Chase

I'll suggest a few as a conservative that I've made before and have heard from others. This doesn't mean that I think that way now, but I want to hear a few of you other guys weigh in here. - from an earlier post. Sometimes I think people just don't read the entire post and take the time to get nervy because "how dare someone disagree with me!" or "how dare such assertions be made in the first place!" Sub-oceanic Missile Feline - These are not my theses - but MISCONCEPTIONS conservatives have about liberals...it's flat out in the title. In other words, I am already aware that those ARE a joke. Eviora - That's sort of my point. There are a lot of white men you don't tolerate - but you DO tolerate the ones that you like. That's why I didn't even go with "Liberals hate White People" or "Liberals hate Men" - Consistency is not a part of the liberal mindset. Especially when it comes to NON-WHITE individuals who commit crimes. Yes there is institutionalized racism and every effort under the sun needs to be concentrated on ending it - but goodness gracious not to the point where a police officer can't even do his or her job because making the arrest is a form of discrimination. With liberalism, it's markedly more pick-and-choose where the line should be drawn than with conservatism. Give me a response that isn't sarcasm next time please - I'm not trying to incite anger or flaming here.

Let's talk about Top 5 tickets that could come out of this. Hillary/Bernie - #1 Easy peasy pick here. Consolidate the entire Democratic party, and lock and load in November. The only thing that really makes this ticket ugly is that despite the two celebrities on the ticket, I agree with VERY few policies between the two of them combined. Cruzio - #2 This not only is a very solid right-wing ticket - It's something Ted really needs to consider strongly because of the amount of delegates the late Rubio campaign was able to rack in. Those delegates, bound to Marco even though his campaign is dead in the first ballot of a contested convention - would IMMEDIATELY jump to Cruz and narrow the gap between him and Trump. The reason this match-up is more ideal than the next one for the #NeverTrump movement is that it's able to bypass a Kasich campaign that is still very much alive if only to be a thorn in the Cruz camp's side. The two senators are literally two pieces of the same thread - with Rubio being able to bridge Cruz's no-compromise conservatism in order to foster a working Washington. Cruz/Kasich - #3 Kasich doesn't bring a whole lot of excitement, but his "Center-Right" style gives Ted Cruz a solid check from within the Executive Branch. It also gives Cruz the head-to-head with the Donald that he's always wanted. Kasich isn't too far behind Rubio in delegate count following his Ohio win. This would be a decision that would require a presidential hopeful looking to cause hell on the convention floor to be open to settling for vice president. Clinton/Bloomberg - #4 Hillary would be a much more acceptable vote for conservative voters picking Micheal Bloomberg over Bernie Sanders in an effort to avoid being affiliated with Trump should he win the Republican nomination by clearing the delegate threshold. Bloomberg considered a run of his own - as the most Centrist politician in America - but ultimately declined to do so because it would cost Hillary Clinton and the Democrats a loss in November to Trump. In this scenario, HIllary picks up a center-lefty that would do the most good in "unifying" the country without jumping the fence and dragging an unwilling John Kasich on a leash against Donald Trump in November. The only issue would be the risk of Not-Hillary Bernsters jumping Trump's way on his trade merits. - Just telling it how it is. If this is Hillary's VP pick against Trump - She's getting my vote without further contemplation - unless the last scenario occurs. Trump and either Marco or Ted The Vice President's duty should the President die in office is to ascend to the role of sitting President. In the event Trump makes this pick, it's going to cause me to do some soul searching - because if someone successfully kills him, the country is in good hands. And some other folks I've talked to ALREADY want to assassinate Trump. --- Update - Rubio is out of the running for vice president, making the Cruz-Kasich "Unity ticket" the best option for conservatives available.

Providence almost ruined my life. Seton Hall is looking like it won't help things.

As a conservative: - I agree - I agree - I agree - I agree --- I also agree that one shouldn't discriminate against those other things (sex, race, orientation, beliefs, identity) - but I don't think my opposition to several issues is indicative of intolerance. Off the cuff, liberals seem to be very "intolerant" of theists, wealthy people, whites, men, and the unborn. theism is a belief system, male is a gender, and being white is indicative of a race issue This means that when liberals are vocalizing tolerance for similar issues - that it seems to reflect hypocritical approach. --- Thank you for probably providing the best answer I've heard on the American Dream. I do agree that the boundaries that are in place today -could- make it harder and I do think the government should be looking for solutions. I just don't think it needs to grow into a massive central body and pour money at every obstacle it encounters. --- You're actually pretty conservative yourself when it comes to privacy, ICSW.

Trump AND Cruz aren't establishment guys, and I didn't like Speaker Boehner much either.

