Politico notes:
Is Trump saying government should be so invasive that it could stop silly speech like Cruz’s father? Moonbattery continues on in commentary on this topic:
And Gay Patriot joins in the chorus:
Politico notes:
Is Trump saying government should be so invasive that it could stop silly speech like Cruz’s father? Moonbattery continues on in commentary on this topic:
And Gay Patriot joins in the chorus:
The Trump people are very similar to the social justice warriors (like #trigglpuff) that drown out reasoned discussion in the arena of free speech. In one call into the Medved Show (on my YOUTUBE CHANNEL) a Trumper said if there were a brokered convention (which gave us Lincoln BTW) he would resort to violence. As society becomes more secular and moves away from a classical type of education that teaches people “how to think well,” we will see more emotive reasoning thrown behind opinions. One person told me Cruz did not have “compassion.” I mentioned that acting compassionately with government has gotten us our ever-growing unconstitutional nanny-state. I could care less if Cruz likes me… As long as he is doing his duty according to the document that runs our country and has a plan to curb it’s growth to date (for instance, his flat tax program, whereas Trump said he will raise taxes). Plus this gentleman was wrong (see the FEDERALIST for instance). My view is that if Ted is following and acting oon the spirit of the Constitution… which may, to the modern feminized society seem uncharitable (un loving), it will be in fact the MOST compassionate thing Ted Cruz could do.
I hope another (if it is not Cruz) will be supplemented at the Convention. It is in the hands of the delegates.
Dennis Prager speaks to “American Philosophy” and then has the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution–Randy Barnett–on:
This disconnect is amazing to me. What this exchange did for me was solidify that I cannot vote for Trump. Period.
Here is a great interview with Professor Randy Barnett:
Here is the video description from REASON.ORG:
After watching this twice, I wish to note how similar Trump supporters are to the SJWs yelling vacuous statements/bumper sticker slogans and trying to drowned out the opposition.
Cruz handled himself in a way that Trump will never be able to. He took a discussion that opposed his views/positions and had factual responses to each point and countered with information PERTENANT to the discussion — unlike Trump.
Video description:
Here is another Presedential exchange between Cruz and the MSNBC where Cruz calls out the bias involved — well (via NewsBusters):
Stolen from Moonbattery:
Video Description:
Medved fields some calls both from Trump supporters as well as those who are not rooting for Trump. He brings some historical context (as usual) to the calls (Taft v. Roosevelt; Humphrey, etc).
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY he distinguishes the nonsense of Trump compared to “Republican ideals.” It amazes me that many of the same people that accused “Dubya” of being a “neo-con” are today rooting for someone far more entrenched in expanding government’s role as well as getting us involved in military operations. Here is a commentary by yours truly on my FaceBook:
I still do not understand what people do not like about Cruz’s positions as compared to Trump’s mess of positions. I would be happy if Rand Paul was put in on the third ballot, because he and Cruz are closest to the Founders idealism. I would be less happy but still pleased if Rubio were put in on the third ticket. Why? Because most ppl that ran were truly Republicans that leaned right in their ideology (except Kasich and more-so Trump).
So I view it as maybe being desperate, but only because many today do not think through these basic (101) delineations today. All the people that complained about Bush being a neo-con and who now like Trump (a crony-capitalist’s capitalists) are stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is more about large government than “Dubya” ever was.
For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: http://www.michaelmedved.com/
Video Description:
After “The Donald” is asked about a favorite verse of the Bible, Ben Shapiro takes a quick tour on the meaning of an “eye-for-an-eye.” Included at the end is the John Kasich’s faux-pas in a library surrounded by Hasidic Jews.
For more clear and humorous exchanges like this, go to: http://www.am870theanswer.com/pages/the-morning-answer
…Reince Priebus, the RNC chair, tweeted late Tuesday:
…Republicans point out that this year’s rules — in which hundreds of delegate candidates elected at the March 1 caucuses run for 34 slots at the state convention — have been known since August.
Colorado NOT rigged… dumb!
Video Info:
Most delegates will typically support who their person they supported endorses. So if Rubio endorses Cruz… he would be much closer, much… and this amount of a split in delegates would force — per GOP primary rules — a 2nd ballot at the party convention.
So, right this is the count:
➤ TRUMP: 646
➤ CRUZ: 397
➤ KASICH: 142
RUBIO left the race with 163 delegates. If he endorsed Cruz [like he should… unless he is a weenie and endorses Kasich], That would leave…
➤ CRUZ 560 delegates.
Mind you, these delegates would have a choice to remain uncommitted now and choose who to support at the convention ~ which is July 18–21, 2016.
In-other-words, this will most likely end in a brokered convention, per the already agreed upon rules set for the primaries.
AGAIN, for a “civics 101” lesson on the GOP Primary rules, see the below audio:
Greta and her guests all agreed there is no way they can win this case in court and the only reason Corey was charged was because he is associated with Donald Trump. Greta said,
Here is the actual statement by Miss Fields:
Via The College Fix
Heather Mac Donald has an excellent article in the City Journal: