By in Personal

Trump Wins Indiana as Cruz and Kasick Ends Their Races For The White House

If you remember last time, I've told you that Donald Trump would win the presidential contests and I meant what I've said. A couple of weeks ago, he won five heavily contested states: Delaware, Pensylvania and three other states. And two days ago, he won the state of Indiana in a landslide victory over his now former rivals, Ted Cruz of Texas and John Kasick of Michigan. This makes Donald Trump the real frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination in order to beat Hillary Clinton in the General Election in November. But there are some Republicans in the House and the Senate that are not too happy with the way this contest turn out. But, it goes to show you that big money has no place in politics, and Trump has trumped their ace on this one. Because our leadership has lacked in a lot of areas including the economy, the education system and the military. That should be some of the main focuses on geting our country back to normal. But it will take time and some sacrifice on our part to get America great again. Because our politicians in Washington has trampled on the American people for the past 16 years whch includes 9/11. The most dangerous and most tragic events in US history, which killed over 3,000 people and woulnded thousands more by the terrorists group al-Qeida runned by Osama Bin Lauden, who was later killed in 2011 by Navy Seals snipers. Trump is a businessman who made billions in real estate, agriculture and entertainment ventures. He knows how to make America work and he'll use these tools to get the job done once he takes office if he wins. And President Barack Obama has just let the American people down by bringing illegal immigrants into our country off of our taxpayer dollars, dismantled the military and destroyed the US Constitution. It's time we need new leadership in Washington. And that leader is Donald Trump. We are through play games with our so-called politicians, because they've let us down real bad! And it's time to bring in some new blood that will work with both parties insure that they'll get the job done, even in every state, including Missouri! Let's get Donald Trump elected this November, so we cam help Make America Great Again! And that's no joke!


Image Credit »

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.

Comments

morilla wrote on May 5, 2016, 7:58 PM

" ...it goes to show you that big money has no place in politics, and Trump has trumped their ace on this one... " - That's because Trump IS ALSO "big money." When asked about Hillary being at "the wedding," Trump's response was that he'd paid the Clinton's enough and that you could get a politician to do anything you want if you pay them enough. That's part of how he sees America as "working." He also sees everything , including your Constitutionally recognized and protected rights, as 'negotiating points' in reaching a 'deal.'

Bear in mind that Trump made AND LOST big money in real estate and development. While Trump may not have been a career politician, he's been in 'politics' for some time. Remember, he announced an exploratory committee in 1999 for his 2000 campaign as the Reform Party nominee for President in 2000. He'd also considered a run in 1988. Then in 2004, in... In short, while he may not have pursued them 'seriously' (or felt the time was right), he's been at this for awhile. Which is one of the reasons he wasn't taken 'seriously' initially and everyone kept expecting him to drop out early.

Is he 'different' than the career politicians? In some respects, yes. That doesn't mean "different" is automatically synonymous with "better." Different is simply that... different. But, that's the concern. What is the definition of "different" insofar as Trump? Nobody knows and, frankly, he's not saying much. In fact, as even his friend Bill O'Reilly has noted, much of what he's promised or claimed he will do, he can't legally or Constitutionally do; either by himself or without major changes to the laws (and, in some cases, the Constitution) taking place.

What I'm saying is don't let your discontent with the Government and a desire for something 'different' cause you to convey motives or plans to Trump that he hasn't said he has or cannot do Constitutionally. Make sure you understand that wanting something 'different' doesn't, by default, net you something 'better.' Make sure you understand the issues, the candidates, etc. For example, just the fact that you've created the impression that you don't seem to grasp that it's spelled KASICH and not "Kasick" or have deliberately misspelled the name as an 'invective' of sorts indicates a certain lack of familiarity with the topic vis a vis having a contemplative opinion versus simply making a series of assertions, some of which don't stand up to scrutiny.

Last Edited: May 5, 2016, 11:22 PM

lookatdesktop wrote on May 6, 2016, 6:54 PM

I am not in favor of Donald Trump. It's a free country though and if you believe he will win and make America Stronger we will just have to wait and grit our teeth and see.

Last Edited: May 6, 2016, 6:58 PM

hitmanone wrote on May 8, 2016, 12:31 AM

Okay. Let's get one thing straght, Donald Trump has a lot of money and he can do whatever he wants to. The real reason that I said is that big money from their campaign contributors like the Koch Brothers, Wall Street and big multi-million and billion dollar industries like Bank of America, Pfizer, Goldman Sacks and a lot of others just to name a few. With that said, let's get to what you said, morilla. Donald Trump maybe big money to you, but to me, he's just an average businessman trying to do the right thing. And yes, he'd paid Clinton's enough to start Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to begin with. Which goes to show you that sometimes even honest businessmen like Trump or any other tycoon can pay anybody with money. And you're making it sound like I don't know hat I'm talking about. Well, it's just my opinion and you don't have to agree with me on certain subjects like this one. Use your own judgement befrore you come to me with what you're saying. Chances are... What I say doesn't mean you have to drag it through the mud, okay? And we all know that Trump was into politics back in the 1980's when he was running for the presidency, and he ran again in 2000. And when he was gonna run in 2004, he had to back out because it wasn't the right time to do that at that time. And the reason why i aid it goes to show you that "big money" doesn't have no place in politics, because I was talking about the big, big corporations that have conributed into the other candidates campaigns. That's what I was talking about. We all know that Trump is big momey, but not as big as the ohter guys I have mentioned in this article. And just to let you know, the Republican Party is heading for a fall if they don't get their act together. Because the Democrats are picking up steam in this election year. Belive that!

morilla wrote on May 8, 2016, 9:26 AM

" Donald Trump maybe big money to you, but to me, he's just an average businessman ..." - Let's see. Donald Trump's net worth is estimated to be $4.5 BILLION. According to Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ - that makes him the 113th richest person in the U.S. (out of 320,000,000 people), etc. If that's not "big money" to you, I want to swim in your circles. By the way, that puts him ahead of most businesses as well.

" ...even honest businessmen like Trump or any other tycoon can pay anybody with money... " - Leaving aside the "honest" label for the time being, that was my point when I related he'd said " that he'd paid the Clinton's enough and that you could get a politician to do anything you want if you pay them enough ." In other words, for all the noise he makes about not taking other people's money (which he's now seeking to do instead of completely self-funding the way he's been claiming he would), is that really the way you want the President of the United States to publicly hold that's how politicians work? While it may be common practice and while the Clintons even 'rented' the Lincoln bedroom, I'm not sure that's how I'd want POTUS to figure it's going to work (bribes, campaign funding, etc.) and openly/overtly proceed on that basis.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-wont-self-fund-general-election-campaign-1462399502

It's something that's actually been going on for months...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-fundraising/

How does that jibe with - "... it goes to show you that "big money" doesn't have no place in politics... ?" The reality is that, today, elections are all about "big money." Obama's election set the bar where it can now be $1 Billion dollars to campaign for the Presidency. You don't necessarily get that from strictly $27 average donations the way Sanders has been operating - http://www.bustle.com/articles/155337-bernie-sanders-average-donation-might-not-be-exactly-what-he-says-it-is So, at some point, "big money" is always going to play a role; which is why they now have the expression that "Lincoln couldn't be elected President today."

It also happens to throw his veracity into question in that one of the cornerstones of his campaign has been that "I don't need other people's money... I'm rich. So, I won't be beholden to lobbyists and campaign contributors." Okay. But, what does that mean now that you are actively seeking campaign donations; some of them from big money supporters? I mean, given his history with bankruptcy (see below), it's clear that he doesn't have a problem with losing "other people's" money, just not his own.

" Use your own judgement before you come to me with what you're saying. - I have. Which is precisely why I'm pointing out that you are creating an impression that you're asserting based on what you've been told and/or filtering information rather than fully understanding.

" ...I was talking about the big, big corporations that have contributed into the other candidates campaign... " - This is just one example. You're pointing to the Koch Brothers, Wall Street, Industry, Banks... What about people like Soros and Bloomberg who not only fund candidates, but fund entire campaigns to undermine or eliminate rights presented in the Constitution? At least, at some level, Trump has funded both 'sides;' while people such as Soros and Bloomberg strictly favor one.

Here's another; i.e., where you seem to contradict yourself in your post above... " Donald Trump maybe big money to you, but to me, he's just an average businessman... , then you say " ...We all know that Trump is big momey, but not as big as the ohter guys I have mentioned in this article... ." As I just pointed out, there ain't many individuals or businesses which are "bigger" in that regard; particularly when it comes to monies set aside for 'campaign donations.'

This is the crux of the matter - " ...the Republican Party is heading for a fall if they don't get their act together. Because the Democrats are picking up steam in this election year. Belive that!... " Fine. It's hard to argue against that. Bear in mind, however, that the GOP has been pulling defeat from the jaws of victory for years now; meaning that "the fall" began almost 30 years ago. It's partly what the Tea Party was all about several years ago. In other words, the GOP is going to "fall" because of Trump, so much as it is Trump taking advantage of the fractures which already exist within both parties.

What people forget is that the Reagan Coalition was an unique assemblage of voters - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_coalition

That coalition changed the Republican Party and was considerably different than the coalition Trump is purporting to be 'assembling' today. The Reagan Coalition, however, shared many of the complaints that voters are speaking to today. Yes, Reagan was a Democrat until 1962; but, he had been moving 'right' in the 1950's. On the flip side, Trump has been pretty much a Liberal Democrat until recently...

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/deace-donald-trump-a-typical-new-york-city-liberal-then-and-now

Which kinda throws his true views into question given quite a few of his statements, apparent contradictions, etc. In fact, that's Paul Ryan's problem with him; i.e., Trump isn't providing much of an indication that he shares Republican or Conservative values...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump.html

That's a major problem with Trump. He's not saying much of anything specific. He's campaigning in soundbites and hoping people will read into them what they want to hear. That's why Ryan says that conservatives are concerned and have questions: " Does he share our values and our principles on limited government, the proper role of the executive, adherence to the Constitution? " With Reagan, while he didn't perfectly adhere to those as a matter of pragmatism, at least we knew that's where he stood in principle. What happened with Bush, Sr. and Bush, Jr. was a move by the GOP back toward "big Government" as a given and away from Reagan's principle that Government is the problem.

With Trump, no one has any idea and his track record of commentary suggests something different than truly 'conservative' principles. In fact, as Trump himself has indicated, as well as his campaign managers, what you "hear" on the campaign trail is tantamount to 'negotiating positions' as opposed to what he truly 'feels.' Unfortunately for Trump, not everything is up for negotiation and many want to know where he actually draws the line, at least in principle; even though most, if they're honest, will acknowledge that, pragmatically, you don't get 'everything' for your side in a democracy or when negotiating with other countries. Likewise, you can't get everything desired or promised unilaterally or legally/Constitutionally. Again, unfortunately, much of what Trump is stumping on falls into that category.

Just like your assertion that " Trump is a businessman who made billions in real estate. " Trump has gone bankrupt 4 times. Argue that it was a 'restructuring' and necessary all you want; but, they were based on billions of dollars (about $4.7 Billion, which brings into question your definition of "average businessman" - again, if that's 'average,' I'd like to swim in your circles) in debt versus comparatively low revenues and some estimates suggest that it potentially cost taxpayers BIG money. You could argue that he's never filed for personal bankruptcy, just for his businesses. But, isn't that what we ask the President to do, run the country's 'business?'

You see? It's not about whether I agree or disagree with you. It's not about whether you support Trump and I don't. It's about whether you've made your case or simply presented a series of assertions which don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. As I said, even if we allow for certain spelling mistakes which everyone makes, repeatedly misspelling things like Kasich or Goldman SACHS is and will be seen as potentially suggestive. When taken in conjunction with partial or 'selected' truths, the legitimacy or, at least, the accuracy of your assertions (which seems to constitute your 'opinion') comes into play.

Trump is largely a media creation. That's also how he's running his campaign. What I'm pointing out is that, while you're entitled to an opinion, you haven't really presented one. What you've presented is a series of assertions which Trump supporters have thrust into the media and the media recites. What you haven't shown is any appreciable thought, knowledge, or judgment behind those assertions. You've just made more assertions. Which is why I said...

" Make sure you understand the issues, the candidates, etc. ... having a contemplative opinion versus simply making a series of assertions, some of which don't stand up to scrutiny. "

Put another way, that may actually be what you believe ; but, you're not providing much as to WHY you believe it and, more importantly, why we should.