I bow to no one in my contempt for and frustration with the GOP as it currently exists. For twenty years now they have been deeply unserious and have neglected their responsibilities to a degree that approaches treason.
Given all that I get the appeal Trump might hold, on the surface at least.
But we are now at a point when Hilary Clinton is openly promising to dedicate her Presidency to gun control. Gun control… the issue that has been a loser for Democrats for decades and is commonly held to have cost Al Gore the White House.
She is brazenly touting Scalia’s death as an opportunity to enact Michael Bloomberg’s wildest dreams.
She is doing this because all indications are that if Trump is the nominee she will not only beat him by double digits but she will bring a united Democratic Congress along for the ride. And even if that Congress lasts only two years it will be more than enough time to appoint one (possibly two) justices and pass a slate of gun control legislation the likes of which this country has never seen. Legislation without a sunset period. Legislation that will take decades to repeal in a best case scenario.
I am begging you to not allow this to happen. Cruz may be imperfect, you may even think he’s establishment, but what he isn’t is an existential threat to the US Constitution. Please don’t let this happen. Get over your rage and support Cruz.
And for those of you in the #neverTrump crowd… you may think Trump would be a disaster as a President but he would not be the disaster that Hilary would be. If it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton you swallow your outrage and vote for Trump.
You anti-Trump people have been wrong about Trump throughout, whoever your basing your opinion on has been wrong. So hear this Trump will easily beat Clinton.
Sorry Frlix it is too late
GOP moderates allowed this to happen
They should have stopped him early
Cruz between the birthers and Cruz’s position of no abortion for rape or interest he has no chance
@Jake:
None of the polls in this election cycle have been so wrong that you can rationally believe Trump will “easily” beat Clinton. Large majorities of nearly every demographic hold a visceral hatred of Trump. Trump is, in fact, literally the one politician in America with worse negatives than Clinton.
Which is what makes this election such a tragedy. On the DNC side of the aisle we have an unpopular woman under FBI investigation and an unreconstructed communist. We should be looking at a 48 state sweep and increased Congressional majorities. Instead we scour the landscape and find the one candidate these people can beat.
But keep telling yourself he’ll win. It’ll make you feel better between now and 11/5.
@James Felix: While early polls showed that Shrillary would win if it were between her and Trump, the polls now show a dead heat and this is before Trump is even the nominee. By election time, it should be a blow out for Trump.
Seems to me that this alliance or coalition between Cruz and Kasich is an admission that they no longer have a chance to get the nomination. They are calling for an alliance, but if you total all their delegates, they don’t add up to enough, so while they are admitting defeat, they’re hoping they can persuade some illiterates that they still have an outside chance. Interesting.
She has openly stated that she would support comprehensive background checks and the closing of loopholes that allow such checks to be evaded, with the intention of keeping firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers, potential terrorists, criminals, and those known to have serious mental issues.
I’ve got no problem with that. To my way of thinking, it’s nothing more than common sense. I believe the Second Amendment was intended to protect a right belonging to any rational, responsible, law abiding citizen. If you aren’t part of that category, you should find serious obstacles between yourself and possession of a firearm.
The GOP’s problem isn’t Clinton. It’s the people they seem most likely to nominate. The process is flawed when it narrows the field down to candidates that most thoughtful voters will view as patently unqualified for the job. The nation isn’t a reality television program.
My take on the 2nd is well regulated with the “arms” being limited
To me that means no quad 50s available to the public
Have you seen that one on you tube ?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Enthusiastic Campaign Volunteer Shot Dead In Front Of Candidate
Or this one?
