Destruction of the Republican Party - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Rochard · 03-05-2016, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Wikipedia is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

It's OK if you call it a "test".

You understand the difference between a test on a deserted island and dropping nukes on American cities, right?

Rochard · 03-05-2016, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

WTF????

Yeah we invaded them in 1991 in the first Gulf War because they invaded Kuwait.

Fuck Rochard...are you really this misinformed? We invaded them again in 2002 because they might have had "WMD'S" (which turned out to be bullshit).

And I disagree on this.

We attacked Iraq and kicked them out of Kuwait. We signed a peace treaty... which was then violated every day for over a decade. When I say "violated" I mean Iraq was shooting at US warplanes on a daily basis - an act of war - and the United States was bombing back. A de facto state of war existed between the United States and Iraq while Clinton was still in office, before Bush took over.

The Bush administration had to sell it to the American public, and they had been bickering over the issue of WMDs and that was an easy sell. But the truth is a shooting war existed with Iraq before President Bush took office.

CarlosTheGaucho · 03-05-2016, 04:28 PM

Btw. just to the WW II discussion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most devastating bomb attack on the Japanese soil during the WW II.

That happened when several months earlier Kyoto was bombed with firebombs creating a circle of fire that burned down the whole center of the city, built almost exclusively from wood. With no means of escape.

This cost more than 100 000 casualties that night and is most likely, by today, the most devastating bomb attack of all time.

Even after the nukes were used, several high commanding Japanese officers orchestrated an attempted coup trying to continue the war. All of those committed suicide after.

As terrible as it was, without using the nuclear power a ground invasion would likely be necessary. A paradox is that this horrible act most likely, at the end of the day, actually saved more Japanese lives than it cost.

Just for illustration the ratio between US and Japanese casualties during the Pacific war stood at 1:14.

The Porn Nerd · 03-05-2016, 04:33 PM

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Don't most Republicans seem angry, scared and a bit dousche-y? Of course, Democrats act like gutless pussy intellectuals so fuck them too. LOL

Joshua G · 03-05-2016, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

It can't be good that they are openly discussing how to get around the voters to get a candidate that the Washington/Insiders Republicans want. How can they say this stuff and not think that this will hurt their party for a long time???

I am not a fan of Trump but if he gets the votes then they are sort of honor bound to support him I would think. Seems like the way to go versus what they are doing.

the whole thing is an anomaly of 1 man, & its happening solely because he is a billionaire & celebrity. there are no down-ballot candidates for any of trumps plans/positions. if he is shot, its back to business as usual inside of 5 minutes.

none of the political people know how to deal with a guy that so flagrantly violates every law of politics & gets away with it. i never seen the media just fully abandon any hint of non-partisanship, never seen politicans openly eat their own, over this guy, who attracts the biggest republican crowds since ronald.

Trump is a genius. One of the old guard from the 40s, the bluntness. the hipsters are gonna lose their minds & i will laugh & laugh & laugh at their expense.

GregE · 03-05-2016, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

He's about the only sensible sounding guy on their stage but isn't he a relgious nutter?

Aside from him I wish Rand Paul would of done better. He's a little loopy but he does seem to give a shit about the country and our rights.

Kasich wants to cut Social Security, hence he's unelectable. Were it not for that, he'd be ahead of the jug eared cabana boy but still trailing Trump and probably Cruz.

Sunny Day · 03-05-2016, 06:32 PM

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were/are important sea ports. They were both important military targets.

Truman wrestled with the decision to bomb these two cities. It was estimated that had we invaded Japan, over 100,000 U.S. troops would have died. Even after the bombs were dropped, many Japanese military men refused to believe that one bomb could cause that much destruction.

If you ever saw footage or even the mini-series The Pacific, the Japanese soldiers fought tooth and nail on tiny islands. On their homeland would have fought even harder.

Hopefully another A Bomb is never used.

Rochard · 03-05-2016, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Don't most Republicans seem angry.....

Angry is an under statement. They are pissed. They lost to a black man with no track record who most Americans never heard of until he ran for President. Now they are about to loose to a woman.

TCLGirls · 03-05-2016, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Angry is an under statement. They are pissed. They lost to a black man with no track record who most Americans never heard of until he ran for President. Now they are about to loose to a woman.

Either a woman or a self-describe socialist. Either way, the GOP anger will be funny to watch...hell it already is.

Magnetron · 03-05-2016, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I agree with your first point. But your second and third ones are a lot of conjecture.

I actually think that MORE people are informed these days. And that's why the Republican Establishment can't get away with the same old tricks they have always used to hand pick their nominee.

People aren't buying what the establishment is selling.
To try and say that it's all because people are "stupid" is an error.

I'm not stupid, and I think Trump is far and away the best thing going in the Republican Party right now.
I'm not gonna vote Republican (or Democrat)...but I do believe he could get our economy going strong again. And I do believe that he will get the best people available to handle the various cabinet posts.

As for all the social issue stuff...he is way too far right for my tastes. But then again so is Hillary. And I'm not going to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" b.s. that the majority of people are going to do.

Informed and misinformed go hand in hand; and there's more misinformation nowadays than ever before.

I'm not saying you or everyone who approves of Trump is misinformed, but he certainly appeals to an audience that believes anything posted by bloggers or forwarded in emails.

Magnetron · 03-05-2016, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You understand the difference between a test on a deserted island and dropping nukes on American cities, right?

The buildings don't have mannequins in them?

How many American soldiers and civilians did the Japanese kill or imprison in the Aluetians during their occupation?

How big were the American cities there during their invasion and what others were within a 25 mile radius?

Robbie · 03-05-2016, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnetron

I'm not saying you or everyone who approves of Trump is misinformed, but he certainly appeals to an audience that believes anything posted by bloggers or forwarded in emails.

