Saturday, March 26, 2016

Treating the symptom, not the disease

The usual rant about Islam?  Not quite, but...

Comment upon the video:

Islam is a problem all right, but it is a symptom.  It would be no threat whatever to the West if the thing that is really killing the west were to be treated first.

Deal with Liberal/Leftism first.

Liberalism must be defeated.

The usual suspects in both parties won't address it.  Not even the "stalwart" Cruz would address if it weren't for Trump.

I don't believe Ted Cruz

Cruz is our last best hope?

Sorry, I am not buying it.

I've given my reasons.  Let me repeat, and add a few things.  The new part is that Cruz is a well read guy.  I will give him that.  Trump may be an ignoramus as well.  Maybe he isn't even a good businessman, as they claim.

But what has Cruz done?  Where are the scars on his face?  He is getting credit for guts, but where's the scars?  Where's the proof of his valor?  His stint in the Senate does not impress me in the slightest.  He is what I was referring to as the "leaven of the Pharisees".  The Pharisees look good on the outside, but if you dig deeper, they stop looking good.  Cruz is a part of the problem of the so called conservatives.  They talk loud and carry a little stick.

We hear all about what they are going to do and then nothing happens.  Same with Cruz.  You don't like the term "Pharisee"?  Then consider this label:  Boutique Republican.  He is Boutique cuz he's pretty, but that is all he's good for.  Looking pretty, but only offering excuses for his lack of real accomplishment.

Cruz is relying upon Trump's tail wind.  Without Trump, Cruz would have to tone down his language considerably.  He has to compete with Trump as long as Trump is in the race.  As soon as Trump is gone, the Democrats are going to lower the boom.  Little Ted will wilt.  As a typical Boutique Republican, he will fold like a cheap accordion.

Maybe Trump will too.  Then it is hopeless.  All the books in the world ain't gonna give you guts.

I think Trump has guts.  Like in the movie Full Metal Jacket, having guts is enough.  I know that it is just a movie, but do you really think guts isn't necessary, or optional?

Friday, March 25, 2016

Hillary for President

I think I must have had a revelation.  Everywhere I look, it is anti Trump this and anti Trump that.  Then it hit me.  All those people can't be wrong, so it must be me.  So, for now on, I will join the others like Ace of the Ace of Spades blog, and support Hillary.

I have seen the light!


No.  No way I support Hillary.  It wasn't a joke.  It was a lie.  I know why I don't lie.  I don't do it very well.

Beware the leaven of the Pharisees

Not the same place in gospel of Matthew as this below, but to me, it is very close to the same thing.

Woes to Scribes and Pharisees
26"You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness

People worry more about appearances than the reality.  What is inside matters more than its appearance, but for many people it seems to be the other way around.

Basic concepts

One question that arises from time to time on this blog is the question of what it is all about.  It has changed over time, as I continue the quest into what has gone wrong.

I've changed the blog to reflect new understandings as I have come across them.

It is now time to start summarizing some of these ideas into some basic concepts.

How do I do this?  It may take a bit of research to get it all, but that last post can be a start.

A preliminary list:

  • Artificial scarcity
  • The truth is a slippery thing
  • Being right isn't enough
  • If you can't take a joke...
This is rather short.  Nobody will believe it unless  I make a longer list.  But nobody needs this list anyway because you people already know it.  Hence the header at the top of the blog page--- about the quest being into the known.  None of this is esoteric.  None of this is complicated.  None of this is hard.  But it may as well be rocket science.  You can't get anyone to accept it and put the principles into practice.  If we did, our problems would be converted from mountains into molehills.


Ideology can make you stupid.  Perfect example is the GOP.

About F.A.R.T.S ( Forced Artificial Scarcity ) repost from 2010

Note:  This one is so obvious that everyone gets it, but nobody wants to accept it.  Please do not tell me that we must have scarcity in order for the economy to work.  Scarcity is what makes markets.  You cannot make a market for something that exists in great abundance.  An example?  The air you breathe is free.  There is a superabundance of it, and therefore it cannot be marketed for a price.

