On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 11:38:11 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 04/02/2016 07:24 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
The rationale being that if Trump is put up for POTUS, the GOP will go
down in flames so badly that even the people at the top who have been so
out of touch since Reagan's presidency will wake up and smell the
coffee.... sort of like an alcoholic who has to hit rock bottom before
they realize something is wrong and seeks to remedy it.

Realistically, where are they going to go? Voters are just an annoyance
that have to be bought off so so the GOP can get down to the neoliberal
agenda favored by their financial supporters.

The alternative right is calling them on their real purpose. The
alt-right loves Trump because he thinks like they do.

I don't see much actual thinking from the typical Trumpies. They
don't care about his foreign policy, or lack thereof. They don't
care about the nuances of how you achieve what he's proposing, or
if it's realistic at all. They just identify with him because he's
tapped into their "mad as hell" outlook.



No matter how
politically correct you try to be it just isn't good enough, so let's
call a spade a spade.

The problem with Trump is calling spades where spades don't exist.
The offensive, really dumb things he's said and done have nothing
to do with being non-PC, they are just wrong and offensive.


The GOP will sell the heritage of European
civilization down the river for a mess of pottage. The Democrats hate
European civilization but at least they don't lie about it.

For my money, that same scenario holds true if Cruz gets the
nomination.... seems to me like the guy is just too unlikable to the
general public and too disliked in Washington. Policy issues aside,
the guy comes across to me as being just plain mean.....

In a match between Clinton and Cruz, I'll vote for Jill Stein or whoever
the Libertarians pull out of their hat.

What exactly is so unacceptable about Cruz? The GOP establishment
clearly doesn't like him, he's stood up to them many times and he has
positions on many things that are similar to Trump.

Per rbowman:
Realistically, where are they going to go? Voters are just an annoyance
that have to be bought off so so the GOP can get down to....

I would think they have to actually do something for all those
working-class living-paycheck-to-paycheck people whose votes they have
been harvesting for all these years.

Convincing them that it is in their own interest to reduce the taxes of
people earning in excess of $250,000 per year and/or cutting off their
access to affordable health care is not going to cut it any mo
they're finally starting to catch on and the GOP has to come up with
something more reality-based..... or, at least, a better line of BS for
these people.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 04/03/2016 07:38 AM, trader_4 wrote:
I think you're the exception, because polls for months have shown
that Cruz is even in a match up with Clinton, while Trump loses
by 10 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...034.html#polls

Cruz does better than Trump and had a bump in February but he's in no
way a clear winner. It's even worse looking at a match against Sanders.
If you believe the polls, only Kasich has a chance and it will take some
intriguing to make him the nominee.

On 04/03/2016 08:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
You do realize that consumers ultimately pay those tariffs and who
gets tariffed, who doesn't, how high the tariff is, etc is yet
another mechanism of crony capitalism and corruption? A lot of this
"decline" problem is the result of technology and a new world
economy. The days when you
could just graduate HS and get a good, decent paying factory job
are over. So too are the days when you could get a degree in art
or communications, get an entry level corp job and move your way
up.


Yes and the GOP has facilitated the 'new world economy' starting with
Nixon opening the door to the PRC. Multinational corporations have
loyalty to one thing -- profits. Trump may be a buffoon but the current
GOP isn't going to make America great any time soon. They've watched
while those good paying factory jobs moved to Mexico, SE Asia, and other
sources of cheap labor while applauding 'free trade'. Never forget
while Clinton signed the bill for the disaster called NAFTA, Bush 41 was
the one who started the ball rolling.

On 04/03/2016 08:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:
What exactly is so unacceptable about Cruz? The GOP establishment
clearly doesn't like him, he's stood up to them many times and he has
positions on many things that are similar to Trump.

Let me see... Pandering to evangelicals? Unconditional support for
Israel? Sanctioning Russia? Breaking diplomatic relations with Cuba?
Arming the corrupt government of Ukraine? Flat tax? His vote on TPA?

The real deal breaker is I consider him a highly ambitious junior
Senator that is slightly more trustworthy than Clinton, and that's a low
enough bar a snake would have problems getting under it.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

No sale.

On 04/03/2016 09:23 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Convincing them that it is in their own interest to reduce the taxes of
people earning in excess of $250,000 per year and/or cutting off their
access to affordable health care is not going to cut it any mo
they're finally starting to catch on and the GOP has to come up with
something more reality-based..... or, at least, a better line of BS for
these people.