I don't think that trying to profile the supporters of candidates means much.

If we did that then we could say that Clinton appeals to an audience of uneducated people on welfare.
Doesn't mean anything.

The only thing that is important in my mind is what these candidates stand for.

Trump wants to build a wall. And he's not the first one to say that. Congress has tossed that idea around for the last few years.

I find that idea to be un-American. I thought we condemned the Soviet Union for doing the same thing in Berlin and that we all celebrated when the wall came down. And now we want to build one too???
I've said it a few times, the only "problem" we have with Mexico is caused by our Federal Govt. and it's prohibition on recreational drugs. Same thing happened with alcohol prohibition: violence, gang activity, and people getting filthy rich off of it.

Also...Trump is wanting to put even MORE money into the military. WTF? It's already bigger than the next 10 countries combined.

The only things I like about Trump are his economic ideas and his trade ideas. I think he's the master of those two things.

Now Hillary...I honestly don't know what the fuck she would do. She lies every other word out of her mouth. So I don't trust her at all with anything.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I don't think that people picking certain segments of candidates supporters and trying to brand the candidate that way has anything to do with anything.
Just my opinion.

Magnetron · 03-05-2016, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't think that trying to profile the supporters of candidates means much.

If we did that then we could say that Clinton appeals to an audience of uneducated people on welfare.
Doesn't mean anything.

The only thing that is important in my mind is what these candidates stand for.

Trump wants to build a wall. And he's not the first one to say that. Congress has tossed that idea around for the last few years.

I find that idea to be un-American. I thought we condemned the Soviet Union for doing the same thing in Berlin and that we all celebrated when the wall came down. And now we want to build one too???
I've said it a few times, the only "problem" we have with Mexico is caused by our Federal Govt. and it's prohibition on recreational drugs. Same thing happened with alcohol prohibition: violence, gang activity, and people getting filthy rich off of it.

Also...Trump is wanting to put even MORE money into the military. WTF? It's already bigger than the next 10 countries combined.

The only things I like about Trump are his economic ideas and his trade ideas. I think he's the master of those two things.

Now Hillary...I honestly don't know what the fuck she would do. She lies every other word out of her mouth. So I don't trust her at all with anything.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I don't think that people picking certain segments of candidates supporters and trying to brand the candidate that way has anything to do with anything.
Just my opinion.

I think Trump stands for himself. His money buys him the opportunity to get mentioned in history books. Even if he loses, a big enough spectacle will ensure his name gets in print.

Robbie · 03-05-2016, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnetron

I think Trump stands for himself. His money buys him the opportunity to get mentioned in history books. Even if he loses, a big enough spectacle will ensure his name gets in print.

I think he already had his name in the history books because of the buildings he has built around the world.

Even before his t.v. show I would hear his name come up in casual conversation. Like if somebody were buying drinks for everyone at the bar you'd hear someone say: "What, do you think you're rich like Donald Trump?"

So he was kind of already famous and part of our culture. I can remember when I was a teenager in the 1970's if people were busting your balls about spending money they'd call you "J. Paul Getty" or "Rockefeller". By the 1980's that had changed to "Trump".

I sort of take him at his word. He said in the very beginning of his campaign that he is the only candidate with something to lose.
The rest of them are all politicians. If Cruz doesn't win...he just keeps on going as the Senator from Texas for instance.
But Trump is not only spending his money...but he's devoting all of his time to his campaign instead of running his companies.

I think he honestly believes he can "make America great again". Now whether you or I think he can is another story...but I believe that HE believes it.

And that's the way you have to think to be successful at anything.

Far-L · 03-05-2016, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Japan invaded Alaska jackass. BTW, did you think they were wiping out the Pacific Fleet for an afternoon of fun? Now, you're adding to your stupidity by saying they could have been deterred after decades of launching genocidal campaigns against their neighbors, murdering men, women and children in the most horrific ways, with a harmless water fight?

Wow.

I think more allied forces were killed by friendly fire than in any battle with the Japanese in Alaska or surrounding islands and in a battle that didn't even need to be "fought", since the Japanese had already left when the offensive to take back the territory was launched.

Paul Markham · 03-06-2016, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Agreed, agreed and disagree.

John Kasich is a worthwhile candidate, but Republican voters favor the three stooges.

Cruz and Rubio are getting a similar number of votes, Romney got last time. Trump is getting brand new votes. And still wiping the floor with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Here are the reasons why the favored Republican candidate is a Carnival Freak.

1) Trump isn't a career politician and everyone is fed up with career politicians.

2) There's a lot of people in the U.S. that don't research the candidates for themselves and don't know anything about politics.

3) Many of them have brains fogged up by Prozac and other mind altering substances.

1) Agree. But it needs more qualifications to run a country.
2) Clearly true. His sound bites don't work, his plans don't work. He's playing to a crowd who doesn't research.

Paul Markham · 03-06-2016, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I agree with your first point. But your second and third ones are a lot of conjecture.

I actually think that MORE people are informed these days. And that's why the Republican Establishment can't get away with the same old tricks they have always used to hand pick their nominee.

People aren't buying what the establishment is selling.
To try and say that it's all because people are "stupid" is an error.

I'm not stupid, and I think Trump is far and away the best thing going in the Republican Party right now.
I'm not gonna vote Republican (or Democrat)...but I do believe he could get our economy going strong again. And I do believe that he will get the best people available to handle the various cabinet posts.

As for all the social issue stuff...he is way too far right for my tastes. But then again so is Hillary. And I'm not going to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" b.s. that the majority of people are going to do.

He may be the best. Doesn't mean he's qualified.

