Replies

I am well aware that America's future is at stake, which makes me very cautious.

With Mr. Trump, who has a better than average understanding of marketing, I understand he has likely done the research to find out all the right things to say, and where and when best to say them.

He knows who it will be popular to gig on the television and which toes to step on to the great ecstatic pleasure of the frustrated massed of America's productive (and wishing to be productive again) class.

He has the correct pitch to play to the frustrations of America and is in tune with that.

Now, looking beyond the presentation which has its appeal, it is time to do due diligence.

I won't paint him with the actions or connections of any of his wives.

I do view his claim to Conservatism, and recognize that is a relatively recent development on many issues. His past political donations are primarily a hedging of bets to remain relevant to whoever wins, no principles involved, just buisness.

Keep in mind that the RKBA, illegal immigration, the collapse of American industry (partially offshoring, partially regulatory burden including Obamacare), the economic mess including the national debt and Congressional overspending, and stopping the continued slaughter of the unborn are key issues to Conservatives, to name a few.

In general, Americans are concerned (and rightfully so) about their diminishing rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as their right to travel unmolested within their own country while those who don't belong here do so with impunity.

I could go on, but I believe you already have the picture.

I have been watching Mr. Trump's actions, past and present, and what they are telling me does not necessarily match the message Americans are hearing from him.

In Iowa, and I have belabored this shining example, Mr Trump, in placating the Ethanol/(corn) Farm Lobby indicated he would maintain subsidies (our tax money redistributed to a Federally mandated industry), would continue the mandate (E-10 gasoline means every driver gets a 10% cut in their mileage, or at least that has been my experience, not to mention the damage to countless small engines from lawn mowers to marine engines including outboard motors), and would use the EPA to enforce that, if not add to that 10% level of ethanol in fuel.

Now that might sound like a deal for Iowa, but it hurts the rest of America, and has the added bonus of indicating his intent to maintain the one agency which gets credit for destroying the coal industry, seriously hampering the ability to move petroleum in the US, the oil industry in general, and unabashedly has polluted a River by releasing mine waste into the river despite warnings that that would be the effect of their actions.

That, frankly, is one agency we could do without, and so could the landowners of over a million acres of Wyoming whose land has been given to the Wind River Tribe by the EPA, even though the EPA has no authority to change the boundaries of a State.

That alone, frankly, indicates he is willing to sell anyone down the river to make a 'deal'.

By endorsing the Ethanol Mandate, Mr. Trump ingratiated himself with powerful lobbies and politicians in Iowa who don't seem to think their wonder product will survive without Federal subsidies or mandates.

That means the rest of us pay for it, in more ways than one.

That Mr. Trump can 'win' by cutting such deals may well prove to be far more of a negative than we would desire.

We have been there before.

We elected a Republican Congress that could win to stop Barrack Obama, a Congress of candidates who said the 'right' things, and then they proceeded to do exactly what we did not want them to do, namely give Barrack Obama every damned thing he asked for and more.

Of that group, Mr Cruz is a prominent standout, who has fought much of what his colleagues have passed, and has earned their enmity by failing to go along and get along. That is why Mr. Cruz interests me, and Mr. Trump seems lacking. It becomes a question of principle.

I do not expect perfection from any candidate, but the courage of conviction, doing what is right, whether that costs popularity is something we need.

I forget whether it was Sam or John Adams (maybe both) which had the reputation for being cantankerous and disagreeable, but when disagreement is important to the survival of this nation, I would take that over putting aspects of our future on the table to make a deal.