I'd go with the BS approach. Abortion and gay marriage worked for a
while but 'it's the economy, stupid' has come back to haunt them.
Immigration reform is ever popular, despite the Chamber of Commerce and
Big Bidness loving all that cheap labor and new consumers.

Trump and Sanders are bringing out what has been simmering under the
surface but I don't think the GOP has the balls to change tactics.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 06:36:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:16:51 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
That's nothing unusual. It's happened 10 times before with the GOP and
in 7 of those cases, the candidate with the most delegates did not wind up
the nominee.

Yes but..... My understanding is that Trump has the means and
inclination to run on a third-party ticket - and thus torpedo the GOP's
chances of winning.
--
Pete Cresswell

It's certainly possible. I wonder what the Trumpies think of that?
Suppose Trump winds up at the convention, doesn't have 1237, and the
convention chooses Cruz. Do most of the Trumpies think Trump should
run as an independent? I would think many of them are so delusional
that they would believe Trump would win if he did.

No one thinks a third party candidate can win. The issue is, do the
reps hate trump so much that they will deny the PEOPLE CHOICE (Trump)
the nomination and instead hand pick one of the losers? If they do
Trump has the power to make sure the reps lose the election. The
options for the RNC are to nominate Trump, the guy that MOST of the
PEOPLE want, then get behind him and hope to win in the general
OR
Screw Trump and if that makes him run third party be assured that
Hillary (or Bernie if hillaries in jail) wins the general.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 1:59:16 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 04/03/2016 08:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
You do realize that consumers ultimately pay those tariffs and who
gets tariffed, who doesn't, how high the tariff is, etc is yet
another mechanism of crony capitalism and corruption? A lot of this
"decline" problem is the result of technology and a new world
economy. The days when you
could just graduate HS and get a good, decent paying factory job
are over. So too are the days when you could get a degree in art
or communications, get an entry level corp job and move your way
up.


Yes and the GOP has facilitated the 'new world economy' starting with
Nixon opening the door to the PRC. Multinational corporations have
loyalty to one thing -- profits. Trump may be a buffoon but the current
GOP isn't going to make America great any time soon. They've watched
while those good paying factory jobs moved to Mexico, SE Asia, and other
sources of cheap labor while applauding 'free trade'. Never forget
while Clinton signed the bill for the disaster called NAFTA, Bush 41 was
the one who started the ball rolling.

The GOP didn't facilitate the new world economy. It's been happening
on it's own, all along. At the end of WWII, the rest of the industrialized
world was in rubble and the US was the only manufacturing power house
in the world. No one could realistically expect that to continue.
We faced increasing competition starting with Japan, Taiwan, then China
South Korea, India. You can't stop economic development. And a lot
of the loss was due to American stupidity, both labor and management.
For example, initially Japan made cheap stuff that wasn't very good
quality. They worked to improve their quality and before long, it
was second to none. MEanwhile Detroit ignored it, management didn't
deliver what it's customer's wanted and the unions with their high
labor costs and ridiculous work rules sealed the deal. Would we be
better off still buying crap cars from Detroit?

Here's what a paper from Trump's alma mater has to say about NAFTA,
and it's a mixed pictu

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...utweigh-costs/

Per trader_4:
They just identify with him because he's
tapped into their "mad as hell" outlook.

I also think he has a lock on the white
supremacist/racist/anti-everything-but-WASP vote.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per trader_4:
I think you're the exception, because polls for months have shown
that Cruz is even in a match up with Clinton, while Trump loses
by 10 points.

Oh well.... Won't be the first time...-)

--
Pete Cresswell

Per rbowman:
If you believe the polls, only Kasich has a chance and it will take some
intriguing to make him the nominee.

Kasich is the only one who I have not heard say anything so crazy that I
would have to sit down and figure out whether he actually believes it or
is just pandering to "The Base".

What I am hearing so far here is that Cruz is marginally less unlikable
than Clinton.... and that does seems kind of weak to me.

Clinton is by no means likeable - but at least she isn't saying crazy
stuff like we ought to reneg on international agreements when the
presidency changes (e.g. Iran nuclear) or that the is
"Christian first and an American second".... Really? Is there even a
word in the English language yet for WASP Sharia? Maybe
"Dominionism"... That's beyond crazy and drifting into the scary.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:24:57 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 06:36:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:16:51 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
That's nothing unusual. It's happened 10 times before with the GOP and
in 7 of those cases, the candidate with the most delegates did not wind up
the nominee.

