yjacket

IMO, who knows what he will actually do. There are a couple of things we do know. #1 he isn't a politician. And above all, if you want to do a postmortem on why no one else won, look no further than that. People in this country, especially those in the Republican party are absolutely sick and tired of politicians. How many times did exit polling show Republicans where angry at government and angry at the Republican party for betrayal? Cruz at first came off as a non-politico but unfortunately for him over the past couple of months people began to see him as just another politician who would do and say anything to get elected. Whether or not you agree with that doesn't really matter, he made some very serious strategic missteps that reinforced that perception and in politics as in life perception is reality. More about betrayal, the Repubs have a majority in Congress and what have we actually got to show for it? A smaller government? More freedom? Less regulation? Answers are Nothing, No, No, and NO. Congress can weld an enormous amount of power, look no further than what happened after the Civil War-Congress was more powerful than the President and let him know that too. #2 He truly honestly is a hard core American at heart-he is not a globalist, he wants to puts American economy, American blood, American treasure first. What it means practically and what that looks like, I don't know. But he isn't a member of any of the Globalist elite societies, the CFRs, the Rockerfellers, etc. #3 The guy has made billions . . .and you don't make billions without a lot of real hard work, ingenuity, luck, skill, etc. I used to think Trump was a really nasty person inside . . .but quite frankly I don't think so anymore. I think above all he is a businessman/salesman first and that requires a skill set that, well it's really hard to be a really nasty person and be a good salesman (possible but very difficult). Look this country is already sunk, most people just don't know it yet . . .why not give something else a try b/c we sure know the last 30 years has gone in only one direction and that is down.

I'm not sure who you are talking to, b/c it ain't me. I'm always claimed Trump needs the hard-core Cruz voters. So I don't know who you are talking about for #1. As for hitching their wagons . . . Cruz's last days weren't exactly a shining knight either, the guy wore Religion on his sleeve http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278520-ron-paul-i-wouldnt-vote-for-cruz http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ron-paul-ted-cruz-libertarian-218822 As for Trump, I don't know but what is more conservative than saying America First, we are going to take care of and conserve the US first, take care of our own needs first. It is the conservative world-view. At home we say, 1st we need to take care of our family, each individual is responsible 1st to their family. Social welfare is a no,no. Yet on the global scale those same people say conservatism is world welfare, or corporate welfare? I don't like Trump, I will most likely vote 3rd party, but I remain open-minded enough that depending on what he does I'd vote for him. While I don't like him, nor did I vote for him nor will I vote for him (unless I see some good things and a foreign policy of not getting involved in other counties mess might do it), I understand and understood the political realities of the primary season. JAG, if you really want to make a difference, the Presidency isn't it. Elect good conservative people to your local offices, build up your local area, hold your congressmen feet to the fire; b/c I can guarantee unless you have a Thomas Massie, of Flake or someone of their ilk as your congressman they are selling you down the river. Unfortunately, that takes more work than most people want to put into it. They get their kicks every 4 years by screaming and hollering that if we just had xyz for President everything would be different. xyz happens nothing changes and then the next 4 years they do the same thing. It's the hard work of being involved monthly by advocating causes to local reps. by calling, writing, etc. that makes the difference, by really researching your local candidates and holding them accountable b/c very, very few of them are good moral people who are incorruptible.

#3 is just flat out mostly false. I went round and round saying look guys this is the political reality like it or not and very, very few listened. Hey let's elect Cruz at the convention over Trump? People throw out the numbers, blah, blah, blah look at how many people didn't vote for Trump. The political reality of actually doing so would have destroyed the Republican party (if that was the aim of some then more power to them). Unfortunately, some people couldn't see 2 steps in front of their face to recognize the reality of the situation. Some people just don't want to eat their own crow and admit they were wrong. Take Cruz, brilliant tactician but miserable strategist. Playing the delegate game was brilliant as a tactic, but unless you have some other end-game besides being President a horrible strategic decision. Now Cruz has many hundreds of delegates, many of whom are relative political neophytes who are going to spend thousands of dollars to be involved in a convention in Cleveland (ugh), who are "true believers" or #NeverTrumpers or whatever. If Cruz is a smart strategist he can use the delegates that are faithful to him to gain some hard-core conservative concessions at the National Convention. To point #2, that is what I've said all along. If Trump does not reach out to those who were for Cruz he won't win; and the same for #NeverTrumpers.

