Englebert

All I can think of about this is that: Of the money given to low income people with children for purchasing the child's necessities, that money apparently is not going toward diapers. So instead of finding out where that money is going, let's just give out more free money. I think I will be able to understand how women think before I will ever come close to understanding the liberal mind.

Based on what little I've read about his views of the 2nd Amendment, he should not be allowed to sit on any court, much less the Supreme Court.

I will also honor his request. Now that he has passed on I'm sure he will vote for Hillary, probably twice.

I agree with you about "Trumpcare". In the not-too-long-ago past he was all for single-payer healthcare. I don't believe him when he talks about his full transformation from New York liberal to "common-sense" conservative. I think he will repeal Obamacare just because he said he would, then replace it with just a big of a boondoggle as Obamacare...behind schedule and over budget. By electing a Democrat or Trump this go 'round our generation will be known as the generation that killed the greatest healthcare system the world has ever known.

You are living in a dream world if you think Hillary, Obama, and many others in the Democratic party do not want to ban guns. They just will not admit it. Hillary has stated that she wants to hold gun manufacturers accountable in cases of gun violence. Do you have any idea what that means? Do you have any idea the effect that would have? You can bury your head in the sand all you want about this issue...some of us are not that blind!

They could treat the nomination just like Harry Reid treats a yearly budget...and just ignore it. Constitution doesn't provide for that but it didn't stop ol' Harry.

On the same vein, let's also look on the Democrats side. Do you think: A. Bernie Sanders' rise to prominence is due to many more people being far far left-wing and support his socialist views. B. Many people are supporting Bernie Sanders only because they are put-off with Hillary and he is the only other Democrat choice. C. Other Thoughts?

Wow. Been watching too much NCIS...I mean MSNBC.

Donald Trump has been saying over and over that he is pulling traditional Democrat voters over to him. The voter turnout has shown that many Democrats have switched parties. He is taking credit for this metamorphosis. Which one of the following choices do you think is really happening: A: These voters are switching parties because of him. B: These voters are just so turned off by the Democrat candidates that they decided to switch parities. When evaluating the Republican nominees they are picking Trump basically because he is a (supposedly former) New York liberal. C: Other What do you think?

I definitely agree with you that "the single biggest persecutor of thought-crime throughout human history has undoubtedly been organized religion." But that hasn't happened in the United States. In fact, throughout the history of the U.S. Christians have occupied the majority of seats in the legislative bodies, but other religions have not been trounced out. I constantly hear that the far-right Bible-thumping Christians are trying to take everyone's rights away. History shows that is not the case, but many people always refer to it as truth. Trump is playing on the misnomer "fear of Christian domination" and "unethical Christians" belief that many people have. He is constantly saying that "Ted Cruz walks around waving the Bible then lies". He is targeting that misconception in order to gain votes. (If he wants to talk about inconsistent ethics, he needs to go no further than the nearest mirror.) That's what prompted my response. There is nothing in Ted Cruz's history, or the U.S. Christian history, that should lead anyone to believe that if elected Cruz would try to invoke Christian doctrine on everyone.

Don't know how I got a double post. I edited my original post and it posted it twice.

It seems you are making false accusations against the integrity of Cruz and of all Christians. I see no evidence that Cruz would propose such nonsense. I see no evidence that if he actually did propose that type of legislation that the vast majority of Americans, including Christians, would not revolt. There have been many instances of Christians exerting Christian theology in legislation, but not where Christians would insist on "join us or face persecution". That's the domain of radical Islam and progressive liberals. If Christians would have been dead-set on forcing everyone to believe in the Bible through legislation, it would have been done in 1776.

It seems you are making false accusations against the integrity of Cruz and of all Christians. I see no evidence that Cruz would propose such nonsense. I see no evidence that if he actually did propose that type of legislation that the vast majority of Americans, including Christians, would not revolt. There have been many instances of Christians exerting Christianity theology in legislation, but not where Christians would insist on "join us or face persecution". That's the domain of radical Islam and progressive liberals. If Christians would have been dead-set on forcing everyone to believe in the Bible through legislation, it would have been done in 1776.

Wow. I just lost all respect for Loretta Lynch. Man-made climate change is just a political issue being pushed by progressive liberals to exert more power over the uneducated masses. Anyone that doesn't believe that is the true denier. What is so disheartening is that if she is such a liberal ideologue, I now have zero confidence in her prosecuting Hillary Clinton (even though that confidence was not high to begin with). I think all of the Republican candidates need to be grilled on this issue to see exactly where each one stands.