Yes but..... My understanding is that Trump has the means and
inclination to run on a third-party ticket - and thus torpedo the GOP's
chances of winning.
--
Pete Cresswell

It's certainly possible. I wonder what the Trumpies think of that?
Suppose Trump winds up at the convention, doesn't have 1237, and the
convention chooses Cruz. Do most of the Trumpies think Trump should
run as an independent? I would think many of them are so delusional
that they would believe Trump would win if he did.

No one thinks a third party candidate can win.

No one? Not a single Trumpie? Trump himself? He believes all
kinds of nutty things, like thousands and thousands of Arabs were
celebrating in JC on 9/11 and that the president can make killing
a cop a death penalty offense with an exec order, he thinks everything
he does comes up winners, so why can't he believe he could win as
an independent?


The issue is, do the
reps hate trump so much that they will deny the PEOPLE CHOICE (Trump)
the nomination and instead hand pick one of the losers?

Picking Cruz or even Kasich is not denying the people's choice. It's
following rules that have worked for 150 years. If the rule was that
whoever get to the convention with the most delegates is the nominee,
well then that would be the rule. It isn't and for good reason. If
you can't win over half the delegates, something is wrong.



If they do
Trump has the power to make sure the reps lose the election. The
options for the RNC are to nominate Trump, the guy that MOST of the
PEOPLE want, then get behind him and hope to win in the general
OR
Screw Trump and if that makes him run third party be assured that
Hillary (or Bernie if hillaries in jail) wins the general.

So, you think if Trump shows up with less than 1237 and the convention
picks Cruz on the second or third ballot, following the established
rules, Trump should behave like a petulant child and screw the election
for the GOP?

Poor little Trump. He's running around whining now about how 10 delegates
in Louisiana went to Cruz. He's the tough guy that knows how to win.
He's the guy that's gonna beat China, Mexico, ISIS. But he can't even
win some of those ten delegates, because he just ignored the rules,
the procedure, and the process in Louisiana after the primary. Cruz didn't, had his guys on the ground and picked up the 10. Five of those were
Rubio delegates, five were delegates at large. That's what's going to happen
to Trump if he gets to the convention with less than the 1237. He'll
lose a few hundred delegates on the second ballot, poof they're gone.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:08:52 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
If you believe the polls, only Kasich has a chance and it will take some
intriguing to make him the nominee.

Kasich is the only one who I have not heard say anything so crazy that I
would have to sit down and figure out whether he actually believes it or
is just pandering to "The Base".

What I am hearing so far here is that Cruz is marginally less unlikable
than Clinton.... and that does seems kind of weak to me.

Clinton is by no means likeable - but at least she isn't saying crazy
stuff

She thinks that with her track record of failure as sec of state,
she's the most qualified to be president. That's about as crazy
as it gets. Or how about what she won't say, eg "Islamic terrorists"?
"Illegal aliens"? She thinks more of the same policies of the past
7 years will produce different results with another 4 or 8. That's
pretty insane.




like we ought to reneg on international agreements when the
presidency changes (e.g. Iran nuclear)

I don't see anyone saying we should renege on all international agreements,
just that bad one in particular. But I would agree that Cruz is wrong to say
that he would just abandon it on day one. It's a bad deal that never should
have been made. But Jan 2017, Iran will already have gotten what they
wanted, ie trade sanctions lifted, $150 bil returned, etc. What we have
left to get are inspections and compliance. While it's a very bad agreement,
I don't see any upside to cancelling it, ie what we have to gain at that
point. It's going to be nearly impossible to get our allies on board
with new trade sanctions, etc. In reality, I think when Cruz gets together
with his foreign policy and national security team, that's one campaign
promise that's likely to go out the window.

On 4/3/16 5:24 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:


No one thinks a third party candidate can win. The issue is, do the
reps hate trump so much that they will deny the PEOPLE CHOICE (Trump)
the nomination and instead hand pick one of the losers? If they do
Trump has the power to make sure the reps lose the election. The
options for the RNC are to nominate Trump, the guy that MOST of the
PEOPLE want, then get behind him and hope to win in the general
OR
Screw Trump and if that makes him run third party be assured that
Hillary (or Bernie if hillaries in jail) wins the general.