Woman in leading Flint water crisis lawsuit slain in twin killing
Well Greg the only thing wrong is …… Everyone there should have either been fully armed
Or
Been wearing some sort of suicide bomb so that if they were shot they could also have blown up the shooter
Sorry
That’s the best I can come up with
How can i pin the future of the country on a person who hires neil bush, who needed 1.5 billion to bail his silverado out… hows that constitutioanl conservativeism? then there is elliot abrams, who violated the constitution, international treaties, and gave us the crack epidemic and a weaponized iran… then there is the fact that he and cruz wife are CFR people, which makes them globalists at best… and now, his goldman sachs campaign is linking up with the lehman family kasich to double team the only outsider.
if we have to elect another establishment harvard hack for the banks, then maybe it dont matter if its cruz or clinton?
if its boild down to that, then maybe there isnt anything to save..
Also even if you do vote for either it won’t really matter neither is going to win so the GOP should just stay home
not worried about Hillary want a fighter to stop her; Trump is that fighter; not worried about the establishment GOP; they had their chance; they need to go; hopefully Trump will win and clean them out of the party
Is this an issue of national importance? Is the level of discourse about it what we should expect from person seeking to become the nation’s president? Consider:
You won’t hear Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders campaigning on this level. How did the ridiculous come to be so elevated? Seriously, does anyone believe this is what a majority of mainstream American voters actually care about?
Last night, late, about 11:30 PM, Cruz and Kasich made a tentative agreement to team up to beat Trump.
So, what happens if one of them doesn’t even push for votes in the NE while the other begs for both of their votes?
Does Cruz win?
Does Kasich?
Here are the latest polls:
Rhode Island:
Trump 61%
Cruz 13%
Kasich 23%
Connecticut:
Trump 55%
Cruz 19%
Kasich 25%
Pennsylvania
Trump 51%
Cruz 25%
Kasich 22%
Now, who among you can ADD?
@James Felix:
I’m not the one who has been wrong.
@Nanny G: The “pact” is not about the Northeast where Trump has always been favored.
It is about winner take all Indiana where Cruz must win.to send it to a contested Convention.
I would be fine with either Trump or Cruz, both imperfect candidates at a perfect time. But why do you think Cruz would do better in a general election than Trump would?
As for Hillary wiping the floor with Trump, maybe she would and maybe she wouldn’t. But pretty much all the predictions about Trump since the beginning have been wrong.
@Robert What?:
Predictions? Yeah they were wrong about Trump
However, the polls haven’t been far off have they ?
And polls say Hillary will wipe the floor against Trump
@John:
The question still remains. Why does anyone think that Cruz would do better than Trump in a general election? Trump would get a solid block of Democrats. I can’t see that happening with Cruz.
@Greg: Gee, if those guns had just been registered they probably couldn’t have been used to kill anyone.. but I’m gonna bet that who ever violated the law and shot someone might also violate the law and not register their gun. Want to bet what race the shooters were in these two cases? Want to know how many babies were aborted during the time these three persons were killed?
@Greg: It’s certainly what the liberal socialists want to talk about. It seems important to them that they get a lot of perverts into ladies restrooms.
@Rich Wheeler:
So if Cruz ‘must win’ in Indiana you’re saying he’ll drop out if he doesn’t come in first?
@Robert What?:
@Robert What?: a lot of conservatives would not vote for Trump it would really be a mixed bag
@John:
you need to keep up Johnny, polls now have them in a dead heat. So in just the last two months Trump has gone from being blown out to a dead heat, but November, it’ll be a blow out, Hillary can put her Orange suit on then.
@John:
you think conservatives will vote for HIllary? better check the grade of that weed you’re smoking.
Conservatives do seem to obsess about sex
Certainly the cons do lose votes over it
So as a Dem I would prefer to see the GOP shoot itself in the foot again over social issues
Red Team please cite those polls
I prefer RealClear’s average of many polls when I checked today I saw still quite a lead for Hillary
My guess is that you may have taken only a quick look at a Drudge headline
That is down now at 10:09
When I read that earlier it seemed to actually only say that in some/all of the 12 battleground states they were tied
Well that actually means a loss for the GOP
If the battleground states are split the Dems will have over 270 electoral votes
The GOP must win almost all of them to win, the Dems only some
The bookies, the Electonic markets and polls ALL heavily favor the Dems to win
My fav is Predictwise which aggregates them all at one site
It accurately predicted 50 of the 51 electoral outcomes last time
No of course I don’t think that conservatives would vote for Hillary
I do think it likely that many would simply not vote at all rather than vote for Trump
Unsure why you thought I was implying that conservatives would actually vote for Hillary although Charles Koch did seem to imply that in one of his statements today, didn’t he?
