On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:58:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:56:56 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

No, I don't think Trump is a hero. I think very very few so-called
heroes are hero's.. most are just doing their job.

I guess you've never faced danger or when a correctional officer stood
and witnessed, intervened in a brutal stabbing, at risk to
him/herself. Or another similar person in any capacity faced threat of
death in real time. Keep digging, the hole gets deep. Maybe you had a
horse kick you once? Tragic danger. I'm not sure you would know
heroics if you saw it.

They are doing their job. Doing what you were hired to do doesn't
make you a hero. If the guard threw himself on a bomb to save 4 other
people, that would make him a hero because throwing yourself on a bomb
is NOT what you are hired to do. But "keeping the peace" IS what they
are hired to do.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 5:45:28 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:58:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:56:56 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

No, I don't think Trump is a hero. I think very very few so-called
heroes are hero's.. most are just doing their job.

I guess you've never faced danger or when a correctional officer stood
and witnessed, intervened in a brutal stabbing, at risk to
him/herself. Or another similar person in any capacity faced threat of
death in real time. Keep digging, the hole gets deep. Maybe you had a
horse kick you once? Tragic danger. I'm not sure you would know
heroics if you saw it.

They are doing their job. Doing what you were hired to do doesn't
make you a hero. If the guard threw himself on a bomb to save 4 other
people, that would make him a hero because throwing yourself on a bomb
is NOT what you are hired to do. But "keeping the peace" IS what they
are hired to do.

Let's stick to the facts. Flying 23 combat missions over North Vietnam is sufficient to make anyone a hero in my book. If anyone at a public forum
said any of the naval aviators that flew those missions was a hero, I
would not jump up and say "No, they are not" or try to start a debate of who
is and who is not a war hero. What kind of lowlife does it take to launch
that kind of attack? Trump, who used it to attack McCain. It's
what Trump does. He did the same thing with that disabled reporter,
mimicking his disabilities in front of one of his rallies. Was that
cool with you too, would you sit there and watch, laugh instead
of walking out? And to top it off, while McCain
served, was shot down, tortured, and still suffers from disabilities from
his injuries today, Trump avoided the draft with student deferments and
an alleged bum foot that he can no longer remember. For him to say
that John McCain is no war hero may represent you and your values,
I find it shocking and despicable.

Speaking of walking out, that's what some of the folks did last night
at a Trump rally in Wisconsin when Trump started attacking Paul Ryan
and Governor Walker. Here is the guy that's calling for party unity,
and he goes around the state these two Republicans are from, attacking
them. Real smart. Last night he spent the first 10 mins of the GOP
town hall attacking and continuing to vilify Michelle Fields when it's
now be proven via videotape and audio recording that her account of
what happened is basically true. When the story of Lewandowski grabbing
her arm came up, he could have manned up and apologized. Instead he
followed the Trump method. He lied, saying he never touched her and
then he called her a liar, delusional, etc. He even questioned why
if it really happened, did she not report it to the police. So, she
obliged. And now with the video and audio, we know for !00% sure
that Lewandowski was lying. So, again following the Trump method,
he goes on to the next lie, now saying that OK, he did grab her,
but it was because she was a threat to Trump. This is the culture
that Trump has cultivated and it's not a good thing. And today,
Trump is campaigning all over Wisconsin, discussing this whole thing,
continuing to vilify the woman, give a total pass to his lying
campaign manager, etc. Like the voters want to hear another day of
this crap. You heard this here first, Trump will lose Wisconsin.
I think just maybe the Trump freak show has seen it's peak.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Let's stick to the facts. Flying 23 combat missions over North Vietnam is sufficient to make anyone a hero in my book. If anyone at a public forum
said any of the naval aviators that flew those missions was a hero, I
would not jump up and say "No, they are not" or try to start a debate of who
is and who is not a war hero. What kind of lowlife does it take to launch
that kind of attack? Trump, who used it to attack McCain. It's
what Trump does. He did the same thing with that disabled reporter,
mimicking his disabilities in front of one of his rallies. Was that
cool with you too, would you sit there and watch, laugh instead
of walking out? And to top it off, while McCain
served, was shot down, tortured, and still suffers from disabilities from
his injuries today, Trump avoided the draft with student deferments and
an alleged bum foot that he can no longer remember. For him to say
that John McCain is no war hero may represent you and your values,
I find it shocking and despicable.

