Clearly the Drumpf doesn't know, much less understand, the process by which the Republicans choose the nominee. Maybe I can clear it up for him and his campaign "team." Personally, I think they're too busy eating their crayons to get it, but I can at least try. Here we go... 1) The number of delegates required to have the nomination "handed" to you is ironclad at 1,237. Got it? Good. 2) Anything short of 1,237 - even by one single lonely delegate - is grounds for an "open" convention. Not likely to happen, but still a remote possibility. Got it? Good. 3) Each state has their own rules for selecting their delegates and how those delegates vote during the convention. a) Some states are "winner take all" - meaning every delegate from that state must vote for the primary/caucus winner of the state on the first ballot. b) Some states are "winner take most" - meaning the winner receives the votes of most of the delegates while other candidates receive a few as well. c) Some states' delegates are "apportioned" - meaning the percentage of votes a given candidate will receive is commensurate to how well they did in that state's primary/caucus. d) Some states, like PA, have rules that say the majority of delegates are not bound by the state's primary results. In essence, they are free to vote however they wish. ***For the record, I'm well aware that I've stripped the processes down to the bare bones minimum, but I kinda-sorta had to. How else will Drumpf and his team understand? I don't have the proper amount of crayons or construction paper it would take to really explain it to them. Just sayin'.*** My point is that it's the state's Republican Party apparatus that sets the rules for how and when delegates are chosen and who they vote for in the convention. These rules have been known for well over a year. For The Fraud of Fifth Avenue and his team to be crying "foul" now shows how ill-prepared he is for just a simple election. It has to make one wonder how he'll ever be prepared if he wins the presidency, God forbid. Calling the Colorado system "rigged" while remaining silent about a nearly identical process in Hawaii is especially enlightening to those of us who are actually paying attention. The only major difference between the 2 states is that the Cheetos Kid won Hawaii and lost Colorado. Puts it in perspective, does it not? ~ Hunter P.S., A plurality of delegates does not equal a majority. Period. End of story.
I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
If you want to know why I stand against The Fraud of Fifth Avenue, that statement says it all.
While I don't believe Trump is "evil" as we currently understand that word, I do believe that he is dangerous, both personally and politically.
Trump is a vain, spoiled, vindictive child walking around in a 70-year-old body. His utter contempt for people who disagree with, or dare question him is palpable. His comments to Hugh Hewitt about the latter's radio show were unnecessary and cruel in the extreme. He made these comments after having been on Hewitt's show just a few weeks earlier:
His insecurities shine brightly when talking about others. Look no further than how he reacted to the debate the other night for proof. Two candidates used his own tactics against him and he became unhinged. See the language he used about Rubio during the press conference he held the next day when announcing the endorsement of The Outlaw Jersey Whale as evidence. You can check out this footage at a rally in Texas:
His vanity and narcissism are on full display, for all the world to see, every time he opens his mouth to speak. *I'm the best...greatest...biggest..." It's always "I, I, I." It's never about others. It's never about the country - except for platitudes like "Make America Great Again." He's so vain that he actually wants to expand libel laws so he can sue people who write "negative" articles about him.
Trump has positioned himself as the "anti-establishment" and non-politician candidate despite admitting to donating to politicians on both sides of the aisle in order to receive favors later. In what universe is helping keep certain politicians in power considered not establishment? Not holding elective office doesn't make you a "non-politician" when you've immersed yourself in that world for decades.
The tiresome excuse of "He's a businessman hedging his bets" and/or "He has to grease the right skids" is laughable at best. What it says to me is the man has zero discernable core principles that drive him except greed.
Trump believes whatever is best for Trump at any given moment, not what's best for the nation. He's lambasted businesses for moving jobs out of the country, threatening one with a "heavy tax" if he's elected, while manufacturing his clothing lines in Mexico and China. His reason - they devalue their currencies, thereby making it more difficult to compete in the American market. Basically, what he's saying is it's perfectly reasonable for him to maximize his profits, but others doing the EXACT SAME THING is unacceptable and punishable.
