Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You guys are really going to be pissed after tomorrow's primaries. Trump is fast closing the gap between him and Hillary. Once the folks who voted for Sanders joins Trump's camp, it'll be all over for Hillary. Suck it up.
Good day for him yeah, but he will end up settling at the convention. If he does make it Hillary will hand his ass to him.
What part of the rebellion you don't understand? Sanders people are getting ready to go full Trump.
What universe are you living in? Sanders people would never go for Trump.
You guys are really going to be pissed after tomorrow's primaries. Trump is fast closing the gap between him and Hillary. Once the folks who voted for Sanders joins Trump's camp, it'll be all over for Hillary. Suck it up.
Good day for him yeah, but he will end up settling at the convention. If he does make it Hillary will hand his ass to him.
What part of the rebellion you don't understand? Sanders people are getting ready to go full Trump.
What universe are you living in? Sanders people would never go for Trump.
Wanna bet? Bernie's biggest supporters are millennials, who as a group HATE Hillary. There will be some crossover, yes for sure most will stick with the party ticket, but some will crossover.
You guys are really going to be pissed after tomorrow's primaries. Trump is fast closing the gap between him and Hillary. Once the folks who voted for Sanders joins Trump's camp, it'll be all over for Hillary. Suck it up.
Good day for him yeah, but he will end up settling at the convention. If he does make it Hillary will hand his ass to him.
What part of the rebellion you don't understand? Sanders people are getting ready to go full Trump.
What universe are you living in? Sanders people would never go for Trump.
Wanna bet? Bernie's biggest supporters are millennials, who as a group HATE Hillary. There will be some crossover, yes for sure most will stick with the party ticket, but some will crossover.
Bet that Hillary hands trump his ass? I would ask what's the bet? I'll do it. Trump what ever he is, is not the same type of reptile as Hillary.
Good day for him yeah, but he will end up settling at the convention. If he does make it Hillary will hand his ass to him.
What part of the rebellion you don't understand? Sanders people are getting ready to go full Trump.
What universe are you living in? Sanders people would never go for Trump.
Wanna bet? Bernie's biggest supporters are millennials, who as a group HATE Hillary. There will be some crossover, yes for sure most will stick with the party ticket, but some will crossover.
Bet that Hillary hands trump his ass? I would ask what's the bet? I'll do it. Trump what ever he is, is not the same type of reptile as Hillary.
Unfortunately most ideologues don't care what kind of reptile she is.
Over the weekend, Mssrs. Kasich and Cruz agreed to something akin to, but not the same as, "divide and conquer" with regard to ensuring the GOP convention goes to a second ballot. Trump has described their agreement as "collusion," saying,
"If you collude in business, or if you collude in the stock market, they put you in jail. But in politics, because it’s a rigged system, because it’s a corrupt enterprise, in politics you’re allowed to collude."
Well, the fact of the matter is the alliance his GOP competitors have formed is not in any way collusion. I don't know who is the bigger "mess": Trump for depicting it that way -- if he truly means collusion, he's just ignorant; if he doesn't truly mean collusion, he's deliberately misrepresenting the facts -- or his followers who accept his assertion as true. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing secret or illegal or dishonest about the alliance the two men have formed.
And what did Trump do in response? Lash out about someone's eating habits, levy other insults, and complain like a child. "Mommy, the other boys are ganging up on me. " Really? That's his idea of "being Presidential?"
- If it were a secret alliance/act, the whole world wouldn't know about it, and the candidates wouldn't have disclosed it.
- If it were illegal or dishonest, Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich would be formally charged with a crime much as are colluders in stock trading.
About the only thing that can be said of the agreement the two men have formed is that it is clumsy and poorly implemented.
What were those two thinking? That they could announce a "divide and conquer" approach for the purpose of forcing second and third voting rounds at the GOP convention while holding true to wanting their supporters to vote for them in the remaining primaries/caucuses? Hugh? Those two knuckleheads don't even have the sense or ability to unite for a brief period to achieve a common goal, one that regardless of what happens afterwards is essential to achieve for both of their aims of becoming President to come to fruition.
- Timing -- It's an agreement that the two should have established long ago. It may well be "too little too late" at this point. One can only presume that both men's hubris is what prevented them from doing so when it became clear that the odds were very, very long for either of their getting to 1237 pledged delegates before the GOP Convention.
- Nature and extent -- It's an agreement that is only half-heartedly in place. Consider Mr. Kasich's remark today in which he said he's not telling his supporters not to vote for him. Excuse me! Say what? That's exactly what he should and would do were he committed to the "divide and conquer" strategy.
