- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Worse, if you state your beliefs, chances are a Mouch-analogue will come in and try to play internet gunslinger and shoot holes in it, or pick a fight with you to prove their illogical point, rather than contribute something well thought out, rational, and honest.
It began with what I call the "sex and religion wars" (where we had the religious V. atheist or gay V. straight posts) and it has devolved from there.
All we need now is for the spambots to move in and, like ivy and mistletoe will choke a mighty oak tree to death, kill what the trolls have begun.
My 2¢...
Sus
This site used to take up a substantial part of my day - now, much less than an hour.
1) The defeatist, nothing you can do, nature of many.
2) The closed approach of just a few, loud and vocal though they are.
3) the useless nature of rehashing. A fresh look at something is great to get exposed to, but most of the articles here are the same stuff I read last year, characters may have changed but its kinda the same.
I spend most of the time I use to spend on this site, doing things in the real world. Talking to those who live around me, attending political events, reading some Locke (very slowly).
I give it a year or two and I will find my way back more actively, it may have evolved to where there are many new ideas, viewpoints... that make me think.
2-faced hypocrites.
Ted had nothing to do with the event. All he could do was comment on what information he had at the time; would you be just as upset if he'd said, "Sorry, I can't comment on a situation I don't fully understand" ? I doubt it. I think those who are quick to throw Cruz under the proverbial bus are nothing but in-the-tank-Trumpsters who are just chomping at the bit to take down Cruz for any of the tiniest of transgressions.
1. CNN released the statement that Ben Carson was heading to Florida after Iowa. Ben Carson's own New Hampshire crew left en-masse to join Ted's crew in New Hampshire the day prior. Ben had no one to pick him up at the airport in New Hampshire after Iowa. Is it really Ted's fault for some in his group to repeat what CNN reported?
2. Even well after the matter, weeks later, Donald is STILL dragging around the phrase, "Lyin' Ted" to gin up ill will among voters. How is that engendering the kind of ethics you want to see in our President? Isn't Barry Hussein O bad enough?!?!? I can't wait for Trump to call for Beer Summit 2.0.
3. This seems to be the worst any one can do to Ted - mis-characterize some of his quotes. Has he mis-used his party credit card? Has he endorsed Common Core? Did he support Democrats in the past because he was 'playing the system' above his supposed core principles?
Where was Donald 1 year ago on the Cromnibus bill? Where was Donald during the Benghazi debacle? Where has Donald been all these years .. if he is so principled, how is it he could conceive to 'play the game' to get ahead in business? In fact, he was supporting the 'system' all these years. Oh, yes.. yes, yes, yes, Donald chased the Birther theory---to no end. Great. Golf clap for that effort, Donald. How did that propel the Conservative movement he's so proud of championing? How do you know his rhetoric is what it is? Ted has ACTED on his conservative principles. We've seen it. He hasn't missed critical votes.. he's even filibustered a few times. And, he's argued in the Supreme Court numerous times to stymy the Liberal Agenda.
And, Donald actually helped put the 'birther' theory to rest -- as a result of Donald's attention, Obama's birth certificate was finally released after years of talking about it.
Now I like Ted, but there is a difference between filibustering to block something and getting congress to go along with your plans. I actually like a lot of Cruz's small government ideas, I am just dubious as to his ability to get congress to go along with him. Yes, he will sign the executive orders canceling Obama's but we don't want to rely on government via executive order. It isn't enough to nominate good Supreme Court justices -- you have to get them ratified -- and the Republicans aren't going to have 60 votes to block a filibuster.
I'm actually toying with the idea of Trump/Cruz to solve the problem of the establishment putting in their pawn. I can't really see Cruz/Trump working but the other way around does, and lets Cruz be the apprentice to the deal maker for a few years before going for it again.
I also like gridlock if the alternative is losing. We've lost so many times in recent years that many have given up on winning and simply want to lose slower. I refuse to accept that it's our only option.
"Sometimes this involves persuading them that your position is right."
And I fully endorse this. This is how Reagan was able to move the country forward despite Democrats controlling House and Senate.
"Sometimes it involves giving them something they want in return."