Don't worry Mde, I know you're working with the outsider perspective so I'm not going to hold you over the coals for things that are rough guesses. The "American Dream" is essentially the rags-to-riches ascension anybody in America can/used to be able to make by honest, hard, law-abiding work. Conservatives tend to hold this value better than liberals do when it comes to policy analysis due to the conservative's higher likelihood of suggesting individualist approaches to solving problems. Liberal "lacking" of valuing the American Dream is arguably seen in their support for Federal Welfare programs and supporting pouring more money into the Social Security treasury to ensure it's a permanent government program as opposed to a temporary 'New Deal' program to fix an immediate problem (such as the Great Depression.) The potential misconception here may be do to a view that liberals think the government is directly responsible for causing individual prosperity to some degree - and thus they should act on behalf of the citizen. the "Different Era" argumentCommon liberal response and to it's credit, it's a fair one. However, there already is a process in place for adopting the Constitution to relevancy in different times - the amendment process. The Constitution is an extremely important document regardless of the modern shift because it's still the document that outlines the basic unalienable rights of the citizens and it's still the limitations in writing that the Federal government must abide by. The amendment process allows it to be a fluid document while leaving the power of change in the hands where it belongs - the American people. Liberals in government are largely the biggest offenders when it comes to bad Constitutional interpretation, be it legislators that want to retry landmark Court cases where the Second Amendment is directly being challenged by an area of the country (District of Columbia v. Heller.) or where the justices rule in the effect of writing in arcane legislature and use authority outside of their bounds (Obergefell v. Hodges.) - or where the President enforces whatever legislature that is still arcane he wants by making usage of executive orders routinely as opposed to using those executive orders as a check. (See; Obama - according to some who do not approve of the sitting president.) Considering the gravity the document actually holds - can someone really say it's not enough to justify a position over? That's where the danger of liberalism lies to many conservatives. DifficultyThat's an acceptable response - because it is hard for people - on both sides of the spectrum - to play nice on many issues, but the hugest issue conservatives take is that liberals tend to delve immediately into the "blackmail" phase whenever a conservative dares to propose such ideology in any way, shape, or form. When liberals are in power - they are easily able to discourage mutiny in government by pointing to term limits and rallying the people to smear a conservative in doing so. It's sort have become the alternative definition to "political correctness" - Be liberal or be undesirable to the American people in some capacity. I'm sure conservatives in power are prone to being persuasive in the same right. Get along folks. That's better for all of us.... although, that strike-through message is not quite funny when that's literally what it looks like government officials are saying bi-partisanship is. not a complete misconceptionSecularism isn't a bad thing in my opinion - but seeing as most religious adherents are actually individualistic as opposed to collectivists, I can say that most Christian push-back is a vocal minority. Those that do speak up on issues that favor a religious point of view usually try to bring secular reasoning that affirms that viewpoint - such as asserting that we know what a fetus is going to be if it were conceived by humans and opting to defend religious viewpoints using the Constitution as opposed to the Bible. Those that try to "Bible-thump" are a very vocal minority. There are concerns like this in the Middle East - where Islamic adherents have Scripture that does have rather theocratic rhetoric in it's phrasing - thus explaining why it's such a volatile place over there. I'm talking about things like violating the 1st Amendment for the sake of pushing legislature that doesn't actually exist to promote tolerance for previously discriminated groups - or violating the 2nd Amendment to instill gun control. There's a very large problem with seemingly most hyper-progressives in that they seem to always want to be trailblazing, where they are setting the rights of the people ablaze to "progress." One such example is a major organized protest that was actually designed not to protest at all - but actually DISRUPT a speech and deny someone of their 1st amendment rights to do so. Christianity has been around for nearly two millenniums now and it's long and humble road started in complete persecution. Does that mean Christians should be entitled today? No - but it does mean that throughout America's history the presence of the church has been something that has been accounted for as a major component of freedom. For example - religious freedom is outlined in the very first amendment of the Constitution. It's been a major cause of political identity for the entirety of America's lifespan, and it's been something that arguably - doesn't truthfully constitute a "fad" given how long Christianity was somewhat of a status quo. Civil Rights however have had very short lifespans in comparison, usually (THANK GOODNESS) ending in progressive results or ones that respect as many Americans as possible. Starting with Blacks - the liberal party quickly attacked the provision that slaves were only 1/5 of a person and pursued them as a voting bloc first. Women have typically been liberal following stances like providing equal wages between the sexes and giving them bodily autonomy first. LGBTs are conventionally liberal due to their policies being friendly to the group. A noteworthy group of people that don't get that respect? the millions of aborted fetuses that conservatives fight for. Another? Christians who are regularly under the impression that they are being attacked because they are being jailed for denying a license to someone in observance of what they are taught to believe what marriage is -or- are LITERALLY attacked in a genocide over in the Middle East, that conservatives fight for. Those two groups of people and "not-people" if you have such view have been around and given provisions far longer (either for the history of mankind in the case of the fetus -or- the 2000 years since Christ's crucifixion.) than African Americans and women and LGBT people - which suggests liberals only care about the women on the abortion stand-off because between only one side of that fight can speak for themselves - the women. Liberals love progressives because it's precisely what keeps them constantly pulling in new voters. Instead of being true activists, it makes them come off as self-serving come election time. It's a possible misconception - but that's kinda the point. It's not really explained why. Obama nearly triples US National Debt. under his presidency.I know that government is usually a little different than the individual, but not to the point where wasteful spending isn't wasteful spending. Liberal policies tend to mark heavy spending to upkeep the size of the government and it's ability to solve broad issues. By proxy, it would definitely seem to increase the national debt. Even when conservative presidents spend - they do so largely on liberal actions, save for funding the military. How is the government working to pay it's dues under a liberal view point? Blame the rich people that don't pay their fair share and what else? Blame other taxpayers too? I'm inviting you guys to inquire about my assertions too. It's not a discussion without disagreement. Try to keep it classy though. Unlike liberals - that doesn't mean you have to agree with me. (That's a relevant joke folks. I love you all.)

