So sad...

[RowdyRebel]

Almost feel sorry for the guy.

http://abcuni.abcnews.com/progressive/98330877-5095-4ac9-9a8c-7cdcd3944274/9a0483aa-91ad-47ca-9593-1f04fb66fee2/74ba4d0b-a347-11e4-bfdb-005056837bc7/0/0/659820517/content.mp4

[HeavyGunner]

Yup LOL he can't accept the fact that America has spoken and doesn't want him for president.

[carlotpilot]

WHO IS GOING TO MAKE IT? SEE IF I CAN START A FIGHT

[david wild]

I would like Trump just piss every one off.

[RowdyRebel]

"Please clap?"

[Outbehindthebarn]

WOW, that was sad!

{please clap}

[HeavyGunner]

WHO IS GOING TO MAKE IT? SEE IF I CAN START A FIGHT

While I feel there truly are no great candidates I would vote for trump. He couldn't do any worse than the community organizer, or any of the other politicians. I do like that he says what's on his mind whether it's popular or not. While I don't agree with everything he says I do like that he understands how business works and wants more businesses back in America and the free loading domestic and foreign to stop. At least that would be a decent start.

[carlotpilot]

While I feel there truly are no great candidates I would vote for trump. He couldn't do any worse than the community organizer, or any of the other politicians. I do like that he says what's on his mind whether it's popular or not. While I don't agree with everything he says I do like that he understands how business works and wants more businesses back in America and the free loading domestic and foreign to stop. At least that would be a decent start.

he`s a guy that has done SO much more in life and business than any three others combined its hard not to believe he has a plan that given a chance would work out to everyone`s benefit just thinkin out loud

[RowdyRebel]

Trump is the LAST GOP contender I would like to see as POTUS. Only way I'll vote for him is if he is the nominee and it's him or a socialist. Why? The next president is probably going to get to pick 3 or 4 justices to the SCOTUS. What kind of justices would Trump pick? Go back and look at his support for some of the WORST decisions to come from that court (Kelo, etc...) and you get an idea of the kinds of justices he will pick.

[carlotpilot]

Trump is the LAST GOP contender I would like to see as POTUS. Only way I'll vote for him is if he is the nominee and it's him or a socialist. Why? The next president is probably going to get to pick 3 or 4 justices to the SCOTUS. What kind of justices would Trump pick? Go back and look at his support for some of the WORST decisions to come from that court (Kelo, etc...) and you get an idea of the kinds of justices he will pick.

we thought bush picked a winner to but look what happened. i really think he thought so to.who ever is the nominee will have to beat a socialist

[RowdyRebel]

Yup. And like I said, I will vote for whoever the GOP puts up in November for that reason...but Trump is the bottom of the barrel as far as the choices go. People don't like politicians...but he's acting more like a politician than anybody else in the race...saying and doing anything he feels might win him a vote today, even if it wasn't what he was saying yesterday or the day before and projecting his own worst qualities onto the other candidates to make them look bad. I've never been a fan of making yourself look better by attacking your opponent any more than I've been a fan of the idea that you can help the poor by attacking the rich. It doesn't work like that. Trump stopped talking about why people should vote FOR him a long time ago, and has since engaged in a campaign of why you shouldn't vote for whoever he feels is his biggest threat. Hell, I don't think he even believes most of the crap coming out of his own mouth. Does he even know what a conservative is? Other than being "what you have to say you are to win the nomination", of course...

[Red Horse]

Yup. And like I said, I will vote for whoever the GOP puts up in November for that reason...but Trump is the bottom of the barrel as far as the choices go. People don't like politicians...but he's acting more like a politician than anybody else in the race...saying and doing anything he feels might win him a vote today, even if it wasn't what he was saying yesterday or the day before and projecting his own worst qualities onto the other candidates to make them look bad. I've never been a fan of making yourself look better by attacking your opponent any more than I've been a fan of the idea that you can help the poor by attacking the rich. It doesn't work like that. Trump stopped talking about why people should vote FOR him a long time ago, and has since engaged in a campaign of why you shouldn't vote for whoever he feels is his biggest threat. Hell, I don't think he even believes most of the crap coming out of his own mouth. Does he even know what a conservative is? Other than being "what you have to say you are to win the nomination", of course...