The problem we've had in recent times is that there has been only "get" from the Progressives and no "give". Or it's more of the Wimpy (from "Popeye") ploy of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" - which Reagan fell prey to. The playing field is already hopelessly skewed in one direction. I'll look on any such deal-making with an extremely jaundiced eye.
The fact is, though, that negotiations only work when you know where you start from (principles) and where you draw the line. That's the problem with the current style of "negotiations" being bandied about by Republicans and have resulted in the holes they have dug for themselves: they only think they know where they start from and aren't willing to draw those uncrossable lines. (Of course the same applies to Obama's feckless foreign policy.)
Would Trump do better? Who knows. I put a lot of credence on the fact that he can build things in New York City. The amount of negotiation that has to go on to actually get something constructed is mind boggling, yet he gets it done, the building he wants gets built and makes money (usually). That's a real world accomplishment. Does it translate into political decisions, who knows. But while I like Cruz's positions he hasn't demonstrated the ability to bring the congress along. Standing alone in a filibuster is certainly heroic, but at best stops things.
How much of your morailty are you willing to sacrifice?
I have believe whatsoever that an objectivist government will emerge in the foreseeable future, so we can only hope to make progress in that direction rather than the progressive model.
We have already sacrificed, I want some back.
What action has he shown, other than his rhetoric, that gives you comfort he can/will do that?
・ As Ted has pointed out, taxing imports at 35% only impacts the American consumer.. not the overseas producer.
・ Building a wall, getting Mexico to pay for it. How does that eliminate the 11+ million illegals already here?
・ How can he entice the repatriation of $1+ Trillion back into the U.S. Economy from various US companies that, frankly, only stand to lose money by doing so? Whether it gets taxed at 35% or 11% or 5%.. all of that is MORE than 0% + interest for leaving it in foreign bank deposits.
As to the 11 million illegals already here, we will figure out a way to deal with that once we stop the flow. I came home one night and found my dishwasher was flooding my kitchen. My first thought was not how to deal with the water on the floor -- I needed to shut off the water.
You entice the money back into the U.S. by lowering the tax rates so that they are willing to pay the tax to have access to the money, and you get some of it.
If it costs $3.25 to make a pair of shoes in China, versus $14.65 in Ohio, adding 35% import tax has no effect on the manufacturing location or reason. It ONLY penalizes the American public.
The true cost of production is a culmination of material, labor, transportation, & energy costs. The U.S. is just too expensive in a majority of those items. Where does rubber come from? Malaysia. Where is labor cheap? China. Where is energy cheap? China. Where is it easy to ship from (worldwide)? Hong Kong.
Guess where its ideal to manufacture shoes?
Blindly asking the American public to take-a-hit for the good of ... a blank dream is ridiculous.
As to your dishwasher incident, I bet you still wiped up the spill rather than waiting for it to air-dry, molding much in the process.
Lowering tax rates from 35% to 10% will not get a majority of the money repatriated. It will not move until that number is 0%.. something even Donald would not do.
Donald speaks a good story -- but, details and reality and stubborn facts will get in the way of his theory.
As to the cost of making things in America, regulatory overhead is another one of those components -- and one that the government could have some control over.
And, yes, once I stopped the flow of water I could stop and think about how to deal with the water on the floor.
I spent 15+ years selling U.S. products into asian markets. I can tell you the ONLY thing preventing U.S. companies from selling overseas is their own ineptitude. Primarily, the U.S. electorate assumes that everything in the U.S. is appropriate and just what everyone else in the world needs/wants. That is plain wrong. People in Nigeria, India, China, or Japan do not wake up and think --- "what can I get from the U.S. today"? That thinking is as old as the maligned protectionist views of Clyde Prestowitz. People in Japan aren't going to just pick up the phone and call John Deere to buy a tractor; a.) John Deere hardly has a presence there. b.) John Deere tractors are wholly inappropriate for Japanese farmers - field size, crop are completely different. And yet, you would blame the Japanese for being 'closed' due to trade deals and what-not.
China has a 17% import tax on everything. Chinese consumers will gladly pay that in order to not get Shanghai'd by their own with fake products. HOW.ev.er. You still need to make a quality product for the Chinese consumer.. they need to a.) know about it, and b.) understand why its a good value for them to want to buy it.