I was hoping to hear a litany of "Liberals are blanks" and see the other side rationalize them. I would love some understanding, not because I lack all of it, but just because I would love to learn. I'll suggest a few as a conservative that I've made before and have heard from others. This doesn't mean that I think that way now, but I want to hear a few of you other guys weigh in here. LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN DREAM LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT BI-PARTISANSHIP LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO MAKE AMERICA AN ATHEISTIC COUNTRY LIBERALS ARE INVASIVE LIBERALS ARE HYPOCRITICAL ON TOLERANCE LIBERALS ACTIVELY PURSUE POSITIONS THAT WILL WIN THEIR SIDE VOTES FIRST AND FOREMOST LIBERALS DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE

Correct - one that would NEVER under ANY possible circumstances even happen because that would be considered a war crime. It's also one that his foreign policy advisor - Senator Jeff Sessions - has already rescinded following the debate where he said that and Trump has since backed off of that statement. When you're shooting beyond the stars just to come across as tough and then you retract your statement. That's all it is - aggressive rhetoric. Empty, mind you. On another note, I think Bernie is running for basically two reasons at this point - one of which is actually relevant for the presidency. Bernie is -still- not that far back behind if you remove super-delegates (and that's without properly allocating them to Sanders should they indeed flip.) March 15th also looks to be -for now- the worst date for him on the Calendar - as Florida, Missouri, and Ohio are huge battleground areas and North Carolina is a southern state that will continue to trouble Bernie due to a large African-American population. Many experts outside of the usual press are even saying March 15 is the day Hillary's lead is the largest it will ever be - so his campaign will probably stick it out all the way to the convention with a genuine belief they can win. Bernie - as you alluded to, Eviora - is probably running - potentially as a back burner ambition - in order to further identify how disenfranchised a sizable plurality of Democratic voters are with many neoliberal stances Clinton holds in order to be asked to perform some sort of cabinet service/serve as the next Vice President. It ain't over till it's over. - Yogi Berra

I think Nepeta said he was "ok" in that ideologically Trump isn't a bad prospect. That has nothing to do with inciting violence and again - I don't think you should hold a voter to the personality of another person like you shouldn't hold a voter to the decisions another person makes. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this because he led off with "It's sad that Marco Rubio dropped out." - which would not be indicative of a Trump "supporter". He also said that it's sad that it seems like Trump is going to be the nominee. I tend to agree with Nepeta extremely, as my basic dislike for Trump comes down to two things - his needlessly aggressive rhetoric and his willingness to cajole or threaten others. Take those two negative traits away from him and he's a candidate that would be almost liked.

Yeah - but Clinton isn't exactly running her campaign on following Obama's example. The one area that has been made clear on - ObamaCare - is one of the worst issues she could have asserted herself on when trying to sell herself to the right over Trump - who has vocally said he would strike the ACA down. As much as I would want to say "Yeah, Clinton's a head and a half better than Donald Trump is because she doesn't actually threaten people." - the next president also likely has several Supreme Court justices on the line - and conservative presidents have been notoriously much more adherent to the adage of "justice is blind" in their justice nomination than liberals. There's enough at stake to make Trump worthy of consideration - heck - several Bernie supporters are actually at risk of jumping on Trump's wagon because they essentially agree on trade being completely unfair presently - and Clinton (and her husband, who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement into law.) doesn't have a favorable trade record in comparison to Trump on those issues. It's not grim because John Kasich won the Ohio Primary and potentially could have knocked Trump out of earning the magic delegate number more than it is Hillary Clinton is the savior for disenchanted Republicans. The GOP establishment though has some soul searching to do... Kasich himself has no math on his side and is essentially running for a fight on the convention floor. Cruz has a fighter's chance at the delegate threshold, and will likely need Kasich out quickly - else Ted is also playing for a floor fight and the plurality will probably give Trump an advantage. Fun Fact: Only 38% of Republican voters side with Trump at this point in time. For those of you saying anti-Trump efforts "go against the will of the people" - you're all wrong. I would imagine even MORE Democrats are not ready to back Donald either. I don't want to vote for Trump -or- Clinton, and it's not time to make that decision yet.