His bombing families will fail. His tax plans will fail, his defence plans will fail. Can he force Mexico to pay for the Wall and can he get China to accept tariffs and not demand the US repays it's debt without China lending more money?

However imposing more taxes on imports is something I support. Along with strict rules on migration.

As for his ban on Muslims, that now has changed to people from terrorist countries. Does that include the oil billionaires? Racking up the Visa policies would be far better, but less of a soundbite.

Paul Markham · 03-06-2016, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And I disagree on this.

We attacked Iraq and kicked them out of Kuwait. We signed a peace treaty... which was then violated every day for over a decade. When I say "violated" I mean Iraq was shooting at US warplanes on a daily basis - an act of war - and the United States was bombing back. A de facto state of war existed between the United States and Iraq while Clinton was still in office, before Bush took over.

The Bush administration had to sell it to the American public, and they had been bickering over the issue of WMDs and that was an easy sell. But the truth is a shooting war existed with Iraq before President Bush took office.

Then the US should have removed the ability to fire missiles. With smart bombs and missiles. Invasion was a huge mistake.

The problem is the PC approach of our Governments. we have to accept that these countries get the leaders they deserve and the ones who can keep the lid on the rebels. Can't think of one example where a despot has been removed and a moderate leader has kept a grip on a ME country.

Yanks_Todd · 03-06-2016, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Trump was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

Incorrect. Dropping those bombs saved more lives on both sides. The Japanese were training children and women to fight if the U.S. tried to take the mainland. It would have been a blood bath on both sides. Obviously the American lives were more valued, however it was a net positive on both sides.

Trump wants to bomb families of an organization that so far has been responsible for 14 U.S. deaths. The math doesn't work. Lastly threatening death to people who believe it makes them martyrs is a tough sell. The Japanese in some regards where the same way, however the bombs would have removed them from the earth without the honor of them facing their enemy so they lost face and surrendered. I know you said you don't agree, but you also pseudo defend it. You can't kill your way to peace with terrorists. Every family you kill will live a few extremely damaged and highly motivated individuals. It is like fucking your way to virginity.

Paul Markham · 03-06-2016, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were/are important sea ports. They were both important military targets.

Truman wrestled with the decision to bomb these two cities. It was estimated that had we invaded Japan, over 100,000 U.S. troops would have died. Even after the bombs were dropped, many Japanese military men refused to believe that one bomb could cause that much destruction.

If you ever saw footage or even the mini-series The Pacific, the Japanese soldiers fought tooth and nail on tiny islands. On their homeland would have fought even harder.

Hopefully another A Bomb is never used.

Hitler lost the Battle of Britain because he switched from bombing military targets to civilian. And probably lost WW2 because of that. Bomber Harris lengthened the war by bombing civilian targets instead of military.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a demonstration of the weapon the US had in their arsenal. They could have bombed Tokyo, an industrial complex. They didn't. They illustrated to the Japanese that resistance was futile, there was no need for America to lose more lives or spend on more arms. They had the ultimate weapon to win a war.

Japan hesitated after the bomb on Hiroshima. Nagasaki showed the US was able and willing to do it again, and again until Japan was flat. No one knew about the radiation situation then, to the degree we know it now.

Black All Through · 03-06-2016, 03:00 AM

I wouldn't go as far as saying the Destruction of the party, but this unseen before situation is going to set them back a few elections. They have lost control and credibility.

Magnetron · 03-06-2016, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think he already had his name in the history books because of the buildings he has built around the world.

Even before his t.v. show I would hear his name come up in casual conversation. Like if somebody were buying drinks for everyone at the bar you'd hear someone say: "What, do you think you're rich like Donald Trump?"

So he was kind of already famous and part of our culture. I can remember when I was a teenager in the 1970's if people were busting your balls about spending money they'd call you "J. Paul Getty" or "Rockefeller". By the 1980's that had changed to "Trump".

I sort of take him at his word. He said in the very beginning of his campaign that he is the only candidate with something to lose.
The rest of them are all politicians. If Cruz doesn't win...he just keeps on going as the Senator from Texas for instance.
But Trump is not only spending his money...but he's devoting all of his time to his campaign instead of running his companies.

I think he honestly believes he can "make America great again". Now whether you or I think he can is another story...but I believe that HE believes it.

And that's the way you have to think to be successful at anything.

I was referring more to textbook history, where the names of people who became wealthy from actually having contributed something substantial to society live on and are imprinted upon the young minds of generations to come.

Or Presidents, whether they were good or bad for the nation.

True, the name Trump permeates our culture NOW..... but in the same way as Bieber and Kardashian, not Bell or Edison.

pimpmaster9000 · 03-06-2016, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Japan invaded Alaska jackass. BTW, did you think they were wiping out the Pacific Fleet for an afternoon of fun? Now, you're adding to your stupidity by saying they could have been deterred after decades of launching genocidal campaigns against their neighbors, murdering men, women and children in the most horrific ways, with a harmless water fight?

Wow.

so you nuked some completely unrelated fishermen

oh and may I remind you that you are an american speaking about genocide?

Magnetron · 03-06-2016, 04:48 AM

Who is responsible for derailing this topic?

oh, wait ....... it was me.

Paul Markham · 03-06-2016, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think he already had his name in the history books because of the buildings he has built around the world.

Even before his t.v. show I would hear his name come up in casual conversation. Like if somebody were buying drinks for everyone at the bar you'd hear someone say: "What, do you think you're rich like Donald Trump?"

So he was kind of already famous and part of our culture. I can remember when I was a teenager in the 1970's if people were busting your balls about spending money they'd call you "J. Paul Getty" or "Rockefeller". By the 1980's that had changed to "Trump".