Hillary has already publically stated that she wants to hold gun manufacturers accountable in gun violence cases. That is a tactic to drive gun manufacturers out of business...plain and simple. Just like liberals say they are not socialists (we all know that they are), they say they don't want to take our guns, but if Obama had a bill on his desk to outlaw all guns, he would break his arm trying to get a pen fast enough to sign it into law. Now if you want to talk about scaring constituents, how about Hillary saying Republicans are trying to take away the right to vote, Republicans want dirty air and dirty water...the list is endless. I notice you will not answer a single question, you just try to change the subject when your generalizations fall flat. I've posed numerous questions to you but you keep changing the subject. I'd be willing to bet you will not answer the above questions. You throw out ridiculous allegations then run and hide when you get called on them. You act eerily similar to a certain person that holds the all time record for being banned on this site.

Where is any proof of his Dominionist theology? Ronald Reagan appealed to many many people, even some bad ones...so what. What lies has Cruz been telling while looking straight at the camera. Name them. If you want to discuss presidential candidates who look straight in the camera and lie, the biggest liar of them all is Hillary. So if your are turned off by Cruz's presumed lying, you should be furious at Hillary's blatant lies.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing.

So are you gonna ridicule the Republican debates as "acting like fools", while at them same time calling them childish names? Sounds pretty hypocritical.

I think the rest of the Dems got the memo from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (I don't know if that is the correct spelling but I'm not going to look it up because I just don't care that much about that.....her) that the deck was going to be stacked for Hillary's coronation.

Any proof to that generalized statement? Sounds like profiling to me.

Why do you say that? You've hinted a few times about knowing something about Ted Cruz. I'm very curious to know what that is. Maybe share the enlightenment on why you seemingly hate Cruz.

That's the same thing they said about Ronald Reagan.

It doesn't bother you that Gen Petraeus was prosecuted for showing classified documents to his biographer, but Hillary is given a free pass for doing the same thing on a much larger scale? We all know that Hillary's lawyer had a thumb drive containing backups of Hillary's emails. Did he steal these thousands of "now classified" emails, or did Hillary provide them to him? Hillary also has publicly stated that her and her staff reviewed her emails and separated the personal emails from the State Department business emails. What is the security clearance of all of the people reviewing her emails? When you build an email server, someone has to physically setup that server. Someone also has to run regular maintenance (such as installing Windows updates) and maintain backups. These tasks all require administrative rights to the server. And anyone with administrative rights to the server also has full access to the data and everything else on that server. Does all of the personnel she hired to perform these tasks have top level security clearance? Hillary's camp is also trying to use the bogus excuse that the documents were not classified at the time. Does it not bother you that the Secretary Of State, one of the key players in designating what documents should be classified, does not have the skill set to recognize classified data when presented with it? And we should reward that deficient set of skills with a promotion to the White House? I don't think so. Hillary's camp is also trying to justify her actions by saying that all previous Secretary of State's have done the same thing. That is a blatant lie. Not one previous Secretary Of State hired a private company to build a private email server and conduct their business through that outside server. Hillary has done so many things that should disqualify her from public office, including lying to the families of the Benghazi, that it is baffling to me how anyone could support her. Apparently her followers are just like Trump's minions in the fact that it doesn't matter what they do, the good outweighs the negatives (in their minds). I'm curious as to what degree that threshold is. What actions could Hillary (or Trump) take that would preclude one of her sheeple from supporting her. She has already performed numerous of these actions, but the support continues. Amazing and disheartening. At least some of people have disavowed her (Yay)...and turned to a socialist. But that is the options on the Dem's side: a socialist or an unconvicted felon. On a side note, one of the things that bothers me the most in Hillary's email scandal is the incompetence of the federal investigations. Hillary claims she has endured 50 bipartisan investigations into Benghazi. As far as I know, not one of the previous investigations has revealed the fact that Hillary was conducting her State Department business on a private email server. How is it that 49 of these investigations have failed to discover this? How is it that any competent person/people performing the task of an investigation fail to discover this fact? And in the course of many of these investigations Hillary was not even interviewed. I have reached the point now that anytime I hear that Congress or any other governmental agency is performing an investigation, I just laugh and think about what incompetent boobs are going to be running this dog and pony show.

Since you brought up conference, in the last 2 seasons UT is 9-9 in conference play and A&M is 7-9. I know, I know, A&M plays in a waaaaaayyyy tougher conference. In the last 2 seasons in conference UT is 3-6 against Top25 teams and A&M is 3-5 against Top25 teams. So in the last 2 years UT has played against more ranked conference teams than A&M, and has a better conference record. But I know you will hang your hat on that conference thing.

I feel the same exact way. If Cruz or Rubio win the nomination I will happily skip down to the polls to cast my vote. For all others, especially Trump, I'll drag myself to the polls not to cast a vote for them, but to cast a vote against the Dem nominee.