I disagree with many pundits who say that Trump is attracting new people to conservatism. How can someone attract people to an ideology that person has never held? He might be bringing people to the Republican Party, but most of them will only push the party further left. These are the people we've been fighting against for decades. I couldn't care less about the Republican brand, but how does this help conservatism?
Conservatism is primarily about "conserving" the Constitutional principles that built the United States into the greatest, most powerful nation that has ever existed. What sense does it make to bring those who would do away with those principles into the same tent as us?
Make no mistake about it, the election of a "President Trump" will be a disaster. I don't mean just for the Republican Party, either. This nation - and her people - will suffer greatly under such a vain, cruel man-child.
I understand, very deeply, the anger that has led to the rise of such a narcissistic pretender. I get it. When entrenched politicians refuse to listen to the people they ostensibly represent it becomes easy to latch onto someone who seems to be speaking the same language. Is there anything more appealing to an angry people than someone who says what you've been saying but has a much bigger platform?
When Trump first began his run, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. The more I listened to him, however, the more I understood that running for president isn't about helping the nation: It was about him and his ego. The not-so-veiled racial statements, the lack of specific answers to pointed and direct questions, the bullying (there's no other word for it) of other candidates, and a complete lack of backstory regarding his supposed conversion to conservatism after a lifetime of liberal viewpoints couldn't make it any clearer.
I'm begging people to research the man. Look into his past. He's not just AMORAL: He's IMMORAL. He's bragged about sleeping with married women as if it's an honorable thing to do. He dishonored Vietnam veterans by declaring that he's "brave" for having unprotected sex with women, calling it his own "personal Vietnam." I'm not making that up. The man has no empathy, no scruples.
Simply proclaiming a "wall" will be built isn't a good enough reason to vote for someone who been your ideological opposite for your entire life, spewed there's a Constitutional Conservative who's said the same thing and said it far earlier.
The prospect of another Clinton presidency is a good reason to vote for someone who is herideological opposite. Trump isn't that someone. The differences between the two of them are negligible.
Voting againstsomeone or something is no longer a viable option. If the last two presidential elections didn't provide that example, I don't know what else possibly could. Conservatives voted against Obama more than we voted for McCain and Romney. We rationalized it as voting for the "lesser of two evils." It didn't work.
This election, however, we have a viable Constitutional Conservative alternative to the same old, same old. I've made no secret that Ted Cruz is my pick, and while I'd love to ask you to vote for him, that's not my job. Nor is it the point of this post. All I ask of you is that, as a conservative, do some research into all the candidates. Find the one who actually represents the beliefs and values you already hold and don't fall victim to the same type of bumper sticker slogans as "Hope & Change" and "Yes We Can."
It's time to take a stand. We can't just stand against what we know is wrong: We must also stand for what we know is RIGHT. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it in the end, even if we don't get the result we want and so desperately need. ~ Hunter
If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times since The Trumpertantrum threw his hat in the ring - You have to look at his record, his past positions to determine whether you should vote for him or not. All of it.
In Saturday night's debate, Trump effectively said: "Bush lied, people died." He then went on to say that he was against the war in Iraq before we invaded. Even though there's no documented evidence of him being against the war until about a year into it, for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true.
Trump points to his own record to defend his attacks on Jeb Bush and the Bush family (no, this is not a defense of Jeb or any other Bush). Should it not follow that we look at the other positions he had over time? Things like abortion, raising taxes 5.7 TRILLION DOLLARS (Trump's own number), single-payer healthcare, Obama's a good president, etc.?
Let's not mention that Trump endorsed Bill De Blasio a mere two years ago. An endorsement, I might add, that was given based upon Trump being told by someone that De Blasio "said some nice things" about Trump AT A COCKTAIL PARTY.