I sort of take him at his word. He said in the very beginning of his campaign that he is the only candidate with something to lose.
The rest of them are all politicians. If Cruz doesn't win...he just keeps on going as the Senator from Texas for instance.
But Trump is not only spending his money...but he's devoting all of his time to his campaign instead of running his companies.

I think he honestly believes he can "make America great again". Now whether you or I think he can is another story...but I believe that HE believes it.

And that's the way you have to think to be successful at anything.

An egotist/billionaire never says "I have enough fame/money, so will stop getting more."

Trump is both. Well, the jury is out on how much money he's really worth.

Barry-xlovecam · 03-06-2016, 06:22 AM

Donald Trump is not a a real Republican he should run as an independent candidate for president.
Bernie Sanders is a Senator elected as an Independent he should run as an independent candidate for president.

The vote would be split 4 ways and thrown into the Electoral College. The framers anticipated this situation in the US Constitution and allowed for this selection process to be done in an orderly and constitutional way.

Off subject: I am sure that my 3 uncles, father and stepfather who were all in the US Army, my 2 uncles serving under Macarthur, had no problem with the war ending early after Truman dropped the A-bombs. That said, it was a war crime to knowingly kill so many civilians but so was the Rape of Nanking by the Imperial Japanese Army. 1945 was another world from the world we live in today with regard to what is a war crime.

I once said ( in October 2015 ) that we should have used tactical nuclear weapons on the Islamic Terrorist State's capital city of Ar-Raqqah; it would have imploded the Islamic Terrorist State and its command and control ability. Up to 50K civilians would die but 2 million civilians in Ramadi and Mosul would regain control of their freedoms. That is a 2.5% collateral damage loss of non combatant life. If you are part of the 97.5% freed you would morn the loss of civilian life but acknowledge the 200K+ dead and 6 million persons displaced, Assad and the other rebel forces should get their credit due also.

However, I never advocated targeting civilians intentionally, Trump did, and did so in vindictiveness -- that would be a war crime.

Hail Trump

Trumps supporters are not affirming an oath as Trump is doing they saluting Trump -- that is really fucked up

Italy 1922

One thing leads to another

Be careful what you ask for you might just get it

Hail Trump

Rochard · 03-06-2016, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnetron

The buildings don't have mannequins in them?

How many American soldiers and civilians did the Japanese kill or imprison in the Aluetians during their occupation?

How big were the American cities there during their invasion and what others were within a 25 mile radius?

It doesn't matter. The United States would never nuke an American city with a civilian population, no less a military population.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time.

pimpmaster9000 · 03-06-2016, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I once said ( in October 2015 ) that we should have used tactical nuclear weapons on the Islamic Terrorist State's capital city of Ar-Raqqah; it would have imploded the Islamic Terrorist State and its command and control ability. Up to 50K civilians would die but 2 million civilians in Ramadi and Mosul would regain control of their freedoms. That is a 2.5% collateral damage loss of non combatant life. If you are part of the 97.5% freed you would morn the loss of civilian life but acknowledge the 200K+ dead and 6 million persons displaced, Assad and the other rebel forces should get their credit due also.

why not drop a tactical nuke on washington then? it would have imploded the #1 terrorists on the planet, only 2.5% of your population would die, but the 97,5% of you would live in "freedoms"?

why go after lesser terrorists?

on a side note, FUCK am I glad that other countries have nukes, american klingons simply do not see anything wrong with nuking other countries...I hope all countries have nukes and nasty ass bacteria soon to protect themselves from americans, or at least bring the klingons down with them if the klingons decide to attack...

thank god for the russians and chineese as well...

dyna mo · 03-06-2016, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Hitler lost the Battle of Britain because he switched from bombing military targets to civilian. And probably lost WW2 because of that. Bomber Harris lengthened the war by bombing civilian targets instead of military.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a demonstration of the weapon the US had in their arsenal. They could have bombed Tokyo, an industrial complex. They didn't. They illustrated to the Japanese that resistance was futile, there was no need for America to lose more lives or spend on more arms. They had the ultimate weapon to win a war.

Japan hesitated after the bomb on Hiroshima. Nagasaki showed the US was able and willing to do it again, and again until Japan was flat. No one knew about the radiation situation then, to the degree we know it now.

Hitler lost the battle of Britain due to RAF strength and Luftwaffe weakness, not because of some change in bombing targets.

And no Tokyo wasn't a potential target for the bomb, it had already been destroyed in previous bombings.

Magnetron · 03-06-2016, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It doesn't matter. The United States would never nuke an American city with a civilian population, no less a military population.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time.

Sure it's sounds dumber than a box o rocks when you try to frame it as though there was a huge thriving Metropolis in the Aluetian Islands back during WWII.

What if IF IF the Japanese were stricken with the Walking Dead virus?

What then?

If they appeared on the California coastline and invaded Los Angeles, you would have little choice but to take each one out with a bullet to the noggin.

But you have more flexibility when it comes to the Aluetians. The Nukelear Option allows you to eradicate all zombies Japanese or American in the region and prevents infection traveling further through Alaska and Canada.

Are you going to sit there and tell us that you would risk Kamizombies walking willy nilly amok down from Canada into the United States and eat everyone's brains and turn us all into zombies?

You would ..... wouldn't you.

Damn you, Rochard.

Damn you to Hell.

Robbie · 03-06-2016, 10:13 AM

What I'd really like to see would be a return to how the President AND Vice President were chosen.

Right now we have the President getting to choose his own "running mate" who also becomes the President of the Senate.
Meaning that gives the executive branch the deciding vote in the Senate in case of a tie.

That was never meant to happen.

The way it was done in the beginning was that the guy who got the most votes became President. His opponent became Vice President.

