SteveWolfer

Thanks. I agree with you. They understand about incremental regulation. They've long practiced deception regarding where they are ultimately headed. They want total control, but will settle for as much as they can get in this moment, while they plan to use this gain as the precedent for the next gain. Progressivism is relentless and it is no accident that they don't give a clear explanation of what they are 'progressing' towards - they leave it open ended because there is no end to the power they crave.

I really, really hope that Hillary doesn't win, and that Trump is what he claims to be. But there is no way that I can pretend that I think other than I do. I have no respect for people who pretend a thing is wonderful because they hate it's alternative. Sometimes the truth is that we are not given a good alternative.

So, are there people who will paint your rifle white? I'm sure that many of the owners of these black weapons don't want to suddenly find that they are committing mass murder. It is an outrage that these know-nothings can work themselves up into an emotional snit based solely on their ignorance and then mistake that for moral justification to act as a total tyrant and passing decrees. If she tried that in one of the Western states (California excepted), as soon a people stopped laughing, they'd run her out of office so fast she wouldn't know what happened. Massachusetts is where we had Boston Massacre of 1770, then the Boston Tea Party and it's where Samuel Adams and John Hancock stood up to the greatest military power in the world at that time over taxation and that spirit led to the shots heard round the world at Lexington and Concord. George Washington became the general of the Continental Army and had his first victory with the Siege of Boston. But look how times have changed. This indignant, righteous twit is telling people of Massachusetts what guns they can buy... right down to the color. How sad is that.

The transition from government will have to include changing some laws. There are laws right now that grant special legal privileges to agencies who grant special privileges to cronies and special interests. Money goes from the debt the treasury creates and from the money tax payers are squeezed for to people who shouldn't get it. And the acts of the Fed drive markets, effect credit rates, move money around in huge amounts. These are legal changes that need to be made so private enterprise can create better ways to use technology to facilitate the flow of capital, the store of value, and the determination of credit terms.

Done right, these would be awesome! Money is a commodity and it should not be controlled by the government. Needless to say, the transition from government money, government control of the banking system, and government intervention in the credit markets would have to be very orderly and over time. But the result would a much more vibrant, and healthy system. And far less of the world's wealth would go into the pockets of politicians, cronies and special interests. The functions of money and credit would be handled better without the government involved. Fractional reserve banking and international banking and financial clearing houses... none of these need to be government run. The IRS should be dissolved and replaced with a small department within the Treasury. It should just be collecting some very small percentage of all sales at the consumer level. No more. Get rid of all income tax, all of those exemptions and regulations, capital gains, inheritance taxes, and payroll taxes.

Clinically diagnosed narcissists come in considerable varieties - some with very good families and considerable success in business. It is a defensive mechanism that can actually accelerate success in business. It isn't good for the president of a constitutional government.

They all fill me with disgust. These are people who use their little minds to generate made-up facts to suit soap-opera motives. Maybe they do it to make a buck... I'd rather be a drug dealer than that kind of political soap-opera prostitution. I wish people like that would stay in something like astrology, or ESP, or selling snake oil and get the hell out of politics.

I hope you are right. But EVERYTHING I've seen about Trump and those who support him is that the longer and more ardently they support him, the more they come to see in him things that I cannot find the slightest hide nor hair of.

Only in general terms and a few details.

I find Cruz's religiosity very repellent. But, his strong, clear grasp of the constitution and his long work with it, as a clerk on the Supreme Court, with the briefs he wrote as Texas AG, and what I've heard him say, made it clear to me that he would keep religion separate from government. He has said that as president the constitution comes before anything, including the bible. As for Trump, he has shown himself to be good at making money in this economy. He builds things. That's good. But I don't see any evidence that he understands the principles of Capitalism with the kind of clarity a president should. I don't see a level of honesty that we should see. I don't see a stable personality in this area. I have a clinical understanding of Narcissism and it isn't the same as high self-esteem and it can be a serious problem for an office like president. If I'd had it my way, we'd be talking about nominee Rand Paul and arguing about if he will be strong enough against ISIS. But that isn't the case. And Ted Cruz is no longer the case. It is, for me, "NeverHillary" and maybe Trump, maybe not.

Somebody should point out to David Knight that the Ukraine is not part of Russia... It doesn't need to secede - it wants to stay independent. David Knight is pushing that Goldman Sachs military industrial wanting to get rich selling stuff in an active war conspiracy theory. There is nothing there that is intelligent foreign policy. A principled approach to the Ukraine is finding a way to discourage Putin from escalating his desire to expand beyond his borders. That is the only concern we have for the Ukraine is as one possible focus point for discouraging Putin from trying to rebuild the old Soviet Union. The return of Glass Steagall is nutty. You don't destroy the ability to compete in a global financial environment as a way to stop big financial houses from being able to socialize losses, or from being able to draw on Fed funds at below market rates. We need to get government farther out of finance not deeper in. This is a call for greater regulation without ever addressing the problems of socialized losses, bailouts, or federal reserve abuses.

That's business and/or finance and/or marketing... it isn't economics.

We will see. If he wins. At this point all we know is that he has no grasp economic principles as we know them here.

The court of public opinion might think this is very tiny bit of nothing. Or, they might think that Trump supporters are behaving like asses by focusing on hating Ted Cruz when they should be focused on the general election. Or, their may be more Republicans - people in the grass roots - not the people in office, not in the convention hall, and not those spitting fire in the blogoshere who still don't like Trump. Question: What is worse that shooting inside the tent during a primary? Answer: Shooting fellow republicans when the primary is done. Question: Who would be the absolute worse Republican for Trumpers to shoot at right now? Answer: The person who come in second... i.e., the person who was the second most desired as president.

I can't bring myself to bet for a Hillary victory - I don't want to make any money out of a disaster.

Yes, I saw that and I tried to fix it, but that attribution line couldn't be edited. I did go back and edit the post to make sure people know what you quoted and what you didn't

We've already seen it. People know that Trump went all weasel-like on the pledge, and others are taking that as solid proof that the pledge is no longer binding (Cruz, Kasich, Bush, etc.). But that is past. If the Trumpians stay all hot and bothered over this instead of focusing on the Hillary fight, they will loose the fight with Hillary and there isn't anything to win by fighting with Cruz or Kasich or Bush. You don't win a war without firing your shots at the actual enemy. Trump digs holes and then he still moves forward to dig new holes. I don't think he'll get past his hole with women, with Hispanics, or with Cruz supporters.

Michael, I retrieved that part of the quote of mine that you dropped ... I like to be helpful. p.s., That part of the quote that is in bold is indeed made of my words, but Michael Stuart Kelly did NOT quote them - he left them out, and quoted only that last part which he was okay with. I put them back in but couldn't change the wording where it looks like Michael was doing the quoting.

No so. If Trump abrogates his part in his pledge to the RNC, everyone's pledge to the RNC is voided. The separate agreements are all linked by their nature - they were to bring about everyone acting in the same way.

This latest kerfuffle isn't going to mean much. Constantly calling Cruz a liar and a hypocrite when held up next to Trump is absurd. What we will see is Trump absolutely crushed by Hillary and that would partially vindicate everyone who did NOT stand next to Trump. Or, Trump will win and turn out to be a horrible president, which will partly vindicate those who fought against him from inside the party and never joined. Or, Trump will become an acceptable to great president and Cruz will be a forgotten has-been. There was no longer any pledge to live up to - it died when Trump indicated that he did not consider it binding and added terms to it that only applied to a pledge between he and the RNC. There is a real insecurity in attacks on Trump, when Hillary is the real enemy. And when all of the Cruz supporters are out there to be won over, not trashed.