We can't just pick and choose what parts of his past we want to apply to the here and now and what parts we don't. It's patently absurd to do so. Trump has never held a conservative position on any issue before he started his presidential run. Please note that I didn't say Republican position, I said conservative.
What's changed? What caused his sudden shift of ideology? I submit that he hasn't changed substantively. In my opinion, he's no farther right than Hillary, and certainly not even as conservative as McCain or Romney.
Yesterday, I made this comment on several Facebook pages discussing Donald Trump backing out of the last Republican debate before the Iowa caucuses that will be aired on Fox News Channel: If Trump can't handle tough questions from some measly little reporters, how can he handle world leaders who don't agree with him?
I never had a problem with Megyn Kelly's line of questions, mostly because, if nothing else, the last 7-plus years have proved that not vetting a candidate's past is devastating for this nation.
Trump is nothing more than the "rich kid bully." He's as far from presidential material as the old wrestler Mick Foley. Let's not mention that his past (right up until he decided to run as a Republican) is decidedly and squarely on the left - somewhere between Hitlery Clintoon and Bernie Sanders.
On the flip side, it'll be nice watching a debate without that bloviating blowhard. I can't even begin to explain how much hate I've received from Trumpeteers (my pet name for Trump supporters who blindly worship the man, despite his overwhelmingly liberal record). They've even resorted to calling me a "liberal."
Over the course of many "discussions" - which usually involved me attempting to discuss things with people telling me I'm stupid, an idiot, a liberal, a moron, I don't "get it," etc. - I've tried to explain to people that Trump isn't "anti-establishment," he's not presidential material, and here's the most important thing - Trump is NOT a conservative. Despite the fact the I clearly don't work for Fox News (or any other news organization), I've been told that I need to "wake up to the bias" of Megyn Kelly and Fox News and that I shouldn't fall for them trying to pick our candidate. No kidding geniuses! Thanks for that tidbit. Let's get something straight here: I don't care who the press wants. The best part of this process is that We the People choose the candidate, not the press. Do they try to influence it? Probably. Do we have to blindly follow them? Nope. What bothers me is that the people who are blindly following Trump because he says what they want to hear completely disregard everything he's said in the past, especially when they're diametrically opposite to what he espouses now. If you want to vote for a Democrat, go ahead. That's your choice. But you could at least be honest about who he is and his lifelong beliefs. You owe at least that much to yourself and your kids and grandkids.
Trump is not, nor he he ever been, a conservative. If he wins, don't complain about what he does, and don't say you weren't warned.
I won't say "I told you so." But I did tell you so. ~ Hunter
Donald Trump has shown himself to be a living, breathing, walking representation of every stereotype the Left has about Republicans.
If Trump wins the nomination, he won't just lose the general election, he'll lose it big. He's damaging the Republican brand, and while I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican, the G.O.P. is the only realplace for conservatives to hang their hats. As sad as it is to say, conservatives need the Republican party in order to compete on a national level.
Mark my words, Republican voters will rue the day Trump threw his hat in the ring under the G.O.P. banner, let alone if he wins the nomination. He's not a conservative (as he has shown with his political stances in the past). In fact, from the outside looking in, I'd hesitate to say he's sane.
What amazes me most is that many of the people who decried Romney and McCain as the Republican nominees, claiming they weren't "conservative enough" are the same ones who now tout Donald Trump as a viable candidate. The dichotomy could notbe stronger.
I'm perfectly aware of what he's tapped into, and I agree with the anger and frustration that's behind his support. However, I've also looked into his past politics - who he's supported, what positions he's taken on things such as abortion, taxes, healthcare, etc. - and realized that Trump is not who he's purporting himself to be. He's not a conservative - not even close. He's a DIRC: DemoKKKrat In Republican Clothes. Period.
Trump is a one trick pony with his illegal immigration stance, and while I agree that we need to secure the border, and do everything we can to deport all criminal aliens, I will not vote for someone without looking at the entire body politic of that candidate.