Of course, the idea that you could mine asteroids for precious metals is given for a reason not to do it.  There would be so much precious metals that the price would go to zero.

Therein lies the principle that is hidden in plain sight.  Everybody knows this, but nobody accepts that we could have radical abundance.   So, we get FARTS instead.

When Obama talks about climate change, he is imposing this fraud upon us. There is no reason for it.

The original posts follows....

Last month, I came across an article on that I would like to comment upon here.  It was called 5 Reasons The Future Will Be Ruled By B.S.  which was written by David Wong. 

Well, I am not familiar with his work, so I looked up a short bio on  I didn't read anything else besides this article.  What got my attention was his concept of FARTS.  Forced ARTificial Scarcity.  He writes it with a sense of humor, but there is a serious side to this.

I got to thinking about this in connection to the Bussard Polywell device.  The question arose in my mind, what if this is just another example of FARTS?  Not just a brain fart, but a real conspiracy to keep this away from the world that really needs it. 

If Bussard was right, and this thing will work, it will be a rather curious thing to me.  The reason why is that it took this long.  The technology and science isn't that radically new.  It is based on findings made close to sixty years ago.

Bussard didn't claim a conspiracy.  He avoided using that talk like a plague.  No doubt, he would be rolling over in his grave at the thought that anyone would attribute that to him.  So, let me make this clear.  I am not saying that Bussard was saying it.  I am saying it.  Or, I am putting the idea forth as a prime example of FARTS.  There is no energy scarcity.  If we had this, energy would be abundant.

There is no need to control greenhouse gases.  Because if we had this, we wouldn't be using fossil fuels.  It wouldn't even be an issue.  Thus, "controlling greenhouse gases" is just another example of FARTS.

Which wouldn't be an issue except for the other example of FARTS.  The energy scarcity is being forced upon us in order for someone to be able to make a profit off of energy, which if there were no FARTS, it would be hard to make money otherwise.  We have enough energy to last centuries or even millenia.

If I would really want to get paranoid, I would say that Bussard's Polywell device for fusion will not be allowed to work.  It must not be allowed to work.  There are too many who have a vested interest in it not working.  So, it must not be allowed to work.  Nor will any other attempt to control greenhouse gases.  Nor will any attempt to make energy prices more affordable.  There will be just more and more FARTS. 

Another excuse to charge you money for something you can get for almost nothing. Maybe it was just an honest mistake.  A genuine misunderstanding.  Somebody, or a lot of somebodies just overlooked a promising technology.  The same technology that has been described as the holy grail of physics.  But I am suspicious.  I smell a rat.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Nightmare scenarios

With certain elements in the GOP coalition start threatening to vote for Hillary, it may be time to war game the nightmare scenarios that may be possible in this cycle.

The GOP nominating process is down to three candidates 1) Trump 2) Cruz, and 3) Kasich.

Kasich may not really count because the process as it stands now cannot yield him as the nominee.  Yet something could happen that would change things enough  so that he comes back into play as a contender.  From then on, he would be a contender until he is eliminated for good.

If the process yields Kasich, what is the final outcome?  It may depend upon how the process unfolds.  There are reports that there are those who may try to steal the nomination away from Trump so that he can't win.  If this is heavy handed enough, it will doom Kasich to defeat in the general election.

However if the "cage match" so badly damages both Trump and Cruz, Kasich could win by default.  In such a case as that, one may truly be in a dilemma about what to do.  It could be Hillary v Kasich.  Not a very good choice.  The argument for never supporting Kasich in any circumstance could be problematic if Hillary is the nominee.  I'd say the odds of that happening are low, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

Trump is a nightmare for many.  But which is worse?  Hillary or Trump?  That certain people would actually go all out and vote for Hillary may seem more like a bluff, you cannot count it out.  Nor should anybody.  Goldwater's defeat was exacerbated by something like this.  Trump must unite the party, or his chances are much diminished.  He may not be able to unite the party at all.  I rate this a moderate to severe risk.  It doesn't help that he can't seem to put it away.  I've been aware of this for some time now.  It's really up to Trump on this one.