I want to leave this thread open-ended, because I'm not a liberal thinker and I don't have all the answers on their side of the aisle - but as one of the few conservatives on this board (or one of the few vocal ones anyway) - I think there are some very key things liberals tend to think about conservatives that are just plain off-base or at the very least are a hasty generalization of all conservatives when the statement only truly applies to a specific margin of conservatives. If a well nuanced liberal out there has a list of their own, or if any of you out there have one point to share, please do so! This will be a fun course of trying to understand one another. CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT "FAIRNESS"Staring off with a bang - The Democratic presidential primary focuses a lot on fairness, especially because the theme is central to Bernie Sanders' entire campaign from free upper level education to sticking it to the private sector. Liberals tend to contend that because a conservative doesn't appreciate taking what they deem as necessary steps to ensure all Americans have the same result, they tend to insinuate that conservatives are ignorant to the issue of raising up most people. The concept of fairness however, is genuinely abstract and as such can be approached from different angles. This is what is happening from the conservative point of view - as a conservative thinker dwells in the rules and ensuring everyone in the game has the same playing field. By focusing on the rule making, conservative legislators are trying to create a level arena of opportunity for all people, which would make the arena "fair." Liberals tend to approach fairness by the outcomes - and as such work to ensure they can put as many people in the bucket for that outcome as possible. Both sides actually tend to emphasize fairness, but go about it differently. CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POORThe liberal misconception here often involves the conservatives' resistance to broad big government influenced welfare. In this election cycle even - Sanders employs what is known as democratic socialism - which would ideally redistribute the wealth of the entire nation to eliminate class structures using the government as an economic vehicle while still giving governmental power to the citizens. This approach is notably "collectivist" - in that Sanders would be calling on the whole country to support the poor as opposed to individual groups and people. Conservatives however - statistically- actually attack poverty in a different way, by addressing the problem for what it is - poverty - and not income inequality (with regards to the poor - there is inequality in things like minority groups and women that will be tackled later.) The conservative statistically is more reliable to give to charity and volunteer than the liberal is, meaning conservatives attack poverty by what is known as "individualism." Both collectivism and individualism have drawbacks however - collectivism causing a lower success ceiling and a lack of will to innovate, with individualism not meeting the demands of the entire country. ​CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMENUsually - this argument comes in regards to abortion - but is also attributed to thinks like free and wide-spread contraceptives and the like. In the former - which is the most prevalent cause of "conservative chauvinism" (which it isn't.) conservatives advocate for the fetus as well as the mother - and in the latter, they advocate practicing abstinence as the most effective method of avoiding pregnancy. Neither of which are views that belittle the woman but are methods that are designed to preserve life in most cases and attempt to privatize medicine to give Americans choice. CONSERVATIVES WISH TO MAKE AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACYA theocracy is a government that is ruled under a specific religious doctrine and structure of government body (I.e. priests holding executive power.) - and liberals tend to conceivably believe that personal guidance in government affairs, teaching about religion and philosophies that indulge in spiritualism, and exposing citizens to one's personal practice of their faith equates to establishment of a national religion - something that is deemed "un-Constitutional" under the 1st Amendment. Christianity, being one of the largest followed and oldest major religions throughout America's history, is often the cited religion when the claim is being made. The fact that the 1st Amendment even exists, and that conservatives are very keen on the Constitution's phrasing, should automatically debunk this assertion - but to put away any doubt, it is not the conservative's goal to replace the checks and balances system and the three branches of government with a temple full of pastors, nor does every law need to be written in the name of "God." The real issue here - for the most part - is actually one that isn't applicable to religion or spirituality aside from one concepts traditional association. It's the citizens' beliefs of how "morality" is interpreted. Conservatives tend to approach lawmaking and enforcement with objective morality, while liberals tend to advocate subjective or relative morality. There are disagreements of which the either/or exists - and because in the objectivists' position a deity is often the basis for said objective morality, it's interpreted as establishment incorrectly. Another thing that is worth noting is that not all conservatives are theists. CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLEThis one is actually one I feel minorities are being marginalized by liberals on. There are plenty of African, Latin, Hispanic, Asian, Polynesian, and so on people that are conservative - and the more appalling thing about this is that liberals - perhaps in attempt to make this claim about white folks true - often knock minority conservatives or outright ignore their existence. You hear too many people being called "Uncle Toms" here. The difference with conservatives and liberals on minority matters is that conservatives tend to be color blind in that they avoid even talking about race. They fight racism by example and not by protest and attention. liberals - who pursue outcomes over fair rules - make their issues known - which makes it appealing for a minority member to be liberal because it feels like they are being heard and attempted to be understood. By being silent examples of colorblind citizens, conservatives use this opportunity to "level the playing field" by addressing minorities as if they too were white - in a sense. Are there White supremacists who are conservative? Yes - but to brand conservatism favorable to racial supremacy for all idealists would be one of those hasty generalizations I pointed to earlier. White supremacy is a minority viewpoint in conservative circles. It should also be worth noting, that many conservatives -do- acknowledge racial issues being prevalent as well, and are usually in agreement with liberals in how to combat them. CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT BIG BUSINESSESHasty generalization - although one that is admittedly separating "conservatism" with "Republicanism" due to the increase in corrupt political action taken by corporate forces and special interests - Conservatives only appear friendlier to business tycoons and the private sector because they feel that capitalism provides everyone with the same high ceiling should enough work be put in. It's capitalistic approach however, that is aimed at more than just the big businesses. What about the folks that have small businesses that wish to grow? Competition is a means of making that happen. What about someone who wants to work hard and earn a lot of money personally? Free-market economy is a very friendly structure with regards to that aspiration - assuming the work is put in on the individual level. CONSERVATIVES ARE WARMONGERSHasty generalization. Not all conservatives are Hawks, and there are several of which are that are indeed Doves. Conservatives however envision peace often through strength as opposed to purely through democracy - and support building the military for personal defense sometimes exclusively and sometimes in the case of needing to protect American interests abroad as a complement to national defense. BIGOTS!Another unfortunate hasty generalization. For something like the LGBT community, Caitlyn Jenner comes to mind as a pretty well known transgendered individual who also happens to be conservative and a traditionalist. Often the "clashing" comes from religious practice and conflicting rights of citizens, and not all conservatives are opposed to tolerating homosexuality.

Viri - you're a gentleman and a scholar. Miss, I don't usually know now to attack a situation like this for someone else with the appropriate empathy - not that I lack it, but that the preservation of life is one that I value perhaps past the point of reason at times and when those I care about entertain the thought of voiding that life it makes me hurt for them - and I'm the kind of person that desperately searches for an immediate -and- ideal solution quickly. A challenge that I picked up somewhere close to me is this - find joy in your trials, and rejoice. Silver linings are critical in getting off the mat and countering the attacks of life on the path to not only survival, but abundance. ...and also, we support you. Many of us, including myself, are great outlets if you would like to talk. Cheers.