@John:
Some conservatives would initially say they would stay home, but as they learned more and more about Hillary I think their numbers would dwindle quickly. The NeoCons and the Cuckservatives might actually vote for Hillary. Though while they hold a lot of power in the Republican Establishment, their actual numbers are few. Throw in an estimated 20% of the Democrat vote and suddenly you’ve got yerself a real race.
@Greg: Its their sub-culture, Investigators believe the shooting is connected to a gang-related feud between “rivaling factions” in the north Philadelphia suburb. It may have inspired a drive-by shooting that killed an 18-year-old man and wounded a 17-year-old boy at 7:30 p.m., the TV station reported.
It had nothing to do with offering to volunteer with the Obama wanna be.
Flint case may be same issue, they have a suspect in custody.
And your references do not help your liberal anti gun case. The blue cities with the tightest gun control laws are still run by democrats and ooozing with poverty and murders.
LA, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Flint the list goes on and on.
You cannot legislate a way out of it, if they were not killing each other with guns it would be baseball bats , knives, cars ect.
Its the failed policies of these democrat strongholds that created the problems.
@John: I am sure the family is checking on Mr. Kochs aricept to be sure he is taking it as prescribed 😛
@Redteam:
According to reports this ”pact” did not last the day.
Although Kasich has been asked to stay out of IND, he has told his supporters there to go ahead and vote for him anyway there.
All he’s promising to do is NOT spend money he doesn’t have in IND.
According to polls 2/3rds of Kasich supporters would vote for Cruz.
But 1/3rd of them would vote for Trump.
@Artfldgr #10:
If it boiled down to that I will write in Sanders if he is still alive — otherwise Mickey Mouse or Heckle and Jeckle
@kitt:
Hmmm Kitt you do know that the rate of crime in general and murder in particular is much lower than say 40!years ago ?
The states that have the highest rates of gun violence are red states not blue they are also the states that have the highest rates of gun ownership
Would you agree that those red states have governments that have failed at the state level? In fact out if the top ten states for murder rates only one New Mexico is blue
Of course there are many reasons for that, in general those red states are poorer, and certainly receive much more money from DC than they contribute to our country. I guess you could also say that they too have had many failed policies. I guess you woukd agree that you would prefer to live in your safe blue state rather than in say Loiusiana
@kitt: @Budvarakbar: unless you live in a contested battleground state perhaps that woukd be a good idea
Heckle and Jeckle??? You do know they were essentially banned from public viewing because if the racial stereotypes?
@John:I wouldnt give up my red state I wouldnt live in its most populus city, democrat run. Gun ownership here is very high 7 in this household alone. With the explosion in gun ownership in the country its no wonder crime in general is down. So whats the obsession with Dems and guns?
Kitt
Actually the rate of gun ownership in households is down from its peak it peaked at about 50% in the 70s now down to about 33%
However now many people have multiple guns in one household, but fewer households have guns
@John: Everytime the dems talk control sales soar.
Gun sales are up and have been for a number of years. Certainly a good percentage of this increase is attributable to existing gun owners adding to their collections and the proposed anti-gun legislation in early 2013 certainly stoked the fires. On the other hand, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do.
If called for a Poll asking about my weapons I would tell then its NOYDB. I am sure many others would as well.
With the way libs lie, how could they expect their polls to be accurate?
Libs lie about polls lol
Kitt in the last POTUS race the polls that were the least accurate were the GOP polls
Great claims (of liberal inaccurate polls) must have great evidence to prove that
Kitt many people do for any number of reasons do not agree to take part in a poll
Since 1975 the number of Anericans who hunt has declined by 50% and the percent if people who live in a rural area has decreased by 1/3
As far as that 66% increase I did want to find out exactly how many people completed that course but was unable to
A “66%” increase may or may not really be significant if we are trying to extrapolate out into the 330 million population of the USA
Troll.
EVERYBODY knows the anti-gunners want to confiscate EACH AND EVERY SINGLE privately-owned gun in existence.
Bar NONE.
That’s just stating a BS argument and everybody knows it.
@John: About their polling , if a person is called and asked about firearms in the house they might not tell the truth making the polls inaccurate.
Reading comprehension at times is not your strong suit, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years.
The number of classes has increased therefore the demand for instructors.
Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do.
Plenty of city dwellers hunt its why some put blaze orange blankets on horses during the season.
Hunting is all shit on by the PC crowd so in more liberal areas conservation efforts are suffering due to lack of funds.
Here the anti hunting PC crowd are simply laughed at.
The favorite old hunting areas that were close at hand now a strip mall sits there. As hunters decrease they jack up the fees, further discouraging an already expensive venture.
@kitt: Speaking as a former “hunter” of V.C. and N.V.A. forces and not a gun owner–I ask you to explain the appeal of hunting sentient beings simply for sport.
Well ok the demand has increased
Is that demand a significant number ? I wasn’t able to actually see that
Perhaps you could actually tell me how many more people have completed the nra basic class
And how significant that number is in relation to the total numer of households that own guns
I (perhaps because of poor reading abilities) was not able to find out that info
I am sure you might be able to do better
@Rich Wheeler: That has no appeal to most hunters, they go for meat, have you checked the price of ground round mr. vegetarian?
That right vegetarians would never understand. We have had this conversation before Mr Wheeler can you remember?
Us libs run quite a gamut in hunting
I myself woukd like to see a BOUNTY put on deer and bear in suburban areas to encourage hunters, but those who like to hunt and kill are decreasing in numbers. I guess those PC libs are beating up on the hunters too much ?
For myself I find both meats a bit to lean for my tastes
Likewise to Rich I do not approve of trophy hunting, removing the best genes does not create a healthy population
Humans are the only predator that insists on killing the best
There are so few hunters out there now that the deer population in the USA is 100x what it was a century ago, there is now better hunting right next to that strip mall that Kitt blamed for the lack of hunters
Jesus even I know that Kitt
The most recent slight decline in total deer population is certainly more due to weather/climate than harvest numbers
@kitt: Approx. what percentage of hunters eat what they slaughter?
CKED Google–says about 80%–not bad
Your thoughts on canned trophy hunts like Trump sons participate in? Small d—s?
@John: As the NRA is not the only gun association getting accurate numbers of persons attending introductory classes wouldnt give you a correct number anyway, each private shooting range offers classes not in association with any national org.
The FBI reported that the agency conducted a total of 23,141,970 checks last year, eclipsing the previous record of nearly 21.1 million checks set in 2013.
@kitt:
So we still can’t really see how many people are completing the basic gun safety course
Is there some reason why that number is difficult to find ?
the polls are simply our best indication of ownership and trends
In general I have had good reason to respect the results of most polls
When I don’t I try to look at their methodology. The trend in decreasing numbers of households who own a gun has been a long term trend over 45 years.
If we did have that number of attending nra classes we would have an added bit of data
Is that number increasing/decreasing long/short term and trend
We do know the number of instructors is increasing but we don’t know if the total student numbers are increasing significantly
@John:
It would surprise many to learn that Illinois is a red state. Gun violence has gone down because a huge number of the people that might commit gun crimes are now being aborted by the millions. Why would prohibiting guns lower crimes. Most crimes are already against the law but they are still being committed.