Conundrum or not?

You want a constitutional conservative.  You're far from alone.  Yet according to the all-manipulating polls a person who doesn't espouse smaller government is proposing a solution to a single problem which doesn't even solve the problem.  

Trump talks about the wall in China.  Have you seen that wall?  It's in the middle of nowhere and it was built during an era when building it made sense.  He never talks about the human element of building such a wall.  Such as in Europe, where armed guards sniped border crossers at will.  Is that what we want?

The wall in Germany kept people from the east escaping to the west.  Snipers stationed on that wall kept the courageous from succeeding at leaving.  And ultimately the eastern government needed to be deposed in order for the wall to become unnecessary.  

No wall would succeed between the U.S. and Mexico.  Mexico wouldn't disallow Mexicans leaving and we can't conscionably shoot them for trying to escape.  Border crossers are either criminals in their own homelands or a kind of refugee who's grown up knowing that the governments of both the U.S. and Mexico have become corrupt.  At least the one to the north, marginally better in that it has come to ignore its laws of sovereignty and has stopped putting its citizenry whose rights its laws were created to protect, first, looks the other way when they cross the border.

Trump says to raise taxes upon the rich.  No, the rich should just pay higher taxes now.  No law needs to be written to approve governmental acceptance of income by people with both the means and the will to offer it.  If government makes the rich pay those taxes, the rich will merely pass the costs down to the middle class anyway.  Charitable gifts by the rich (to the U.S. government) wouldn't cost the middle class a dime any more than charitable donations to any other organization or legitimate charity costs anyone not involved in the original charitable transaction now.  You don't "offset" the cost of charity unless there's a tax break or some kind of ancillary advantage.  Charity is a kind of sacrifice one isn't obligated to perform and doesn't involve anyone besides the giver and the receiver.  

These two points, probably among others, as we get to know more about him, would make him a less favorable candidate than say, Walker, or my own favorite, Cruz.  In fact, I'm not sure he would really be any different than G.W. was as our president.  But that's the reality of things; the polls, manipulating as they can be, have been used to dictate our choices up until the last few elections.  That, and the fact our electorate has abandoned its mandates.

Remember this though; regardless of manipulative polls, we have gotten more or our people into office than not.  And we constantly gain ground on non-constitutionalists.  We are closer to having constitutional adherence than any other time since the early eighties.  

Regardless whose name is put under the republican nomination, I am voting straight republican ticket.  Just as I always have.  Because I vote based upon republican principles.  

With each election we sweep away more dems and more rinos.  With each election they realize we are not going away. Ever.  

While the solutions offered to illegal immigration are inherently wrong, we're still having the right discussion.   The same thing will happen with other problems we will address.

Harv

as he is one smart cookie....and a stand up guy !!

Yeah, jeez is that guy on top of things. I mean, you listen to any of his speeches and you realize if you're wrong on something because he has not only the best, but the right reasons regarding what he believes.

Everyone else is campaigning to get the popular vote. Cruz, if you really listen to him (which you obviously do) is really on a constitution awareness tour.

Given the chance, I vote for Cruz. Just like you would.

Harv

Harv,

I don't know what to think anymore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Zxd5jp-lI

I think you can get a better glimpse of B.D. in his own words, when he talks about that song referring to the book of Acts in the Bible. Sure, there could be double meaning to those lyrics, but consider this; in the comments on that page is a link to an interview about this very thing.  He talks about growing up in an era that really was socially still deeply rooted in the fifties.  Which when you stop and think about it, for most of us, as for B.D., the attitudes and social constructs drifted into the mid sixties.  So the interpretation of the song versus when it was written may be two completely different things.  Two different influences.    The creation of the song versus a somewhat naïve (or ignorant) later interpretation of the same piece of music heard later.



Harv

Guys.... thank you..