Cruz is the nightmare for me.  He is plausible enough to unite the party, but I think this would be an empty and Pyrrhic victory.  A red v blue matchup doesn't NOT favor the GOP.  The idea that he could is rated here as close to zero.

It may look like this war gaming favors Kasich, but I say no.  For the GOP to win, they need to expand the map and hang on to as many of the traditional GOP as possible.  I don't see him doing that.
None of this looks good at the moment.  The highest probability is a Cruz victory that has him being defeated in the general election.

If you are Pro Family, You don't vote for Trump

American Thinker

The criticism is that Trump just isn't Pro Family enough.  Ergo, don't vote for Trump.


This may be considered as a reasonable criticism.  But I think that it is just a sophisticated anti Trump argument.

True enough that Trump may go too far with some of the things he says and does, but does that mean we must choose Hillary instead?  Isn't there more important things on our plate than this?

I look at Trump the way that Lincoln looked at Grant.  Lincoln was asked about Grant's alleged drinking problems and Lincoln replied that he couldn't spare the man.  Lincoln wasn't about to sack Grant for his alleged drinking even if the stories were true.  To emphasize that, Lincoln said that even if the stories were true, he'd find out what Grant was drinking and give it to all of his Generals.

That's because Grant would FIGHT.  The very existence of the nation was on the line, and Grant would FIGHT and even WIN his battles.  Lincoln was finding that these kind of generals were hard to find.  A drinking problem didn't rank higher in priority than in finding a man who would confront the enemy and defeat him.  For the others, they thought his drinking was the important thing.

I think Trump may be indispensable because he fights and he can win.  These guys won't.

That is all.

I thought this guy was conservative, silly me

You may notice, if you come here often, that I took down the link to the Ace of Spades blog.

As mentioned in the previous post in the Keyboard Warrior genre, I could get into a flame war with this guy over Trump.

If I did, it would be for things like in this post of his.

In it, he says a number of things, which might even be a reasonable criticism of Trump, but then he says if Trump won, that would actually vote for Hillary.


Trump may or may not be a bad guy, but we know what the Clintons are.

A true conservative would  NEVER vote for Clinton.  EVER.   My mistake to think this guy was conservative.  I don't know what he is, but he ain't no conservative.

As for Trump, I have already given my opinion.  He says too much.  He lets himself get into these food fights, when he should avoid them.  As a result, he is letting his enemies define him as a guy who cannot do anything but get into food fights.

If anything can defeat Trump at this point, it is probably that.

Nothing personal.  No keyboard warrior fights.  Just taking down the link.  That's all.


No, there's more.  But I can't prove it.   I suspect that Ace wrote something about going MUSLIM because the MUSLIMS will fight.  He was expressing the frustration that so many on the grassroots side have for these Establishment characters in DC.  I may not have come down hard on it, so maybe the link isn't there and I didn't comment upon it at all.  Or it can be obscure and hard to find.  If you've got over 10k posts, some of them may be too hard to find.

What I did find is that Ace, or those on Ace, have expressed the same kind of sentiments that they are now criticizing in Donald Trump.  That is, he's too aggressive.  That one may be provable.

I don't think this is Keyboard Warriorism, just the facts ma'am.

If I look hard enough for it, I may be able to find it.

At the very least, they bear some responsibility for what they are now criticizing.  Thought that somebody out there might be interested.

Keyboard warrior

The idea for this post has been floating in my head for the last few days.  Since I haven't posted anything today, why not start now?