The the victor go the spoils. The unfortunate GOP candidate that won Washington D.C. was none other than Marco Rubio. Wyoming also began distributing delegates on Saturday - with Ted Cruz garnering 9 of the it's initial 12 in what was a landslide initial voting process. Rubio and Donald Trump each picked up one a piece. Cruz also picked up one of Guam's delegates - with the rest remaining undecided. Perhaps most telling of Saturday's voting was that Trump finished extremely poorly. In D.C. - he barely edged out Ted Cruz to avoid dead last (which isn't very surprising). Wyoming favored Cruz immensely, as Ted is the only candidate to have campaigned in the state. Marco Rubio came in a distant second over the national front-runner, again putting Donald in 3rd place. John Kasich finished in a very competitive second place in D.C., but floundered elsewhere, only picking up delegates in the District of Columbia contest. --- The Democratic Party also had a contest, with Hillary Clinton proving her might in distant territories over Bernie Sanders. The battleground on Saturday was the Northern Mariana Islands, near Guam. --- Bernie Sanders has officially been introduced into the Republican "Wrestlemania" atmosphere that Donald Trump dominates - following a rather one-sided statement from the Bern that instead of rightly disavowing his "supporters" at the Trump rally fiasco in Chicago was used as a semi-rightly attack on Trump himself. Trump in return began to mock Sanders as he addressed the now commonplace protesters at his rallies following Friday night, addressing them as "Bernie's people" and pointing out campaign gear from the Vermont Senator in the crowds. Bernie - and fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton - both laid the entirety of the blame at Donald Trump's feet for his violent dynamic - along with Republican rivals Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich to a fair extent. Sanders is likely to become a constant target of Trump's. The liberal protesters have long been a staple at Trumps rallies now, so it will be interesting to see if the Bern continues to try and motivate the base while in Trump's crosshairs or if his supporters hurt him as he tries to overtake Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Marianas - Clinton Wyoming - Cruz Washington D.C. - Rubio Guam - Cruz* --- So, it's the eve of 'Super Tuesday II' - and the bell may be tolling for two more GOP candidates this time around. I do have a bit of an open letter here though. My primary vote went to one of the gentlemen whose campaign is on life support - and in the wake of the absolute madness that has ensued the weekend leading up to this morning I can firmly say I am proud to have cast that vote, no matter how irrelevant it may have been even within the boundaries of the Lone Star State. Two, maybe even three years ago - if you were looking for the next maverick conservative to potentially ascend to the White House, Marco Rubio was the guy I had my hopes on. My first encounter with Rubio's presence was in - I believe - 2013, when he gave the GOP's response to President Obama's 'State of the Union' address that year. For those of you that don't know, the party-out-of-power gets the follow up speech - usually from a separate location - after the active President on a yearly basis. That year, the Grand 'Ole Party tapped the Florida senator, who had been sitting in his chair after pulling a upset, come-from-behind victory for it only two years prior, barely approaching the 40 year old threshold. The theme of his rebuttal - was the problems associated with a country that was quickly witnessing a growing federal government body. In that speech, on television, he committed the deadly sin of stopping mid speech and reaching for a water bottle, resuming only after taking a sip. At the time, it was humorous because the camera was very close on his face and it made him look goofy and uncomfortable. It also made him look human. Humility is a value that if I didn't take on, I would be a very monstrous person and would try to spin every mistake as a "win" (Sound like one of the other people running for Republican Party?) rather than learn, apologize, and repent. and the left would take that incriminating water lunge as the epitome of it's rival party. Amidst the laughter, I came to respect the following efforts the Floridian made as a legislator. Senator Ted Cruz's favorite attack against Marco during this election cycle for example, is on what is known as the 'Gang of Eight' bill. The bill focused on a comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship, more security, and fast tracking skilled immigrants to citizenship. The immigration bill has yet to pass the House and it's uncertain it will make it to the House floor. The eight draftees of the bill were split down the middle of the two parties - 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats - with Rubio being one of the four GOP reps. It was as if Henry Clay had risen from the grave and taught today's government officials a lesson in one of the most important tools anyone aspiring to make it big in Washington should have - Compromise. The bill has not succeeded, as it's predecessor in 2007, to this point. It has cleared the Senate floor, but it is unknown if the House of Representatives will even consider it. To be quite fair here, this is where Republicans - like Senator Ted Cruz - have been very finicky and the pursuit of the most conservative policy regarding immigration is to be blamed for stalling. It's become a damning mark on Rubio's campaign that he even dared to rub elbows with Democrats in order to pass such a bill considering the issue is a hot button one for the right, but it's one that personally, I will always respect. Marco Rubio - when he announced his bid for the presidency as I figured he would watching that rebuttal to the SOTU address in 2013 - was the embodiment of hope that we would find a Republican that would make conservatism a passable, attractive viewpoint to have for more people and would encourage everyone in Washington to work together after years of Republicans committing the political equivalent of streaking 100 yards down the football field and Democrats misinterpreting bi-partisanship as blackmailing conservatives with the help of today's no-compromise social justice agenda and sizable left wing base. I pulled the lever for someone that shares my values and my love for all people of this country. I pulled the lever for someone that is a true patriot, and I pulled the lever for someone who cared about being constructive as opposed to obstructive. My hopes rest on a senator [Cruz] who shares my values, and isn't well liked in Washington -because- he is willing to obstruct in the name of conservatism. Such daring has it's place - but his electability hinges on him being willing to make sacrifices. Sacrifices I know Rubio would have made (and perhaps in the greatest long shot, still can make) if he were to become President of the United States of America. I am content, regardless of how badly Donald Trump may beat him in his home state, with Marco Rubio as my representative in this GOP race. Never more so than when he had the guts to openly say that it was "getting harder every day" to support Trump. I'm not beholden to the Republican Party. I'm beholden to the principles that made America great - which means Hillary Clinton does have a point when she says Trump is off the mark in asserting he's going to make it so "again." Never more so than when he had the guts to say he would stay in the race even after a potential egg-laying at home for the sole purpose of doing everything he can to ensure Donald Trump doesn't become President. Foolhardy for the party? Perhaps. It doesn't matter to me, as it is well with my soul. Thank you Senator Rubio for being bold and for inspiring me.