The main problem with that theory is that Trump HASN"T been the
people's choice. He hasn't gotten much more than 40% or so of the vote
and you need to 50% to win the nomination. So far more people have NOT
voted for him than have voted for him. Now that the field is getting
smaller it will be interesting to see if his vote percentage ticks up or
he stays at around 40% or so,

Per trader_4:
Clinton is by no means likeable - but at least she isn't saying crazy
stuff

She thinks that with her track record of failure as sec of state,
she's the most qualified to be president. That's about as crazy
as it gets. Or how about what she won't say, eg "Islamic terrorists"?
"Illegal aliens"? She thinks more of the same policies of the past
7 years will produce different results with another 4 or 8. That's
pretty insane.

But those are more like differences of opinion and political
expediencies than what I would call "Crazy".

In fact, I would not call very many of the things people of differing
outlooks say - even so I strongly disagree with them - "Crazy".

But "Christian first, American second"? Ok, I didn't say it quite
right beforehand.... I should have said that is *both* crazy *and*
scary.

Reneging on an agreement by the prior POTUS? The merits of that
agreement aside, how in the world is any succeeding POTUS going to be
able to negotiate any agreement with any other country if honoring of
the agreement depends on whether-or-not the following POTUS thinks it
was a good idea?

Ditto the use of the Egyptian pyramids by King David as grain storage
facilities.... Ditto the notion that The Earth is less than 10,000 years
old.... Ditto the notion that men walked with dinosaurs.... Yeah, he's
finally out of the race... but he had followers that ate that stuff up
and that stuff I call "Crazy".

There is a technical word for this thing that I have sloppily been using
"Crazy" for... but I have been unable to find it. The idea is that
there are ideas/facts that are so well established that nobody in their
right mind disputes them. The earth is flat...period... end of case.
Pedophilia is bad..... Period....End of case.... These things are not
debatable by sane people.

And discussing the genitalia of presidential candidates - BY THE
CANDIDATES, on national TV, yet ??? Ok... that's not crazy... but
it's something else that I don't have the words for - except maybe
"Professional Wrestling Comes To American Politics....

Taking Ryan at his word, I think the GOP is back to Kasich.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 04/03/2016 03:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The GOP didn't facilitate the new world economy. It's been happening
on it's own, all along. At the end of WWII, the rest of the industrialized
world was in rubble and the US was the only manufacturing power house
in the world. No one could realistically expect that to continue.
We faced increasing competition starting with Japan, Taiwan, then China
South Korea, India. You can't stop economic development. And a lot
of the loss was due to American stupidity, both labor and management.

http://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/w-edwards-deming

There definitely was a lot of stupidity. And in Europe there was the
Marshall Plan, a bipartisan favorite. One nice thing about having your
manufacturing base in rubble is you have to buy new machinery. In the
late 60's, a lot of US machinery that had be acquired during the WWII
production boom was nearing its end of life. However, instead of
investing in capital equipment, many US companies chose a rebuild of
worn out equipment prior to sending to some place where labor was cheap.
It looks a lot better to the stockholders; no expensive new machinery
and very cheap labor. What's not to like when the time horizon for your
planning is the next quarter?

Here's what a paper from Trump's alma mater has to say about NAFTA,
and it's a mixed pictu

For the 1400 people in Indianapolis who will be laid off when Carrier
moves their production to Monterrey, it's not a mixed picture at all.

On 04/03/2016 04:28 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Picking Cruz or even Kasich is not denying the people's choice. It's
following rules that have worked for 150 years. If the rule was that
whoever get to the convention with the most delegates is the nominee,
well then that would be the rule. It isn't and for good reason. If
you can't win over half the delegates, something is wrong.

Rules? The ones the RNC makes up as they go along? Rule 40(b) was
crafted to ensure Romney would not be challenged, but now Rule 40is
highly inconvenient. Want to bet that 'temporary' rule gets temporarily
misplace until the next time the RNC needs it? Or maybe a nifty new rule
like delegates from states with open primaries won't be seated?

On 04/03/2016 03:59 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
They just identify with him because he's
tapped into their "mad as hell" outlook.

I also think he has a lock on the white
supremacist/racist/anti-everything-but-WASP vote.


Yeah, he probably doesn't do well among the 'whites are exploitative
slave masters who owe us reparations' crowd.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 11:47:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 04/03/2016 03:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The GOP didn't facilitate the new world economy. It's been happening
on it's own, all along. At the end of WWII, the rest of the industrialized
world was in rubble and the US was the only manufacturing power house
in the world. No one could realistically expect that to continue.
We faced increasing competition starting with Japan, Taiwan, then China
South Korea, India. You can't stop economic development. And a lot
of the loss was due to American stupidity, both labor and management.

http://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/w-edwards-deming

There definitely was a lot of stupidity. And in Europe there was the
Marshall Plan, a bipartisan favorite.