Speaking of walking out, that's what some of the folks did last night
at a Trump rally in Wisconsin when Trump started attacking Paul Ryan
and Governor Walker. Here is the guy that's calling for party unity,
and he goes around the state these two Republicans are from, attacking
them. Real smart. Last night he spent the first 10 mins of the GOP
town hall attacking and continuing to vilify Michelle Fields when it's
now be proven via videotape and audio recording that her account of
what happened is basically true. When the story of Lewandowski grabbing
her arm came up, he could have manned up and apologized. Instead he
followed the Trump method. He lied, saying he never touched her and
then he called her a liar, delusional, etc. He even questioned why
if it really happened, did she not report it to the police. So, she
obliged. And now with the video and audio, we know for !00% sure
that Lewandowski was lying. So, again following the Trump method,
he goes on to the next lie, now saying that OK, he did grab her,
but it was because she was a threat to Trump. This is the culture
that Trump has cultivated and it's not a good thing. And today,
Trump is campaigning all over Wisconsin, discussing this whole thing,
continuing to vilify the woman, give a total pass to his lying
campaign manager, etc. Like the voters want to hear another day of
this crap. You heard this here first, Trump will lose Wisconsin.
I think just maybe the Trump freak show has seen it's peak.

Fully agree. Trump even made snide remarks about Charles Krauthammer,
something like "the man can't put on his paints" of similar. Charles
is paralyzed and in a wheel chair from a pool diving injury.

Yes, Cruz will stomp Trump in Wisconsin by large numbers. Trump is the
modern day Judas seeking his pieces of silver. Spit.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 6:59:53 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Let's stick to the facts. Flying 23 combat missions over North Vietnam is sufficient to make anyone a hero in my book. If anyone at a public forum
said any of the naval aviators that flew those missions was a hero, I
would not jump up and say "No, they are not" or try to start a debate of who
is and who is not a war hero. What kind of lowlife does it take to launch
that kind of attack? Trump, who used it to attack McCain. It's
what Trump does. He did the same thing with that disabled reporter,
mimicking his disabilities in front of one of his rallies. Was that
cool with you too, would you sit there and watch, laugh instead
of walking out? And to top it off, while McCain
served, was shot down, tortured, and still suffers from disabilities from
his injuries today, Trump avoided the draft with student deferments and
an alleged bum foot that he can no longer remember. For him to say
that John McCain is no war hero may represent you and your values,
I find it shocking and despicable.

Speaking of walking out, that's what some of the folks did last night
at a Trump rally in Wisconsin when Trump started attacking Paul Ryan
and Governor Walker. Here is the guy that's calling for party unity,
and he goes around the state these two Republicans are from, attacking
them. Real smart. Last night he spent the first 10 mins of the GOP
town hall attacking and continuing to vilify Michelle Fields when it's
now be proven via videotape and audio recording that her account of
what happened is basically true. When the story of Lewandowski grabbing
her arm came up, he could have manned up and apologized. Instead he
followed the Trump method. He lied, saying he never touched her and
then he called her a liar, delusional, etc. He even questioned why
if it really happened, did she not report it to the police. So, she
obliged. And now with the video and audio, we know for !00% sure
that Lewandowski was lying. So, again following the Trump method,
he goes on to the next lie, now saying that OK, he did grab her,
but it was because she was a threat to Trump. This is the culture
that Trump has cultivated and it's not a good thing. And today,
Trump is campaigning all over Wisconsin, discussing this whole thing,
continuing to vilify the woman, give a total pass to his lying
campaign manager, etc. Like the voters want to hear another day of
this crap. You heard this here first, Trump will lose Wisconsin.
I think just maybe the Trump freak show has seen it's peak.

Fully agree. Trump even made snide remarks about Charles Krauthammer,
something like "the man can't put on his paints" of similar. Charles
is paralyzed and in a wheel chair from a pool diving injury.

Yes, Cruz will stomp Trump in Wisconsin by large numbers. Trump is the
modern day Judas seeking his pieces of silver. Spit.

Latest breaking news is that new polls in Wisconsin has Cruz at 40,
Trump at 30, Kasich 21. Looks like all the Rubio voters went to
Cruz and Kasich. Trump was at 30 a month ago.

In the last 24 hours, Trump has:

Continued to go around talking about Lewandowski, continuing to attack
and go after Michelle Fields, while totally ignoring that clearly
Lewandowski is a total liar. Lewandowski said he never even touched
her. Now the video and audio show he's a liar. Best part to that is
that the video came from Trump National's security camera. Now, how
smart is it to start calling the woman a liar, delusional, without
checking the video that you have at a facility you control? ROFL.
This is the management skill that's going to solve problems, bring
people together, make America great. This whole thing would have
been solved the first day by a simple apology from Lewandowski.
Instead, they followed the Trump management methods, lie, attack and
question why if the woman was telling the truth she had not filed a
police report. So, she did what I would do at that point. She obliged
them and filed. Does team Trump feel better now?

