Icewolf

You stated not one page ago that you were switching support from Cruz to Trump in the Republican race for nomination. As far as I am aware there are no Democrats in that race. So the question is why Trump over Cruz as a desired nominee?

Hi Ice... let me say it another way. I will support the Republican that wins. If you do not believe that Muslims were not celebrating the attack on New York City on September 11, 2001... then I cannot help you. You may be one of those that believe it was done by someone else. You're a Rosie O'Donnell fan and she thinks Bush did it to get us into a war, and that goes along with your hatred for Republicans, so you dive right in to the conspiracy. I don't care which Muslims, or what Muslims, or the exact count, or the precise address, or how many were ordering pizza and beer. Muslims celebrated the attack on 9-11 in New York City... and the ones that didn't celebrate openly, were saying "YES!!!" on the inside. That's what I believe... and I think it is just as valid as your belief. If you want to grab onto an issue to beat the facts out of it... try Benghazi The guy writes a hit piece on Donald Trump, and Donald Trump made fun of the guy. Are you implying that people don't make fun of Donald Trump? Are you implying that Donald Trump just picked some guy out of the crowd to make fun of? No... it's real simple... the guy wrote a hit piece on Donald Trump and he made fun of him. If you don't want Trump to make fun of you, then don't write about him. People like you just want to find anything they can use in desperate hope that it will somehow, some way, stop his momentum. I'll make it perfectly clear for you... there is nothing Trump will do that can force me into voting for Hillary Clinton. If you don't like Donald Trump... don't vote for him... OH WAIT!... I forgot! YOU CAN'T VOTE! Firstly, you still are not answering the question. Why do you now want Trump to win over Cruz? Why are you now cheering on the candidate you yourself have described as disgusting? There is a difference between supporting the winner and stating who you want to become the winner, and that is what I am trying to understand. As for the claims Trump made, he claimed that Muslims in New Jersey cheered on the streets, and cited the reporter in questions article to back it up. That was a lie and defamed the reporter because his report didn't say that. So attack number 1 comes from Trump (by misrepresenting the reporter), the attack is tied up in a blatant lie (that New Jersey Muslims celebrated 9/11 on the street), and Trumps response was to mock his disability. Which if you defend, means you are stating that you want as your Head of State, your main representative on the world stage, the man who the entire world will base their opinion of America on, to be a man who mocks people for having the misfortune to have a disability.

Ice!!! You crack me up man... I guess you believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, unless of course, they are running for President. You hate Donald Trump... I get it. I guess you hate him because there are people that insult him, and call him names. So he insults people, and calls them names... and then you insult him, and call him names. It looks like a three way tie on the insulting and name calling scorecard. So let's get past that part and get to the issues. Ted Cruz is a Republican that is running for President. Donald Trump on the other hand, is running for President as a Republican. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat that is running for President. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, but he's running for President as a Democrat. I know this sounds confusing to some, but to me it's quite simple. I follow politics like most people breathe air. Donald Trump has insulted people. Depending on your point of view... they deserved it. Most Republicans agree with him. Some think he was a little harsh and maybe went further than he should, but still they agree with him. Anyone that has been attacked by Donald Trump is either hurting our country, or has attacked him first. So the lesson to learn is if you can't take the heat and don't want to be laid waste by Donald Trump, don't attack him. He will always defend himself, and he will always defend us, and I like that about him. Donald Trump has never said anything that affects me personally. He never interfered with Federal Bankruptcy laws to ensure Unions bosses get taken care of, as stockholders lose everything. He never caused my friend, and the person I do work for, to be forced to lose his franchises, and close 4 auto dealerships, and lay off over a thousand people. He has never taken a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, and given it to his friends and supporters. He has never lied about a lying spouse, destroyed the lives of their enemies, and then claim to be the standard bearer for the cause of those they destroyed. Donald Trump has never taken away my prescription coverage and tripled my insurance deductible. Donald Trump has never ordered the IRS to deny tax shelter from political opponents, while his friends get everything they need. Donald Trump never allowed 4 Americans to die for his own cause, and then lie to the entire nation about why it happened. Donald Trump has never allowed a Federal agency to let Veterans die as they are waiting on a secret wait list, to be added to the real wait list. I can go on and on with the reasons why I will vote for Donald Trump over anything called a Democrat. I am a very proud and patriotic American citizen. I wave the flag and thump my Constitution. I'mthe type that when I see a cop having dinner before he has to go back out on that street, to maybe die... I'll pick up his check. I'm the type that when I'm in an airport, and I see a young man in uniform that is either coming home after not seeing his family for nine months, or leaving and will not see his family for nine months... I walk up to him, shake his hand, look him straight in the eyes, and say thank you for your service... because I know he's doing it for me. So what did you call me up there? That's right... I'm a despicable scumbag human turd... yeah okay, I'll take that... for Mr. Trump. You haven't actually answered the question. Given that Cruz hasn't changed his policies, and Trump hasn't changed his policies, why are you shifting support from one to the other? As for the statement that Trump only attacks people who attack him, that isn't really true. Had the Muslim Community of New Jersey attacked him? No. And then he dragged the reporter into the argument, and when he defended his reputation (by pointing out Trumps use of his stories to back the ridiculous claim was a lie) Trump attacked him for being disabled.