In other words the Vice President wasn't the "running mate" of the President and instead was the leader of the OPPOSING party. Which made it far more fair because the Vice President is the Senate President and gets to cast any deciding vote in the Senate.

Imagine if it had been Al Gore as Bush's Vice President.

Or if Hillary were to be Trump's Vice President.

Barry-xlovecam · 03-06-2016, 11:10 AM

Robbie

US Constitution
Section. 3.

Quote:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

WTF?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
That is Constitutional Law
Amendment 12

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in election of 1800 the constitution was changed for that reason.
I learned that in 10th grade American History class.

Robbie · 03-06-2016, 11:39 AM

You're right.

I was thinking for some reason that it was the opposing party candidate that got to be Vice President.

But it was actually the President and Vice President running independently. So you could still have the Vice President as the same party.

In other words...it wasn't the loser of the Presidential race who became Vice President. It was the winner of the Vice Presidential race who became Vice President.

Anyway...I still think it would be a cool idea.

And it would take away the executive branch having that tie-breaking vote in the Senate if the Vice President was from the opposing party.

Barry-xlovecam · 03-06-2016, 01:41 PM

What would be the logic on getting the loser to break the tie -- more gridlock?

Depends on where you stand -- I would not mind a very gradual change -- no crisis here.

I would rather go with a 4 party race like I said and let the Electoral College do its job as contemplated by the constitution. I think the intent was a more towards multi-party elections in the USA rather than a rubber stamp endorsement of the 2 party system.

Oh noes! The USA might have competition in politics ...
Since when is fair competition such a bad thing?

If all 4 parties gained seats in the House and Senate then they would need to make coalition compromises to enact legislation. 3 parties could form a super majority vote that could over-ride a President's veto. The peoples' elected representatives now would have a majority voice on issues that they can agree on, laws that would move the nation forward. There can be wisdom in numbers of clear majority. On the next issue, it may only pass on a simple majority and be subject to veto. More might be accomplished this way -- and it is all possible under laws in force now -- that is the beauty of it.

This was the framer's intent IMHO -- to encourage political diversity. Or, make a seat for every ass ...

Robbie · 03-06-2016, 02:03 PM

I agree. The Republicans and Democrats have ruled for far too long. And they have taken steps over the years to consolidate that power. Making it very hard for anyone who isn't a Dem or Rep to even get on the ballot in most elections.

I don't think the framers really wanted the govt. to do a lot of "getting things done". That's just my opinion.

The govt. was set up so that it is hard to get bills passed. And even with that...they have made so many federal laws over the years that nobody even knows for sure how many there are. At least I haven't been able to find a definitive number of them by googling it.

Yeah, the President needs to submit a budget to Congress by the end of Feb. each year (something that Pres. Obama failed to do many times). And the Senate needs to pass that budget even if they argue about it and amend it (which they are supposed to do).
Harry Reid and the Democrat led Senate failed to do it for the entire Obama Presidency until 2013!

Anyway, other than that...I really don't think we need MORE laws passed by Congress. How many more laws do we need to simply be able to live our lives and function as a society?

I guess I'm one of those people who think it's a good thing when there is "gridlock" (except on the budget).
I'm also a person who wonders why they even bother with the "Debt Ceiling".

First Congress passes the debt ceiling law to make sure they are forced to not run up any more debt. And then every year like clockwork...they amend it and raise the ceiling. It's one of the most stupid things I've ever seen.

slapass · 03-06-2016, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

World War II during the 1940s was a vastly different time. The logic was "this city has multiple plants that builds tanks and ball bearings and tank shells, and thus the entire town is a viable military target". The local population was considered a legitimate military target because they were working in the plants and factories that supported the war effort.

Most people fail to understand what really happened during WWII and the bloodshed involved. It was brutal. Look at it this way - some estimates place deaths at over sixty million people during WWII... Which is like everyone in France dead.

Something to consider. We were never able to kill civilians on such a grand scale before. Planes and bombing were new. We always look back and think they were making reasoned decisions. Think about how no one had ever done it before, and they were trying out new weapons in real time. In hindsight they were war criminals but since it was us no one wants to say that. Almost no one had targeted civilians to such an extent.

Through out history the civilian casualty rate was about 1 to 1 with soldiers. It started to sky rocket in the 20th century and is now more like 4 to 1.

Robbie · 03-06-2016, 02:52 PM

The winners write the history books.

Never before or since has their been an atrocity like those 2 atomic bombs being dropped on those two cities.

wehateporn · 03-06-2016, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Then I thought more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 and realized that our military targeted two major cities in those atomic bomb drops. Not military bases...but cities. Full of men, women, children, and the elderly.

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Trump was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do.
I am saying that the media and the other candidates are being hypocritical and ignoring history.

I think Trump was bluffing with that the whole time as part of his approach to things. But I don't agree with actually DOING it. Just like I don't agree with what Truman did with dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

If any other country were to do that...the U.S. would be screaming "War Crimes" at the U.N.
Our federal govt. is the epitome of hypocrisy in my eyes.

Was worse than Holocaust IMHO

dyna mo · 03-06-2016, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Was worse than Holocaust IMHO

then you should shut the fuck up about shit which you know nothing.

it's unbelievable to think that in 2016 some people think we should have let the Japs do to US what they did to the Chinese, the Filipinos and others AND blow off Pearl Harbor prior to US kicking Jap asses.

dyna mo · 03-06-2016, 03:12 PM

File photo taken on March 31, 1939 by a Japanese army surgeon shows Japanese soldiers posing for a photo after they beheaded a Chinese in east China's Jiangxi Province. During WWII, around 400 million Chinese people were involved in the war of resisting against Japan's aggression. A large number of them suffered starvation, illness, injury and torture from Japanese invaders who had committed crimes of destruction, pillage, rape and slaughter since they invaded northeast China in September 1931. As of a full-scale invasion on July 7, 1937, random killings and indiscriminated bombings not only made mass casualties of innocent civilians but also rendered tens of thousands people homeless.

