Nevada Primary

Trump comes out on top.

My prediction is that Trump is the GOP nominee.

 Clinton is the DNC nominee.

Clinton wins the POTUS with 65% of the vote.

Liberalism & leftists aren't diverse. Conservatism is.

Here's an interesting article on American Thinker about the current slate of POTUS candidates for 2016.

The Republican presidential debate process makes clear the true diversity of conservatism.  When the left talks of "diversity," it means diversity of identity: blacks speaking for blacks, women speaking for women, Hispanics speaking for Hispanics.  But even here, the left is not diverse at all. 

Look at everyone who has been considered at one time or another during this campaign season to have been a serious potential candidate for the Democrat nomination: Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Kerry.  All four Democrats are very rich (Socialist Sanders is simply well off), and all five of these folks have spent their whole adult lives "working" in politics or law.  All five also live in the hothouse environment of the Beltway, where no one drills for oil or grows crops or builds trucks.

The contrast with the Republican field is stark.  At the last Republican debate, half of the candidates were women or members of minority groups.  Two of the eight were physicians; two of the eight were business executives; and five of the eight – Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Fiorina – came from very humble backgrounds.  These eight also live in places scattered around the nation – Florida, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia.

The real difference in diversity, however, is in the diversity of ideas and policies.  The rhetoric of Hillary and Bernie is virtually identical, and both are saying exactly the same things that the left was saying twenty years ago.  There is never any serious reflection that what has been tried and failed ought to be modified or even rejected.  The dull, gray, silly theories of socialism are still clung to reflexively by the left.

The author of the article goes on into the policies and how conservatism is the saving grace of American politics and the nation. Overall, a decent read that brings up valid points that "diversity" when talked about on the DNC/leftist side is only skin deep. As an ideology they're lock step.

GOP #4 Debate: Fox Business Network

John Kasich is a smart man. Kasich is an experienced politician and is a positive asset to the Republicans. He's also a "time" theft interjecting in almost every question focused on another candidate.

People tweeted #GoHomeDeRay for not wanting any violence when it came to protests against brutal and questionable police actions because they didn't want encouraged violence. In this case people should start tweeting #GoHomeKasich for the debate to not turn into Late Night With Kasich.

EDIT: A point for Kasich for saying that being for free markets is a great thing but such a system, or any economic system, needs a sound moral foundation when practiced by humans - it needs values. 

If You Only Had a Brain

If the GOP voters had a brain they'd see Trump mainly as these things when it comes to policy & media:

(1) Great at deflecting the BS that is thrown at non (D)s and non-'save-the-world-save-the-little-guy' types and

(2) Great at bringing up issues, particularly the less-than stellar economy and downright traitorous immigration policies held by many leftists/"progressives."

That's it.

Why anyone who is serious about the POTUS position would favor him over the others, besides Jeb Bush,  is not beyond my understanding, but beyond my respect. Yet several contributors at American Thinker and its combox members think otherwise. The site and the writers that make up the site haven't official said it, but their guy is Trump, and they have no problem painting and believing things that make Walker (now out of the race), Fiorina (I believe she'll drop out after the 3rd debate), Carson, Rubio and Cruz as establishment types or less-than trustworthy candidates. They'll snidely remark "cuckservative." This is proof of their lowly bottom and, as an ex-modern day liberal, I will admit shows why liberals/leftists/progs think The Right are unsophisticated rubes. In some ways they are.

And to the people within the RNC picking the candidate that gets their backing - this time it's Jeb - you people are losers who need to replaced. Careerist politicians whose better days are long behind them, whose eyes are cloudy with screeching brakes that don't know how to call it quits, or 40 yr olds who couldn't run a successful business so they, instead, run a major political organization. Yikes.

Top half of GOP debate. My thoughts.

I wasn't really disappointed in any of the candidates since I watched without much expectations. I wasn't too impressed with Governor Walker - he's probably the most vanilla of all the candidates that were shown tonight, but he is my personal favorite. He didn't say anything bad, but it wasn't "Yea! Totally! Woohoo!"

Mike Huckabee's response to female entrance to combat units and LGBT making waves in the military was magical. I thought he was sharp on what he said: The military's job is to kill and break stuff. It is not a social experiment for "equality" and "diversity"; to make it an experiment is to weaken the military overall and to make America vulnerable. This "social experiment" angers me. He also made some "R" rated comments on welfare. Most of his responses, that I remember, have impressed me.

