Free Republic

"Manly, yes...but I like it too...!"

New-mown wild grasses, hay, whatever it is the "mowers" along the rural highways are always mowing...

Hundred-year-old wooden-floored hardware stores (with their inventory - you could get about anything there!)

Marine fuel, and the smell around the docks...

Agreed! Very sensible comment. Let them do the "kabuki theatre"...

Only drawback to that is, if the whole media stops asking any questions, Rice and the rest of those (formerly and also currently still) entrenched political appointees may likewise stop worrying about prosecution for any perfidious behavior.

"Nothing to see here! All legal! Move on now!"

It could happen...I just hope there's a little chess-playing going on here. I believe there is...

Standing ovation for that analysis!!

Common sense is common sense...

From the article (emphasis mine):

"The funding was initially approved by Congress in December and signed into law by former President Barack Obama, but the EPA had to review and approve how the money was to be allocated. The funding wasn’t officially granted until after Pruitt took over the agency."

So Pruitt and Trump could have said "no"...same diff if you ask me; they said "yes, fine" instead, and credit where credit is due!

Bingo!

There is no shortage of charitable organizations doing all kinds of fund-raising on conservative talk radio for various causes, including feeding poor children in other countries.

There are plenty of solicitations for contributions all across the media spectrum, for all sorts of things, including "Coats for Kids", here in NE Ohio.

These "campaigns" generally do very well. Which begs the question: why should the government use taxpayer money to fund these programs?

Tax money is by definition coerced (sic) from the taxpayer. How about, don't take my money for your preferred "charities"; let me keep it and decide for myself where it will do the most good?

Pruitt is the new administrator, yes?

My guess is...this grant was already well through the EPA pipeline, "spent money", if you will, and it might as well be directed to Cache Valley as anywhere else.

At least, I hope this didn't just come through as a new expenditure/grant under the new administration.

Posting late, but I just wanted to let you know I think I know exactly how you feel. No beloved dog is ever "replaceable". And sometimes you have what I call a "heart dog"; one that is just really special. Seems like Ranger was that kind. It's never easy, and a home feels so empty and lonely without the clicking toenails and wagging butt greeting! I was so heartbroken when it was time for our first dog to go to Heaven (over 40 years ago), that we've always had two after that - one older one, and a younger "companion" one. We have a 13-year-old and a 3-year-old now. Our old boy came to us aged 3, when we had an 8-year-old, who first came to us when she was a yearling, and we had a 10-year-old, and etc....

It works for us, they have all been rescue dogs, and "one of a kind"...not all "heart dogs", but all loved and equally loving back, and deserving...like any family, we learn to love each other (we've adopted older dogs - trickier than puppies). I would not give up a moment's time with any of them, despite the pain on their passing, and the difficulties of caring for old dogs.

Some people are just meant to have dogs; you knew when it was time for Ranger to go home, you were loyal and faithful to each other until the end, and you will also know when it's time to "rescue" another pup into a loving home...he/she will be completely different, but that's the way it goes with dogs, and you won't regret it, once the time is right for you.

My sympathy on your loss, sending my best regards and kindest thoughts your way - 88

Excellent article - hold that thought, and thanks for posting!

YEAH, "strategically"! and you are right! Trump is the only one remaining who is NOT mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination outright.

It looks to me like the whole GOP is losing the battle and also the war, sorry to say.

Trump's strategy in focusing on the bigger delegate count states is sensible, but a little disheartening for the "little guys" he claims to champion but can't be bothered with right this minute.

Cruz is extremely intelligent, and I think rock-ribbed conservative, but he's also quite unlikeable for a number of reasons, and very possibly unelectable in a general election.

I'm pretty sure both Cruz and Trump have dropped in the polls lately...too many people do not like either one of them, according to polls, which are not worth the paper they're not printed on in the long run!

I will vote for whomever the GOP candidate is, and it won't be the first time I've held my nose to do it. I am just sorry it's all come to this, when the GOP started with such a supposedly stellar field of candidates.

Whoever ends up getting elected in the end, whichever party, will have the unique privilege of being the first President ever to take office by being the least disliked.

"Letting these rigged elections and caucuses play out in smaller states like Maine, Wyoming, and Colorado is helping Trump more than actually winning the delegates would have done, because it’s revealing for all to see, Cruz’s conniving, undemocratic ways."

Excuse me?? "and to the republic, for which it stands"...?

Surely you are not suggesting that the mega-states and the mega-cities therein should decide the final choice for presidential candidates simply because they have mega-populations?

IMHO, there is more than one way to actually represent the grass-roots electorate, and following CA rules and campaigning strategies is not tops on MY list..."fly-over country" may have to secede, ha ha!

Agreed! Not sure about Dems crossing over, and Indies, but the problem is, a small "majority" of GOP votes state-by-state (less than 35-40 %) is not going to carry the day in the general election if 40 % or more GOP'ers voted for someone else in the primaries. Nor should it prompt calls for changing the nominating convention "rules" or claiming that "the system is rigged - unfair, UNFAIR"! There are a majority of folks who have not gotten behind Trump so far, I think...

It remains to be seen if the "meme" of Dems and Indies voters is true, and follows through in the actual POTUS race, if Trump is the nominee (likely at this point)...he is always saying how many votes he's won, and how many new people he's bringing into "the party"...

Personally, I have no horse in this race, I regretfully can not be enthusiastic about ANY of them, but I will broken-glass vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination because he will certainly be better than "Hillary!" or "the Bern".

FReegards!

All I can say is ... that guy is 100% in this for himself, 0% for individual American's. He's just a fake conservative preacher - the Rev Bakker of the Holy Conservative Scripture. Fake. Snake. Completely connects with the first time I heard him speak - no human being behind that reverend's voice and mask."

I agree with you completely about Cruz's "preacher mode". He seems quite unlikeable.

However, with a few adjective changes, I think you could make the same remarks about Trump..."he's just a fake conservative preacher - the Rev. Bakker of reality TV, golf courses, hotels, Miss Universe, and an international celebrity"...

Calling Trump a "snake oil salesman" would be about as fair as calling Cruz a "snake", but so far I have seen no reason to believe Trump any more than I do Cruz when it comes to their reasons and intentions for seeking the Presidency.

No reason to be obsessed by "the rules", IMHO; that's not what the Constitution is. The Constitution is only changeable and amendable by a two-thirds majority of states ratifying changes, but it's much easier to get local, state and political party "rules" changed. Go for it, and good luck!

"Trump will get the prescribed number of (delegates) he won in Maine to vote for him on the first ballot as set by the rules. This stuff only comes into play on the second and so on ballots as is allowed by the rules and had been for a long long time. Give it a rest. You make it sound (like) Trump is being harmed when he and more importantly his team fully knew the rules going in. I can hardly wait, not, to see this guy deal with the real world."

AMEN! Totally agree with your summary, thank you!

Taking no sides here, I'd really like to remind my fellow FReepers that we do NOT have a "direct democracy" here, but rather a "representational republic".

It was made very clear on the Ohio primary ballots - we had a choice of slates of DELEGATES to vote for. We had a choice of voting on either Dem. or GOP ballot (no questions asked, other than "Democratic or Republican" ballot, and show ID). There were also numerous GOP candidates (which ballot I voted) still listed on the ballot that had "suspended" their campaigns at least a month earlier.

So goes it for states' rights, which I tend to favor, the point being the so-called "establishment GOP" had nothing to do with it!

"Can you name a state Trump won where he didn’t get a majority of Republican voters? I didn’t think so."

All of them??

Maybe I'm mixing up "majority" with "plurality" though? To my way of thinking, a majority should be at least 40-50 % plus, not 30-35 % of a splintered primary electorate.

That said, I'm sure there are a couple states Trump has won by a reasonable "majority", if not winning 50 % of the votes.

“Trump does best where Dems and Indies determine the winner. Says something about Donny.”

[Not going back to check, but I know for a fact that New York was a closed primary. Trump won by landslide.

Says something about Trump and Cruz.]

Also says something about New York voters. That is not a "value judgement", just saying that the states may be united, but they are not all the same.

Kasich has no path to 1,237, and neither does Cruz as of now.

However, if Trump does not achieve 1,237 at the time of the opening of the convention, then Cruz certainly still has a "path" to winning the nomination on a second ballot if he's anywhere close.

Kasich might think he ALSO has a "path" on the 3rd, 4th, or 5th ballot, but I think he's dreaming about THAT, lol.

Cruz was stupid to set the 1,237 "suspend" criteria, but it remains to be seen how his "path to winning" progresses, IMHO. In any case, he should have stuck with the "path to winning" rhetoric!

Dr. Sivana wrote: "Someone’s got to stay in the race to check Mr. Trump’s tendency to go left when he’s in his comfort zone."

You replied: "This Trump supporter says there's some merit to that."

I reply to you both: THANK YOU for THAT! Agree totally.

Well, after all, Ted is a proven liar.

This has been bothering me lately, this whole "Lyin' Ted" moniker (sic) that candidate Trump keeps using about candidate Cruz.

Every time I hear that, I wonder, "WHAT are you talking about?!" Clearly I missed something somewhere about all these lies, and a short clarification would be much appreciated!

In truth, I don't care much for the whole lot of them but I will vote nevertheless.

I would respectfully disagree with your premise.

Not all states have conventional "primary" elections, and it goes against the rights of states to be forced to conform to a "uniform" system, even if imposed by the GOP.

Remember that the grass roots STATE GOP'ers set the rules for their various methods of selecting nominees. In Ohio, I did receive a ballot, but could not vote for any actual candidate, only for the "delegates" representing the various contenders (at that time, there were still about 12, including many who had recently "suspended") at the nominating convention.

Please consider that your vote counts as much as anyone else's in your state, however your primaries are run.

Also consider that understanding how the various state "primaries" and caucuses are run does not equate to "hustling, stealing, manipulating, cheating and exploiting" the voters OR the other candidates out of their due votes.

So far the "GOP Elite" (whoever they are?) have not fared well...I will vote for whoever wins at the convention, and I doubt it will anyone other than Trump or Cruz!

I'm sure MY opinion has been heard and my candidate vote has been recorded "by proxy" with our state convention delegates, and that's good enough for me for now! Delegates ARE bound on at least the 1st vote, and I would not want it to be otherwise.

Interesting note: on the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders has had a remarkable record of state "wins", all things considered...but almost all "caucuses". At least in the GOP we don't have "super delegates" - which is what's totally tipping the balance for HRC so far.

Thank you for that very common-sense post and commentary!

I would also vastly prefer to see someone win fairly, with the required delegate count, whoever it be...