No, I'm arguing that the left has done a really good job of incrementalism. Instead of insisting on getting everything they want, they get a little bit each time the issue comes up, and like the frog in the kettle, we suddenly find ourselves cooked.

I have believe whatsoever that an objectivist government will emerge in the foreseeable future, so we can only hope to make progress in that direction rather than the progressive model.

We have already sacrificed, I want some back.

My point exactly. Now he's faced with the situation that his rhetoric was heavily-geared toward the southern evangelical voter, and he got trashed by Trump in the South, so his path to the nomination swinging his Texas drawl and the Bible in one hand while lying through his teeth out the other side is pretty weak when moving through Ohio, New York (where he insulted 30 million people), New Jersey, California, Arizona, etc. He just doesn't have a chance, there are not enough Bible-belt states left. The religious population in the west tends to be Catholic, I don't even think we have an evangelical church here in Northern California.. Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Mormon,and non-Affiliated like Bayside or Saddleback - yes... but very few of the stuff he is locking onto. We even have a lot of Greek & Russian Orthodox... Hispanics are 99.5% Catholic though, and Hispanics make up over 50% of California, and Catholics don't wear it on our sleeves, so he's going to look like an endangered species here.

He's Texan, his other problem (other than being Canadian), Californians don't like Texans, at all, Gov. Perry used to make very visible 'business trips' to Sacramento, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley to do one-on-one meetings with our largest & most profitable companies trying to promise them tax credits, tax abatements on their buildings, and whatever to move to Texas. Quite a few did, giving their long-time employees the choice between uprooting their kids, leaving their families, and moving to Texas where the climate, frankly, sucks compared to California... or find another job. The 'correct' answer that I happen to agree with is, Rick, go back to Texas and work on trying to create some jobs other than Walmart cart pushers and leave ours alone. :) Then he (Gov. Perry) was giving a speech here criticizing our very popular culture of clean environment - which stems from Yosemite, Tahoe, the Sequoia Forest, the 700 mile coast, and many other natural assets... and after spending an hour insulting us, got in his luxury rental car to go back to the airport.. which happened to be a Tesla Model S... I just couldn't hide the cringe I had looking at that. The guy got creamed in the primary, and rightfully so. Ted's problem when he comes out here is that he kind of looks like Gov. Perry from that perspective, so despite all the Republican endorsements, he's going to have about a 10-20% showing, at best here, and we're obviously the grand prize of the delegate count.

Hell, they were tripping over themselves to get in the door there.

As I told my students today, I have participated in 10 prez elections, as an attempt to alter the system, nothing has changed for the better. Each one has gotten worse than the last. If we last 10 more year, 250th year of Declaration, I'd be surprised. Why would Cruz be any better than last candidate?

Interesting. You are advocating for the antithesis of objectivism. Making deals to 'get things done', casting aside morality in order to achieve an end.

How much of your morailty are you willing to sacrifice?

"Would Trump do better? Who knows."

That is the six-million $ question we gamble on. And the stakes are enormous.

"But while I like Cruz's positions he hasn't demonstrated the ability to bring the congress along."

One can lead a horse to water but can't lead one to drink. One can lead a politician to logic, but one can't make them think. The fact that Cruz thinks for himself despite the pressures of Washington to conform and bend to his Party speak volumes to me about his ability to function in the realm of politics.

Can Trump do the same? Again, we don't know. We know he's full of fiery rhetoric, but is he going to just brow-beat Congress to go along with him? I somehow doubt that is going to fly with the Republicans - let alone the Democrats. And what are we left with then? A man who has said he has no problem ruling through Executive Orders to get things done.

I'd rather have a government where the Legislative Branch took the initiative on law-making. I would much rather have a do-nothing President than a President who wants to do everything. Which of the two is closer to what the Founders envisioned?

Why do people make so many assumptions of what people are supposed to do or say or what it MUST mean if a person says or doesn't say something?

I used to make assumptions until I realized that All my Assumptions began with an Ass. :)

I can't argue that the current Republican negotiations are great successes. In the current environment, doing nothing is truly better that what is likely to be the result of a 'deal'. As Trump says, we said we make terrible deals.

Would Trump do better? Who knows. I put a lot of credence on the fact that he can build things in New York City. The amount of negotiation that has to go on to actually get something constructed is mind boggling, yet he gets it done, the building he wants gets built and makes money (usually). That's a real world accomplishment. Does it translate into political decisions, who knows. But while I like Cruz's positions he hasn't demonstrated the ability to bring the congress along. Standing alone in a filibuster is certainly heroic, but at best stops things.

Heard that on my car radio since my above post.
Dang, I voted for Cruz. Won't again. I'm cruising away from that kinda BS..

I'm certainly not advocating for a Dictator-in-Chief. We've had enough of that over the last eight years and I certainly don't want to see it go on any longer or further than it already has. This is where Trump's pronouncements about using Executive Orders cause me to regard him with grave suspicion.

"Sometimes this involves persuading them that your position is right."

And I fully endorse this. This is how Reagan was able to move the country forward despite Democrats controlling House and Senate.

"Sometimes it involves giving them something they want in return."

The problem we've had in recent times is that there has been only "get" from the Progressives and no "give". Or it's more of the Wimpy (from "Popeye") ploy of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" - which Reagan fell prey to. The playing field is already hopelessly skewed in one direction. I'll look on any such deal-making with an extremely jaundiced eye.

The fact is, though, that negotiations only work when you know where you start from (principles) and where you draw the line. That's the problem with the current style of "negotiations" being bandied about by Republicans and have resulted in the holes they have dug for themselves: they only think they know where they start from and aren't willing to draw those uncrossable lines. (Of course the same applies to Obama's feckless foreign policy.)