I can tell you how many U.S. companies are NOT marketing in China. Nearly all. Motorola (now owned by Google) was one of the few companies that did well in the Chinese market early on in the phone market. They dominated the Chinese mobile market for years - ever hear them complain about unfair competition and such? Nope. Who complained loudest - GM? I recall a similar story about U.S. car manufacturers about selling into Japan 2, 3 decades prior. Waaah, waaah, waaah.
Trump (and a good majority of Americans it seems) has no idea how to do international trade. No idea. But, he'll play the Clyde Prestowitz scare card to garner support. Its a good talk.
Import tax negotiation is bad only for us Americans---get that into your head, please!
"Regulatory overhead" -- boom, you nailed it. Somehow, we have more regulatory overhead in this country than a communist country like China does. Why? Because we have National, State, AND Local regulations that all companies need to somehow adhere to.
Japan and even China have at most 2-levels - National and local. The amount of regulatory control is SPARSE compared to U.S. mandates on companies here. We are buried in regulations here. Buried. Trump ought to be championing the utter reduction (as Ted is) of regulations at all levels to spur the economy.
This is the same trap Obama used 8 years ago with 'Hope & Change'. It was a blank slate, and Obama let any of his constituents fill it in in their mind without him ever promising a word.
Finally, there is NO guarantee that a businessman will be pro-business once in office. Trump has made no guarantee towards such.
That is the six-million $ question we gamble on. And the stakes are enormous.
"But while I like Cruz's positions he hasn't demonstrated the ability to bring the congress along."
One can lead a horse to water but can't lead one to drink. One can lead a politician to logic, but one can't make them think. The fact that Cruz thinks for himself despite the pressures of Washington to conform and bend to his Party speak volumes to me about his ability to function in the realm of politics.
Can Trump do the same? Again, we don't know. We know he's full of fiery rhetoric, but is he going to just brow-beat Congress to go along with him? I somehow doubt that is going to fly with the Republicans - let alone the Democrats. And what are we left with then? A man who has said he has no problem ruling through Executive Orders to get things done.
I'd rather have a government where the Legislative Branch took the initiative on law-making. I would much rather have a do-nothing President than a President who wants to do everything. Which of the two is closer to what the Founders envisioned?
But, I still find time to get involved in supporting and promoting Conservatism in my realm. I go to school board meetings - they hate me there. I write blogs on FB and other social media sites espousing conservative ideas and why they are good for everyone, not the 'marginalized minorities' that the Democrats always claim to be advocating.
Donald may not have as much spare time as I do to write blogs or speak at city council meetings as I do. I will not judge him for that. I will, however, judge his history of writing checks to support Democrat nominees and Democrat initiatives. I would never, like Ted Cruz has said countless times, capitulate my principles for short-term profit. I will not, e.g., go and promise some of the bureaucrats that have visited my office contributions for government contracts... and these are mostly state-level Republicans. Trump has gotten in-bed with all politicians to further his business causes. He claims that was 'just business'. Well, if we were to apply the Law of Identity, A is A, then it cannot be passed off as 'just business'. It was his business. He did it. He did those things. He cannot dismiss those as transactions as something they are/were not.
The birther issue was resolved when the Hawaiian official released Obama's birth certificate before Trump got going---Hillary was way ahead of him. Many were still suspect, however, that that certificate was indeed the official certificate. Trump only picked up the torch after others had found no way to move forward on it.
Cruz. You doubt Cruz can get any of his ideas ratified. Why do you think Trump would be any better at such an effort than Cruz? Trump has not even pushed / promoted one thing through Congress, yet, you assume that he would be BETTER at it simply because he's a "deal-maker"? Obama only got what he's gotten because I-Will-Cave-Boehner and Mitch-May-I-Help-You-McConnell cannot but bow to Obama's every whim. Otherwise, Obama, too, has only been able to get things done by Executive Fiat---pen and executive order. Ted's going to retract every Executive Order; what has Trump promised? Ted's going to attempt, with manifest of the American people's vote, ala Reagan, to nix the IRS, and a plethora of government agencies. Trump, from time-to-time, has echoed such sentiments. But, Cruz has not waivered on his resolve on what he plans to do. Cruz has as much, if not more, chance of getting his agenda through as Trump does. I would dare say more so.