I think one good example that is very current and stands out IMO--Ethanol. It is a joke at this point in time. When the mandate was passed, we were in a completely different situation with respect to oil imports. So the10 % mandate was passed. All of the downsides of ethanol were known but it was I think considered the lesser of two evils.

Well a lot has changed- like it or not, fracking, tar sands production, recovery from old "played out" wells etc has changed things. To say nothing of the fact that the diversion of corn from a food stock to a petroleum stock has driven the cost of food up.

In any case, they are in Iowa, "corn/ethanol" capital and what does Trump do? Sticks his finger in the air, tests the wind, and he is all for ethanol. Cruz to his credit, takes the very unpopular position and stands his ground that he is against it- and wins! Now some would say-"well he is from Texas-what do you expect?". I guess I would say, the true politician would at the very least, take a very low profile on the subject- much like Rubio who said..."i'm in favor of a phaseout by 2022.

Bottom line, if you look at Trump and say..well he has done his job and raised some very real issues but his temperment and character is lacking, who is left?

More importantly, who has run anything? built anything? hired? fired? met a payroll? had to worry about profitability as a means of survival? had to deal with a real crisis? Is prepared to pull the trigger? Always maintained the high moral ground? And handled all those things well.

Answer those questions and that IMO is our candidate. One gifted public speaker in our lifetime is enough!

[bulldogbred]

I will throw my .02 with you on Ethanol. We farm also. What everybody forgets is the reason the government mandated the RFS and made a 10 percent blend is to use ethanol as an oxygenate to replace MTBE. Remember that stuff and all the links to toxicity problems. I am not saying we shouldn't consider eliminating the RFS. Right now with $30 crude ethanol is at a slight price disadvantage to oil. However, you go back the last several years when the oil companies were bending you over in the 100-140 crude days. Ethanol had a serious price advantage and that 10 percent helped keep the price down.

Also, how much did the price of your corn flakes go up at the grocery store due to ethanol?? When you buy that their is about a whole $.20 worth of actually corn in that box of $4 cereal. The livestock sector uses the byproduct from ethanol (distiller grain and gluten) for livestock feed. That has added a cheaper feed stock to the cattle producer. That argument of ethanol driving up food prices was dreamed up for you by the food processors,retail grocery stores and big oil of the world as an excuse to stick it up your you know what. Doesn't anybody see that big oil is part of the guys funding the anti ethanol campaign. Gee I wonder why. I'm not going to sit here and tell you it may not have influenced it slightly but it hasn't caused the bulk of your food price increases at the grocer. Go back to the 1980's and 90's when we had an extra 2 BILLION bushel what we call carry over crop year to year of corn. That was corn that didn't have a home. Now you can go to the pump and buy fuel that was produced in the Midwest USA instead of a Saudi oil field lining some wealthy princes pockets.

Look I am not arguing ethanol shouldn't be left to compete in a free market like anything else. I as a farmer am fine with that. Get the government out of our business and let us run them the way we want.

[Red Horse]

I will throw my .02 with you on Ethanol. We farm also. What everybody forgets is the reason the government mandated the RFS and made a 10 percent blend is to use ethanol as an oxygenate to replace MTBE. Remember that stuff and all the links to toxicity problems. I am not saying we shouldn't consider eliminating the RFS. Right now with $30 crude ethanol is at a slight price disadvantage to oil. However, you go back the last several years when the oil companies were bending you over in the 100-140 crude days. Ethanol had a serious price advantage and that 10 percent helped keep the price down.