I completely agree with you. If what you say is/was representative of what most people mean when they say "go see a therapist", I would completely agree. Unfortunately, "go see a therapist" is thrown out there as if it is like going to see a physical doctor for a broken leg; i.e. the doctor will fix it. And that's not how it works, the best a therapist can do is give someone the tools to fix themselves. And my larger point is that it is not necessary to see a therapist to fix oneself, find someone you trust who is willing to talk with you and help you, it could be a parent, a sibling, a friend, etc. and if they are wiling they can help you.

I said I would say this (I just didn't think it would be so soon) but: Told you so. Now, if the Ted Cruz delegates are smart at the National Convention they could help elect a Tea Party/Liberty individual as a VP, not a Rubio or Cruz (he screwed himself out of being VP), someone like a Rand Paul might work to bring in the Tea Party, hard core conservative vote. The VP vote is not bound on the first ballot.

Lol . . . I have made political observations. Nominating Cruz over Trump when Trump has received a significantly more votes would signal to Joe Blow their vote doesn't matter. If that is the message you want to send-go ahead. If you do that, you run a very high risk that many people simply won't vote for your guy in the fall. You will end up losing to Clinton/Sanders. That isn't a bias, that is a simple fact. Not understanding that as a fact is a bias. As far as the Trump, stuff, yeah it's pretty bad. If true very horrible. Hey look, unlike someone I can say yeah if it's true it is bad!! Oh my. How many times do I have to say, I won't vote for either, both are narcissist and not exactly role models. My case is flimsy?? more like you just don't want to see any smoke. There is plenty of smoke out there that Cruz is an adulterer. Watch his facial expressions when denying it. Right and now it is me who is bismirching her, dragging her through the mud-it's my fault right?? She is the one who put up the tweets, being stupid about what you post, isn't my fault-that's hers. All I know, is that if my wife was on a business trip (she is and was married at this time), in a slinky dress, didn't have a wedding band on, ate cheese, or whatever @ 2am with another man, wore another man's suit jacket coat while dressed up while away on a business trip. If my wife were posting what she posted, she and I would be having some serious discussions. I guess you'd be okay with your wife doing those things . . . that's cool. No big deal-I'm done. It's not worth my time or energy. I'll just come back in 6 months and say told ya so.

Note date and time

JAG still won't admit that sharing dessert with a co-worker (or boss) of the opposite sex in a private setting at 2am in the morning is unacceptable. Admit Nothing, Admit Nothing, Admit Nothing. Deny, Deny, Deny, Counter, Counter, Counter. JAG, do you work for the Cruz campaign?

Well considering how many times I've said Trump is narcissistic. Then I get accused of frivolity (which I guess if adultery is frivolity, that's cool), then get accused of being for Trump. Yeah, I'd say it is. Right, people say "Daddy Cruz" all the time when talking about a political candidate they like? Right, people have a hard day at work then share dessert with a co-worker in a private setting with a person of the opposite sex that isn't their spouse? That's okay, that's perfectly fine. Yes I absolutely would want the best slimy scumbag lawyer who can call white black and black white on my side in court. So that's actually a compliment on JAG's craft, b/c he is good at it. Because for a lawyer it's not about morality or doing what's morally right, it's about winning and just like Cruz, it's not about morality it is about winning. People get so bent out of shape because the politician they want to believe in so hard is in truth a scumbag; there are very, very few good, honest, decent elected officials. You can tell who they are because they have a very long track record of doing what is right no matter the circumstances. Cruz does not have a long track record of being an elected official and doing what's right. Look, vote for Cruz if you think his policies are the best policies, if you think he can bring this country around. But don't vote for him because you think he is the moral upstanding righteous guy in this race-b/c he's not. And FYI, I do have relatives who are lawyers, so I do know when, how, and why they go all "lawyer". So if JAG wants to go all "lawyer" on me, I'll sling it back at him. The why is easy, they can't win the argument the good 'ol fashion way (or they are just playing around to get their kicks), so they resort to their lawyer tactics to prove the other person wrong. I've had it happen multiple times to me from relatives, so I'm not an idiot at this.