Reinforced his position that NATO is obsolete, useless, saying that
we should withdraw from it, Russians in Ukraine, etc don't matter.

Advocated encouraging Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
When asked how about Saudi Arabia? He said that was OK too. He went
from saying he was in favor of controlling nuclear proliferation to
saying that it doesn't matter, soon everyone will have them.

Said that a woman should be punished for having an illegal abortion,
then 24 hours later completely reversed himself on that.

I wonder how many people noticed his answer at the town hall about
how his path to great wealth was enabled by his father. He said,
"I started out with very little. All my father did was loan me
$1 mil". Adjusted for inflation, that's about $4 mil today. And
then he said his father's assets, which he later inherited, were
not that much. He was a builder in Brooklyn and Queens, not
Manhattan. I've seen estimates that it was ~$40 mil that he
inherited. I guess unless it's Manhattan scale wealth, it just
doesn't matter to the Donald.

He also managed to say "excuse me" 18 times in an hour to Anderson
Cooper. Probably qualifies for some kind of record. A person in
the audience asked him to give an example of when he apologized for
something. He meandered, "I'll apologize when I'm wrong".
When finally pressed by AC to give an example, he said he remembers
apologizing to his mother for using cuss words. Wow, only example
is from 60 years ago. I guess Michelle Fields or Heidi Cruz won't
be getting an apology anytime soon.

On 03/31/2016 07:35 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Reinforced his position that NATO is obsolete, useless, saying that
we should withdraw from it, Russians in Ukraine, etc don't matter.

NATO is obsolete. Eisenhower thought the US should withdraw after the
European nations got back on their feet and could handle their own
defense. Instead, after the breakup of the USSR, the US spearheaded the
effort to suck in the former satellite republics, right up the the
Russian border. Clinton and here minions engineered the situation in
Ukraine.

Many of the European nations see Russia as a worthwhile trading power,
not a threat. However the entrenched bureaucracy in the US is still
fighting the Cold War. There's money to be made. To justify a mess like
the F-35, which has more software bugs that Windows 10, you need an enemy.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:07:46 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 03/31/2016 07:35 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Reinforced his position that NATO is obsolete, useless, saying that
we should withdraw from it, Russians in Ukraine, etc don't matter.

NATO is obsolete. Eisenhower thought the US should withdraw after the
European nations got back on their feet and could handle their own
defense. Instead, after the breakup of the USSR, the US spearheaded the
effort to suck in the former satellite republics, right up the the
Russian border. Clinton and here minions engineered the situation in
Ukraine.

Many of the European nations see Russia as a worthwhile trading power,
not a threat. However the entrenched bureaucracy in the US is still
fighting the Cold War. There's money to be made. To justify a mess like
the F-35, which has more software bugs that Windows 10, you need an enemy.

Sure, and I suppose those Russian troops that invaded half of Ukraine,
shot down MH17 are just there for a picnic, right? Wise up. We're
only at the point of a new Cold War because of Putin. And if that's
not the case, why are all those trading partners in Europe on board
with sanctions? Would be easy to just say, Go Putin Go!

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:58:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:56:56 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

No, I don't think Trump is a hero. I think very very few so-called
heroes are hero's.. most are just doing their job.

I guess you've never faced danger or when a correctional officer stood
and witnessed, intervened in a brutal stabbing, at risk to
him/herself. Or another similar person in any capacity faced threat of
death in real time. Keep digging, the hole gets deep. Maybe you had a
horse kick you once? Tragic danger. I'm not sure you would know
heroics if you saw it.

They are doing their job. Doing what you were hired to do doesn't
make you a hero. If the guard threw himself on a bomb to save 4 other
people, that would make him a hero because throwing yourself on a bomb
is NOT what you are hired to do. But "keeping the peace" IS what they
are hired to do.

I have the same view as AC. I definitely don't like the way the media and the rest of the Reps & Dems are all ganging up on Trump. That sounds like a conspiracy to me.

I just heard an interview with the guy running the "stop Trump" campaign in Calif. The question was - if so many people are voting for Trump, why do you want to stop him? And he never answered - he just kept saying 'we can't let him win' in various ways. And the reporter let him get away with it.

To me, Cruz looks good on paper and has the establishment Repo's behind him. I think the way he handled the Inquirer story did him in, though. Unless he comes out and says straight out that he did not have the affairs, he's toast.

Right now, I'm leaning toward Kasich because I don't think Clinton is seen as being trustworthy and a Sanders win could send the economy into a tailspin followed by a massive movement of capital and factories moving offshore.