Also, how much did the price of your corn flakes go up at the grocery store due to ethanol?? When you buy that their is about a whole $.20 worth of actually corn in that box of $4 cereal. The livestock sector uses the byproduct from ethanol (distiller grain and gluten) for livestock feed. That has added a cheaper feed stock to the cattle producer. That argument of ethanol driving up food prices was dreamed up for you by the food processors,retail grocery stores and big oil of the world as an excuse to stick it up your you know what. Doesn't anybody see that big oil is part of the guys funding the anti ethanol campaign. Gee I wonder why. I'm not going to sit here and tell you it may not have influenced it slightly but it hasn't caused the bulk of your food price increases at the grocer. Go back to the 1980's and 90's when we had an extra 2 BILLION bushel what we call carry over crop year to year of corn. That was corn that didn't have a home. Now you can go to the pump and buy fuel that was produced in the Midwest USA instead of a Saudi oil field lining some wealthy princes pockets.

Look I am not arguing ethanol shouldn't be left to compete in a free market like anything else. I as a farmer am fine with that. Get the government out of our business and let us run them the way we want.

Well I did not mean to start an "ethanol" thread- I was just using it as an example of what is going on with the candidates. And while I'm not for Cruz-one way or another, it was a bold position for him to take. Trump on the other hand took the politically expedient way out- as did Romney, McCain etc before him. Not many have the conviction to take an "anti ethanol" position in a key "ethanol" state.

Now as an aside, I guess what bothers me is they are trying to increase the annual blend requirement. In my opinion, that is pure BS-in particular when we are now almost a net exporter of crude. When the Clean Air act was passed in 90, and the you needed an oxygenate to meet the regs, you are correct -MTBE was the answer and it was soon discovered the stuff was deadly once it got into groundwater. Ethanol was the replacement. I think a big question today, is do todays gasoline engines with their state of the art fuel injection systems and electronic controls even need 10% ethanol to be compliant?

While you may disagree, there is a theory that says not only does ethanol have a harmful effect on mpg-and ultimately energy consumption, the amount of water used in its production as well as the carbon dioxide used in the production cycle releases large amounts of CO-2. I won't argue your point that the food issue is BS but it does seem logical that a lot of corn has been diverted from animal feed production-as well as "corn flake" production.

Last point, ever think about the logistics cost of ethanol? Ethanol is injected at the last point in the distribution chain- the terminal at which tank trucks load prior to delivery to the gas station. And while the bulk of those terminal in the US receive their gasoline via pipeline-the most cost effective transportation mode, you can't ship ethanol in a pipeline because of its corrosive nature. So how does it get to the terminals? By the most expensive bulk transporttion mode- rail. (unless of course the production facility is on a waterway that supports barge traffic and conversely the distribution terminal is on a waterway.)

Just some points to think about. I don't lose any sleep over the 10% rule- but increasing the standard beyond that is nonsense IMO and is a purely political football. Oh and talk about politics, the Gov of Iowa's son? He works for one of the big ethanol lobbies.

[HeavyGunner]

Does he even know what a conservative is? Other than being "what you have to say you are to win the nomination", of course...

Do any of the candidate really know what conservatism is other than cow towing to the ultra religious right? Are any of the others saying anything other than towing the company line as far as things they would do as president or are they to saying what needs to be said to get elected. Again I'm not painting trump as some saint but at least he's an entrepreneur and has shown for decades that he can run a business and make money. He believes you keep what you work for, not give it to the leaches. He's not a career politician like everyone else and him being too dog in the polls just shows you how sick of career politicians Americans are. As for trump being bottom of the barrel, he might be IF he was the one you happen to grab while digging around at the bottom of the barrel. He's no worse than any other candidate.

[carlotpilot]

Do any of the candidate really know what conservatism is other than cow towing to the ultra religious right? Are any of the others saying anything other than towing the company line as far as things they would do as president or are they to saying what needs to be said to get elected. Again I'm not painting trump as some saint but at least he's an entrepreneur and has shown for decades that he can run a business and make money. He believes you keep what you work for, not give it to the leaches. He's not a career politician like everyone else and him being too dog in the polls just shows you how sick of career politicians Americans are. As for trump being bottom of the barrel, he might be IF he was the one you happen to grab while digging around at the bottom of the barrel. He's no worse than any other candidate.

:clap:

[RowdyRebel]

Trump says you keep what you work for, as long as you can line the pockets of the politicians. If you're a little guy and your home isn't generating enough tax revenue for the city, the city ought to be able to use eminent domain to take that home from you give it to a developer who intends to build a shopping center or a hotel on that property which will generate a considerably chunk of tax dollars for the politicians to spend. That's the Kelo decision that Trump supported "100%".