Trump, in the past 8 months, has been a LOT of talk-talk-talk. Just like Rubio. Lots of talking. The only one who has DONE something has been Ted. Ted even took a moment to go back and sign his name to the Senate letter to Obama telling him they're not going to look at a Supreme Court nominee until after the election. Ted continues to "DO" while campaigning. And for that, the Trumpsters here blast him to Kingdom Come when he balks on the chance to refute protesters at Trump's Illinois event. Wow.
I don't disagree with Ted's positions and politics, I just highly question they are really 'his'.
Nonetheless, after tonight, he really has no chance of winning the nomination. If he loses big in Ohio, which is really the last of the Bible Belt states, he's done... I'm sorry, but its just an electoral fact. He may pick up Missouri or whatever, but compared to California/New Jersey/New York, it's a rounding error.
If so, I can only hope that rounding error is in our favor, and the Trump really is who he claims to be.
Ted's time in the Senate, however, have been nothing but spot on in terms of volitional support of conservative principles. Beit on the tax payer dime or not, he actively pursued such endeavors. What has Trump done?
I'm telling you Donald's story does not check out.. that you are betting on a wild-card. And, more-often-than-not, the House wins when the American public bets on 'Hope & Change'. Americans hoped. Washington and Wall-Street kept our change.
Good luck to us all.
I'm not leaving the country. I'm not voting for Hillary, either. I'm voting for Trump or Cruz, though I be Pro-Cruz. I'm just stating that Trump is a complete Wild Card. And, for that, I'm castrated, cast-aside, and asunder by the Pro-Trump crowd.
I'm hoping beyond hope that Trump does what he claims, without destroying us or our liberties in the process. I really, really do.
In my opinion, however, Trump's not what you are making him out to be. Scojohnson likes to point out Ted's connections to Goldman Sachs .. which is a farce, perpetrated by the Trump campaign against Ted. Ditto for the Ben Carson ordeal. Trump's campaign is just as dirty as any other typical campaign in throwing dirt around. But if Trump's your guy, well, you're that much less likely to see it as such.
I'm not going to bother to belabor this much further. In your hearts, you're wedded to your candidate at this point---I got that. I, too, am hoping for the best, but expecting less.
I'm not leaving the country. I'm not voting for Hillary, either. I'm voting for Trump or Cruz, though I be Pro-Cruz. I'm just stating that Trump is a complete Wild Card. And, for that, I'm castrated, cast-aside, and asunder by the Pro-Trump crowd.
I'm hoping beyond hope that Trump does what he claims, without destroying us or our liberties in the process. I really, really do.
In my opinion, however, Trump's not what you are making him out to be. Scojohnson likes to point out Ted's connections to Goldman Sachs .. which is a farce, perpetrated by the Trump campaign against Ted. Ditto for the Ben Carson ordeal. Trump's campaign is just as dirty as any other typical campaign in throwing dirt around. But if Trump's your guy, well, you're that much less likely to see it as such.
I'm not going to bother to belabor this much further. In your hearts, you're wedded to your candidate at this point---I got that. I, too, am hoping for the best, but expecting less.
As I say, keep in mind, the primary process is the most radical 20% on each side of the aisle. Only about 1/5 turns out in primaries as the general, so to win, you really need to appeal to a broader market. The other 4/5 are more moderate than that 20%, Cruz is sucking wind outside of the far right whenever there is another option. All that would need to happen is Hillary gets rid of the Bernie tail and tacks back to the center, people remember the great economy her husband enjoyed, and Cruz is done. They will look at experience, and Cruz has about 20 minutes of it and what is there is shutting down the government with nothing to show for it. To be honest, I can see most of the Republican senators just abandoning him knowing that Hillary would be more pliable than he would.
Yes Cruz polls "ok", but not consistently, for every one that shows him beating Hillary, there are several that don't. Either way, with the civil war on-going, no one is going to poll very well against a Dem candidate whose primary debates have looked like kitten wrestling.