So.... I've voting for Kasich. Looking at nearly all of the polls in a Kasich-Clinton or Kasich-Sanders race, Kasich is by far the winner.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/

"Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney" wrote in message ...
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:58:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:56:56 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

No, I don't think Trump is a hero. I think very very few so-called
heroes are hero's.. most are just doing their job.

I guess you've never faced danger or when a correctional officer stood
and witnessed, intervened in a brutal stabbing, at risk to
him/herself. Or another similar person in any capacity faced threat of
death in real time. Keep digging, the hole gets deep. Maybe you had a
horse kick you once? Tragic danger. I'm not sure you would know
heroics if you saw it.

They are doing their job. Doing what you were hired to do doesn't
make you a hero. If the guard threw himself on a bomb to save 4 other
people, that would make him a hero because throwing yourself on a bomb
is NOT what you are hired to do. But "keeping the peace" IS what they
are hired to do.

I have the same view as AC. I definitely don't like the way the media and the rest of the Reps & Dems are all ganging up on Trump. That sounds like a conspiracy to me.

I just heard an interview with the guy running the "stop Trump" campaign in Calif. The question was - if so many people are voting for Trump, why do you want to stop him? And he never answered - he just kept saying 'we can't let him win' in various ways. And the reporter let him get away with it.

To me, Cruz looks good on paper and has the establishment Repo's behind him. I think the way he handled the Inquirer story did him in, though. Unless he comes out and says straight out that he did not have the affairs, he's toast.

Right now, I'm leaning toward Kasich because I don't think Clinton is seen as being trustworthy and a Sanders win could send the economy into a tailspin followed by a massive movement of capital and factories moving offshore.

So.... I've voting for Kasich. Looking at nearly all of the polls in a Kasich-Clinton or Kasich-Sanders race, Kasich is by far the winner.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/

----

Forgot to say.... one side is down on Trump for supposedly dealing with the mob-controlled unions. The other side is down about how he supposedly hired non-union laborers to build Trump Tower. The old boy can't win.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 06:35:02 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Latest breaking news is that new polls in Wisconsin has Cruz at 40,
Trump at 30, Kasich 21. Looks like all the Rubio voters went to
Cruz and Kasich. Trump was at 30 a month ago.

Betting odds are much higher number for Cruz in WI to win. 71.4% to
Trump's 21.4%.

Trump wins every thing trough March 26th. PA could be a problem for
him though because of the state laws. Delegates (some) are not bound
on the first convention ballot in July, IIUC.

The barn gets burned down in July

Karl Rove talks some numbers.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4825172882001/karl-rove-explains-how-a-contested-convention-would-work/?playlist_id=928378949001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/hwkmg5d

Per Oren:
Trump wins every thing trough March 26th. PA could be a problem for
him though because of the state laws. Delegates (some) are not bound
on the first convention ballot in July, IIUC.

The barn gets burned down in July

Are there any critical "make-or-break" dates coming up within the next
couple of weeks? i.e. If the cards fall in his favor, could Trump
become a done deal anytime soon.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
Are there any critical "make-or-break" dates coming up within the next
couple of weeks? i.e. If the cards fall in his favor, could Trump
become a done deal anytime soon.

My understanding is that he needs 501 votes and 902 remain
uncommitted...so that's 55%... but I have no clue where the
numbers/dates are...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:12:07 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Oren:
Trump wins every thing trough March 26th. PA could be a problem for
him though because of the state laws. Delegates (some) are not bound
on the first convention ballot in July, IIUC.

The barn gets burned down in July

Are there any critical "make-or-break" dates coming up within the next
couple of weeks? i.e. If the cards fall in his favor, could Trump
become a done deal anytime soon.

I'm not sure of delegate numbers through March 26th. Haven't looked.

The critical date is in November. Odds say Hillary will beat Trump.
Cruz can beat her in some media polls, though.

I'm sticking with the Cruz Missile. Aside, its hard for a party to win
the White House three terms? Didn't Bush 41 make the most recent
exception?

FBI Director, James Comey will be the Interrogator on Hillary really
soon. Let her tell one lie or mislead an agent like Martha Stewart
did. Off to the pokey she goes.

On 03/31/2016 02:05 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
Right now, I'm leaning toward Kasich because I don't think Clinton is seen as being trustworthy and a Sanders win could send the economy into a tailspin followed by a massive movement of capital and factories moving offshore.

You mean like the massive movement of capital and factories that moved
off shore under every president since GHWB?