We, as conservatives, all agreed that McCain and Romney were somewhat left of conservatism - definitely progressives, but even they were to the right of Trump, so what does that tell you?
I get it. I really do. Trump is saying some of the things we want to hear from those who run for office, but if what he's saying is diametricallyopposite of what he's said in the past, it's incumbent upon us, as conservative voters, to question the sudden about-face in position. Trump was, is, and forever will be a big government supporter, and given we have one in office now - and we all scream about it - do we really want to put another in his place simply because he has an (R) after his name?
I won't go so far as to say he's a demoKKKrat plant, as some others have. I do, however, think he's worse than any RINO who's ever run for, or held, any office. At least one can tell where a RINO stands on most issues. I really can't with Trump, mostly because he's a mass of contradictions, and I've followed politics for most of my life like most people follow sports. ~ Hunter
I've never made a secret of my disdain for polls and pollsters. I truly believe that if they're not outright useless, they're harmful, particularly to political thinking.
While watching Fox and Friends this morning, pollster Frank Luntz was interviewed about the Republican field being in New Hampshire. Luntz has a focus group - one of my least favorite phrases - of likely Republican primary voters.
Luntz says that, according to his group, no one candidate has risen to the top as an odds-on favorite for the Republican nomination. That's not really a surprise given how early in the race it is.
Then he says his focus group believes that electability is more important than ideology.
Yes, you read that correctly.
I know that we're talking about New Hampshire here, but really?! Not worrying about ideology is what led to King DingleBarry's coronation.... Twice!!!
We need a conservative, plain and simple - a true conservative.
There is an ENTIRE GENERATION of voters who don't even know what a true conservative is, let alone what a true conservative looks and sounds like. We need someone who can articulate why conservatism is best for all.
Romney, McCain - not conservatives. Jeb Bush - not a conservative. I would even hesitate to call Marco Rubio or Rand Paul conservatives, although they're much, much closer than Romney and McCain have ever been.
There's a time and place for voting for the lesser of two evils. The primaries aren't that time and place. After the last two presidential elections, I'm not sure even the general election is the place and time anymore.
2016 could possibly be the most important election, not just in our lifetimes, but in the history of the nation. The next president could either be the final nail in the coffin of freedom - or the beginning of the restoration of that freedom.
Time is running out for us. The window to save what we all love is closing. We need this one, and I believe the only way we can win is with a conservative - unafraid, unapologetic, uncomplicated and, most importantly - unabashed. ~ Hunter
King DingleBarry is mulling tax increases by Imperial Decree (read: Executive Order).
The entirety of this administration shows its bountiful jackassery by skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of Congress, calling that speech "dangerous" and "destructive." I guess Iran getting nuclear weapons is not "dangerous" or "destructive."
No less than fifty-five demoKKKrats skip the speech, with those that attended calling it "political theater" and other ridiculous things, never once touching upon the actual substance of the speech.
The Constant Campaigner has recently declared himself above anything Congress does, saying, in effect, that it doesn't matter if Congress - which, need I remind you, is a co-equal branch of government - votes to deny his Royal Edict (and massive overreach) on illegal immigration and its essential amnesty for people whose very first action in our nation is to break the law; he's going to do it anyway - displaying a complete disregard and utter contempt for this country and our history/traditions/culture.
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive demoKKKrat presidential nominee for 2016, is currently under fire as it's now known that the Clinton Foundation took donations from foreign governments - while she was Secretary of State, no less - with, shall we say, less than stellar human rights' records, particularly regarding WOMEN'S rights (which she proclaims to champion). Oh yeah, did I mention that we also learned today that she never used a government email account - which is REQUIRED BY LAW - while conducting official State Department business?