Truly, I don't think I can ever recall a time when either party had as its potential leader what amounts to, as the GOP has now, rule by "three blind mice." I'm an Independent, but I have to think that any rationally thinking/driven Republican has to be thoroughly embarrassed by the remaining choices s/he has available this election cycle: a consummate prevaricator and two buffoons. Jesus H. Christ!
You guys are really going to be pissed after tomorrow's primaries. Trump is fast closing the gap between him and Hillary. Once the folks who voted for Sanders joins Trump's camp, it'll be all over for Hillary. Suck it up.
Over the weekend, Mssrs. Kasich and Cruz agreed to something akin to, but not the same as, "divide and conquer" with regard to ensuring the GOP convention goes to a second ballot. Trump has described their agreement as "collusion," saying,
"If you collude in business, or if you collude in the stock market, they put you in jail. But in politics, because it’s a rigged system, because it’s a corrupt enterprise, in politics you’re allowed to collude."
Well, the fact of the matter is the alliance his GOP competitors have formed is not in any way collusion. I don't know who is the bigger "mess": Trump for depicting it that way -- if he truly means collusion, he's just ignorant; if he doesn't truly mean collusion, he's deliberately misrepresenting the facts -- or his followers who accept his assertion as true. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing secret or illegal or dishonest about the alliance the two men have formed.
And what did Trump do in response? Lash out about someone's eating habits, levy other insults, and complain like a child. "Mommy, the other boys are ganging up on me. " Really? That's his idea of "being Presidential?"
- If it were a secret alliance/act, the whole world wouldn't know about it, and the candidates wouldn't have disclosed it.
- If it were illegal or dishonest, Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich would be formally charged with a crime much as are colluders in stock trading.
About the only thing that can be said of the agreement the two men have formed is that it is clumsy and poorly implemented.
What were those two thinking? That they could announce a "divide and conquer" approach for the purpose of forcing second and third voting rounds at the GOP convention while holding true to wanting their supporters to vote for them in the remaining primaries/caucuses? Hugh? Those two knuckleheads don't even have the sense or ability to unite for a brief period to achieve a common goal, one that regardless of what happens afterwards is essential to achieve for both of their aims of becoming President to come to fruition.
- Timing -- It's an agreement that the two should have established long ago. It may well be "too little too late" at this point. One can only presume that both men's hubris is what prevented them from doing so when it became clear that the odds were very, very long for either of their getting to 1237 pledged delegates before the GOP Convention.
- Nature and extent -- It's an agreement that is only half-heartedly in place. Consider Mr. Kasich's remark today in which he said he's not telling his supporters not to vote for him. Excuse me! Say what? That's exactly what he should and would do were he committed to the "divide and conquer" strategy.
Truly, I don't think I can ever recall a time when either party had as its potential leader what amounts to, as the GOP has now, rule by "three blind mice." I'm an Independent, but I have to think that any rationally thinking/driven Republican has to be thoroughly embarrassed by the remaining choices s/he has available this election cycle: a consummate prevaricator and two buffoons. Jesus H. Christ!
LOL talk about griping about nothing. Yes, collusion may be the incorrect word here, but it certainly stinks of shadinesss that they would make some deal to sacrifice votes for themselves in order to stop Trump. I lost a great deal of respect for John Kasich over this.
Over the weekend, Mssrs. Kasich and Cruz agreed to something akin to, but not the same as, "divide and conquer" with regard to ensuring the GOP convention goes to a second ballot. Trump has described their agreement as "collusion," saying,
"If you collude in business, or if you collude in the stock market, they put you in jail. But in politics, because it’s a rigged system, because it’s a corrupt enterprise, in politics you’re allowed to collude."
Well, the fact of the matter is the alliance his GOP competitors have formed is not in any way collusion. I don't know who is the bigger "mess": Trump for depicting it that way -- if he truly means collusion, he's just ignorant; if he doesn't truly mean collusion, he's deliberately misrepresenting the facts -- or his followers who accept his assertion as true. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing secret or illegal or dishonest about the alliance the two men have formed.
And what did Trump do in response? Lash out about someone's eating habits, levy other insults, and complain like a child. "Mommy, the other boys are ganging up on me. " Really? That's his idea of "being Presidential?"
- If it were a secret alliance/act, the whole world wouldn't know about it, and the candidates wouldn't have disclosed it.
- If it were illegal or dishonest, Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich would be formally charged with a crime much as are colluders in stock trading.
About the only thing that can be said of the agreement the two men have formed is that it is clumsy and poorly implemented.
What were those two thinking? That they could announce a "divide and conquer" approach for the purpose of forcing second and third voting rounds at the GOP convention while holding true to wanting their supporters to vote for them in the remaining primaries/caucuses? Hugh? Those two knuckleheads don't even have the sense or ability to unite for a brief period to achieve a common goal, one that regardless of what happens afterwards is essential to achieve for both of their aims of becoming President to come to fruition.