My two favorite mid-major schools in this bracket have been semi-new-neighbors in the Ship tourney - The Lumberjacks of Stephan F. Austin out of Nacogdoches, Texas - and a team that was doing insanely well but was criminally underreported - the Friars of Providence, Rhode Island. The Jacks and Friars are going to be teams I enjoy watching and I would be okay if they busted my bracket further. SFA is a very good shooting and passing team - and suffers the most when getting down early due not being as stout defensively. I don't know much about the Friars other than them going undefeated and playing strong opponents earlier in the year...supposedly. I'll be hoping Vanderbilt beats Wichita State in that play in game - and I hate the SEC too.... I also hate UNC and Kentucky. The team I'll always personally cheer for over anything else is Oklahoma. Boomer Sooner...although those Aggies are a very dangerous bunch. Virginia Commonwealth, Dayton, and Northern Iowa are very good teams - with the former two being solid bracket teams. I like Sparty, but I've picked Sparty to win it all and before and they always let me down.... Xavier is going to knock off the Tar Heels/Wildcats for me so I can be happy about life - and the Big 12 proves it's the best basketball conference. #RockChalk ...I'll find a way to get my bracket pictures up later....

True - Fiery Temper - Fierce Personality - Brave - Crazy - Unorganized - Sometimes am not the nicest False - (marginally) liked and have the good side seen in me - Strong

Hey Shia, Ah......where to start. I think the first time we held discourse we were already up in arms (over how to use your shop properly - I remember being distinctly clueless and sorry for causing you trouble.) The tone of our friendship has taken on that interesting dynamic. It's one where you're quick to defend yourself and where I'm quick to dish out tough love. I'm not going to apologize for that - but I will take the time to emphasize the last word of that oxymoron. The amount of love for you that I genuinely have as a friend is very high. I think you've been a fantastic representative of this community and that our spats aren't because hold ill will toward you or even that I enjoy mixing it up with just about anyone. It's that I think you're worth pulling my hair out over. If it were most others, I would know when to fold and walk away. The people are I argue with the most in this crowd were either former colleagues up top or ended up being really close friends. What I admire about you is your strength. I haven't been the most gentle person toward you and I am even so bold as to not be apologetic over it - but you've stuck it out anyway. That only earns you more respect. Have a good one, friend.

Don't get too drunk - you have a ceremony the next day and pictures will be taken. If you get put in a situation where adultery is a given, walk out as soon as you catch wind of it. Bring money, and perhaps the most important detail - go to bed at a reasonable time. Congratulations!

There was actually a Facebook image rolling around that anyone that manages to kill Trump in Chicago would have their bond paid for by a GoFundMe account. Given that a large scale protest followed such image (which looked rather harmless in itself) - I wouldn't put it past anyone if there was a genuine threat of violence had Trump showed up.

Excuse you? I have never called on a moderator to quell anything. I warmly embrace debate so long as it stays is in the ballpark or isn't intended to damage another person's image. Ask around, I enjoy argument. Those points are not poorly substantiated. I never said the Trump voting Democrats had a particular motive - just that they were there. I also said that his voters tend to vote early and are stronger in primary states as opposed to caucus states. Check any major news source. Check any given data. Listen to Trump's claims about his campaign. "We're bringing in many new people." - the real world that actually exists supports my claims. I've thought Rubio is done for a while now. --- Speaking of Trump, how about that Chicago rally that got shut down. On the one hand, I can appreciate the protester's right to to their own 1st amendment rights - but it's a beautiful illustration of where rights need to be limited. No right should limit the rights of others or contradict each other. Not only was Mr. Trump robbed of a right to speak tonight - but the people that bought a ticket (supporter to opposed non-violent listener) were also robbed of the right to listen and decide for themselves. Trump is also responsible for incendiary rhetoric that has proven to have escalated with each rally.