It is easier to write something than to say it to somebody's face.  It is lot safer to deliver an insult in the safety of one's home.  Lots easier to be brave when there is no real risk.

I am pretty hard on some folks because of their lack of action.  Don't recall if I ever called anybody cowards, but I know I have insulted groups of people here before.  Probably more than a few times on this blog.  Yet, I want to keep that to a minimum.

This is a blanket apology for any of those times.

One group I know I insulted is the so called conservatives.  Not that they don't deserve criticism.  Only that I may have gone too far with some of what I said.

I don't want anything from the conservatives.  The only thing I'd like to see from them is a bit more forcefulness in their approach.  Interesting how they focus in on those who'd rather be on their side, but pull their  punches when going after Democrats.

While saying that here, I don't want to be the keyboard warrior.  No sirree.  I won't kid anybody here about my capabilities.  All I wanted to do here is to help.  Don't want to fight world war three on the keyboard.

Last night I was in a rage.  At least I didn't give vent to it.  Now was as good a time as anybody to swear off the keyboard warrior routine.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Personalities v. ideas

As I wrote in a previous post, there are those who would rather engage in a personality contest than discussing the issues.  Evidently, those who do that don't have complete confidence in their mastery over the issues, and resort to this in desperation.

Should we be interested in personalities?  Yes, of course.  But it seems to me that that is all these other guys have.  Even then, they are stretching things a bit.

The opposition to Trump is near hysterical at this point.  All reason and proportion has gone out the window.

Trump may as well be Fat Bastard, who eats little babies.

Some honesty is required

My support for Trump has always been qualified.  I will freely admit that there are worries about the man.

However, I am inclined to be forgiving of these.  That is, until something happens that convinces me that the problems are too severe to be forgiven any further.

Trump ain't perfect.  He is a bit too loose with his tongue.  That seems like a fault that can be overlooked for the time being.  It bears watching.  Maybe some day he will go too far.  But that would be hard.  Words are just words.  But not always.  One should exercise care in what one says and does.

The trouble with his opponents is that they take it too far.  I am of the firm opinion that they are not being fair to the man.  Nor accurate.  Their criticisms are not likely to be heeded because they are unjust.  They are only adding to the problem, if a problem truly exists.

Imagine There's No ...Imagination

Mark Steyn

comments upon the playing of the Lennon Peace Song right after the terrorist attack in Paris.

The video of the guy doing this went viral, he says.


I didn't know about this story.   Yeah, it is pretty pathetic, yet alarming.   Maybe Barnhardt is right after all.   Maybe we are doomed.

Terrorism 101: Simple is working

American Thinker

The simplest techniques are the ones that work the best, according to this article.  Article is written by a decorated CIA officer.


If simple techniques work, maybe complex cures will not.

A wall sounds pretty simple.  Humans have been building these for thousands of years. 

Yep, "simple works."

The Meadows Theory suggests that "simple" won't be tried.   Instead, the most complex, costly and least likely to work tactics will be employed instead.


I have corrected a number of typos in this short piece.  This new computer is not very easy to use, unfortunately.

That doesn't excuse poor proofreading.  Excuse my sloppiness.


Amazing, just amazing.  Here is a guy who points out that simple works, and people who supposedly read it ( see comments ) are advocating war.  War is not simple.  War requires the total attention of the state and its people.  Simple measures like a wall are much cheaper and will work.  But no, we can't do that because it oversimplifies the problem.


This is nuts

It's out of control out there.  Just because someone is a Trump supporter, this guy won't rent to them.

It's probably legal, what you do with your own property probably is still legal in this country.  But that freedom is being eroded.

From my point of view, Trump is only supporting that freedom.  In an anarchy, the guy mentioned in the link above would be lucky to have his own property.  If somebody disagreed with him, they'd just make him an offer he couldn't refuse.  The government couldn't do anything about it because there would be no law and order.

People do not have their thinking caps on.