On 03/31/2016 03:42 PM, Oren wrote:
I'm sticking with the Cruz Missile. Aside, its hard for a party to win
the White House three terms? Didn't Bush 41 make the most recent
exception?

The Democrats gift wrapped Dukakis and gave him to the Republicans. Gore
tied the bow when he brought up the MA furlough program. I don't think
Gore ever specifically said 'Willie Horton' but Lee A****er did every
chance he got.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 19:20:46 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 03/31/2016 03:42 PM, Oren wrote:
I'm sticking with the Cruz Missile. Aside, its hard for a party to win
the White House three terms? Didn't Bush 41 make the most recent
exception?

The Democrats gift wrapped Dukakis and gave him to the Republicans. Gore
tied the bow when he brought up the MA furlough program. I don't think
Gore ever specifically said 'Willie Horton' but Lee A****er did every
chance he got.

Politicians eat each other. Harry Reid told a Muslin Democrat not to
run in Nevada.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-4, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:58:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:56:56 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

No, I don't think Trump is a hero. I think very very few so-called
heroes are hero's.. most are just doing their job.

I guess you've never faced danger or when a correctional officer stood
and witnessed, intervened in a brutal stabbing, at risk to
him/herself. Or another similar person in any capacity faced threat of
death in real time. Keep digging, the hole gets deep. Maybe you had a
horse kick you once? Tragic danger. I'm not sure you would know
heroics if you saw it.

They are doing their job. Doing what you were hired to do doesn't
make you a hero. If the guard threw himself on a bomb to save 4 other
people, that would make him a hero because throwing yourself on a bomb
is NOT what you are hired to do. But "keeping the peace" IS what they
are hired to do.

I have the same view as AC. I definitely don't like the way the media and the rest of the Reps & Dems are all ganging up on Trump. That sounds like a conspiracy to me.


And it has nothing at all to do with what Trump is saying, Trump is doing, etc,
right? I've provided a long list of the specifics of why Trump isn't a
real Republican, isn't a conservative, isn't fit to be president. Am I
part of that conspiracy too?



I just heard an interview with the guy running the "stop Trump" campaign in Calif. The question was - if so many people are voting for Trump, why do you want to stop him? And he never answered - he just kept saying 'we can't let him win' in various ways. And the reporter let him get away with it.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:12:13 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
Trump wins every thing trough March 26th. PA could be a problem for
him though because of the state laws. Delegates (some) are not bound
on the first convention ballot in July, IIUC.

The barn gets burned down in July

Are there any critical "make-or-break" dates coming up within the next
couple of weeks? i.e. If the cards fall in his favor, could Trump
become a done deal anytime soon.
--
Pete Cresswell

April 19 is the NY primary. Losing that would break Trump, but that's
in the bag. He's ahead by 35 points. So, he'll lose big in WI, raising
questions, but that will be followed in 2 weeks by a big win in NY.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:33:13 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per (PeteCresswell):
Are there any critical "make-or-break" dates coming up within the next
couple of weeks? i.e. If the cards fall in his favor, could Trump
become a done deal anytime soon.

My understanding is that he needs 501 votes and 902 remain
uncommitted...so that's 55%... but I have no clue where the
numbers/dates are...
--
Pete Cresswell

Trump hasn't been winning at that rate so far, so at first it would
seem difficult. But the primaries from now on are almost all winner
take all type, so if he wins a state with only 40%, like he's been
doing, he will wind up with all or almost all the delegates for
that state instead of only getting ~40% of them when they are
proportional. Still, I think he won't make it to 1237.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:42:43 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:12:07 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Oren:
Trump wins every thing trough March 26th. PA could be a problem for
him though because of the state laws. Delegates (some) are not bound
on the first convention ballot in July, IIUC.

The barn gets burned down in July

Are there any critical "make-or-break" dates coming up within the next
couple of weeks? i.e. If the cards fall in his favor, could Trump
become a done deal anytime soon.

I'm not sure of delegate numbers through March 26th. Haven't looked.

The critical date is in November. Odds say Hillary will beat Trump.
Cruz can beat her in some media polls, though.


Right. Polls consistently show Cruz about even with Hillary. He wins
some by a few points, loses others by a few points. Which is fine for
this point in the race. And he doesn't have those huge negatives.
Polls show half the GOP has a negative view of Trump, as does 70% of
women, 85% of Latinos, etc.



I'm sticking with the Cruz Missile. Aside, its hard for a party to win
the White House three terms? Didn't Bush 41 make the most recent
exception?


That's right, since WWII Bush 41 is the only one and he was riding the
coattails of the hugely popular Reagan. That's what is so awful with
this election. It should be an easy win for the GOP, yet the party
has been torn apart, divided and you and I know why.


