Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.
I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.
See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.
In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.
I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).
My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.
After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.
How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.