Lol . . . you're going all Lawyer on me JAG, that's cool, you know what they say about lawwwyers or should I say liaaars. I learned a long time ago the following: Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Make Counter Accusations. If I ever went to court, I'd make sure I'd want a scumbag lawyer on my side :-). You can't admit your own bias-you are biased for Cruz and unless you had pictures of them doing the deed you'd deny it . . .in fact pictures you'd say; well you see her, that's not really Cruz, it's a look alike Cruz. It's like I've said, when politics get involved people can't see what's right in front of their face. No I won't revise my statement; you can't simply admit that yes there is evidence (you'd say what evidence!) that there was something suspicious going on. Deny, Deny, Deny, Counter, Counter, Counter, Counter. Take the cheescake example. The facts are that she was sharing a private desert setting at 2:00am in the morning, in the tweet she says STTE "after a hard day of work with my friend, he is sharing a piece of cake with me" . Who that "he" is???, I don't know, but no married professional in their right mind would do something like that with the opposite sex. If I'm her husband, we are having a nice chat. Who was she working for at this time? Cruz. Look man, this isn't hard. You want to make Cruz out to be this upstanding, moral, righteous white knight-he is not!!! He is a slimeball. Now, you can say I agree with his policies (which I generally do). In sum, stop the love affair with him as this "Christian Conservative"-he is a politician, who will lie, steal and cheat. How many times do I have to say, Trump is a egostistical narcisstic. But that isn't enough, I have to have this love affair with Cruz or I'm a "Trumpster" . . lol funny.

So if you as a male shared cheesecake with a female co-worker at ~2:50am in the morning in a private setting, your wife would be fine with that. And not just any female, but a very attractive young female? Oh let's add a little bit more to it, this is the same reporter who tweeted out the night of the Iowa caucuses that Ben Carson was leaving the race. So here we have a very attractive woman who ~6 months earlier worked as Cruz's Communications Director, the two were obviously very close together (reading her tweets she is at best a fan-girl at worst something more). The Cruz campaign was then able to put out a report that CNN had reported that Ben Carson was leaving the race. The Cruz campaign had complete deniability . . ."it wasn't us, it was CNN". Right, I'm to believe there was no collusion between this CNN reporter who worked as Cruz's communication director and the Cruz campaign? Quit, or forced out by the wife? It's not just one thing, it's a combination, add up all the little pieces and yes it highly is suspicious. I dare you, go have a piece of cheesecake at 2:50am with a very attractive female subordinate in a private setting and see what your wife says. Any married man, knows that's just not appropriate. She has tweets with pictures of him in his 20s saying things like "I love the floppy young lawyer hair", and "Daddy Cruz is going to get you". Come on JAG, you are smarter than this. You'd give your suit coat jacket to a young pretty thing and the picture is in a hotel room??? Come on man.

My big point here is that people seem to have a love affair with Cruz and he is just as slimy as the rest. While politicians can certainly sin and make mistakes; one can't claim the moral high ground while there is a lot of smoke. And I'd say having an affair (or more accurately at this point a highly suspicious relationship) while being a Senator is well quite untrustworthy. I learned a long time ago you can tell a lot about an individual by what they do when they think no one is watching. A highly suspicious relationship(s) that could possible involve breaking one of the most sacred vows a man can make in this life (marriage), does not speak well at all for his character. For all the LDS people who have attached themselves to Cruz as if he is somehow more moral and upright than Trump-I got news for you he isn't. Now yes, Trump at least from what I remember had an affair Marla Maples-which does not speak well at all of his character; however, I do make allowances for actions committed a long time ago and where the person has had an opportunity to learn from them and make amends.

Quite frankly, the biggest decisions the President can make are with regard to foreign policy. I have learned in my lifetime that War is the Health of the State. It is wartime that the most oppressive regulations, the worst fear, the biggest growth in government occur. I hate war, there are times to fight, but they are very few and far between. The myth of WWII, is just absolute bunk. John Q. Adams said it the best: " Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. " Adams words have become the truth; and quite frankly I see a Cruz president willing to get us involved in another war, be it Syria, Iran, Israel, etc. Trump certainly could do so too, but I've only heard him say he would go after ISIS. And no I don't think Trump is a loose cannon, you don't become a billionaire by being a loose cannon.