This is for sure about Trump vs. Cruz. I don't see Cruz taking Hillary to task, he will take the high televangelist preacher approach as he generally does in the debates. He had a few good performances and just as many terrible. Trump will shove her face first into the mud, chain her to the back of his pickup truck and hit the gas in front of the total American electorate. It will be bloody, it will be damaging, and unlike Hillary - he doesn't rely on the same shared corporate 'sponsors' and doesn't give a shit if he offends anyone (obviously). The GOP won't take a Clinton to task, and they haven't to date, because a lot of those corporate interests - like Goldman Sachs, Texas gas & oil (Cruz's buddies) and many others donate heavily to everyone to buy their favor. They don't want to piss off the Clintons and the democratic party, so they will muzzle whichever candidate.
Someone needs to take down the Clintons once & for all, expose their 'Global Initiative' for what it is, paid favors for foreign governments and mobsters, and slam their ass in the clink where it belongs or we'll have another 30 years of this crap when they get Chelsea going. She's already running the 'global initiative' and gets paid $600,000 as a 'special correspondent' for her stupid little 3 minute segments twice a year on NBC News... if you think that isn't going to be shoved down our throats next, you are foolish.. Only if Hillary ends in humiliation does this end. I don't see Cruz having the stomach or the balls for it, frankly. He's spent all of about 10 months of his life outside of the government tit suckling, and he's too worried about his next election.
For all the similar type of non-documented arguments, about so & so is not conservative enough, be it Jeb, Carson, Rubio, or Trump, not once have I seen anything that has shown were Cruz has led a charge to reduce taxes. Not once have I seen him create a job. Not once have I seen him live in the regulatory environment as a business owner for 10 minutes. It's one thing to call pot-shots from the cheap seats, and promise to 'fight ObamaCare' when you are running for office as an unknown for a senate seat during a fiercely anti-ObamaCare environment. Question, is that pandering to a group of angry voters, or is it really what he believes. We'll never know. If you ask him how much ObamaCare cost him personally, the answer is zero. Ask Trump how much ObamaCare has cost him... at 20% year over year premium increases to employers and thousands of employees, I'm going to guess a lot.
That's the best objectivism can offer.
Remember Cruz's "Carpet Bomb ISIS until the sand glows"?
I hate giving Obama kudos, but he probably chose correctly to keep us out of another massive invasion of the Middle East. It seems like they may be imploding on their own. Keeping their cash as "cash" literally in buildings wasn't smart, ask anyone that put cash in a coffee can and buried it - then it rains and oops.. no more money. Looks like we've been raining bombs on the storage buildings and they are running into some money troubles..
Continuing to vote for candidates manipulated by the party to increase government power at the expense of liberty and free markets is not the answer even if the other major party wants to do the same thing in an arguably more offensive way. Doing this after 30 years of evidence that it doesn't work (and being betrayed repeatedly) is insane. It is definitely not objectivist in any rational way.
Preventing her from being elected is no excuse to elect a 'reality show' crony with a political/media network and aspirations of "The Borg".
He has the right to speak. He did not need to consider his words. Even so, he is partially responsible for stoking weak minds into action.
Of course, one could argue the he sets the fire.
Or is there a link I cannot reach and others can?
That has happened to me before.
Been a while, though.
Scanning responses, it appears to be about George Soros bankrolled Bernie babies disrupting Trump rallies.
Dang, I voted for Cruz. Won't again. I'm cruising away from that kinda BS..
