather than parties, not because I was aware of the scam but because it always made sense to me to pick the best person.
I agree, Ike. I think it fairer. http://www.diffen.com/difference/El...r_Vote#Disadvantages_of_the_Electoral_College
Oh, we still use the electoral college in the general election. The problem is that in order to get on the ballot for either of the two major political parties, a candidate has to be chosen through a process that is entirely controlled by a few party elite in a formerly smoke-filled room. The Republican National Committee, I know, can replace any electors who are sworn to a candidate who they don't want to appear on the ballot, and I suppose the Democratic Party has something similar in place. If they replace the majority of the electors in order to nominate someone who has a minority of the electors, such as a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio, they will lose the general election to whoever the Democrats put up but, from their recent talks, it appears that they may be willing to become a minority party for as long as two decades in order to avoid putting up a candidate who isn't for sale. The electoral college is a far better idea than the popular vote because if our president were chosen by the popular vote, there wouldn't be any reason for most of the country to bother voting because the president will be chosen by a few of our largest cities. As it is, the larger cities certainly have an edge but with the electoral college, it is possible to elect someone else.
That's true ken. That's what happened when GW Bush beat Al Gore. Al Gore got the popular vote but GW got the electoral vote. Unfortunately, there are problems with that. The candidate whom most Americans want may not win because certain smaller states have a larger percentage of Electoral College votes than their percentage of population of the US. This is because the minimum number of Electoral College votes for a state is three. That's great for those certain smaller states but it's not really democratic. No? Maybe they should do away with the "minimum of 3 rule". So, one voter does not equal one vote. California’s 55 electoral votes means there are 705,454 people per vote while there are only 194,717 people for each of Wyoming’s three electoral votes. It's a dilemma because I do understand that while the electoral college is in place to protect minority interests and directing more power to the states, as you said, it also makes some Americans feel their vote doesn't matter (due to problems I mentioned above) and will be discouraged from even going to the polls.
I think Trump is losing ground to Ted Cruz…somewhat. I love how Trump always has the media on the hot seat and they are so baffled by why he's not "going away". I watched Face The Nation yesterday and they had a select group of Republicans in a forum answering the question, "Why are you still supporting Trump after all the controversies?". They can't stop scratching their heads over why he's still on top of the polls after they've tried every trick in their bag to beat him down.
That's just part of media manipulation, I think. Iowa Republicans usually go for the candidate who seems the most Christian but, although all we've heard about in the last couple of days were the couple of polls that showed Trump behind in Iowa, other polls are being all but ignored. For example... Trump Leads Polls in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Florida
Our video star is none other than failed standup comedian, UKIP supporter and conspiracy theorist Pat Condell. A man that believes that the very establishment BBC is a hotbed of left-wing extremism. To quote our own Prime Minister when asked about UKIP, a swivel-eyed loon.
Ken, you are quite correct that the Electoral College... or something similar in design... is needed. However, there is a flaw in the Electoral College that needs changed, nationwide. Most states... my State of Kansas is one... throw all their electoral votes to the single candidate receiving the most popular votes in that state. This means that even though I have voted in every Presidential election since I turned 21, not one of my votes have counted. You see, Kansas is a largely Republican state. Our electoral votes always have, as long as I've been voting, gone to the Republican candidate. If I vote Republican, doesn't matter since our electoral votes will go that way even if I don't vote. If I vote Democratic, doesn't matter since our electoral votes will ALWAYS negate my vote. There are something like 13 states who now split their electoral votes by the same percentile as how the popular vote is cast. Let's say 70% of voters in a state vote for the Republican candidate and 30% for the Democratic candidate, the electoral votes are split 70/30. To me all 50 states should be required to split the electoral votes. Then my vote would count.