Here is another post in which I have had typos.  This computer will change the location of the cursor in unpredictable ways.  You have to really careful about the proofreading.  For example, to type these three sentences, I have had the cursor jump at least twice.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Nuclear option

Seems like there's this story going around that the GOP bigwigs are going to take away the nomination from Trump no matter what he does in the remaining primaries and caucuses.

To me, this looks like desperation, but I wouldn't count it out.  They would prefer to lose this election, and the all the elections from henceforth, than allow Trump to become president.  That is, if they were to pull this stunt.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't forgive it.  Maybe they think their time will come again, and that they can wait out the fallout. 

If Trump wins the majority of the delegates, and then they pull this stunt, then what happens next?

Trump won't be able to get on the ballot most likely.  It will be too late.

So, it looks to me like if Trump really wants to be president, he will have to keep doing what he's doing, and hope that this is a bluff.

A third party run is a loser.  In order to have a chance at that, a lot of groundwork must be done in advance.  It's not likely to happen in so short of a time frame as what is left.

In other words, he can't win that way.  The only way he can win and the GOP can win is to treat him fairly.  But the GOP may not care about winning.  If they do this, they may not ever win again.

Before I posted this, I had just read something that looks insane to me.  That's why you cannot count out these wackos.  They just might do it.

Nobody gets it

That's right.  It might as well be the type of problem that only an Einstein can figure out.

These people are making a big deal out of what Trump said about Obama's trip to Cuba.

It seems like everybody is either obtuse, or they are willfully ignoring the point.

Obama isn't going to get anything constructive done that is in the interests of the United States.  Cuba needs something from us.  If we are going to talk to them, shouldn't the president act in a way that will give the best chance of achieving that?  That was Trump's point.

Instead of that, they go off in a rant about how Trump didn't talk about the other things that they felt he should talk about.

After maybe 50 years of Castro, what has the current policy achieved?  Yet, they cling to it.

I'm not saying that we should ignore everything that Castro has done.  But if we are going to talk to them, shouldn't we get something from them in return?  Like free elections maybe?

These people are missing the point.

What does Cuba have that we want?  I dunno.  Maybe we ought to let them rot.  But we have the goodies, and they want some of that.   I would call that an opportunity to negotiate.

Western Civilization really is dying---Not kidding ya'll

That last post sums it up.  When common sense is rejected, when the things that work are rejected in favor of the things that don't, then you are on the way out.  Maybe pretty soon, too.

Look, I've looked at a lot of things here on this blog that I thought could help.  Very little interest.  What gives with that?

Nope, something else is wrong, so here is a theory ( not an axiom):  Call it the Meadows Theory.  The Meadows Theory posits that for any commonplace situation, problem, or difficulty; that the most straightforward solution will be rejected, and the one that is the least likely to work, and costs the most money will be put into practice instead.  The final result is that the problem never gets solved.  The diagnosis is one of a dysfunctional, failing society that is on the way out.

Either we find a cure for this or we are done.  Plain and simple.

There are way more problems than international terrorism, by the way.  A war won't solve this problem.  It isn't outside of us.  It is within us.  But I've already said it.  Crickets greeted it, as usual.

Common sense can't win with some people

It strikes me as amazing that when a thing like Brussels happens, a man says something that is just plain old common sense, and there are people who are ready to pitch a fit.

You got Trump saying just common sense things, like ban the Muslims' invasion, and waterboard them for information that will stop future attacks, and this guy says no, you can't do that.

If you ban the Muslims, then they cannot do this kind of thing in your country.  Isn't that a irrefutable fact?  I ask, yes or no, will this stop the attacks in one's country?  If they aren't here, then how do they make the attacks?

If they do get in anyway, then if you waterboard them, that's how find out how to stop them.  A one two punch will put an end this.  We were doing that once upon a time, but guess who stopped that?

I suppose that all we are allowed to do is just to shut up and let them run things even though they are running everything right into the ground.