"Lindsey" Ryan, a supposed military vet of 15 years, and a transgender (man to woman in this case) has some opposing worlds to say to Huckabee:

This is eerily the same tactic, if not appeal to emotions - "I've raised X number of kids with my partner," "my relationships/'marriage' is not a problem with my family/friends," - that the LGBT "community" use when countering those who oppose same-sex adoption and "marriage." This time it's how one transgender's fellow soldiers are okay with him being open about his state. I do not doubt that military personnel are fine with open LGBT servicemen; I also do not doubt that anything is actually better.

Jeb Bush's thoughts on immigration were great as well - to eliminate sanctuary cities and to make illegal aliens pay a fine and to make them enter the legal process towards legal citizenship not named Amnesty. His co-pilot on illegal immigration was Donald Trump. Of course. He basically said "to build a wall" alongside the Mexico border where there's a "big beautiful door" for those who want to enter legally. I agree. If the LGBT have their "gay pride" parade the illegal aliens have their "immigration reform" marches. It's fucking pathetic. And I bet many many Americans with Mexican blood and illegals are absolutely mad over how the candidates see illegal immigration. You know what? Their anger is misguided. They should be thankful that such people care about this country AND about healthy, legal immigration that makes America great.

Ben Carson was charming but he's in over his head; he didn't do bad, but he has nothing to offer when it comes to the presidency. I wouldn't oppose his recommendation as Surgeon General. He did say something brilliant: Do not broadcast your plays during war time. He also called out on how secular progressives relies on the sleeping people of America to vote for them. Leftists relies on the uninformed and the naive to say "Yes we can!"

Ted Cruz. I have to say he, besides, Rubio, is a gifted public speaker, but his pauses to hint for applause can be irritating. He, like Obama, is Ivy League educated through and through (if we don't count Occidental). I do sense of a bit arrogant, like Obama, but he's a different type of intelligence. Obama is clever and insidious; Cruz is sharp and direct.

Trump is Trump. He's a charismatic businessman. He did say some good words on why Obamacare sucks.

John Kasich did well. He's a patriot with common sense. I wasn't too hot on his response with same-sex "marriage" - he pulled the "went to a gay 'marriage' a few weeks ago and I think we need to love everyone. That's what Jesus said." Though he gives good talk about the economy, saying that a good economy is the solution to everything (I don't know about that), he's unaware of how important of the 'other' economy: The economy of marriage and family. He accepts that same-sex "marriage" is law of the land, still believes in traditional marriage yet he thinks it's best for America to just let the issue go die out, to let if fly into the sunset. The "non-bigots" have won this - it's end game according to him. Then again he is Anglican so I suppose I can forgive him.

I have mix feelings on how Rand Paul's performance. He picked fights with Trump and Christie - that's not smart when you need public favor to advance.

A few conservative/libertarian online news sites have said that there are three serious candidates (Walker, Cruz, Fiorina). Back then I would agree, but now I think that three have expanded to at least five: Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Rubio and Kasich, just from this top half.

The questions asked by the moderators, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, were, for the most part, alright. The best question was how the current set of candidates dealt with the common "small government" claim while, whenever GOP wins the POTUS, expands government. This is a crucial question because it forces them to actually follow the claim with hopes to 'evolve' their stance to do such a thing.

I did not see the bottom GOP half with Carly Fiorina, which I hope to catch before the end of the week on re-run. Word has it she was the outright winner of her group. This is good news. The real question is if this debate has made the American people take serious interest in her, serious enough to move her up in the poll standings and to earn her a spot on the top half. It'll be interesting; I don't think she'll get over the hump of her non-name brand, but if she does then America is paying attention. America helped Obama's brand grow - from a little known Senator with barely three years of Congress experience to the fast track towards the White House, and they can do the same thing with Fiorina. But unlike Obama, who, after I do some serious thought, was groomed and pushed towards the White House by the established DNC, Fiorina would earn that GOP nomination in a less contrived way.

The social progressive zeitgeist has successfully implemented itself as present and future norm. Same-sex "marriage" is supported by more than 60% of the American population. Why? Because Americans are lazy thinkers and idiots when it comes to the institution of marriage. Abortion is on-demand even though there are small spurts of resistance to end late-term abortions. I thought the Planned Parenthood fiasco would be more of a hot button but it's not - the media has done a good job and the American people are too indifferent about it, even if they are aware of the videos. But they can show anger when black people die and strongly favor same-sex "marriage." What I'm trying to say is this: The American people have changed for the worse, but maybe they can surprise me.