I am no understanding this, so perhaps you can explain further? Trumps positions haven't changed, neither have Cruz's. Trump is still the utterly despicable human turd that claims hard questions are caused by menustration, makes up stories abou Muslims in New Jersey cheering 9/11, and openly mocks the disabled. Things you said you didn't like him doing. So given that, why would you switch your support to him over a "tactical error?" Policy wise he is still off his tits crazy. Personality wise he is still a scumbag. What is it you are supporting?

No Court would ever rule Cruz as ineligible for President after the election. Politics would ensure the judges voted the correct way. I also don't see the Democrats (meaning the party) going for court over it for the same reason the Republicans (meaning the party) didn't go after Obama. Its political suicide to try and overturn elections by court without serious evidence of voter fraud. But it does mean that Trump is desperate. If your only major attack can be "waaaaaah you maybe on a technical and somewhat desperate reading of a vague term in the constitution could be open to legal problems" then you are struggling to find major attacks. It's already begun Ice... Alan Grayson, a loudmouth Democrat from Florida has already stated he would challenge a Ted Cruz nomination in court. It must be heard by the Supreme Court, or there will be big problems down the road. Donald Trump is correct on every point.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266039-attorney-files-birther-lawsuit-against-cruz I said that the party wouldn't back such lawsuits. Not that a few crazies wouldn't try. But I don't see it having any more impact on things than the nutjob birthers when Obama was elected.

No Court would ever rule Cruz as ineligible for President after the election. Politics would ensure the judges voted the correct way. I also don't see the Democrats (meaning the party) going for court over it for the same reason the Republicans (meaning the party) didn't go after Obama. Its political suicide to try and overturn elections by court without serious evidence of voter fraud. But it does mean that Trump is desperate. If your only major attack can be "waaaaaah you maybe on a technical and somewhat desperate reading of a vague term in the constitution could be open to legal problems" then you are struggling to find major attacks.

Could you clarify what you mean by "too many sick people sucking on the system?" Because that reads as though you think a private healthcare system can't deal with people being ill.

In head to head polling he is now even managing to lose to Bernie Sanders. I don't think I need to add more to that statement.

Yeah, invade Syria to seize oil wells. I can only see 3459820572394045729405428230100012384757892 ways that could go wrong for America.

I apologise for any offense caused, but my statements were directed purely at Bundy, not at the citizenry of Oregon in general.

Well I'll call Obama, John Kerry, the Pentagon, and notify the Joint Chiefs of Staff that we are surrendering our sovereignty back to our British superiors. The Federal Government owns what we allow them to own. They want a pencil?... they go to the House of Representatives to get it. The power the government has, is given to them by us. It's that whole "We The People" thing. If the Federal Government takes your land that has been with your family for a century, through imminent domain, and then decides they will charge you for being on it... well I think the people will be a little pissed. Stop judging us from your lofty British ivory tower. We have laws here, and we'll sort it out ourselves. I think we had to fight you guys twice to be able to say that. Even Bundy doesn't claim to have ever held legal title to the land. Or that a member of his family has. As I said if you think I am wrong show me the court records for the exercise of emminent domain. And the Federal Government is fully allowed under the constitution to own land. So you are right that they own what they are allowed to own as there is no bar on them owning land. This doesn't address the fact that Bundy's claim that they can't is stupid.

He has made a lot of very racist remarks in the recent past, including suggesting that Blacks would be better off as slaves. No, he does not to me sound like a nice person that I would want to have a cup of tea with. Additionally, there has been no emminent domain action against Bundy. If there has, seeing as it would require a hearing in open court, someone would have produced the court records by now. Bundy doesn't even claim that the land legally belongs to him, his claim is that it should belong to the State government and not the Federal Government, which in a common law system makes bugger all sense as Governments are as free as other people to set up a legal personality to own land. The idea that the Federal Government can't own land makes about as much sense as saying that the Federal Government cannot own a pencil. Now the Keystone Pipeline where private property is being handed to a private company in order to make private profits is something you might want to be concerned about. A whiny sod who wants to freeload off the Government by using publicly owned land for free (and therefore deny its use to other citizens) and is willing to use violence to achieve that aim, not someone you should really care about.