Exactly! And for Trump people to treat this like some kind of giant issue that in front of them and must be addressed and that Cruz must be pilloried, burnt on a cross, and never again darken political halls is a sign that there is something wrong in the psychology here. They should be focused on being supporters of man who would not want vindictiveness from his people, a man who is generous, a man who sees great value in Cruz even if Cruz doesn't like him. They don't want him seen as a thin-skinned paranoid fellow who keeps an enemies list - we had too many of those. They should be focused on how the hell do you win an election with so few millennials, so few women, so few Hispanics, so few Asians, so few blacks. How do you beat a powerful get-out the vote machine the Clinton's control? Does ANYONE think that attacks on Cruz - calling him names - treating him like leper will win over a single one of them? Do you unify the party base by taking one of the very largest segments of it and trashing its leader? Stupid! Even Hillary had the good sense to woo the Bernie people. Sheesh!

Ever since an act passed in 1934 which let FDR set Tarrifs, there has been something of a tradition for presidents to do what really should be a matter of law passed by congress. Bush put a tariff on steel in 2002. I don't remember if that was sanctioned by some act of congress or not. I really don't know the history or the law in this area.

There are some pledges that start out valid, like a proper contract, with meeting of the minds, specificity, consideration given, etc. But then some of them become meaningless - such as when one party abandons them. But there are pledges that start of meaningless. What about those check-boxes on forms that say, "Check here if you have read and agreed with the terms of this agreement." And all you are doing is downloading an update to a minor software program you bought years ago. If that agreement runs to so pages of obscure, fine print - do you take that Pledge? There are lots of cases where a politician signs some pledge, like to the NRA, and then ends up violating it, and usually for sleazy political reasons, but not always. What if the NRA started using all of its receipts to back political candidates you opposed? What if they chose to compromise and permit the banning of something that liberals call an Assault rifle, but really isn't Pledges turn out to be weak tea in politics and the only ones that matter are the ones a person takes with themselves. Those don't go public.

But it is there in his own words, on video. The man does this all the time. He says something, then he qualifies it or disowns it, or evolves. And his supporters can find NOTHING wrong with him (That's borg-like), and they reserve their greatest vitriol for a conservative who won't support him. If Trump had insulted my father like that, I'd very likely have punched him the chops - screw any pledge. And I hope that Trump beats Hillary because that will give them a better chance at those goals. Because with Hillary, we know that she will make things worse for them, and we are only guessing and hoping with Trump. If he institutes a 35% tariff, we may see our faltering economy drop, not into to a recession, but into a major depression. We don't know what he'll do. Every time someone points out things like this, his supporters have to 'explain' him... like he was tea leaves, or an obscure oracle, or passages of scripture. Steve, That's a hell of a statement coming from someone who speaks often about morality. Do you mean your pledges are meaningless? Or the pledges by your guy are meaningless when he breaks them? Or my pledges are meaningless? Or that nobody's word should be their bond because we are all liars, especially when we make a ceremonial promise? I shouldn't have said "Pledges are meaningless" when what I meant is "This pledge has become meaningless" Trump wiped out that pledge - it no longer exists... It became meaningless. There are other videos showing Trump unilaterally making his 'pledge' conditional - adding conditions after it is signed ("If I'm treated fairly") There is something Hilarious about Trump expecting consistency out of someone else when he unilaterally refused to treat it with any honor himself. For him it has never been anything but a bargaining level first with the RNC, then with the other candidates.. Trump should be glad that Cruz didn't "Endorse" him. Because if Cruz were to do that, just to meet the letter of the law on this non-binding agreement, he could easily have done it in a way that ripped Trump up one side and down the other while saying that Trump is like beating your thumb with a hammer, but Hillary is like cutting it off with a dull knife... so I Endorse this man who I think has no honor as being the lesser of two evils. The giant uproar in the convention hall over Cruz's speech which didn't say one single negative word against Trump shows the true believer status Trumpians have adopted.

Well said. It is painful to watch much of this silliness. Makes me want to move to a deserted Isle somewhere. The Dems convention, next week, will be far worse. Like looking into a sewage filled snake pit.