What is the point?  I'm being asked - told - in most quarters to just be a sheep, to follow the flock of the racist Trump, off the cliff if necessary, so as to support the GOP nominee at all costs.

People want me to act like McConnell, who has fallen in line like a good little establishment republican, and who can't even say on national TV that Trump's criticism of an Indiana-born judge of Mexican heritage is racist at its core. I've certainly seen no revulsion from you, or lucifer, or others over this. Hell, Hannity was defending Trump's actions on the radio yesterday.

It's disgusting. I refuse to be a sheep.

So, are you saying that anyone who supports Trump, warts and all, is a sheep and cannot be doing so based on actual, legitimate reasons?  I get you won't vote for the guy and beyond pointing out the potential result from too many folks 'standing on principle', I am not calling for you to do anything since as I have repeatedly said, had Cruz ended up with the nomination, or if the RNC 'selects' someone else I would be the one weighing my options and the potential ramifications thereof.

FWIW - with respect to this Judge I think Trump is spot on and his concern about bias will be borne out - you do know that The National Council of La Raza (which translates directly to 'The Race') is a racist organization itself that seeks the re-conquest of former Mexican land that is now part of America right? 

Imagine a white judge who is a member of the John Birch Society, presiding over a trial of a liberal black man seeking an office somewhere, think there would not be concerns about fairness?  What if the Judge was a close-friend of former Grand Kleagel of the KKK Dem. Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd?

'Gimp

In a word, no - Gary Johnson has no chance. 

The Libertarians may poll better this cycle than in previous given the level of dislike that some in both parties have for their presumptive nominees but they will lose like always.

The Libertarians currently hold something like 140 elected positions in the entire nation, 39 'partisan' offices and 106 'non-partisan' offices, out of a little over 500,000 elective offices.

'Gimp

Personally, I am far more troubled by Ryan's Speakership to-date than whether or not he openly supports his party's presumed nominee for President.

I had very high hopes for Ryan as Speaker yet he has, so far, failed to lead in a meaningful way or to provide any effective opposition to the Obama agenda.

I truly don't understand what happens to these guys other than to come to the disappointing realization that any politician will apparently say whatever it takes to get elected, and will then do whatever it takes to stay there.

I'd like to support a Ryan Speakership, I really would, but I don't like what I have seen so far.

It is disappointing to me that Ryan allowed a gotcha question like this to trip him up and create all the chaos we are seeing, he could have managed an answer that was not so easily used to add to the stress in the party but apparently chose not to.

Funny how everyone was all for this support the candidate whoever it might be pledge bullshit when it seemd like a way to attack/damage Trump but now that he is the presumptive candidate the very folks who pushed for it are welching.

'Gimp

The GOP has to unify with Trump or lose.  Do you want another far left, radical Democrat in the White House?  I guess you do.  Being a foreigner, and guess you are just being subversive.

So Jeff is still the only person on the entire Interwebz that I have on ignore, and in your quoting of him I see no reason to change it. 

On review, Trump didn't flop on minimum wage, the quote he was open to changing it was taken out of context by the press omitting the very next thing he said which was his focus will be on jobs that pay way more than min wage - but Jeff won't let the truth get in the way of his failed jihad.

Rove was on Fox just last night and is still not openly supporting Trump so that is just a bald-faced lie unless Karl came out from underneath his bridge somewhere and made a more declarative statement today.

Consider the source when it comes to JihadJeff, or as I do just ignore him completely unless and until he shows an ability to offer even a modicum of actual value to a discussion.

'Gimp

Nice sentiment. "...everyone needs to forgive the negativity and mend fences..."  Really.

Is accusing Cruz' father of being involved in JFK's assassination, on the morning of the Indiana Primary, just "negativity?"  Is this just a big joke, and something to be laughed off so Trump can expect the 60% of the GOP voters who DIDN'T vote for him to just fall in line like good Hitler youth? 

Trump has ripped the entrails out of my former party.  Whatever happens now will be on him. And you. And the rest of his supporters.

Stan I get the disappointment, I do. 

But Trump is a symptom not the cause, IMO.  The RNC and the Establishment brought this on themselves through their mismanagement of the last several campaigns and a complete failure to do anything positive with recent historic electoral victories.  Boehner, McConnell, now even Ryan - they have failed to effectively oppose Obama and the Dem's - and the average Joe and Jill Six-pack have simply had enough.  That is why I left the party a year or so ago, spineless weenies.  So I get the aggravation and disappointment.

Whatever happens now will be on all of us, what we do or don't do, what we say or don't say - just like it was yesterday, and the day before that - and that includes you, Jihad Jeff and everyone else.  If you stay home, or vote 3rd party it is just as much on you as if you voted for Hillary, same as if I stayed at home if your guy had won the nomination and I wasn't happy - or when I (and millions of others) voted Perot the 1st time.  And you know if Cruz stayed in and somehow managed to pull ahead on the 3rd or 4th vote in a contested convention you and others would make the same demand of Trump's supporters.  Since I have plainly stated I might stay home if Cruz were to 'steal' the nomination I get it, and I am not passing judgement, we each have to act in accordance with our conscience.