Trump isn't for the "little guy" or the "working man". Trump is in this for Trump. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if a candidate truly believes in limited government under the Constitution...and that just as the Declaration states, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." why does that mean they are cow towing to the "religious right"? Because they believe there is a Creator? Or perhaps that they believe government should protect LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of Happiness? Or maybe that they believe without the consent of the governed, that the government has no power? Or that (as the 10th Amendment states) the powers NOT delegated to the federal government by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states RESIDES WITH THE. STATES AND THE PEOPLE? Yup...somebody with those beliefs is a religious nut and has no idea what a conservative is.

[HeavyGunner]

Trump says you keep what you work for, as long as you can line the pockets of the politicians. If you're a little guy and your home isn't generating enough tax revenue for the city, the city ought to be able to use eminent domain to take that home from you give it to a developer who intends to build a shopping center or a hotel on that property which will generate a considerably chunk of tax dollars for the politicians to spend. That's the Kelo decision that Trump supported "100%".

Trump isn't for the "little guy" or the "working man". Trump is in this for Trump. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if a candidate truly believes in limited government under the Constitution...and that just as the Declaration states, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." why does that mean they are cow towing to the "religious right"? Because they believe there is a Creator? Or perhaps that they believe government should protect LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of Happiness? Or maybe that they believe without the consent of the governed, that the government has no power? Or that (as the 10th Amendment states) the powers NOT delegated to the federal government by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states RESIDES WITH THE. STATES AND THE PEOPLE? Yup...somebody with those beliefs is a religious nut and has no idea what a conservative is.

All say it again are any of the "conservative" candidates any better Or any different than all the bad things you outlined about trump above? Last I checked the "conservatives" are scared to death to even speak about illegal immigration much less talk openly about deporting them like Trump has. As far as cow towing to the ultra religious right huckabee and others back people like the gal who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to gay people. I don't necessarily agree or like gay marriage but I recognize their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. The right gets caught up cow towing to the ultra right on stuff like gay marriage and for what? That's why they aren't getting elected. So again Trump is now worse than any other "conservative" and I'm sure if you looked you'd find that the other candidates have voted on something you don't like or backed companies or policies you don't like the difference I see is trump has a set, and because he made HIS OWN MONEY he doesn't care about being pc to get elected.

[RowdyRebel]

Constitution does not give the federal government the power to define marriage, nor prohibits the state from defining marriage. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment it is a matter for the States and the People of each state to decide for themselves. The federal court overstepped its authority injecting itself into a matter in which it lacked jurisdiction. Then there is the 1st Amendment, where congress shall make no law infringing upon a person's free exercise of religion. If a person's faith teaches that homosexual relations are sinful, then the government is prohibited from forcing that person to violate their religious beliefs by participating or sanctioning the union.

I'm not saying it was right or wrong for her to do what she did...just that it was wrong for the federal court to do what IT did. Nobody should be locked up in jail for abiding by their faith...and that's why conservatives were fighting on her behalf. If the government can dictate what you must believe, and will lock you up for disagreeing, how are we any better than N. Korea, China, Iran, the old Soviet Union, or even ISIS?

[HeavyGunner]

I agree mostly with you rowdy but playing devils advocate saying nobody should be locked up for abiding by their faith is wrong in some aspects. The woman could have stepped down from her paid government position and by doing that she still could have been faithful to her values by not giving same sex marraige licenses. But she chose to keep her paid position and project her faith and values on others even though by law it was legal. That in my opinion is wrong. You have the right to your faith and beliefs even if the law disagrees with you but you still have to follow the laws. We all follow laws we don't necessarily like or believe in but we understand if we don't there are consequences. Unfortunately it is usually a long process but the only fair way to change it is by voting and getting the right people in which is nearly impossible since we haven't had any great candidates since I've been able to vote. Voting has always been for the lesser of the two evils in my situation.