And about this, which there is almost universal agreement was not
only the moral thing, but a great American humanitarian achievement,
a hallmark of our being America, you have a problem?


One nice thing about having your
manufacturing base in rubble is you have to buy new machinery. In the
late 60's, a lot of US machinery that had be acquired during the WWII
production boom was nearing its end of life. However, instead of
investing in capital equipment, many US companies chose a rebuild of
worn out equipment prior to sending to some place where labor was cheap.
It looks a lot better to the stockholders; no expensive new machinery
and very cheap labor. What's not to like when the time horizon for your
planning is the next quarter?

Here's what a paper from Trump's alma mater has to say about NAFTA,
and it's a mixed pictu

For the 1400 people in Indianapolis who will be laid off when Carrier
moves their production to Monterrey, it's not a mixed picture at all.

Sure, if you only look at the one side and refuse to look at the
plus side of ledger. The same one sided argument could be made
when carriage makers lost their jobs too.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 11:54:25 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 04/03/2016 04:28 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Picking Cruz or even Kasich is not denying the people's choice. It's
following rules that have worked for 150 years. If the rule was that
whoever get to the convention with the most delegates is the nominee,
well then that would be the rule. It isn't and for good reason. If
you can't win over half the delegates, something is wrong.

Rules? The ones the RNC makes up as they go along? Rule 40(b) was
crafted to ensure Romney would not be challenged, but now Rule 40is
highly inconvenient. Want to bet that 'temporary' rule gets temporarily
misplace until the next time the RNC needs it? Or maybe a nifty new rule
like delegates from states with open primaries won't be seated?

The rule isn't really that big of a deal. It apparently only applies to a
candidate having their name formally placed into nomination and with
it the right for the candidate to give a speech. The delegates are
free to vote for any candidate anyway.

On 04/04/2016 06:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
And about this, which there is almost universal agreement was not
only the moral thing, but a great American humanitarian achievement,
a hallmark of our being America, you have a problem?

Great humanitarian achievement my aching ass. After the US realized our
former pal Stalin wasn't such a pal anymore, they had to rebuild Europe
to offset the USSR. The Morgenthau plan and the the Allied industrial
policy was to reduce Germany to a peaceful 16th century pastoral nation.
Then they realized the only thing standing between Britain and the USSR
was Germany and France. Given France's track record that wasn't very
comforting.

It was on a par with the current expansion of NATO eastwards. We're
going to put missiles in Poland to defend against a non-existent Iranian
threat? ****ing down Putin's back and telling him that it's raining
won't work.

When the US starts talking about humanitarian interests I start to
wonder who is going to get screwed next.

On 04/04/2016 06:15 AM, trader_4 wrote:
The rule isn't really that big of a deal. It apparently only applies to a
candidate having their name formally placed into nomination and with
it the right for the candidate to give a speech. The delegates are
free to vote for any candidate anyway.

Right. They just happened to invent it in case Ron Paul became a
nuisance and took the spotlight from their fair haired loser.

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:54:27 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

Rules? The ones the RNC makes up as they go along? Rule 40(b) was
crafted to ensure Romney would not be challenged, but now Rule 40is
highly inconvenient. Want to bet that 'temporary' rule gets temporarily
misplace until the next time the RNC needs it? Or maybe a nifty new rule
like delegates from states with open primaries won't be seated?

John Sununu explains:

_How Republican National Convention rules are decided_

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4830483258001/how-republican-national-convention-rules-are-decided/?playlist_id=903354961001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/jsf9xd9

On 04/04/2016 09:20 AM, Oren wrote:
John Sununu explains:

I lived in NH when his father was governor. He wasn't bad as governor
but then he got above himself. Supposedly he convinced GHWB to go back
on 'no new taxes' and talked him into appointing Souter. Hopefully not
too much rubbed off on the kid.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Good grief, you really are in the wilderness.

Trump will have a new target.

_Scorching editorial: Trump 'unfit to be president'_

....David Haynes, editorial page editor for The Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4832584552001/scorching-editorial-trump-unfit-to-be-president/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/jchuh3r

Cruz will win WI

On 04/05/2016 01:09 PM, Oren wrote:
Cruz will win WI

Shrug. Trump isn't going to get the nomination even if the RNC has to
hire the ghost of Lee Harvey. The important news is the bitch lost.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 3:09:51 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Good grief, you really are in the wilderness.

Trump will have a new target.