FBI Director, James Comey will be the Interrogator on Hillary really
soon. Let her tell one lie or mislead an agent like Martha Stewart
did. Off to the pokey she goes.

We'll see. I just hope that if they do have enough to indict her,
that it is so overwhelming that most reasonable people will see it.
The last thing we need is yet more division.

One interesting thing that could be indicative of more trouble for
her is that Pagliano, the state dept IT guy that ran her server while
working for the state dept, was a POLITICAL APPOINTEE. He's the
first guy in the history of the state dept IT department that was
a political appointee. Inquiring minds, like the FBI, would naturally
wonder why that would be, what the intent was, etc. In other words,
there could have been an intent to run the IT dept there for the
benefit of Hillary's personal needs, ambitions, etc, from day one.

On 04/01/2016 07:15 AM, trader_4 wrote:
And it has nothing at all to do with what Trump is saying, Trump is doing, etc,
right? I've provided a long list of the specifics of why Trump isn't a
real Republican, isn't a conservative, isn't fit to be president. Am I
part of that conspiracy too?

Yup.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 03/31/2016 02:05 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
Right now, I'm leaning toward Kasich because I don't think Clinton is seen as being trustworthy and a Sanders win could send the economy into a tailspin followed by a massive movement of capital and factories moving offshore.

You mean like the massive movement of capital and factories that moved
off shore under every president since GHWB?

We've been losing factories, jobs, overseas since the 60s. What happened
to the auto makers, for example, in the 70s with competition from Japan?
It's what happens when the world slowly changes, countries that were
rubble after WWII become economic powers.

Per trader_4:
, like he's been
doing, he will wind up with all or almost all the delegates for
that state instead of only getting ~40% of them when they are
proportional. Still, I think he won't make it to 1237.

All the pundits I have heard say that the situation is going to get
*really* "Interesting" if/when Trump goes in to the nominating
convention with, say, 1200 or 1175, delegates and they try to nominate
somebody else.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
, like he's been
doing, he will wind up with all or almost all the delegates for
that state instead of only getting ~40% of them when they are
proportional. Still, I think he won't make it to 1237.

All the pundits I have heard say that the situation is going to get
*really* "Interesting" if/when Trump goes in to the nominating
convention with, say, 1200 or 1175, delegates and they try to nominate
somebody else.
--
Pete Cresswell

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. The metric is there for a reason. As the race progresses,
as candidates drop out, if someone is a truly strong candidate that
the party can coalesce around, then they should be able to get to
50%+ of the delegates. If they can't then something is wrong.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:41:05 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

All the pundits I have heard say that the situation is going to get
*really* "Interesting" if/when Trump goes in to the nominating
convention with, say, 1200 or 1175, delegates and they try to nominate
somebody else.

He would need the 1237 delegates to be nominated on the first
convention ballot. Otherwise; it goes to a second ballot. Delegates
become increasingly unbound after each ballot. Some delegates in PA
are not bound on the first ballot. The none-Trump candidates /
delegates could release their delegates, so Cruz has more to gain. The
convention will also be nominating a Vice President.

Abe Lincoln was nominated on the third convention ballot

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:46:22 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:41:05 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

All the pundits I have heard say that the situation is going to get
*really* "Interesting" if/when Trump goes in to the nominating
convention with, say, 1200 or 1175, delegates and they try to nominate
somebody else.

He would need the 1237 delegates to be nominated on the first
convention ballot. Otherwise; it goes to a second ballot. Delegates
become increasingly unbound after each ballot. Some delegates in PA
are not bound on the first ballot. The none-Trump candidates /
delegates could release their delegates, so Cruz has more to gain. The
convention will also be nominating a Vice President.

Abe Lincoln was nominated on the third convention ballot

If Trump doesn't have 1237, he's screwed. Those delegates that represent
him are chosen not by Trump, but by the party officials in the states.
Those same folks that Trump has been complaining about, warring with
for months, etc. They are the traditional GOP. So you can be sure
that they will choose Trump delegates who will vote for him on the
first ballot and then switch on the second. I'd think Trump could
have 1150 on the first, 700 on the second. Trump's already seen
that happen in Louisiana, where Cruz picked up 10 more delegates,
5 former Rubio ones and 5 delegates at large. Cruz has had reps
in the states, working with the party folks that select the delegates
so that he can keep his, try to pick up more. Trump apparently just
woke up to how the game is played. I guess that's what happens when
you're campaign manager is an amateur who would rather play security
guard.

And excellent point on Lincoln. He was #3 on the first ballot.
That is one of the 10 times there has been a contested convention.
In 7 of the 10, the candidate with the most delegates on the first
ballot, was not the nominee.