[RowdyRebel]

But "the law" WAS what she was abiding by. Kentucky law banned same-sex marriage. Kentucky law also required her signature on the license for it to be valid, which she could not in good conscience do. The federal court overstepped it's Constitutional power by ruling on a matter in which it lacked authority to act. The governor of Kentucky also could have called the legislature into session to change the law thereby removing the requirement that she validate the license with her signature. Nobody should have to resign from a job they've held for over 20 years because an activist judge illegally changed the job description. It will be curious to see if the people in her county reelect her once again for the stand she took. Remember, though, it wasn't JUST the county clerk. There are PRIVATE florists, bakers, property owners (venues), etc. who have all been attacked and penalized for exercising their religious freedom. If one baker doesn't want to bake your wedding cake, FIND ANOTHER BAKER! If this florist won't create your wedding bouquet, there are PLENTY of gay florists who will be more than happy to oblige. If this clerk won't issue the license, drive 20 miles to the next county and get it there. NOBODY should have to violate their religious beliefs.

[41chevy]

Federal, State County and Town governments have taken on so many "powers" that they are not supposed to have. As for Trump aside from being more vocal he is no different from ANY of the candidates on both sides. Does anyone think any one of them is For the People?

How many laws and regulations are bought and paid for by International lobbyists, companies and even governments. Hillary has a tremendous PAC for European and Asian Countries, don't think that future laws and treaties aren't bought and paid for. Been going on since Nixon at least.

Religious beliefs are condoned only if the government agrees with them IE Hobby Lobby or the Sisters of Faith in California and the ACA laws. Same sex marriages? They get what they want because they have powerful lobbyests, media coverage and a visible voter bloc. State and Local governments creating laws that violate the Constitution from parking in your own driveway to Albany's Secure Gun Laws that allows warrentless searches(supported by the U.S. Supreme Court as legal)

Ethanol fine if you want it, but most would prefer a choice, not a mandate.

As for the next President, postulate all you want but the Electoral College chooses them and more than half the states do not have to follow the popular vote.

Just my opinion.

[RowdyRebel]

What makes America great is not some guy in Washington who says, If I had more power, I could fix it all unilaterally.' Thats not the American tradition.

May not be the American tradition, but it IS what Trump, Bernie, Hillary are all saying. It is also what Obama expressed with his whole "We are the ones we've been waiting for" line of crap.

And yes, there are folks in the race who have made a career out of fighting against the growth of government, standing in the way when government overreaches its authority, and making enemies out of those who would "go along to get along" if befriending them would mean breaking promises made to the people whom he serves.

Personally, I'd like to see a solid conservative like Ted Cruz as president with a fierce libertarian such as Rand Paul as his VP. Put Ben Carson as HHS Secretary, where he could focus his attention on what he knows best, figuring out how to get out from under the Obamacare debacle and transition to a free market approach. I'd also like to see either Scott Walker or Chris Christie heading up the Labor Dept. because both have shown they are capable of standing up to union thugs and doing the right thing. Trump would do best as Secretary of State pounding out whatever deals need to be made with foreign governments, but with the oversight and guidance of a president who has the best interest of the US in mind, not just what's in the best interest of Trump.

...and speaking of the electoral college, some states passed laws following AL Gore's loss in 2000 so that their states electoral votes would go to the winner of the NATIONAL poular vote, essentially rendering the voters in their state irrelevant. Those laws won't take effect until enough states pass similar laws that the electoral vote tally will be the 50% + 1 required to "win". Illinois is one such state, passed by democrats.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/001000200K5.htm

[james j neiweem]

Heavy Gunner. Not to be a but head but the real ultra religious right are the Muslim fanatics. They not only preach but carry out evil actions. You can turn off the blah blah from the Christian right but you have to kill or be killed with reguards to the Islamists.

[Underdog]

Trump is an economic candidate, he is a businessman who got pissed off enough to run for office when the government is hitting him in the wallet.

I also don't begrudge the so called "1%", because they are the ones that provide jobs for the rest of us, for those who choose to work. Trickle down economics 101, if Donald Trump does well, chances are, most of the rest of us will do well.

The older I get, the less I trust career politicians.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk