Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/18/2016 08:26 -0400
First it was all a joke. A media sideshow. A publicity stunt that no one really understood the purpose of.
Donald Trump was actually going to run for President. His campaign slogan: “Make America Great Again.” It was laughable.
Soon after the billionaire announced his candidacy, his nascent bid for the White House took on a more serious tone, but not because anyone was taking him more seriously. Rather, because his comments about Mexican immigrants were so inflammatory that it was difficult to dismiss them with derisive humor.
From that point on, it was all downhill for the GOP establishment. Trump racked up popular support, defying every law of conventional politics along the way.
Each and every time analysts and pundits doubted him, he prevailed and that unlikely momentum carried right over into the caucuses and primaries and now, after Super Tuesday 3, Trump has effectively knocked out every Republican challenger except Ted Cruz (let’s face it, Kasich isn’t going to get the nod).
Still, all commentators and political “experts” want to talk about is a contested Republican convention in Cleveland. While that’s certainly an interesting outcome to consider as it forces us to look back at political history to understand the precedent and what that precedent might mean come July, it’s as if no one has learned anything from the past nine months.
That is, the assumption should probably be that Trump is going to lock up the nomination before the convention, not that they’ll be some kind of historic bid to rob him in four months. The media – both liberal and conservative – act as though it’s virtually impossible for him to make it to 1,237 delegates. We’re talking about a guy here who no one thought would even register in terms of poll numbers and now he’s the overwhelming favorite.
All of this is not to say that we – or anyone else for that matter – should necessarily believe that a Trump nomination is a good thing for the GOP let alone for America, but it is to say that all of the talk about a contested convention may be wishful thinking.
As this simple graphic from The NY Times shows, if Trump simply maintains his current level of support, he’s “almost certain” to secure the nomination:
(click here for interactive version)
“After Tuesday’s contests, no other candidate retains a real chance of capturing the delegates required to win the nomination outright. Mr. Rubio dropped out, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio is too far behind, and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas would need to win the vast majority of the remaining delegates — a near impossibility,” The Times writes.
“Crunching the latest numbers, Donald Trump needs to win 54% of the remaining delegates to obtain a majority [and] that’s doable, but not necessarily a slam dunk,” NBC adds, before noting that “Trump won 60% of the available delegates from the March 15 contests.”
Trump currently leads Cruz by 261 delegates
- Trump 683 (47% of all delegates won)
- Cruz 422 (29%)
- Rubio 172 (12%)
- Kasich 143 (10%)
Trump needs to win 54% of the remaining delegates to hit the 1237 magic number
Cruz needs to win 80% of the remaining delegates to hit the 1237 magic number
Kasich needs to win 107% of the remaining delegates to hit the 1237 magic number
As Trump himself pointed out in his victory speech in Florida, the fewer candidates, the better his chances to win. Or, as NBC concludes, Trump won 60% of the delegates on March 15, “and that was with four candidates in the GOP field; now [that] there are three you could argue that the map only gets better for Trump.”
Yes, you certainly could.
Trump reminds me a bit of John Locke from the series Lost.
“Don’t tell me what I can’t do”.
by Karl Denninger
Let Us Remember…..
Ted Cruz likes to boast that he can “beat Hillary.”
He will lose to Hillary in Florida, and I remind you that only electoral votes count in the general election.
Trump, on the other hand, will tattoo Hillary in Florida. He will also beat her in North Carolina and will beat her in Ohio.
You can’t lose any of those states in the general election and be President.
Of those states Cruz might beat Hillary in North Carolina and will probably do so in Missouri. But he will lose Florida with certainty and he might lose Ohio.
If he loses either in the general Hillary is President.
That’s the math folks.
Cruz is a very religious man, which is not a bad thing standing alone. But his family has a history of religious extremism that a very large percentage of the nation will not vote for, exactly as was the case with Mittens and his “magic underwear.”
Worse is that unlike Mittens Cruz has willingly and intentionally associated himself with these folks by appearing at their retreats and events where they have repeatedly preached what far more than half the population of this country considers to be hate speech.
I’m not talking about “build a wall” sort of speech either, which some fools on the left like to call “hate speech.”
No, I’m talking about preaching fire, brimstone, felony and death for those who don’t conform to their views about consensual adult sexual relationships. I will remind readers that radical Islam holds the same views on homosexuals and routinely throws gays off the top of buildings or beheads them for sport.
There is near-zero distance between radical Islam and these so-called “Christians” when it comes to this issue, and if someone who voluntarily associates with these people, including his own father, does not disqualify himself as President may I ask whether being caught in bed with a goat would get there for you?
This is the United States and we have a First Amendment. You’re free to believe that such behavior is “wicked” or even ought to be a crime. Millions of Americans agree with such a position.
But that number of those Americans are a small, albeit material, minority of the whole and the rest see such a position as an immediate and permanent disqualification (justly so, in my opinion) when it comes to a political candidate.
I’m all in on the First Amendment and freedom of religion. But when it comes to political calculations anyone who ignores espoused views on religion by a candidate, and his close, personal and voluntary association with those who hold religious views that the vast majority of our population consider to be not far off in extremity from those of radical Islam need to take a very long, hard look at whether such a candidate can win the requisite 270 electoral votes.
Ted Cruz cannot do so.
It’s the math.
Who wouldn’t mind seeing this carpet munching commie thrown off a building?
[img
[/img]
Chaffetz Hammers EPA’s McCarthy – You Should Resign
http://rickwells.us/archives/27448
Sorry Denninger, but scripture is not open for liberal interpretation .
https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slickhomosexuality symbols
The Bible doesn’t speak of homosexuality very often. But when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let’s take a look.
Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1
Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines God’s created order when He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out His command to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that mandate. In addition, homosexuality undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. Again, homosexuality cannot do that. And, believe it or not, it is also dangerous to society. (See Is homosexuality dangerous?)
Homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it and support it.
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Romans 1:26-27).
As a result of being “given over,” they can no longer see the error of what they are doing, will not seek forgiveness, and will not repent. They will then die in their sins and face God’s righteous condemnation. We, as Christians, do not want this judgment to fall upon anyone.
But, their rebellion against God does not stop there. Those who are judged by God this way also promote it and condemn others who don’t approve of their behavior.
“…and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them,” (Romans 1:32).
So, in their “hearty approval” of homosexuality, they encourage others to accept their practice, and so their sin and rebellion against God spreads. This means they will reject Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, they will have no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal Hell. Again, we don’t want this for anyone. We do not want it for homosexuals, for adulterers, for murderers, for liars…. for anyone. Everyone can find forgiveness in Jesus.
Persecution of the non-politically correct?
The Bible’s view of homosexuality is not politically correct . . . and this is a concern. Will the Bible soon be considered hate speech by the moral-less majority? There is already significant social pressure being put on the American populace to accept homosexuality as normal and healthy. Homosexuality is promoted in movies, television, magazines, schools, etc. The social re-engineering is well underway. Yet, statistically only 3% of the population are homosexuals.2 Christians, on the other hand, occupy a far higher percentage, 70%3 yet they are not fairly represented in the media. Instead, Christians are routinely portrayed as bigots, narrow-minded, idiots, hypocrites, and worse. Why? Because there is little tolerance and equality from the left for those who disagree with them. Take a look at what Jesus said.
“The world cannot hate you [the disciples], but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil,” (John 7:7).
The social attitude of America is slowly being engineered to accept liberal sexual behavior while condemning and silencing those who disagree. Since behavior follows belief, what is to stop our increasingly liberal society from acting on its silence-the-opposition attitude and becoming more and more harsh in its dealings with Christians? Nothing. In fact, there are increasing calls to get Christians kicked off social networks for speaking out against homosexual marriage. Silence the Christians! In workplaces, many Bible believers are told to go through sensitivity training in favor of the LGBT community even though such “sensitivity training” is highly offensive to them. If they don’t go, they can be fired. It seems that sensitivity must be shown towards the homosexuals, but never towards the Christians. This hypocrisy is blatant and dangerous.
And then there are the lawsuits by homosexuals against Christians, which are on the increase. Will homosexuals attend churches for the purpose of asking pastors to perform a wedding, and then when they are refused, they sue? Will they seek out Christian owned businesses and ask to have a cake baked, a wedding photographed, or music played at their homosexual wedding and then file a lawsuit when Christians who are holding to their religious convictions refuse to comply? It is already happening. Remember, what happened in Colorado and Oregon where bakers were fined up to $150,000 for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding? Is that right? Or is it oppression in the name of tolerance?
In light of this, we should look at history to see what politically correct momentum can do in and to a society. Think of Nazi Germany and the Jews or communist Russia and its persecution of dissenters in the 1900s. History is full of examples of how those in politically correct power oppress those who don’t agree with them.
Where will the redefinition of marriage stop?
Will the redefinition of marriage stop with homosexual declarations? Don’t bet on it. It is human nature to push the envelope, to find new levels of permissibility, and to invent ways to justify our personal preferences and behaviors. The United States Supreme Court has said that same-sex marriage is legal all across America. Marriage has been profoundly redefined by legal precedent, not by popular vote. So, what is to stop further redefinitions? What are we to do when other groups who claim a certain “sexual orientation” start pushing their particular agenda through the court system? Where does it stop? Pedophiles are now asking for their rights, too, and they are using the same arguments initially presented by the homosexual movement decades ago4). Will marriage be further redefined to include a father and a daughter, a mother and son, a man and a young boy, polygamy, polyandry, open marriage, marrying one’s self, marriage to dead relatives, temporary marriage, trial marriage, marriage to animals, etc.? If you think such categories are ridiculous, think again. Each of them has their proponents here in America as well as other countries. Many of them will be emboldened to move forward and push their minority-held sexual views on the populace just as the homosexual community has done.
Without an anchor a ship can drift into the rocks and be destroyed. Without the anchor of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, the redefinition can drift so far that marriage becomes meaningless, sexual protections are laxed, and anything-goes can become the norm in a society that falls apart at the seams. Is this good? Is it safe? Is it going to help society?
Satan wants us to spit on God…don’t do it.
Suzanna, did you watch the film the muslim woman took on the streets of Syria? I found it eery, since it looks so much like some of the Saudi towns I visited, but the rules were not so strict then. However, the blacked out faces on the hair color boxes were not out of line, since many magazines would have women’s lingerie ads torn out or blackened. We always figured that the people whose jobs it was to censor the magazines sold those pages on the black market, but somehow this video made it seem more sinister to me.
I was a silly kid walking around in a dangerous place then.
They can only stop him in California, all resources will be poured into that race.
Mike,
I wonder what percentage of the adults in Cali are actually legally eligible to vote?
That vote will be an interesting one to watch, if such is possible.
Great post Flash!
Mike, he’s up 38-22 in california, a winner take most state. He will likely get all 172 delegates.
Gonna be a real close game. Might even go to overtime.
God help the GOP for they know not what they do.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/keith-richards-pulled-knife-donald-trump-article-1.2569369