"rbowman" wrote in message ...
On 03/31/2016 02:05 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
Right now, I'm leaning toward Kasich because I don't think Clinton is seen as being trustworthy and a Sanders win could send the economy into a tailspin followed by a massive movement of capital and factories moving offshore.

You mean like the massive movement of capital and factories that moved
off shore under every president since GHWB?

Yes, the same, just different reasons. I'm a little worried what effect a socialist mentality would have on corp America.

If you owned a labor-intensive company and was staying in the US because of patriotism and loyalty to employees, and then a socialist took over talking about increasing corp taxes and promoting more labor unions....

On 04/01/2016 07:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
We've been losing factories, jobs, overseas since the 60s. What happened
to the auto makers, for example, in the 70s with competition from Japan?
It's what happens when the world slowly changes, countries that were
rubble after WWII become economic powers.

When both parties are in love with free trade and globalism they can
turn a nation into a third world country.

On 04/01/2016 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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. The metric is there for a reason. As the race progresses,
as candidates drop out, if someone is a truly strong candidate that
the party can coalesce around, then they should be able to get to
50%+ of the delegates. If they can't then something is wrong.

1912.

What will be fun is when the RNC decides Rule 40 only applied when they
were shoving Romney down peoples' throats and can be waived in 2016.
It's sort of like being in 7th grade playing some game with girls that
made up the rules as they went along.

On 04/01/2016 02:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
If Trump doesn't have 1237, he's screwed.

As will be the Republican Party... No reason to mar a stellar record of
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

On 04/01/2016 04:45 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
If you owned a labor-intensive company and was staying in the US because of patriotism and loyalty to employees, and then a socialist took over talking about increasing corp taxes and promoting more labor unions....

First, you've got to find one of those unicorns. If companies had any
loyalty to anything but their profits you wouldn't have middle America
****ed off and supporting either Sanders or Trump depending on their
natural bent.

A lot of people have noticed the rising tide only floats yachts.

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:06:05 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 04/01/2016 04:45 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
If you owned a labor-intensive company and was staying in the US because of patriotism and loyalty to employees, and then a socialist took over talking about increasing corp taxes and promoting more labor unions....

First, you've got to find one of those unicorns. If companies had any
loyalty to anything but their profits you wouldn't have middle America
****ed off and supporting either Sanders or Trump depending on their
natural bent.

A lot of people have noticed the rising tide only floats yachts.

It isn't just that all companies would have to have a loyalty to
creating and keeping jobs here. More importantly, so too would
CONSUMERS. If people are buying the lowest priced product available,
then those companies are finished when lower cost foreign products
are available. And that is exactly what's happening.

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:01:41 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 04/01/2016 02:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
If Trump doesn't have 1237, he's screwed.

As will be the Republican Party... No reason to mar a stellar record of
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I see Trump just can't stay in his foxhole until the stink from his
latest faux pas passes. Now he gave another interview to John Dickerson
at CBS for Sunday morning. They have excerpts out already. Dickerson
clearly asks him a couple times, what he would do about abortion laws.
Trump says the existing law is in place, he would just leave it be.
Within hours, the Trump campaign was out spinning and lying, claiming
that Trump said that he would only leave the existing laws in place
until he's elected president, then he would work to change them. Sure,
we all believe that's what Dickerson was asking, that's what Trump
was answering, what Trump would do about the existing law over the next
9 months, before he becomes president. Each time he comes out of that
foxhole he looks more foolish than when he went in.

You had to love his answer with Anderson Cooper about tweeting that
side by side pic of Heidi and Melania. Instead of just apologizing
and saying he made a mistake, he says that the pic of Heidi was a nice
one, that he doesn't think it was unflattering, etc. Unbelievable,
that was obviously the whole point of the tweet and everyone knows
it. This guy will spit in your face and then tell you that it's raining.

On 04/02/2016 07:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:
It isn't just that all companies would have to have a loyalty to
creating and keeping jobs here. More importantly, so too would
CONSUMERS. If people are buying the lowest priced product available,
then those companies are finished when lower cost foreign products
are available. And that is exactly what's happening.

While I agree with that, it does have its limits. For example, I prefer
to buy American and prefer the Red Wing styles that are still made in
this country. They are well made, durable -- and go for something over
$100 a pop. Do you think the average Walmart shopper is in a position to
spend that much or are they going for the 'Herman Survivors' at $30?

I wore Hermans for years but then the brand name was sold to Walmart.
Towards the end some some had been made in Poland or PRC, but under
Walmart they're all made in the PRC from cheap materials. Gotta keep the
Waltons in hamburger, do you know.