So a racist twat has taken over a building because the terms of the government subsidy he received through very cheap grazing rights were not quite generous enough for his liking? And also because some friends of his got charged with arson because they wanted to hide the fact they were stealing deer from public land?

I thought it was a highly entertaining Hollywood version of an ancient story that no one really knows what happened. If you're worried about conflicting plots, don't ever pick up a copy of the Illiad after watching that film.

You're a real smart guy, aren't you? States have passed their own individual laws regarding car insurance... not the Federal Government. You are only required to purchase car insurance if you drive a car. I don't drive cars... so I don't pay for car insurance. You are required by the mortgage holder on your house to pay for insurance... not the Federal Government... if you don't own a house, you don't pay for it. If you employ people, you have to pay for workman's compensation. If you don't employ people, you don't have to pay for it. None of your examples are remotely the same. EDIT: Oh sorry, I forgot to add that the IRS doesn't levy a penalty/fine/tax on me for not paying for any of the above. Whether or not those markets have 100% coverage, there is no logical reason why a market for which there is mandated 80% coverage should be more competitive than one with mandated 100% coverage. Everybody has to have food, however there is still a competitive market for food.

Mandating purchase of a product does not give people a monopoly. It is a mandatory requirement to have car insurance to drive a car and there is a highly competitive market. Likewise it is a mandatory requirement (not by law but by customary standard) to have fire insurance if you have a home, yet there is still a competitive market. It is mandatory for an employer to have employee insurance, or for a public building owner to have occupiers liability insurance, or for any kind of professional to have professional indemnity insurance. These markets are all still competitive. Blaming mandatory purchase for high prices is not an automatic government failure, there is a market failure at the same time.

The books are good but I think the problem is that by the end of Dance with Dragons the characters were so spread out and so far scattered (even more so than in the TV series) that drawing them into a coherent story would be impossible. THe series is already leaving out characters to keep semblance of order, but the books don't have that option.

Duck is very nice. It has quite a distinct flavor though. In general no-one in my family likes Turkey. So beef, duck, goose or venison are always the choice. (Duck does have the disadvantage that someone will feel obliged to make a "Christmas Quacker" joke.

A fun little statistic I like to throw in whenever American's start talking about healthcare. The UK government spends the same amount on healthcare as a share of GDP as the American government does. So roughly the same tax burden falls on me to pay for healthcare as it does on a US citizen. The difference is I get free at the point of use Healthcare out of it. Go NHS...seriously it works.

There is a difference between ejecting someone from a rally and throwing them to the ground and stamping on them repeatedly. Trumps supporters did the latter, not the former. And given Trump seems to enjoy the violence his supporters throw at others (makes him feel powerful I suppose) it seems likely he will continue to encourage it. I don't know how much the US is catching up with the rest of the world, but electronic ordering points for fast food and supermarket self-checkouts are already a thing in the UK. They haven't replaced the human server or checkout person, not because of cost but because people actually don't like using them that much. Also there are various products such as alcohol that can't legally be sold by machine. However the idea that low wages will stop automation is not something I buy into. These machines are already cheaper than people, but they aren't taking over yet. However fundamentally you have three choices when it comes to wages. 1) Do nothing and accept that people in full time work are in poverty 2) Raise the minimum wage to the point that full time work lifts someone out of poverty 3) Subsidise wages with some form of tax credit or other benefit paid for through general taxation. For an individual you can say "well get a better job" to an extent, however that doesn't work with populations. It is simply not possible to tell every single low wage worker to get a better job as the jobs don't exist. So pick one of the above 3.

Venison or Duck. Two years ago when one brother was with his wife's family and the other was working it was just me and my parents for Christmas day, and I did three venison steaks slow cooked on a griddle pan with port and redcurrent sauce...delicious.

And today Trump has again backed his supporters for using violence against demonstrators. Once again, this man is not a suitable leader of a country. And given that everytime the Republican party fail to punish him for his disgusting and outrageous behaviour, the worse his behaviour comes, if he is allowed to continue to the election I predict much more serous violence coming.

"I don't like liars so i will vote foe someone who only lies when bis lips move" - Mantra of the Trump movement it seems.

If dishonesty indults people, then Trump has insulted far more people.

Given Trump has insulted just about every minority group in the US, do you really think that a coalition of independents, women and blacks to support him is likely?