Make no mistake though, your guy failed to close the deal with enough Primary voters to secure the nomination or even have any direct legitimate path to the nomination, and that is in the party that by any measure is the best match to Cruz's strengths - that is on him and his campaign and they'll have ample time to conduct a post-mortem. 

The only thing I would urge you or others is to not lash out at the voters themselves, they made their choices based on the information they had and in the context of their beliefs, hopes and aspirations - the failure or success, such as it is, is on the campaigns for being able to recognize and speak to those beliefs, hopes and aspirations, or not.

'Gimp

Ted Cruz doesn't have a Kasich problem, he has a Ted Cruz problem. 

And a Rafael Cruz problem, and a Heidi Cruz problem, and a Carly Fiorina problem, and a Glenn Beck problem, and a dirty-tricks campaigning problem, and so on.  Kasich and his delusion are pretty far down the list of problems Cruz is facing (I think Kasich actually needs medical treatment, he is bat-shit crazy, literally Bernie Sanders territory crazy).

Cruz is not engaging enough, he is a rigid idealogue with very thin skin - to me the more I hear him the more he comes off as a weird mix of that kid in school who thought he knew more than everybody else and Mr. Haney from Green Acres.  If he only communicated in the written word it might be better but his voice, mannerisms and overall tenor when speaking is severely off-putting for me.  As I have said before, I really wanted to like him but I find his conservatism to be one of opportunity and his approach to campaigning to be distasteful.

Trump is certainly not a better big 'C' conservative but he is a far better candidate if you want to measure by votes gathered, coverage gained, or crossover appeal - all of which the establishment class and the consultants have been saying for decades are what the Republicans need to win - well, here is a guy delivering on those needs - and he is using the most powerful chapter out of the other teams' playbook, hit first, hit hard, move on.  And taken on whole I believe his life's body of work suggests a pragmatic political conservatism with some social liberalism and with a protectionist bent - I don't agree with him on everything, but I don't need to.

Cruz's campaign for months now has not been about outright victory, it has been to come in second and then work the backroom deals and delegate math for 2nd, 3rd or 4th votes in a contested convention - that is a loser's strategery in my opinion and as more of the logic and approach in play has come to light I believe it has not only hurt him as a candidate and damaged the Republican brand through perceived trickery (I know it is acceptable, pointing out the perception), it is damaging the trust we all need to have in the selection process (although it is worse for the Dem's with their soooperdelegate BS IMO) and it is now causing these supposed 'loyal' delegates themselves to question whether or not this plan will irreparably damage the party (I believe it will end the Republican party as a national party).

I'm not going to defend every dumb thing Trump has said anymore than I did for W, but of the remaining candidates he is my choice - not the best choice, but the one I can vote FOR, for my own reasons and beliefs.  Nobody has to agree with me although it is tiresome to not only have to deal with the ever so predictable railings of the professionally agitated loonies on the Left, but to now also have to deal with the same #nevertrump madness from the likes of George Will, the RINO establishment or even some of the other Conservatives on this site.

I may be able to pull the lever AGAINST Hillary if Cruz legitimately ends up the nominee through letter-of-the-law 'legal' chicanery, but if the establishment installs someone else entirely I'm sitting it out and will as I have said before, let it all burn and just focus on taking care of me and mine.

'Gimp

Yes.

I almost made the same post.   

'Gimp

Cruz could have headed it off at the pass had he chosen to.  For whatever reason he chose not.  Why is that?

In fairness to Cruz, he can have no official discussion with any PAC or SuperPAC - he could, if he wanted, make a blanket statement that he does not run that kind of campaign and that he does not want that kind of help and not run afoul of election law but he cannot have direct contact with any PAC or SuperPAC.

Given the atrocious behavior of his own campaign to date I think any PAC would assume he does support that kind of campaigning since he does it within his own campaign, preferring to beg forgiveness and offer up a sacrificial lamb but only when caught red-handed and if the public outcry is sufficient enough.

But make no mistake - this specific issue, the looks/behavior of a candidate's spouse was initiated against Trump by a pro-Cruz PAC with the ad in Utah, and that is what he is reacting to.

I think by taking it to Cruz (the benefactor if not sponsor of the ad) Trump may end up helping to improve the nature of non-campaign PAC/SuperPAC ads - I would prefer that he make more mention of the pro-Cruz PAC by name and call them out but he's going to do whatever he feels is right.

Again, I don't think that simple tweet was an attack on Mrs. Cruz but your mileage may vary. 

And as I said before, ideally spouses and children ought to be off limits in a campaign unless their actions and behaviors are relevant.  I think Trump (or Hillary if Cruz secures the nomination) will have tons of ammo against Cruz as a self-appointed outsider by bringing up his wife's tenure within the very banking community that was in part responsible for the Great Recession.

'Gimp