He's Texan, his other problem (other than being Canadian), Californians don't like Texans, at all, Gov. Perry used to make very visible 'business trips' to Sacramento, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley to do one-on-one meetings with our largest & most profitable companies trying to promise them tax credits, tax abatements on their buildings, and whatever to move to Texas. Quite a few did, giving their long-time employees the choice between uprooting their kids, leaving their families, and moving to Texas where the climate, frankly, sucks compared to California... or find another job. The 'correct' answer that I happen to agree with is, Rick, go back to Texas and work on trying to create some jobs other than Walmart cart pushers and leave ours alone. :) Then he (Gov. Perry) was giving a speech here criticizing our very popular culture of clean environment - which stems from Yosemite, Tahoe, the Sequoia Forest, the 700 mile coast, and many other natural assets... and after spending an hour insulting us, got in his luxury rental car to go back to the airport.. which happened to be a Tesla Model S... I just couldn't hide the cringe I had looking at that. The guy got creamed in the primary, and rightfully so. Ted's problem when he comes out here is that he kind of looks like Gov. Perry from that perspective, so despite all the Republican endorsements, he's going to have about a 10-20% showing, at best here, and we're obviously the grand prize of the delegate count.
Is he an evangelical preacher? Is he a defender of liberty? No, he's a politician that takes money in the form of donations but are effectively bribes to run for office. In one of his roles as the Solicitor General (Texas) he argued the State of Texas' position on various matters before the Supreme Court - and served at the pleasure of the Governor and argued the position of the Governor.. so were they his views or the Governor's views? But it wasn't under G.W.Bush, it was in 2003, so would have been Rick Perry (I think), not the most appealing guy in the world...
Before that, he had been an attorney for about a year or two, about his only time in the public sector, if you can call it that, then he was the Deputy Director of Policy & Planning for the Federal Trade Commission in 2001 - he worked on the Bush campaign, so that was a gimme appointed job commensurate with his low level in the campaign.. What the hell is Policy & Planning for the FTC anyway? That sounds like an in by 9 am & leave by noon kind of job. He brags that he defeated collective bargaining proposals from doctors... huh? Doctors are independent contractors... pretty much all of them unless working at a University Hospital or something like that, can't be that hard to defeat a 'union' proposal from them..
While Solicitor General, his only resume of substance, he worked on a total of 8 cases in 5 years. Well, his staff worked on 8 cases in 5 years. Again, he kind of / sort of worked I would guess.
Then he went into private practice again for about a month, realized it's pretty hard to actually make a living as a business owner, but puts we business owners on a pedestal like he's one of us... then announced his run for the Senate and probably started paying himself again out of his campaign donations/etc.
I'm sorry... I just don't see a lifelong struggle and freedom fighter here... I see a guy that has always been on the taxpayer tit in one way or another.
Instead of standing up for the First Amendment, and the correct answer which is you don't necessarily have the right to protest a private gathering, and it's a felony to do so anyway where secret service is providing protective services. Rights of one end where they infringe on the rights of others. This is a result of the everyone gets a trophy thing these brats were raised with.
His claim to fame is defending freedom in the courtroom, but there is basically one of those in each state, he was a paid attorney to do so. Thus, I can't see any proof that it is 'him' or his job to do that, and he certainly wouldn't have the flexibility to do as he pleases each day.
The Acorn/Occupy/MoveOn crowd has stepped across too many lines and the protester-in-chief refuses to prosecute them. It was disappointing to see Cruz worried about some whack-job votes instead of the correct answer, conservative or not.
Now can you explain the felony comment? A felony to simply protest or charge the stage?
It's perfectly legal to protest from say, across the street, but you cannot go into the event and whip out your posters... if anyone other than Obama was the President, we would see some charges flying for 1 year in prison (if unarmed) and 10 years if using an improvised weapon.
What is interesting, is that the Donald Trump thing in Ohio - the media made it look like someone threw something at him, which wasn't the case, it was a guy charging the stage from behind and trying to climb up on there. The Secret Service took him down. Turns out the guy was a frequent at Bernie rallies, had pledged his support for the ISIS cause online, and had many previous dust-ups with law enforcement. If you see the whole video, it actually looked like Trump was ready to take him on - he must have said something, and then the Secret Service held him back.
I don't disagree with the law, the people at the gathering have the right to speak and be heard, the 'bullying' is denying them their right, which is exactly what this Acorn/Occupy communist-sympathizer group does. They have the right to their signs & stuff, but it's on the public sidewalk across the street, not 'blocking' the street, or denying people the right to enter or exit. In short, it is peaceful protest, not this violent stuff.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012...