Some 35 million Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or injured during the war which lasted until 1945. (Xinhua)

wehateporn · 03-06-2016, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

then you should shut the fuck up about shit which you know nothing.

it's unbelievable to think that in 2016 some people think we should have let the Japs do to US what they did to the Chinese, the Filipinos and others AND blow off Pearl Harbor prior to US kicking Jap asses.

Whole war planned from New York beforehand

dyna mo · 03-06-2016, 03:15 PM

unit 731

https://www.google.com/#tbm=isch&q=u...aC0eeo9CjiM%3A

Robbie · 03-06-2016, 03:31 PM

I don't know. It seems to me that the media and the other candidates know full well that the military has and WOULD carry out what they are deeming "illegal" things such as killing families in a war.

As this argument shows...most people are all "for" it in the case of the Japanese in WW2.

I'd also like to point out that when Nixon had the military go into Cambodia during the Vietnam War it was also "illegal" and yet the military did it anyway.

And when Reagan bombed and killed Quadaffi's 15 month old daughter...the military knew damn well that was his family's house but didn't care.

So for Chris Wallace to sit there and tell Trump that the military would disobey him if he gave orders to take out terrorist's families was pretty disingenuous.

Yeah, theoretically I suppose they could say "no". But it's never happened to my knowledge.

And Wallace knew that. And so did Rubio onstage. And yet they all pretend to be horrified at Trump.
Ridiculous.

crockett · 03-06-2016, 05:05 PM

Back on the subject of this topic and the destruction of the Republican party..

Isn't it quite ironic that it was Republicans themselves whom brought about this whole ant-establishment vendetta as an attempt to win votes. Yet their little Frankenstein has come to destroy their own party rather than the Democrats.

The irony is on overload..

Robbie · 03-06-2016, 05:17 PM

He's not destroying their party. They are.

He represents the more liberal wing of the Republican party and the conservative wing (which has been in charge since Reagan) is fighting him tooth and nail.

Imagine if they were actually treating him like the frontrunner and eventual nominee that he is. None of this would be happening.

Trump is what used to be called a "Rockefeller Republican"
New Yorker with money who isn't a social conservative. Today they call them "RINO" (republican in name only)

And the weird thing is...they were hated by the Southerners. Which is why the Democrat Party was so strong in the South all of my life up until Reagan perfected Nixon's "southern strategy" and took the South from the Democrat Party.

I say it's weird because the Southern states...which are supposed to be super conservative and religious...were all won by a loud "yankee" from New York who doesn't give a damn about all that religious stuff.
Cruz and Rubio should have won those states.

So anyway, in my opinion...the people fracturing the Republican Party are the establishment party leaders. They have had power for almost 40 years in the Party. And now they see that being taken away from them by the actual Republican voters going for Trump instead of their handpicked boy Bush.

crockett · 03-06-2016, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

He's not destroying their party. They are.

He represents the more liberal wing of the Republican party and the conservative wing (which has been in charge since Reagan) is fighting him tooth and nail.

Imagine if they were actually treating him like the frontrunner and eventual nominee that he is. None of this would be happening.

Trump is what used to be called a "Rockefeller Republican"
New Yorker with money who isn't a social conservative. Today they call them "RINO" (republican in name only)

And the weird thing is...they were hated by the Southerners. Which is why the Democrat Party was so strong in the South all of my life up until Reagan perfected Nixon's "southern strategy" and took the South from the Democrat Party.

I say it's weird because the Southern states...which are supposed to be super conservative and religious...were all won by a loud "yankee" from New York who doesn't give a damn about all that religious stuff.
Cruz and Rubio should have won those states.

So anyway, in my opinion...the people fracturing the Republican Party are the establishment party leaders. They have had power for almost 40 years in the Party. And now they see that being taken away from them by the actual Republican voters going for Trump instead of their handpicked boy Bush.

They treat him like this, because he can't seem to stop saying stupid shit. If Jeb Bush said we are going to bomb the families of terrorist or called Mexicans rapist they would do the same to.him.

spads · 03-06-2016, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio

why not drop a tactical nuke on washington then? it would have imploded the #1 terrorists on the planet, only 2.5% of your population would die, but the 97,5% of you would live in "freedoms"?

why go after lesser terrorists?

on a side note, FUCK am I glad that other countries have nukes, american klingons simply do not see anything wrong with nuking other countries...I hope all countries have nukes and nasty ass bacteria soon to protect themselves from americans, or at least bring the klingons down with them if the klingons decide to attack...

thank god for the russians and chineese as well...

Let's say you get your wish and that does happen. What do you think happens after that? That the whole world will hold hands and sing?

Rochard · 03-06-2016, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Something to consider. We were never able to kill civilians on such a grand scale before. Planes and bombing were new. We always look back and think they were making reasoned decisions. Think about how no one had ever done it before, and they were trying out new weapons in real time. In hindsight they were war criminals but since it was us no one wants to say that. Almost no one had targeted civilians to such an extent.

Through out history the civilian casualty rate was about 1 to 1 with soldiers. It started to sky rocket in the 20th century and is now more like 4 to 1.

As you pointed out, the very nature of warfare itself has dramatically changed. Governments and their armed forces can do a lot more damage and civilians get in the way. During WWII we carpet bombed entire cities, destroying them completely and killing the entire civilian population.

This is why we now have the Geneva Conventions.

Dvae · 03-06-2016, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

They treat him like this, because he can't seem to stop saying stupid shit. If Jeb Bush said we are going to bomb the families of terrorist or called Mexicans rapist they would do the same to.him.

