Been away at a conference and work function the last week, so missed all the responses several pages back.
But, in a nutshell, yes what the IRS did was bad, but as far as I can tell, it is not going on anymore and the main people are gone. Case closed, unless more is found out.
The feds have not nationalized industries, so they are not Marxist by the actual definition. But, whatever, old news.

Anyways, as great as Kasich's win was my sanity, the fact that Trump did so well in North Carolina and Illinois made the Ohio loss mute. Fivethirtyeight said that he can still get the nominee if he continues his current pace.
Unless Kasich can really, really grow the moderate wing to grab Trump supporters, or Cruz really expands his base, Trump is more likely the nominee.

queencitybuckeye;1787127 wrote:A president can't repeal anything. Most but certainly not all police nor military justify standing behind. Defending the constitution is a good thing, if you don't attempt to ignore settled law.

The congress just put the repeal on obama's desk; he vetoed it.

When the congress puts the repeal on Trump or Cruz's desk; it will be repealed.

QuakerOats;1787150 wrote:The congress just put the repeal on obama's desk; he vetoed it.

When the congress puts the repeal on Trump or Cruz's desk; it will be repealed.

That's assuming it even gets to his desk.
If that is the case, the Senate D's will filibuster the hell out of it and I highly doubt it gets to 60 votes.

QuakerOats;1787150 wrote:The congress just put the repeal on obama's desk; he vetoed it.

When the congress puts the repeal on Trump or Cruz's desk; it will be repealed.

What a limited understanding of politics you have. The last thing the right wants to do is actually repeal it, both sides want the issue to run on until it can be milked no longer.

ptown_trojans_1;1787148 wrote:Been away at a conference and work function the last week, so missed all the responses several pages back.
But, in a nutshell, yes what the IRS did was bad, but as far as I can tell, it is not going on anymore and the main people are gone. Case closed, unless more is found out.
The feds have not nationalized industries, so they are not Marxist by the actual definition. But, whatever, old news.

Shouldn't be closed, people who allowed this should be doing time.

queencitybuckeye;1787157 wrote:Shouldn't be closed, people who allowed this should be doing time.

Perhaps, but name me the last public official to actually do jail time for something that is not criminal in nature?
Doesn't happen. That is the current system. Unless it is criminal, bribes, or espionage, people do not do time.

ptown_trojans_1;1787169 wrote:Perhaps, but name me the last public official to actually do jail time for something that is not criminal in nature?
Doesn't happen. That is the current system. Unless it is criminal, bribes, or espionage, people do not do time.

Hopefully no one goes to jail for something not criminal.

I don't think making a case that laws were broken would be that difficult. Getting someone up on charges is much more difficult.

queencitybuckeye;1787170 wrote:Hopefully no one goes to jail for something not criminal.

I don't think making a case that laws were broken would be that difficult. Getting someone up on charges is much more difficult.

Ah good catch. I meant criminal in terms of violent or drug crimes.
Agreed on the last part.

ptown_trojans_1;1787169 wrote:Perhaps, but name me the last public official to actually do jail time for something that is not criminal in nature?
Doesn't happen. That is the current system. Unless it is criminal, bribes, or espionage, people do not do time.

so what good for the goose is not good for the gander.... Wow! Politicians are covered under a second set of rules ...that the public citizen does not have access to..... Ok that fair everybody happy now..

ptown_trojans_1;1787154 wrote: If that is the case, the Senate D's will filibuster the hell out of it and I highly doubt it gets to 60 votes.

They would use budget reconciliation....same trick Dems used to pass it without 60 votes.

ptown_trojans_1;1787148 wrote:..... the fact that Trump did so well in North Carolina and Illinois made the Ohio loss mute.

I had a hard time hearing it, too.

FatHobbit;1787014 wrote:What happens to the delegates of the people who quit? Do they just go into limbo?

majorspark;1787023 wrote:Only if a candidate wins a majority. In a contested convention they can be persuaded to vote as they will.

HitsRus;1787029 wrote:...I think they are committed on the first ballot to vote for whoever they were elected to vote for.

majorspark;1787034 wrote:Yes after the first round. If its contested the first round is nothing more than a formality.