I love the photo-bomb circulating on Facebook right now, it says it all.... "Hey - We the Silent Majority - Lets Go and Protest a Bernie Rally!!!"... "Oh yeah, he holds them during the week, and we all have Jobs. Sorry."
Personally, I believe if you are well liked in that hole, you are not doing your job. I experienced the same thing when I was an elected official on our local county board. While I got along with all of the other elected officials, most did not like me because I was always talking about protecting the taxpayer. I believed my job was to be a taxpayer representative, not someone elected to run the county. Most believe they are elected to run the county.
I used to make assumptions until I realized that All my Assumptions began with an Ass. :)
This isn't a case of saying, "Hey, let's go gather down at the park." I would think it qualifies as a non-public forum -- otherwise there would be no legal right to remove protesters which is routinely done.
The only feeble argument I can think of which would involve state action here is to argue that the police or federal agents or someone in government had an obligation to deal with the interfering protestors more quickly and/or effectively than they did, and that their failure to do so amounted to a deprivation of Trump's free speech rights. This seems like a big stretch to me, and contrary to the nature of the First Amendment.
By not speaking, regardless of the motive, Cruz is exercising his free speech.
They are contenders for political office. Let them each deal with their respective rallies and take responsibility for such.
Me? I want to know which candidate is going to respect the rule of law and especially the Constitution of the United States. Cruz' history of doing that gives me confidence he will continue to do so. I don't have that same confidence in any of the remaining candidates. Sanders openly shills for getting rid of the Constitution in favor of socialism. Hillary gives lip service, but wants to install herself as Queen. Trump simply has no history to go on other than anecdotal. Rubio seems to think that illegals should have the same protections as citizens.
But I’ll try.
You hated Barack Obama’s cult-like followers, with their mindless stares of adoration, their impervious barrier between emotion and reason, and their instant fury when confronted with the facts about his record, his history, or his philosophy.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated Obama’s shallow, facile rhetoric, with its hollow promises and loose, lowest-common-denominator word-vomit disconnected from any real policy.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated how Obama was gleefully lying to credulous low information voters, filling them with empty promises of economic prosperity that would never come, based on plans that could never be achieved.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated how Obama lied about his positions on single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, gun control, and abortion to get elected, knowing that if he ever revealed the truth about what he believed that he’d be unelectable.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated how Obama rode the wave of constant attention from the mainstream media into office, and how they played along with his game, draining the life out of every other candidate by describing him as an inevitable juggernaut, an unstoppable political force, and a game-changer who was tapping into something deep and powerful in American political life.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated how Obama’s naive ignorance of the real and brutal world of international affairs was papered over by his hollow promises to make the world respect the United States again.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated Obama’s casual disdain for people who weren’t from a major city where, you know, all the rich, smart, educated, liberal people like him live.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated Obama’s elite credentialism, and how he yielded his Harvard and Columbia degrees to browbeat his aspiring-class opponents from outside the meritocracy, and how he used them to cow an already docile press.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated that smug, arrogant, sneering affect that took hold the moment he thought the cameras weren’t looking.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated Obama’s cadre of sleazy, weird, creepy advisers, with their combination of over-the-edge ideological fervor and their stench of petty corruption.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated Obama’s support for bail-outs, too-big-to-fail, and big, taxpayer-funded government intervention in dying industries.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated his comfy alliance with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the odious Clinton crime family.
But you love it from Trump.
You hated his cavalier disdain for private property rights.
But you love it from Trump.
Everything that set your teeth on edge, and raised your hackles and made you loathe Barack Obama is there in Donald Trump. Every aspect of the con game Obama played on America in 2008 – the obsessive focus on one base issue (for Obama the war in Iraq, for Trump, Mexicans), the cult-like obsession, the instant attacks on apostates, the willful ignorance of his history and his beliefs – is present in Trump.
Everything you despised in Obama is there.
But you love it from Trump. Credit: Rick Wilson
What people hate about trump is that is isnt beholden to contributors, and they dont tell him what to do. Therefore, he is out of their control. Maybe for a change, he will do what the people who support him actually want, and thats a distinct change.
Sanders is more honest, but he is power hungry too, and its coming out more and more