_Scorching editorial: Trump 'unfit to be president'_

...David Haynes, editorial page editor for The Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4832584552001/scorching-editorial-trump-unfit-to-be-president/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/jchuh3r

Cruz will win WI

He has, with a decisive victory! One very important step forward.

The MJS editorial has Trump figured out, what you and I saw from when
he entered the race. The clown act continues though. Now he's
had Melania making speeches for him. I wonder how her heavy
Slovenian accent will play with some of the uneducated, xenophobic
Trumpies? And then in the first speech she said that we need
more immigrants:


"As long as you come here legally and get a proper job ... We need immigrants. Who's going to vacuum our living rooms and clean up after us? Americans don't like to do that,"

So which is it now? Trump has said we need to stop the flow of
immigrants because they are taking jobs. He said we need to halt
H1B Visas. Then he said we need more of those H1Bs, especially for
high tech. Now the wife says we need immigrants to clean up after us.
Can these two possibly be any more incompetent and tone deaf?

And once again, demonstrating his character and temperament, this is
what he said when he lost last night:


"Lyin' Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC's spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC's (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet-- he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. "

It's surreal. This is the clown that says he's going to unite the party,
will be presidential, etc. What a great strategy to win over
voters. You think maybe that's why he's stuck at ~45% and won't get
any further?

Did you see the latest really, really dumb thing he did yesterday?
He said he will fund the wall by giving Mexico a choice. Either a
one time payment of $10bil by Mexico or he will seize the money being
sent from the USA to Mexico by the immigrants working here. And how
is he going to do it? He says he can use the Patriot Act. Unbelievable.
the clown is a caricature of what libs would like people to believe
conservatives are. This is exactly what a lot of people are afraid
of, that instead of being used for it's intended purpose, the PA will
be used way beyond what it was intended for. Even worse, I had the
radio on and was listening to Rush. Instead of talking about this,
he was on the usual "establishment" rant, defending Trump. He finally
took a call, where a guy said basically, My God Rush, this isn't
conservatism, this is big govt at it's worst, how can Trump do that,
and why aren't you opposed to it?
Rush laughed, said there is no problem, of course Trump could use the
PA to seize the Mexican's money. Trump has done one thing, which is
help identify who the real conservatives are, that understand our principles
and who are the clueless rabble rousers. Clearly Rush, Hannity, O'reilly
are in the latter camp. George Will, Krauthammer, Levin and a whole
bunch more get it.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:05:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/jchuh3r

Cruz will win WI

He has, with a decisive victory! One very important step forward.

The MJS editorial has Trump figured out, what you and I saw from when
he entered the race. The clown act continues though.

What we've been saying all a long. Written in a open letter to Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/06/open-letter-to-donald-trump-from-ari-fleischer-five-things-need-to-do-now.html?intcmp=hphz05

https://tinyurl.com/jn2yncd

Nailed it...

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:05:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/jchuh3r

Cruz will win WI

He has, with a decisive victory! One very important step forward.

The MJS editorial has Trump figured out, what you and I saw from when
he entered the race. The clown act continues though.

What we've been saying all a long. Written in a open letter to Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/06/open-letter-to-donald-trump-from-ari-fleischer-five-things-need-to-do-now.html?intcmp=hphz05

https://tinyurl.com/jn2yncd

Nailed it...

+1

Good find. Ari is saying the same things. Two problems with the advice
that he's giving now though. One is that it's too late. You and I have
seen what Trump is all about and like so many others, made up our minds.
Even if he had a miraculous change, it would not repeal what he's already
said, done. How do you undo mimicking the body movements of a disabled
reporter to attack them? It goes to the core of your character, who you
really are. And second, Trump won't listen to any of it anyway. People
have been telling him this for months. Even Melania has said she's told
him to act more presidential.

Exit polls in WI showed that one third of GOP voters said they will never
vote for Trump. You can't win the general election with that, and you
likely can't win the nomination either. Trump is right where he's been
for months now, stalled at 35%, while Cruz has been steadily gaining.

Oren posted for all of us...



On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:05:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/jchuh3r

Cruz will win WI

He has, with a decisive victory! One very important step forward.

The MJS editorial has Trump figured out, what you and I saw from when
he entered the race. The clown act continues though.

What we've been saying all a long. Written in a open letter to Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/06/open-letter-to-donald-trump-from-ari-fleischer-five-things-need-to-do-now.html?intcmp=hphz05

https://tinyurl.com/jn2yncd

Nailed it...

I think so. He has to leave the word "great" behind. Has to move from
outsider to CANDIDATE.

--
Tekkie