- Timing -- It's an agreement that the two should have established long ago. It may well be "too little too late" at this point. One can only presume that both men's hubris is what prevented them from doing so when it became clear that the odds were very, very long for either of their getting to 1237 pledged delegates before the GOP Convention.
- Nature and extent -- It's an agreement that is only half-heartedly in place. Consider Mr. Kasich's remark today in which he said he's not telling his supporters not to vote for him. Excuse me! Say what? That's exactly what he should and would do were he committed to the "divide and conquer" strategy.
Truly, I don't think I can ever recall a time when either party had as its potential leader what amounts to, as the GOP has now, rule by "three blind mice." I'm an Independent, but I have to think that any rationally thinking/driven Republican has to be thoroughly embarrassed by the remaining choices s/he has available this election cycle: a consummate prevaricator and two buffoons. Jesus H. Christ!
LOL talk about griping about nothing. Yes, collusion may be the incorrect word here, but it certainly stinks of shadinesss that they would make some deal to sacrifice votes for themselves in order to stop Trump. I lost a great deal of respect for John Kasich over this.
What Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich (presumably) agreed to do isn't at all shady:
You correctly identified the strategy as that of the sacrifice, but it's a time honored strategy that when "played" in accordance with the "rules of the game" is not shady at all, although it may appear to be so to strategic novices.
- They didn't do it on the DL.
- It doesn't even skirt the bounds of legality, much less cross them.
- It is the only remaining approach that gives either of them any possibility of gaining the Presidency.
Once one enters the world of shrewd and mature adults, one is, like it or not, in the game of the "big boys." That is so in business, life in general, politics, and so on. Trump knows that the vast majority of his supporters are "losers" and haven't any idea of how the sacrifice works, even though there's no way he's not used it in one context or another. I suspect he's surprised, and thrilled, that his opponents waited this long to implement the sacrifice strategy. I know I am. Just goes to show that their hubris is comparable to his own.
- The Art Of War - The Study Of 36 Strategies
- chess tactics and strategies
-- Chess Sacrifices | Page 1 of 7 | Chess Tactics Guide
-- Sacrifice (chess) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The Essence of Aging Care Marketing Strategy is Sacrifce - Corecubed
- 5 Sacrifices Every Entrepreneur Must Make to Be Successful
To close, that Trump or anyone else characterize Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich's temporary partnership as somehow underhanded is at once bizarre and benighted. Even The Bard wrote of it.
Alas, the storm is come again! my best way is to
creep under his gaberdine; there is no other
shelter hereabouts: misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows. I will here shroud till the
dregs of the storm be past.
-- William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 2, Scene 2
Over the weekend, Mssrs. Kasich and Cruz agreed to something akin to, but not the same as, "divide and conquer" with regard to ensuring the GOP convention goes to a second ballot. Trump has described their agreement as "collusion," saying,
"If you collude in business, or if you collude in the stock market, they put you in jail. But in politics, because it’s a rigged system, because it’s a corrupt enterprise, in politics you’re allowed to collude."
Well, the fact of the matter is the alliance his GOP competitors have formed is not in any way collusion. I don't know who is the bigger "mess": Trump for depicting it that way -- if he truly means collusion, he's just ignorant; if he doesn't truly mean collusion, he's deliberately misrepresenting the facts -- or his followers who accept his assertion as true. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing secret or illegal or dishonest about the alliance the two men have formed.
And what did Trump do in response? Lash out about someone's eating habits, levy other insults, and complain like a child. "Mommy, the other boys are ganging up on me. " Really? That's his idea of "being Presidential?"
- If it were a secret alliance/act, the whole world wouldn't know about it, and the candidates wouldn't have disclosed it.
- If it were illegal or dishonest, Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich would be formally charged with a crime much as are colluders in stock trading.
About the only thing that can be said of the agreement the two men have formed is that it is clumsy and poorly implemented.
What were those two thinking? That they could announce a "divide and conquer" approach for the purpose of forcing second and third voting rounds at the GOP convention while holding true to wanting their supporters to vote for them in the remaining primaries/caucuses? Hugh? Those two knuckleheads don't even have the sense or ability to unite for a brief period to achieve a common goal, one that regardless of what happens afterwards is essential to achieve for both of their aims of becoming President to come to fruition.
- Timing -- It's an agreement that the two should have established long ago. It may well be "too little too late" at this point. One can only presume that both men's hubris is what prevented them from doing so when it became clear that the odds were very, very long for either of their getting to 1237 pledged delegates before the GOP Convention.