Aaannnddd to top today off, we find out that the Republicans bowed down, ONCE AGAIN, and passed a clean bill funding the Department of Homeland Security - which includes funding King DingleBarry's de facto amnesty executive order. Never mind that the Republicans control both houses of Congress and nothing should get through that isn't approved by said Republicans.
Anyone else feeling a tad..............BETRAYED? ~ Hunter
I keep hearing political pundits on TV, reading them online, from both sides of the aisle (although certainly many more from the left than right), who keep saying that even though the Republicans ran away with the midterms in historic fashion, they don't have a "mandate."
I'm sorry, but were they watching the same election results as the rest of the country? The rejection, repudiation, and outright dismissal of liberal policies could nothave been made any more and absolutely crystal clear.
Republicans, for the first time in abouttwenty years, have firm ground under them. Their job now is to pull America up out of the ditch liberalism has driven her, and it can't be focused solely on stopping the Empty Suit's agenda, although that's undoubtedly a top priority.
They need to craft legislation that puts Americans back to work. Make America palatable to businesses again by ending unnecessary and burdensome regulations, purge the government from the marketplace as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Yesterday would be nice.
Corporate tax reform is another big issue. Billions upon billions of dollars are kept offshore by businesses to avoid double taxation - once from the host nation, then again by the U.S. Yeah... It's that crazy...
Build a damn fence along the southern border. Deport all illegals - period. Entering the U.S. illegally should forever disqualify you from working here, emigrating legally, or even visiting.
Reinstitute the Welfare to Work requirement and push for mandatory drug testing (that means it must be done, liberals) for welfare recipients. Tighten the restrictions on where and for what welfare money and food stamps can purchase and/or be used. Nobody should be able to buy a video game, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or marijuana.
Strengthen our military - again. There's more than enough wasteful spending in the defense budget that can be slashed, thus avoiding cutting personnel that want to be there. Above all else, TAKE CARE OF OUR VETERANS.
Reduce the size of the bureaucracies and their redundant programs. Root out the waste and fraud inherent in these bureaucracies. Make it easier to demote or fire public sector workers.
REPEAL OBAMADONTCARE.
I don't often disagree with Rush Limbaugh, but I don't believe we won this election so handily solely to stop King DingleBarry in his tracks. The American people don't want a "do nothing Congress." We want a Congress that does what's right for America. ~ Hunter
Last night, in a massiverepudiation of King DingleBarry's policies - and cronies - the Republican Party took control of the Senate by gainingseven seats (maybe eight - Alaska hasn't been called yet, but the Republican is leading), gained about ten more seats in the House, and won a boatload of gubernatorial races.
The question now is this - even tho this was a victory for Republicans, is it going to be a victory for We the People?
I believe it can be, but we must stay aware of what they're doing and hold them accountable. This is just the first step - albeit a big one - in retaking the U.S. and we canNOT be complacent. Complacency is what got us in this mess.
Keep the pressure on all our senators and representatives, but especially the Republicans. If the last six years have proven anything at all - it's that we can no longer sit back and watch. We must remain actively involved.
Like I said, this is merely the 1st step. There's more that needs doing, and this is a great start. Let's keep the pressure on. ~ Hunter
Just about to go to bed, and flipping thrust Fox News, and caught the last few minutes of O'Reilly. I don't usually watch him anymore because he's NOT a conservative.
During his email segment, someone wrote in, apparently chastising Bernie Goldberg, who said that impeaching King DingleBarry would be a bad idea due to polls suggesting that only 33% of voters would support such a move.
I don't believe for a second that it's only 33%. That being said, since when is doing the right thing dependent upon POLLS?
I couldn't possibly care less if Republicans lose every election from now until the end of time IF THEY DO THE RIGHT THING NOW. Doing what's right isn't political, or SHOULDN'T be.
Governance by polls is one of the biggest reasons this nation is as screwed up as it is. I, for one, am sick unto DEATH of it.
Just do the right thing because it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO. ~ Hunter