??? Where did I say it was fine he was changing his positions? Again because I'm anti-both I'm accused of not being neutral. All I'm saying is that both are bad, it takes more work to convince people Cruz is bad, simply b/c he is also a very good manipulator. I don't jump on the Cruz bandwagon, like he is the great savior that will restore this country, nor do I do that with Trump. And no Cruz was not saying two-mutually exclusive things. The same basic question, why did you vote against NDAA, in 2013 it was b/c of principle, 2015 to fulfill a campaign promise. Trump can do the same thing but to anti-Trumpers, he is the devil. Cruz does the same thing and he is a savior. Cruz can say he wants to find out whether "sand can glow in the dark" and no one cares, Trump says he wants to kill ISIS family members and everyone is in an uproar. It is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Trump comes out with an incredibly sane response on abortion. If abortion is murder, then the parties involved in abortion should be punished, one would be for actual murder, the other would be for manslaughter. But to hear the uproar-it is logically inconsistent. Now you have this junk: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/22/go-ahead-donald-get-1237-it-wont-matter-rnc-delegate.html Lol . . . go ahead the Republican Party will sign their own death warrant. I have been apart on a very local scale, many local fights where the local Repub. party wants to keep other people out that don't conform to "their" club. You know where it always end after many years . . . the people who want to retain power always get overthrown; however in the meantime a lot of strive, angst and political war happens. People become very bitter, things get really bad as instead of actually coming together on common ground they end up killing each other. In the meantime, politicians that make the place worse get elected until finally people learn to work together. And it never ceases to amaze me how people can be so offended by what is said on a National Debate, when these same people are the ones that will watch Survivor, Desperate Housewives, or any other number of TV shows full of junk. These shows, the vulgar, the disrespect, etc. would never be on if the people didn't buy it. Many of the loudest criers against Trump are full of hypocrisy. Their children will watch it, yet they will get so offended by an innuendo on a debate. " Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. "

More proof of what I'm saying (just found this): You don't have to like the guy to admire his skill set. The words he is using isn't just to be a jerk, it is extremely tactical.

Prove where I said that is what you were saying.

Lol . . . this is what I mean about Cruz being a snake in the grass (look at the date 2013). He was asked in a National Debate (2016), why he voted against it. Had he simply stated something similar to what you posted I would completely agree, but he didn't. He simply said, I voted against it to fulfill a campaign process. He had an opportunity on National TV in front of millions of people to say I voted against the NDAA because it contained provisions about indefinite detention of American citizens. He did not! Why didn't he, b/c he thought it was politically expedient for him not to. Rather than steer the debate to a substantive conversation about the rights and liberties of all American citizens, he took the politically expedient route and simply said, "well I was fulfilling a campaign promise". How many times have I said a pox on both their houses. The problem is that I think Cruz is no better than Trump. You think me not trusting Cruz is a sign that I'm not "neutral". It is just simple facts, if a guy has to put in his slogan "trust me", that guy is not trustworthy. They are both narcissistic, egotistical individuals. So basically, b/c I don't buy Cruz's schtick hook, line, and sinker means I'm not neutral . . . lol politics-where people's brains go completely out the window.

And it never surprises me who is naive enough to believe everything will be hunky dory if we just elect a true "conservative". We'll take back the Constitution, restore gun rights, we'll have a limited government, we'll get rid of the IRS . . . .lol what a load of crap. It's one thing to say it and throw red meat to people, it's another thing to actually do it. Republicrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years; they could have easily reduced the size and scope of the government. Yet they continually roll over and play dead. You think Cruz will stand on principle when he is elected? Hah, when asked why he didn't vote for the NDAA in 2013, he simply said it was to fulfill a "campaign promise". That isn't being principle, that is being slimy. He could have easily said, look the NDAA contained provisions within that I believe are unconstitutional and I stand on principle.

It might be bullying, but it is still brilliant. He didn't pick those terms just for giggles and grins to be mean. He picked those specific terms on purpose-specifically to attack their inadequacies that they were trying to make up for. Give the devil his due-it's brilliant. Look, pretty much every single candidate running is a narcissistic, egotistical, psychopath. They are running for the most powerful position in the world, it only pays $400k a year. Once elected they are the most important and powerful person in the world out of 7 billion people. They determine the outcome for over 300 million people. I know what the Constitution says, but there is what it says and the current reality. The current reality is that being President is like being a modern day elected King. People think Ted Cruz is this humble, Christian guy . . . I got news for you-he isn't. He puts on a show, just like all of them do. There are very, very few individuals who have run (especially in the last 100 years) who are actually good, decent people who are not narcissists.