Yes, Trump doesn't bode well with minorities. I think with regards to Donald, the more correct assertion is that they are actually shortsighted as opposed to bigoted - unless you want to assert that the Democratic Party is more bigoted than the Republican Party... I would be inclined to agree that Mr. Trump does perhaps the strongest in the Dixieland area, but it isn't the Republican Party that should be blamed for his success. 43% of Trump voters are registered Democrats. 40% are undecided. 36% are Independents, and 29% of Trump voters are actually listed as Republicans. (the following percentages are indicative of Trump's share of all self-identifying GOPers - which means they would tell you that they are Republicans by may not be necessarily registered as such.) Maybe they are silent because their colleagues are supporting genuine LIBERAL politicians and are being vocal about it - while the voters themselves genuinely disagree. The highest percentage of Trump voters actually claim that they are Republicans and are -actually- registered in the party of Hillary and Bernie. If Trump can swipe a significant amount of voters away from the Democrats - that's something that the Democratic Party should be leery of should he win the nomination. There's also the opposite, that Republicans are also genuinely leery about. Meet Ross Perot, the super rich Texan that ran the most successful third party campaign ever - knocking Republican George H. W. Bush out in favor of Bill Clinton. Mr. Trump - should he defect and run Independent or even WIN and cause the Republicans to find a surrogate third partier of their own - fits the bill. Be it smart approach from the Democrats in exploiting their rival party by throwing their weight to support their own candidate, or be it people that are genuinely ditching the Dems in order to 'Make America Great Again' - the Blues are the ones most responsible for Trump's success. Yes, Trump polls strongly among low-educated voters, but the race would genuinely look a lot closer if all primaries were closed.

Someone who talks tough doesn't automatically make a debate won my friend. Last night, Senator Marco Rubio picked up the territory of Puerto Rico, and Senator Bernie Sanders won the state of Maine almost 2-to-1. The Democrats also had a debate on Sunday - and it was a good debate between the two candidates, but not a very good debate for the Democratic voter base, who perhaps wanted to see more contrasts from Hillary with the Republican P Speaking of Flint - that city has been dealing with a toxic water crisis due to the negligence of several local and state government officials. The city was told it was safe by the state to swap water sources from Lake Huron to the local Flint River to cut down transport costs multiple times by their government officials and the result was a high increase of lead poisoning that has resulted in various negative effects in Flint, from stunted growth, to poisoning. Both Clinton and Sanders called for the governor of Michigan - a Republican - to resign or be fired - but both were very hesitant to condemn failures that were also brought about by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - a national government body responsible for protecting the United States against environmental crises. This was the most disappointing moment of the debate for me - because this is a purely ideological hesitation on both candidates' accounts. The EPA is a target of frustration by Republicans due to being a part of "Big Government" and is something GOPers claim can be handled by the states. If you can so boldly claim the state governments are to be shaken up following a crisis, do the same for the national government bodies as well, Dems. Consistency is a huge plus regardless of political placement. Another disappointing exchange was a question raised about racial blindness both candidates may have - as the FBI head claimed "Everyone is a little bit racist". I don't know how the question was supposed to be answered, but Clinton's answer didn't reveal her own blind spots and the question had to be asked twice by the moderator - while Sanders beat around the bush and pointed out the racial blindness of Washington D.C. taxi drivers as opposed to himself. I do understand the risks of answering the question too boldly - such as saying "I still hold a degree of racism towards stereotypical looking African Americans" - due to such an answer being detrimental (especially for Sanders) to garnering votes from that voter bloc - but it was a sheer reminder that establishment or not, both candidates know how to evade questions. The biggest winner of the night however, may have been Donald Trump - even though he was touched on at the end of the debate. Because of the fire being mostly concentrated at each other, the Republican whose success can also be attributed to the Democrats voting in open primaries was able to avoid taking many blows at all. Some Democrats are worried that the Republicans legitimately do have the cross-over votes going their favor because Trump appears to be the most moderate candidate in the race.arty as opposed to Sanders and Clinton locking horns. Bernie had a great debate in that he was able to challenge Hillary - and perhaps the most alarming to me as a potential reluctant Hillary voter in November - Bernie Sanders made much more sense than she throughout the night. Hillary was able to nail Sanders on several issues where he may not have been as "leftist" as he claims, and it amounted to another "Which is the bigger progressive" debate instead of a capitalized chance for Hillary to look presidential. Starting with gun control issues - Hillary Clinton looked to be even more to the left than Bernie did, supporting (In my opinion wrongfully) the ability to sue and hold gunmakers accountable for deliberate mass shootings. Sanders, who had voted against such legislature in the Senate, defended his vote by saying that holding gun manufacturers liable for murders virtually leads to the stoppage of gun manufacturing in America. In this instance, Sanders was able to gain a lot of personal respect points from me - a conservative looking to avoid a Trump disaster if possible. Sanders also was able to provide a much more understandable answer to a question about fracking. In this instance, Hillary seemed to support limited fracking depending on the environment regulations (which she did cause me to deem as reasonable as a conservative) that are put in place and took a very long time beating around the bush to reach a conclusion that indicated as such. Sanders just went for the jugular - "Anderson, let me give you a much shorter answer - No, I do not support fracking." Although Sanders and I disagree on this issue, I do hold value in the straight answer and wish the candidates would be more direct. However, Sanders also lost some points when Clinton was able to nail him to voting AGAINST the bailout of the auto industry - especially with his answer of advocating the stock markets themselves should have been responsible for fixing the auto industry. In Michigan - where the debate was held (Flint, MI) - the auto industry is a huge moneymaker and job creator in the state - and I would assume Democrats are looking for a candidate that would be willing to help that industry out. --- Donald Trump's three major success points: The Early Voter: One of the major claims about Trump supporters is that they are very hard to dissuade. This has translated into the Donald hammering his opponents in entry polls throughout the race - and has caused much of his success in the days leading to the day of the primary as opposed to the day of. Trump's army of supporters tends to vote early - and his opponents tend to make significant gains late. See Marco Rubio's stopped-short surge in Virginia, or Ted Cruz's storm in what looked to be a landslide victory earlier on in Louisiana. The next state up, Michigan, has to be leery of a strong late deciding bid for John Kasich - as it currently looks like another big win for Trump...for now. The Conservative/"Reagan" Democrat - otherwise known as Nixon's "Silent Majority": "Conservative" and "Democrat" are two things you probably don't usually put together in today's political map, and with due respect to history, they weren't two things you generally put together during the election victories of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon either - but Reagan and Nixon were able to receive voter's aid from many right-leaning Democrats throughout their campaigns. If you take a look at a recent support sign Trump supporters have...: ...you'll see a reference to the "silent majority" - a group of people President Nixon referred to as -not- being a part of the times' counterculture movements and did not oppose the Vietnam War. Trump's greatest successes come during primaries that are referred to as "Open" - meaning that Independents and Democrats are allowed to pick up Republican ballots and vote in Republican primaries in this case. Reagan Democrats are typically much more conservative than their more vocal liberal brethren - with strong vested interests in strong national security and immigration (which is the "it" issue in the Trump campaign!), along with possible social issues such as the protection of religious liberty. Roughly 1/5th of voters that identify as Democrat also identify as "Pro-Life", which is a rough estimate of how many "moderate" Democrats that are willing to support Republicans should the rhetoric of their nominee be too divisive to include that voter's concerns. With regards to the bluster of Trump's campaign - the "silent" majority would be a very fitting cause for concern for the #NeverTrump movement as well as the Democratic Party. Trump's vocal voters have done a good job of giving what appears to be an apparent limit on support for right now, but at the same time he has drawn many new Republican votes. This could be the key group that stiffly challenges Hillary (or Bernie) for the general election should Trump win. The "Primary" States: The third and final bit of evidence for Trump's success is that he is extremely more proficient in primary states as opposed to caucus states - Nevada notwithstanding. Primaries favor the "Get in, vote, get out" nature and favor those who wish to vote in secret as opposed to being caught standing in a group of supporters at a full caucus. The caucus system is a bit more aggressive and out in the open - lasting for several hours and allowing for candidates' representatives to meet with voters to sway them from other candidates and sell their own. Trump voters in primary states don't feel the pressure of having to answer for some of Trump's weaker (or more brash) statements and positions, and thus it's more inviting to support Trump at a private voting primary than it is to do so at a caucus.