I lived in southern New Hampshire and the shoe shops in New Hampshire
and Maine supported the local economies. The wages were good, especially
for the specialized operations like the fancy top stitchers. It affected
more than the actual shoe manufacturing. It wasn't the main thrust of
our company but we did supply some hydraulic equipment to the shoe
machine builders like USM. No the shoe machine business, and the machine
tool business in general, is history.

For another example, my mother worked at Cluett & Peabody, the
manufacturer of Arrow shirts, for years. The shirts were made in Troy,
NY which was nicknamed 'the collar city' because of the number of shirt
manufacturers. First the manufacturing was moved to Atlanta to take
advantage of the cheap labor. The price of the shirts did not decrease,
but I'm assuming profits rose. Arrow was a quality dress shirt with a
somewhat inelastic demand. The administrative offices in Troy held on
longer but they eventually moved to Atlanta. As far as the shirts
themselves, bring a world atlas with you if you want to find out where
they are made.

The story is the same for almost every industry. It's somewhat of a
chicken and egg scenario but what American worker whose job has been
outsourced is going to have the loyalty, or the ability to buy American?
Remember the old union labels and the 'buy union' campaign? That doesn't
work today either.

It would not be as bitter a pill if the whole country was in slow
decline, unable to compete in the world market. That is not the case as
wealth inequality grows to the point where it is as extreme as in the
Gilded Age. The purchased politicians have facilitated this buy removing
trade barriers and promoting globalism along with their calls for
diversity. You do realize that in the early days of the nation,
protective tariffs were a source of funding for the government?

sure the peasants are out there with the torches and pitchforks. Some
are in the Sanders camp, some in Trump's, but the message is the same.
They are sick of being screwed by the cabal of 'too big to fail'
corporations and their pet politicians.

On 04/02/2016 07:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
You had to love his answer with Anderson Cooper about tweeting that
side by side pic of Heidi and Melania. Instead of just apologizing
and saying he made a mistake, he says that the pic of Heidi was a nice
one, that he doesn't think it was unflattering, etc. Unbelievable,
that was obviously the whole point of the tweet and everyone knows
it. This guy will spit in your face and then tell you that it's raining.

Remind me again which PAC was responsible for posting Melania's GQ photo
to Facebook, targeting Mormon women in Utah. Sure, Cruz has plausible
deniability but even then his camp should have known mud wrestling with
Trump isn't a good idea.

Trump is the Republican's problem. Another candidate could have offered
the same message with a less bombastic message but they didn't. One
facet of conservatism is the desire to maintain the status quo. The
voting public are of the mind the status quo sucks. They voted for that
incompetent empty suit who promised hope and change and didn't get it.
They're rolling the dice again. The Tea Party was the canary in the coal
mine, but they accomplished nothing, sold out by their 'leaders'.
Priebus got a few miles out of that horse before it died but he isn't up
to the task at hand. Cleveland is going to be so much fun.

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

Per rbowman:
On 04/01/2016 02:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
If Trump doesn't have 1237, he's screwed.

As will be the Republican Party... No reason to mar a stellar record of
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I liked a close family member's observation that Trump as candidate for
POTUS could be the thing that saves the GOP - from themselves.

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.

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.....

Maybe I'm the only one - but if not....
--
Pete Cresswell

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

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.

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:24:35 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
On 04/01/2016 02:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
If Trump doesn't have 1237, he's screwed.

As will be the Republican Party... No reason to mar a stellar record of
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I liked a close family member's observation that Trump as candidate for
POTUS could be the thing that saves the GOP - from themselves.

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.

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.....

Maybe I'm the only one - but if not....
--
Pete Cresswell

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.

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:


It would not be as bitter a pill if the whole country was in slow
decline, unable to compete in the world market. That is not the case as
wealth inequality grows to the point where it is as extreme as in the
Gilded Age. The purchased politicians have facilitated this buy removing
trade barriers and promoting globalism along with their calls for
diversity. You do realize that in the early days of the nation,
protective tariffs were a source of funding for the government?


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.


sure the peasants are out there with the torches and pitchforks. Some
are in the Sanders camp, some in Trump's, but the message is the same.
They are sick of being screwed by the cabal of 'too big to fail'
corporations and their pet politicians.

Yes, I agree. But the solutions offered are in many ways
very different. I guess Trump and Bernie are somewhat similar
with regard to tariffs though. The difference I see is that
I think Trump would only do tariffs as a last resort, while
I think Bernie would welcome them as a good thing, a source
of revenue for his big govt programs, etc.