You libtards go on and on about Trump calling the criminals "rapists" yet Obama calls them "gangbangers"

Wheres the outrage?

"We should not be encouraging illegal immigration," he remarked to the group. "What we should be doing is setting up a smart legal immigration system that doesn't separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, people who are, you know, gang-bangers, who are criminals that we're deporting as quickly as possible."

Rochard · 03-06-2016, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

You libtards go on and on about Drumpf calling the criminals "rapists" yet Obama calls them "gangbangers"

Wheres the outrage?

"We should not be encouraging illegal immigration," he remarked to the group. "What we should be doing is setting up a smart legal immigration system that doesn't separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, people who are, you know, gang-bangers, who are criminals that we're deporting as quickly as possible."

Gangbangers are all gangbangers. But not all Mexicans are rapists.

03-05-2016, 04:33 PM	#54
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,551	Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. Don't most Republicans seem angry, scared and a bit dousche-y? Of course, Democrats act like gutless pussy intellectuals so fuck them too. LOL __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

03-05-2016, 06:32 PM	#57
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	A Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were/are important sea ports. They were both important military targets. Truman wrestled with the decision to bomb these two cities. It was estimated that had we invaded Japan, over 100,000 U.S. troops would have died. Even after the bombs were dropped, many Japanese military men refused to believe that one bomb could cause that much destruction. If you ever saw footage or even the mini-series The Pacific, the Japanese soldiers fought tooth and nail on tiny islands. On their homeland would have fought even harder. Hopefully another A Bomb is never used.

03-06-2016, 03:00 AM	#71
Black All Through Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: US Posts: 2,078	I wouldn't go as far as saying the Destruction of the party, but this unseen before situation is going to set them back a few elections. They have lost control and credibility. __________________ I want to buy contextual links on quality blogs For both Adult and mainstream niche - Small to massive packages

03-06-2016, 04:48 AM	#74
Magnetron Lord High Groundhog Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Bumblefuck, USA Posts: 1,841	Who is responsible for derailing this topic? oh, wait ....... it was me. __________________ . Approach the mirrored reflection saying his name three times : "Butcher .... Butcher .... Butcher ....." and wait to see if this Bogeyman urban legend manifests in the background, looming over shoulder While your neighbors were busy killing off everyone in the neighborhood with your own butcher knife in hand concealed behind your back you stood for ever before the window saying nothing

03-06-2016, 10:13 AM	#81
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	What I'd really like to see would be a return to how the President AND Vice President were chosen. Right now we have the President getting to choose his own "running mate" who also becomes the President of the Senate. Meaning that gives the executive branch the deciding vote in the Senate in case of a tie. That was never meant to happen. The way it was done in the beginning was that the guy who got the most votes became President. His opponent became Vice President. In other words the Vice President wasn't the "running mate" of the President and instead was the leader of the OPPOSING party. Which made it far more fair because the Vice President is the Senate President and gets to cast any deciding vote in the Senate. Imagine if it had been Al Gore as Bush's Vice President. Or if Hillary were to be Trump's Vice President. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-05-2016, 04:28 PM	#53
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,512	Btw. just to the WW II discussion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most devastating bomb attack on the Japanese soil during the WW II. That happened when several months earlier Kyoto was bombed with firebombs creating a circle of fire that burned down the whole center of the city, built almost exclusively from wood. With no means of escape. This cost more than 100 000 casualties that night and is most likely, by today, the most devastating bomb attack of all time. Even after the nukes were used, several high commanding Japanese officers orchestrated an attempted coup trying to continue the war. All of those committed suicide after. As terrible as it was, without using the nuclear power a ground invasion would likely be necessary. A paradox is that this horrible act most likely, at the end of the day, actually saved more Japanese lives than it cost. Just for illustration the ratio between US and Japanese casualties during the Pacific war stood at 1:14.

03-06-2016, 06:22 AM	#76
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Donald Trump is not a a real Republican he should run as an independent candidate for president. Bernie Sanders is a Senator elected as an Independent he should run as an independent candidate for president. The vote would be split 4 ways and thrown into the Electoral College. The framers anticipated this situation in the US Constitution and allowed for this selection process to be done in an orderly and constitutional way. Off subject: I am sure that my 3 uncles, father and stepfather who were all in the US Army, my 2 uncles serving under Macarthur, had no problem with the war ending early after Truman dropped the A-bombs. That said, it was a war crime to knowingly kill so many civilians but so was the Rape of Nanking by the Imperial Japanese Army. 1945 was another world from the world we live in today with regard to what is a war crime. I once said ( in October 2015 ) that we should have used tactical nuclear weapons on the Islamic Terrorist State's capital city of Ar-Raqqah; it would have imploded the Islamic Terrorist State and its command and control ability. Up to 50K civilians would die but 2 million civilians in Ramadi and Mosul would regain control of their freedoms. That is a 2.5% collateral damage loss of non combatant life. If you are part of the 97.5% freed you would morn the loss of civilian life but acknowledge the 200K+ dead and 6 million persons displaced, Assad and the other rebel forces should get their credit due also. However, I never advocated targeting civilians intentionally, Trump did, and did so in vindictiveness -- that would be a war crime. Hail Trump Trumps supporters are not affirming an oath as Trump is doing they saluting Trump -- that is really fucked up Italy 1922 One thing leads to another Be careful what you ask for you might just get it Hail Trump