but I don't need a personal flotation device. I KNOW how to swim.

Paths to the nomination: Clinton - The Former Secretary of State doesn't have to change what she is doing. Her popularity with minority voters will carry her in the south and west to several state victories and her common sense liberalism will look very attractive to the super-delegates she's been able to steal from Sanders - even in states Sanders has been winning. So long as she maintains a sizable lead over her challenger, those supers won't flip on her and she should be the Democratic nominee. She needs to train her eyes on the Republican candidates and start gravitating back to the shallow left - and at this point, not only Mr. Trump, but also Senator Cruz - as Ted and Co. have a possibility of causing Donald to fall short of the delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination and the RNC may determine another candidate as opposed to Trump. Sanders - Bernie is quickly running out of time - and here's his predicament. Minority voters that are not college students are breaking massively for Clinton across all 50 states. Without puncturing that stronghold of Hillary's Sanders will lose states that have sizable minority populations easily - and Sanders needs to pull those upsets in order to make a case to Hillary's super-delegates and have them flip prior to the convention. If he can cause them to fiip - he can most certainly cause a convention vote and win the Democratic nomination - but he can't coast and expect to be leading Hillary in the electorate enough for that to matter. --- Trump - Trump is probably in the best spot any candidate in this election because he's the only Republican that can win with the needed delegates to secure the nomination before the convention. However, with three opponents going after him he doesn't have time to focus his fire at Hillary Clinton just yet. With a very splintered GOP - Trump needs to focus on knocking Senator Marco Rubio out of this race by winning the state of Florida and essentially solidifying a one on one against Ted Cruz. Doing so will put the establishment very much out of this race and will force them to either pick super-conservative Cruz or common-sense conservative himself and could possibly put Trump over the threshold he needs. Cruz - Senator Cruz is in the best spot for a Republican candidate not named Trump - and after his solid night last night, if he were able to win the state of Florida, he would once again be ahead of Trump in delegates as it's a Winner-take-all state. He's caught in a tough spot here however. If Rubio wins Florida, the other senator will stay in the race as the map looks friendlier to him. If Trump wins Florida however - yes, Marco should drop out - but Donald takes 99 delegates and expands his lead over Cruz going into to that same stretch. The Cruz camp wants the 1-on-1 with Donald, so they will be gunning to take votes away from Marco there, but they would benefit from either surprising the nation and stealing the Ohio primary on the same day from both Trump -and- Ohio Governor John Kasich - or at least helping Kasich win Ohio and stopping the bleeding. Rubio - If he doesn't win Florida, he needs to drop out of this race - and he's not even favored to do so. Kasich - John is actually a possible dark-horse for the upcoming Michigan primary - but he's so far behind in delegates to date that he needs to also win Ohio - a win that if he doesn't get he has said he would end his campaign.