By the way, this guy's main concern seems to be with the politics of it, not with the security of the nation.  Obviously, what they are doing isn't working.  I would think in a political season that this is fair game.

AIPAC speeches

Trump and Cruz speeches will be commented upon, as Kasich is not mathematically in the race.

Trump's speech was presidential. 

Cruz's speech was more political.

Cruz does not leave a good feeling.   I cannot put my finger on it, but I am not left with a pleasant feeling when listening and watching him.  Let's just say that Trump looks better, sounds better.  Trump seems more authentic.  Cruz seems to pander to Israel.  Trump seems supportive, like a friend.

So, why the bad reputation for Trump?  It is being engineered in order to stop him from getting the nomination.  A lot of what is happening can characterized as like a food fight.  It is a distraction from the issues.  Speeches like this are more informative about what the policies of the respective candidates will be.  You'd think that you would get that from a debate, but the debates are not conducted that way.  The debates are conducted so as to keep the food fights going.  As a result, you don't really get an accurate reading on the candidates.

Monday, March 21, 2016

Political commentary

There is going to be political commentary here.  Perhaps the American Republic is really dead, but it still seems alive to me.  So, I am going to comment upon it.  Even if it is dead, somebody needs to give it an eulogy.

The current anti Trump fever is annoying to me.  Those who I thought I was in agreement with continue to misrepresent the man, and frankly, I am getting sick and tired of it.

If those of you who are against Trump would talk about his policy proposals instead of why you don't like his personality, I think we could still have a good discussion.

It reminds me of what Gingrich said in the last election cycle:  too many people turn this into a contest of personalities rather than ideas.

Well, one idea that Trump  has is to level the playing field with respect to trade.  Too many on the GOP side seem to think that the trade deficit doesn't matter.  I never agreed with that.  You may recall that at the end of the Bush presidency in 2008, the trade deficit was freakin' huge.  My recollection was that it was getting near 800 billion per year.  Oil was trading at times in 2008 at well over a hundred dollars a barrel.  Pump prices were sky high.  So, this was a good thing?

One thing that I noticed on Trump's website is that he mentioned China.  In the year 2000, China was admitted into the trade system.  Is it just a coincidence that since that time, the US economy has sucked?

Where is the discussion about this?  No, they want to talk about Trump personally.  I think the trade issue is one that needs discussion.  There isn't any discussion about it at all.  Why do you suppose that is so?  Is it because the powers that be do not want to discuss trade?  Why wouldn't they?  Well, is it because their trade policy has been a failure and that is why they don't want to talk about it?

The GOP wants to talk about personalities.  No wonder that they lose all the time.  Democrats want to talk about the economy.  Funny how they want to do that.  They've been in on this ride just as the GOP has been.

Why bother?

Five and a half years of blogging, and few readers.  Very few.  Sometimes I wonder about this habit of mine.

Not to mention that even if I had much influence, it doesn't do much for me personally.  If all of a sudden, the world heeded my every word, and things started going the way I think they should, it wouldn't make much of a difference in my own life.  Why bother?

Truth to it is that I don't know.  I just press on.  Maybe it could be thought of as a type of penance.  But why would I need to do that?  Don't know.  Don't think I have wronged anybody.  Maybe the penance wouldn't be recognized as such, and may be considered as bad as anything else that I have done.

Nope, there doesn't appear to be any reason for it other than I like to do it.  So I do it.

With that thought in mind, I turn to another person out there.  But this person does have an audience.

That person says that it is axiomatic that the culture has degraded to such an extent that to seek office is evidence that that person is unfit to hold office.

Axiomatic is the word.  She keeps repeating her axiom, as some of her readers just don't get it.  Well, for me, I decided to look up the word "axiomatic".  What I got out of the definition is that if it is axiomatic, then it cannot be argued against.  Sort of like water being wet.  The sun rising in the east.  And so on.  In other words, it ain't axiomatic if she has to keep explaining it.