This exchange needs clarification. This scenario has not occurred since I became of voting age. Since it is a now realistic possibility I took the time to dive in a little further. I listened to commentary, as well as read up on the subject. From my understanding Hits and I were both close but not quite accurate. Here is how I understand it after further review.

If no candidate reaches a majority in the delegate count at the convention the first ballot is "contested". It is not a formality if one candidate is close to the majority. Some states as a default allocate unbound delegates. As to Fathobbits question to what happens to delegates committed to candidates that drop out well it depends on the state. Some states delegates are automatically unbound. But keep in mind this language of "suspending" a campaign as opposed to I am no longer officially candidate likely has legal bearing on that.

It would be difficult to attempt to calculate the number of unbound delegates available (given varying state rules) going into a contested convention. I will say this there will be enough of them that a candidate reasonably close to a majority would be easily in the realm of possibility to win the nomination by winning them over on the first ballot.

If no candidate receives a majority after the first ballot the majority become unbound. The convention then becomes "brokered". Given state rules more delegates will become unbound after a given number of ballots. Given the current mood of the republican voters vs the "establishment" this is where the sinister horse trading is likely to occur.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/contested-convention-how-it-works-questions/index.html

Brokered conventions have produced winning presidential candidates in republican history including Lincoln. I will say this delegates have to realize we are in the 21st century. The access to information to the average voter is just a mouse click away.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/brokered-gop-conventions-often-produce-a-winning-president/

BRF;1787346 wrote:I had a hard time hearing it, too.

Come on BRF get with the program. It is the Trump movement...

rrfan;1787474 wrote:Come on BRF get with the program. It is the Trump movement...

Ha ha ha!

I actually think it's funny to watch the media types get their panties in a knot about a "brokered convention".....and that some people think that to deny Trump the nomination if he simply doesn't get the requisite number of votes is "against the rules", and some evil, devious usurpation of the "establishment". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The rules have been in place for decades, and they state simply that you must obtain the requisite numbers of votes to win the nomination. If you don't come to convention with the votes then the elected party delegates have the right and duty to put the candidate who has the best chance to win the election in November, and that might not be the candidate that has the most delegates going in.

Belly35;1787280 wrote:so what good for the goose is not good for the gander.... Wow! Politicians are covered under a second set of rules ...that the public citizen does not have access to..... Ok that fair everybody happy now..

Not fair at all. I would like to have the rules changed as well. Speak to Congress to make that happen.

gut;1787340 wrote:They would use budget reconciliation....same trick Dems used to pass it without 60 votes.

Possible, but then again that would take away the exact arguments the R's used about the bill. That it was jammed down our throats. So, in order to remove it, you will jam that down our throats. But, say, our jam down your throat was better? I love politics. Sigh....

BRF;1787346 wrote:I had a hard time hearing it, too.

Ohhh good one. My bad. I meant moot, instead of mute.

ptown_trojans_1;1787515 wrote:



Ohhh good one. My bad. I meant moot, instead of mute.

I chuckled.

^^^ I was just sitting back waiting to see how long it would go on before somebody realized it.

ptown_trojans_1;1787515 wrote:...that would take away the exact arguments the R's used about the bill. That it was jammed down our throats. So, in order to remove it, you will jam that down our throats. But, say, our jam down your throat was better? I love politics. Sigh....

No.

If the Repubs passed their own bad and unpopular law that way, THEN you would have a point. But repealing a bad and unpopular law, especially one that passed with parliamentary tricks, is never a bad thing.

Can anyone else imagine the reality TV show Trump might have in the Whitehouse if he's elected?

We are electing Snookie.

FatHobbit;1787598 wrote:Can anyone else imagine the reality TV show Trump might have in the Whitehouse if he's elected?

He can televise the hiring process of his advisors....call it "The Cabinet"

He could sell Lincoln bedroom timeshares.


Oh wait, we already had that...............

HitsRus;1787646 wrote:We are electing Snookie.

I would have said Kim Kardashian but only because I've never watched whatever show Snooki is on

FatHobbit;1787598 wrote:Can anyone else imagine the reality TV show Trump might have in the Whitehouse if he's elected?

any different than what we have now?