Actually, I think on this issue Trump is absolutely brilliant. He picked up on the other candidates own perceived inadequacies and crucified them on it. Look at their campaign slogans. Jeb Bush had Jeb!Jeb!Jeb! plastered everywhere. It is very obvious in that slogan that Jeb was trying to compensate for a perceived inadequacy (not enough excitement). Trump picked up on it and hammered him on it. Ted Cruz has TrusTed plastered everywhere. Your campaign slogan is that everyone should trust you? Really, that is your slogan? Trump picked up on it that Ted is obviously compensating for a perceived inadequacy. The fact that either he knows he is untrustworthy, or that he wants people to perceive him as trustworthy and he has hammered Ted on it. Again, your campaign slogan is that we should trust you; in the world I grew up in someone who is trustworthy never has to state they are trustworthy because they know it and the people around them know it. Only shysters and hustlers say "Trust me". So Lyin' Ted is an absolutely brilliant move. Marco Rubio; history states that in general the tallest candidate ends up winning, why because intrinsically people vote for the taller man; people also perceive someone who sweats a lot as either nervous, or untrustworthy. Hence, Little Marco and comments that he sweats alot. Absolutely brilliant, it might not be kind, but it is brilliant. Trump is a master at negotiation and reading people-you absolutely cannot be in his position without being able to do so-he has read his opponents like a book and used it against them. I don't like most of Trumps policies, but to pass him off as a thug or a baboon is to simply ignore some of his best qualities. It doesn't mean he doesn't miscalculate, but the guy is very good.

Not really . . . we have just become so accustomed to the modern politics, the politics of 100+ years ago were very rough and tumble, Burr vs. Hamilton is an easy example.

By your logic Lincoln should never have been President, Lincoln received 39.8% of the popular vote (about what Trump has). It is very obvious looking at county by county results that the country wanted someone other than Lincoln. Lincoln was unwilling to compromise with the 60% of the vote that didn't vote for him and the Civil War happened. More reasonable men than Lincoln understood that compromise was necessary and they did so. Unfortunately by the 1860s each side (the North and the South) had vilified each other so dramatically that it would have taken a much better man than Lincoln to have united the country without bloodshed (which was possible).

JAG, I get it but a significant percentage of the population disagrees with you and it is just amazing to me that people are so blinded by hatred of Trump that they don't see what will very likely occur should they go down this route.

I agree. The South seceded specifically b/c Lincoln was elected, they thought (and rightly so) that he would not compromise and work with them. If anything the 1860 election should be a lesson in what happens when people are unwilling to work together.

Personally, I really like the delegate system and I think that is the system we should have. All the major decision for the future of the US have been made via a delegate/convention system. To secede from Britain was decided by delegates from each of the States (who were chosen from state and local conventions). The South decided to secede based on the delegate/convention system. Neither of those actions where taken by the State governments, it was through a convention process. Even the Electoral College is a delegate system that was originally designed to provide a list of nominees to the House of Representative. The Founders originally believed that groups of states would vote for "their" guy and the House of Reps would have to ultimately decide. Internally and culturally, the people of this country understood that 75 years ago. It is why in the 1920s democracy was a bad word, b/c the US never was a democracy-it was a republic based on representative democracy. The representative portion being electing delegates to represent you and the democracy portion being that in general 50% vote of the representative (or delegates) would carry the day. The problem right now is that culturally people don't think of it like that anymore. National Conventions are more of a crowning/infomertial rather than an actual business meeting. Did you know that in ~1972 during General Conference Spence W. Kimball (IIRC) voiced his opinion and encouraged LDS members to attend their local conventions and caucuses? Today, the message is simply to vote. If we really want to go back to that system as a country (and I think we should) then the parties need to eliminate all primaries and simply hold caucuses. That accomplishes both goals- you get an understanding of how the populace wants to vote at large at the same time maintaining the delegate system. You don't delude voters into thinking that their vote matters. As of right now, the primary system is completely disconnected from the delegate system and that is why people scream rigged. For example, in my state in order to be considered to be a delegate one must start the process over a month prior to the primary vote! So this idea that "well the rules are there and they should know them" is completely bogus. I guarantee you probably less than 10% (if that) of the actual voters in my state even knew about the delegate system when it mattered. And since I've gone through the process in 2012 of actually recruiting people to be delegates, it is actually a little bit of a sell to convince people who have never heard about the delegate system that the real way the nomination is picked is by the delegates. Not only is the process completely separate from the primary, but one must take at least 1 Saturday a month from Feb-May to be involved and each Saturday is pretty much at least a half-day (it's not just a 1-2 hour meeting, it's a 4-5 hour affair). So yeah, I do believe as things stand right now (and it could change) to nominate Cruz over Trump would really piss people off. If the party wants to solve this problem, then eliminate primaries (but they don't want to do that, b/c many of the State and local (not all) parties actually like it that people don't know about the system-it's easier for people to control and maintain their fiefdoms)