- Nature and extent -- It's an agreement that is only half-heartedly in place. Consider Mr. Kasich's remark today in which he said he's not telling his supporters not to vote for him. Excuse me! Say what? That's exactly what he should and would do were he committed to the "divide and conquer" strategy.
Truly, I don't think I can ever recall a time when either party had as its potential leader what amounts to, as the GOP has now, rule by "three blind mice." I'm an Independent, but I have to think that any rationally thinking/driven Republican has to be thoroughly embarrassed by the remaining choices s/he has available this election cycle: a consummate prevaricator and two buffoons. Jesus H. Christ!
LOL talk about griping about nothing. Yes, collusion may be the incorrect word here, but it certainly stinks of shadinesss that they would make some deal to sacrifice votes for themselves in order to stop Trump. I lost a great deal of respect for John Kasich over this.
What Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich (presumably) agreed to do isn't at all shady:
You correctly identified the strategy as that of the sacrifice, but it's a time honored strategy that when "played" in accordance with the "rules of the game" is not shady at all, although it may appear to be so to strategic novices.
- They didn't do it on the DL.
- It doesn't even skirt the bounds of legality, much less cross them.
- It is the only remaining approach that gives either of them any possibility of gaining the Presidency.
Once one enters the world of shrewd and mature adults, one is, like it or not, in the game of the "big boys." That is so in business, life in general, politics, and so on. Trump knows that the vast majority of his supporters are "losers" and haven't any idea of how the sacrifice works, even though there's no way he's not used it in one context or another. I suspect he's surprised, and thrilled, that his opponents waited this long to implement the sacrifice strategy. I know I am. Just goes to show that their hubris is comparable to his own.
- The Art Of War - The Study Of 36 Strategies
- chess tactics and strategies
-- Chess Sacrifices | Page 1 of 7 | Chess Tactics Guide
-- Sacrifice (chess) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The Essence of Aging Care Marketing Strategy is Sacrifce - Corecubed
- 5 Sacrifices Every Entrepreneur Must Make to Be Successful
To close, that Trump or anyone else characterize Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich's temporary partnership as somehow underhanded is at once bizarre and benighted. Even The Bard wrote of it.
Alas, the storm is come again! my best way is to
creep under his gaberdine; there is no other
shelter hereabouts: misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows. I will here shroud till the
dregs of the storm be past.
-- William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 2, Scene 2
Feel free to prove that the vast majority of Trump supporters are losers.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
That's true, if you buy that people should be voting against someone , rather than FOR someone, which to me is an awful way to elect a leader.
Of course a large part of that can be blamed on the fact that The GOP gave us such terrible choices as candidates to begin with.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
That's true, if you buy that people should be voting against someone , rather than FOR someone, which to me is an awful way to elect a leader.
Of course a large part of that can be blamed on the fact that The GOP gave us such terrible choices as candidates to begin with.
Fixed it for you.
You guys are really going to be pissed after tomorrow's primaries. Trump is fast closing the gap between him and Hillary. Once the folks who voted for Sanders joins Trump's camp, it'll be all over for Hillary. Suck it up.
Good day for him yeah, but he will end up settling at the convention. If he does make it Hillary will hand his ass to him.
What part of the rebellion you don't understand? Sanders people are getting ready to go full Trump.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
That's true, if you buy that people should be voting against someone , rather than FOR someone, which to me is an awful way to elect a leader.
Of course a large part of that can be blamed on the fact that both parties give us such terrible choices as candidates to begin with.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
That's true, if you buy that people should be voting against someone , rather than FOR someone, which to me is an awful way to elect a leader.
Of course a large part of that can be blamed on the fact that The GOP gave us such terrible choices as candidates to begin with.
Fixed it for you.
You guys are really going to be pissed after tomorrow's primaries. Trump is fast closing the gap between him and Hillary. Once the folks who voted for Sanders joins Trump's camp, it'll be all over for Hillary. Suck it up.
Good day for him yeah, but he will end up settling at the convention. If he does make it Hillary will hand his ass to him.
What part of the rebellion you don't understand? Sanders people are getting ready to go full Trump.
In your day dream.
You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
That's true, if you buy that people should be voting against someone , rather than FOR someone, which to me is an awful way to elect a leader.
Of course a large part of that can be blamed on the fact that The GOP gave us such terrible choices as candidates to begin with.
Fixed it for you.
Well, I think Rand Paul would have been decent, and I was quite keen on Ron Paul back when he tried to run for POTUS. I wasn't nuts about Jeb Bush, but I'd sooner have had him be President than any of the three left standing.
Of course, every year, I find myself having to choose between my economic sensibilities and my social ones. In prior years, I went with my economic preferences, but this year, I think I'm going to prioritize my social values over my economic ones.