03-06-2016, 11:39 AM	#83
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	You're right. I was thinking for some reason that it was the opposing party candidate that got to be Vice President. But it was actually the President and Vice President running independently. So you could still have the Vice President as the same party. In other words...it wasn't the loser of the Presidential race who became Vice President. It was the winner of the Vice Presidential race who became Vice President. Anyway...I still think it would be a cool idea. And it would take away the executive branch having that tie-breaking vote in the Senate if the Vice President was from the opposing party. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-06-2016, 01:41 PM	#84
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	What would be the logic on getting the loser to break the tie -- more gridlock? Depends on where you stand -- I would not mind a very gradual change -- no crisis here. I would rather go with a 4 party race like I said and let the Electoral College do its job as contemplated by the constitution. I think the intent was a more towards multi-party elections in the USA rather than a rubber stamp endorsement of the 2 party system. Oh noes! The USA might have competition in politics ... Since when is fair competition such a bad thing? If all 4 parties gained seats in the House and Senate then they would need to make coalition compromises to enact legislation. 3 parties could form a super majority vote that could over-ride a President's veto. The peoples' elected representatives now would have a majority voice on issues that they can agree on, laws that would move the nation forward. There can be wisdom in numbers of clear majority. On the next issue, it may only pass on a simple majority and be subject to veto. More might be accomplished this way -- and it is all possible under laws in force now -- that is the beauty of it. This was the framer's intent IMHO -- to encourage political diversity. Or, make a seat for every ass ...

03-06-2016, 02:03 PM	#85
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I agree. The Republicans and Democrats have ruled for far too long. And they have taken steps over the years to consolidate that power. Making it very hard for anyone who isn't a Dem or Rep to even get on the ballot in most elections. I don't think the framers really wanted the govt. to do a lot of "getting things done". That's just my opinion. The govt. was set up so that it is hard to get bills passed. And even with that...they have made so many federal laws over the years that nobody even knows for sure how many there are. At least I haven't been able to find a definitive number of them by googling it. Yeah, the President needs to submit a budget to Congress by the end of Feb. each year (something that Pres. Obama failed to do many times). And the Senate needs to pass that budget even if they argue about it and amend it (which they are supposed to do). Harry Reid and the Democrat led Senate failed to do it for the entire Obama Presidency until 2013! Anyway, other than that...I really don't think we need MORE laws passed by Congress. How many more laws do we need to simply be able to live our lives and function as a society? I guess I'm one of those people who think it's a good thing when there is "gridlock" (except on the budget). I'm also a person who wonders why they even bother with the "Debt Ceiling". First Congress passes the debt ceiling law to make sure they are forced to not run up any more debt. And then every year like clockwork...they amend it and raise the ceiling. It's one of the most stupid things I've ever seen. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-06-2016, 02:52 PM	#87
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	The winners write the history books. Never before or since has their been an atrocity like those 2 atomic bombs being dropped on those two cities. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-06-2016, 03:12 PM	#90
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,779	File photo taken on March 31, 1939 by a Japanese army surgeon shows Japanese soldiers posing for a photo after they beheaded a Chinese in east China's Jiangxi Province. During WWII, around 400 million Chinese people were involved in the war of resisting against Japan's aggression. A large number of them suffered starvation, illness, injury and torture from Japanese invaders who had committed crimes of destruction, pillage, rape and slaughter since they invaded northeast China in September 1931. As of a full-scale invasion on July 7, 1937, random killings and indiscriminated bombings not only made mass casualties of innocent civilians but also rendered tens of thousands people homeless. Some 35 million Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or injured during the war which lasted until 1945. (Xinhua)

03-06-2016, 03:15 PM	#92
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,779	unit 731 https://www.google.com/#tbm=isch&q=u...aC0eeo9CjiM%3A

03-06-2016, 03:31 PM	#93
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I don't know. It seems to me that the media and the other candidates know full well that the military has and WOULD carry out what they are deeming "illegal" things such as killing families in a war. As this argument shows...most people are all "for" it in the case of the Japanese in WW2. I'd also like to point out that when Nixon had the military go into Cambodia during the Vietnam War it was also "illegal" and yet the military did it anyway. And when Reagan bombed and killed Quadaffi's 15 month old daughter...the military knew damn well that was his family's house but didn't care. So for Chris Wallace to sit there and tell Trump that the military would disobey him if he gave orders to take out terrorist's families was pretty disingenuous. Yeah, theoretically I suppose they could say "no". But it's never happened to my knowledge. And Wallace knew that. And so did Rubio onstage. And yet they all pretend to be horrified at Trump. Ridiculous. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-06-2016, 05:05 PM	#94
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	Back on the subject of this topic and the destruction of the Republican party.. Isn't it quite ironic that it was Republicans themselves whom brought about this whole ant-establishment vendetta as an attempt to win votes. Yet their little Frankenstein has come to destroy their own party rather than the Democrats. The irony is on overload..

03-06-2016, 05:17 PM	#95
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	He's not destroying their party. They are. He represents the more liberal wing of the Republican party and the conservative wing (which has been in charge since Reagan) is fighting him tooth and nail. Imagine if they were actually treating him like the frontrunner and eventual nominee that he is. None of this would be happening. Trump is what used to be called a "Rockefeller Republican" New Yorker with money who isn't a social conservative. Today they call them "RINO" (republican in name only) And the weird thing is...they were hated by the Southerners. Which is why the Democrat Party was so strong in the South all of my life up until Reagan perfected Nixon's "southern strategy" and took the South from the Democrat Party. I say it's weird because the Southern states...which are supposed to be super conservative and religious...were all won by a loud "yankee" from New York who doesn't give a damn about all that religious stuff. Cruz and Rubio should have won those states. So anyway, in my opinion...the people fracturing the Republican Party are the establishment party leaders. They have had power for almost 40 years in the Party. And now they see that being taken away from them by the actual Republican voters going for Trump instead of their handpicked boy Bush. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com