That's your worldly insufficient opinion.

Reasonable sound minded v**ers understand the reason for multiple debates. Unlike the democrats fixing the e******n against Bernie Sanders and only one candidate, the right had sixteen. What does that mean?

Every rational person has bias towards or against candidates, which is the reason for multiple debates, offering v**ers time to change their minds from one candidate to another determined by performance outcomes.
So yes as the debates progressed, v**ers turned to Trump based solely on performance, promises, and abilities to project his ability to be a STRONG leader of conservative values.
Ted Cruz has a high percentage of v**ers until the very end, or near the end of the campaign trail, when he swore not to support Trump if he won. That unpatriotic statement of a leader not supporting the sitting president turned off a lot of his base, which turned to Trump.

What bothers you about Trump is not a list a false allegations, but that he is dismantling the lefts policies and agendas, even when the party publicly announced to resist 100%. Yep, that's the i***t left lawmakers, resist, resist, resist.

Trump wasn't my pick , but when he won the nomination I supported him whole heartily .

With our two party system we have any v**e for any of the lessor candidates in a nut shell v**ed for Democrats .

I was always mindful of there being so many Rino's that has d**gged the GOP down in the sewer I wanted a non politician in the WH as we are now witnessing proves to me that the swamp really needs to be drained .

Not sure that can happen since Obama has made it impossible for any President to fire his troops in the deep state.

America is being changed before our very eyes and the sad thing is many people can't see it !

Personally, I see no reason at all, even the d********g Hillary alternative as cause does not work. (I v**ed Green.) I have never supported her and find her, perhaps, worse than Trump. What did you want or expect from him? My guess is nothing. You just liked he was not political in the usual sense. A Wild Card where business as usual by Washington establishment had overlooked your pleas and anger and frustration for change. Anything! Shake-it-the freak-up! Trump over-exceeded there. Something to relate to on a gut level. I can see why he is a something of a Champion. He got in their face, the whole system, and gave them respectful pause. Went beyond that. Upset the whole apple-cart. Throw a low, spitter-insider, that fooled them all. They all swung and missed. Laughable.

If a game. But America is at risk. He is a playground bully that has zero capabilities of seeing everyday consequences or threats to our future. A Narcissist. Trump only. The despicable characteristics that eng****r you to Trump, and in our present political environment almost seem admirable and needed given the monumental BS for decades we have had to endure, will destroy this country. He is a pig. He cares nothing about America or you. He is stupid and plodding, working only for what benefits himself. He is very clever, but clever is not smart and usually defeats itself.
.

Personally, I see no reason at all, even the d********g Hillary alternative as cause does not work. (I v**ed Green.) I have never supported her and find her, perhaps, worse than Trump. What did you want or expect from him? My guess is nothing. You just liked he was not political in the usual sense. A Wild Card where business as usual by Washington establishment had overlooked your pleas and anger and frustration for change. Anything! Shake-it-the freak-up! Trump over-exceeded there. Something to relate to on a gut level. I can see why he is a something of a Champion. He got in their face, the whole system, and gave them respectful pause. Went beyond that. Upset the whole apple-cart. Throw a low, spitter-insider, that fooled them all. They all swung and missed. Laughable.

If a game. But America is at risk. He is a playground bully that has zero capabilities of seeing everyday consequences or threats to our future. A Narcissist. Trump only. The despicable characteristics that eng****r you to Trump, and in our present political environment almost seem admirable and needed given the monumental BS for decades we have had to endure, will destroy this country. He is a pig. He cares nothing about America or you. He is stupid and plodding, working only for what benefits himself. He is very clever, but clever is not smart and usually defeats itself.
.

Personally, I see no reason at all, even the d********g Hillary alternative as cause does not work. (I v**ed Green.) I have never supported her and find her, perhaps, worse than Trump. What did you want or expect from him? My guess is nothing. You just liked he was not political in the usual sense. A Wild Card where business as usual by Washington establishment had overlooked your pleas and anger and frustration for change. Anything! Shake-it-the freak-up! Trump over-exceeded there. Something to relate to on a gut level. I can see why he is a something of a Champion. He got in their face, the whole system, and gave them respectful pause. Went beyond that. Upset the whole apple-cart. Throw a low, spitter-insider, that fooled them all. They all swung and missed. Laughable.

If a game. But America is at risk. He is a playground bully that has zero capabilities of seeing everyday consequences or threats to our future. A Narcissist. Trump only. The despicable characteristics that eng****r you to Trump, and in our present political environment almost seem admirable and needed given the monumental BS for decades we have had to endure, will destroy this country. He is a pig. He cares nothing about America or you. He is stupid and plodding, working only for what benefits himself. He is very clever, but clever is not smart and usually defeats itself.
.

Woody, as a rule I always supported someone in the primary but we don't have P**********l primaries here in Kansas so I just held back this time. I wasn't a Trump supporter till he was nominated. I stopped being a Democrat when they nominated an obvious Socialist, McGovern, and swore to never v**e for one of those. One of two people was going to be elected so I just did what I had told myself since 2000 and that was v**e for anybody but Hillary. He was going to win if she didn't and I have been very satisfied with him since he was inaugurated.

I slept so good when I heard that he had won and she didn't. She did write her graduate paper on Alinsky, didn't she?

Hi Roy, Missed a couple of replies I intended due to the dreaded "old guy not felling good" blues..

but this is a bit..

from the prospect.org.... They will not let the link be copied.. darn..


onsider Carson’s inflammatory Lucifer comparison. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, written in 1971, opens with blurbs about three figures—Lucifer, Jewish religious leader Rabbi Hillel, and Thomas Paine. He described Lucifer as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”

It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Satanism, but as a comment about the long tradition in history of dissent and protest.
That’s the only mention of Lucifer in the entire book. It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Satanism, but as a comment about the long tradition in history of dissent and protest.

Carson took additional liberties with the t***h by identifying Alinsky as Clinton’s “role model.” Hilton Rodham—who was student body president at Wellesley, graduating in 1969—did indeed write her senior thesis about, and interviewed, the controversial activist. But she was actually quite critical of Alinsky’s views.

Summarizing her 92-page political science thesis, “‘There Is Only the Fight’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” The New York Times observed:

Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’ s central critique of government antipoverty programs—that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent’ and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system.

In 2003, while she was a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton discussed Alinsky in her memoir, Living History. Clinton “agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves,” she wrote. “But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”