Perhaps I shouldn't write that here.  Perhaps I should write her and tell her this.  I have a hunch though that this wouldn't work.  Nor would this little post.  It is just another example of why should I bother?  If people are going to believe something or other, they are not going to be argued out of it.

It is like AGW.  People believe in it.  Why bother arguing against it?  They won't change their minds, because it is a belief, not a rational conclusion based upon facts.

I could go on and on and on.  No.  We do not live in a rational world.  Yes, that may be said to be axiomatic, but I might get an argument about that.  That is, if I had an audience.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Could these be the "good old days"?

There is this persistent belief that once upon a time, all men were virtuous, and by contrast, today's men are knaves at best.

While generally speaking, I hold that the general moral condition of this society has declined in my lifetime, maybe by a whole lot, I only have to consult history to see that our generation is hardly uniquely evil.

If you go back into time to the time when the Founding Fathers were still alive, there were plenty of bad hombres out there in this here country.  One of them, Aaron Burr, killed one of the Founding Fathers in a duel.

From what I read, Aaron Burr was not that nice of a guy.  Yet, he was a mere heartbeat away from the Presidency.

So much for the alleged purity of our ancestors.

In addition, a lot of history in this here state has been whitewashed.  A lot of the Texan revolutionaries were hardly any better than Burr, and there are those who were probably worse.

Not to speak badly of Texan independence.  I am proud of my state.  Just saying to be realistic about human nature.  It is the same as always.  It may ebb and flow in terms of its evil, but we are fundamentally a fallen creature if you really believe in the theology of Christianity.

Otherwise, what the hell would you be talking about when you talk about morality?

In my opinion, we are living in a fortunate time.  Be we could be living in an unfortunate time too.  It may not be clear at the time in which is living as to which one may be the more dominant theme.

Photo shopped, or real?

Why would the KKK Grand Dragon in California endorse Hillary Clinton?  Did Clinton accept his endorsement?

Souce: Knowledge is Power

Brief comparison of Trump and Cruz websites

Generally speaking, they are both conservative.  I challenge anybody to go to the Trump site and select anything there and quote it to the effect that it isn't conservative.  In contrast, Cruz is conservative to the bone, and that is the difference.  He is much more detailed.

I find no fault with either, but realistically, who will win the election?

There are those who claim that Cruz is more electable.  Do those people really want to put forth the proposition that the majority of the people of this country agree with what Cruz has on his website?

Critics will say that Cruz is extreme.  I have not heard anybody yet say that Trump is extreme.

Bottom line:  Cruz is more conservative, sure, but Trump is not liberal on the basis of what is on their websites.

An honest debate would be the one who could be more convincing in terms of electability.

The futility of the Anti Trump GOP'ers

Thanks to Andrew Klavan's  ridicule of the Trump supporters, I decided to go to Trump's official campaign site and actually read what his campaign had to say about the issues.

I haven't read all of it, but what I have read convinces me that the attempts to change the mind of Trump supporters by the use of ridicule will fail miserably.  In my own case, it only encouraged me to find out more about Trump.  The result is that I am favorably impressed with what he has on his website.  Yes, I haven't read it all, so my initial impression could be incorrect.

I will continue reading his website, and will report back later if I find anything objectionable about it.

The point is that a lot of things get said, but that doesn't necessarily make them true.  This is the case no matter the source.

The best one can do is to do your own due diligence and see for yourself.  You can watch the debates, but these are flawed.  You can go to campaign rallies and let the man talk while you listen, and decide on that basis.  I don't have the time for that.  Or you can watch videos of what he says, and let the unfiltered truth come out of his own mouth do the convincing.  In addition, you can go to his website as I have and read what he has to say.  I find that this is the most time efficient way of  finding out where he stands on the issues.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  It seems that if those who wish to convince others of something, stop insulting their intelligence.  Nobody will be convinced like that.