While standing up for your principles is certainly something we all admire, the only way that you can implement them on your own is to be a dictator. The alternative is to negotiate with other people to get what you want accomplished. Sometimes this involves persuading them that your position is right. Sometimes it involves giving them something they want in return. If what you get is more valuable to you than what you give up, you win. (they can win too)

I also like gridlock if the alternative is losing. We've lost so many times in recent years that many have given up on winning and simply want to lose slower. I refuse to accept that it's our only option.

I also run a business.. albeit a much smaller business than Donald's enterprises.

But, I still find time to get involved in supporting and promoting Conservatism in my realm. I go to school board meetings - they hate me there. I write blogs on FB and other social media sites espousing conservative ideas and why they are good for everyone, not the 'marginalized minorities' that the Democrats always claim to be advocating.

Donald may not have as much spare time as I do to write blogs or speak at city council meetings as I do. I will not judge him for that. I will, however, judge his history of writing checks to support Democrat nominees and Democrat initiatives. I would never, like Ted Cruz has said countless times, capitulate my principles for short-term profit. I will not, e.g., go and promise some of the bureaucrats that have visited my office contributions for government contracts... and these are mostly state-level Republicans. Trump has gotten in-bed with all politicians to further his business causes. He claims that was 'just business'. Well, if we were to apply the Law of Identity, A is A, then it cannot be passed off as 'just business'. It was his business. He did it. He did those things. He cannot dismiss those as transactions as something they are/were not.

The birther issue was resolved when the Hawaiian official released Obama's birth certificate before Trump got going---Hillary was way ahead of him. Many were still suspect, however, that that certificate was indeed the official certificate. Trump only picked up the torch after others had found no way to move forward on it.

Cruz. You doubt Cruz can get any of his ideas ratified. Why do you think Trump would be any better at such an effort than Cruz? Trump has not even pushed / promoted one thing through Congress, yet, you assume that he would be BETTER at it simply because he's a "deal-maker"? Obama only got what he's gotten because I-Will-Cave-Boehner and Mitch-May-I-Help-You-McConnell cannot but bow to Obama's every whim. Otherwise, Obama, too, has only been able to get things done by Executive Fiat---pen and executive order. Ted's going to retract every Executive Order; what has Trump promised? Ted's going to attempt, with manifest of the American people's vote, ala Reagan, to nix the IRS, and a plethora of government agencies. Trump, from time-to-time, has echoed such sentiments. But, Cruz has not waivered on his resolve on what he plans to do. Cruz has as much, if not more, chance of getting his agenda through as Trump does. I would dare say more so.

Trump, in the past 8 months, has been a LOT of talk-talk-talk. Just like Rubio. Lots of talking. The only one who has DONE something has been Ted. Ted even took a moment to go back and sign his name to the Senate letter to Obama telling him they're not going to look at a Supreme Court nominee until after the election. Ted continues to "DO" while campaigning. And for that, the Trumpsters here blast him to Kingdom Come when he balks on the chance to refute protesters at Trump's Illinois event. Wow.

I'm actually on the other side. I am sick of all the deal-making. I want principled leadership and if gridlock is the result, at least they aren't passing any new taxes or regulations! I don't look on the title of being a deal-maker as a badge of honor, because all it has gotten us is more progressive policies. What have Republican voters been clamoring for since Obama took office? Principles - plain and simple. Why are Trump and Cruz (neither one an "establishment" darling) running away with this election? Principles. Cruz is campaigning on his record of standing up for the principles he believes in even when it is inconvenient. Donald is campaigning on a record of supposedly being immune to the establishment and their lack of adherence to principles. Republicans especially are sick of voting for people whose principles only matter during election season. They don't want deal-making - except perhaps on the international stage.

Perhaps, but I'm getting a little sick of everyone running to the President when anything happens for their opinion or a call to action. If we want people to start thinking and acting for themselves, I can't think of an office better suited to leading that initiative than the Office of the President. Do we want a laissez-faire President who doesn't seek to actively control everything or someone who organizes and antagonizes to as to expand power at every opportunity?

For me it is true for 3 reasons

1) The defeatist, nothing you can do, nature of many.

2) The closed approach of just a few, loud and vocal though they are.

3) the useless nature of rehashing. A fresh look at something is great to get exposed to, but most of the articles here are the same stuff I read last year, characters may have changed but its kinda the same.

I spend most of the time I use to spend on this site, doing things in the real world. Talking to those who live around me, attending political events, reading some Locke (very slowly).

I give it a year or two and I will find my way back more actively, it may have evolved to where there are many new ideas, viewpoints... that make me think.

I thought it was a missed an opportunity. He didn't have to defend Donald but he could have pointed out how the left wants to shut down any speech they disagree with. He could have looked Presidential but instead I thought he just looked like another politician.

Perhaps because, instead of living with hope for staving off the crash or (more probably) rebuilding afterward as in "Atlas Shrugged" or "Anthem," most of the commenters now seem to be living in "The Fountainhead" or "We the Living" with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Why is it Ted Cruz' responsibility to talk about what happened at a Trump rally? Did Trump come defend Cruz when he was being assaulted by Code Pink?

They are contenders for political office. Let them each deal with their respective rallies and take responsibility for such.

Me? I want to know which candidate is going to respect the rule of law and especially the Constitution of the United States. Cruz' history of doing that gives me confidence he will continue to do so. I don't have that same confidence in any of the remaining candidates. Sanders openly shills for getting rid of the Constitution in favor of socialism. Hillary gives lip service, but wants to install herself as Queen. Trump simply has no history to go on other than anecdotal. Rubio seems to think that illegals should have the same protections as citizens.

Well said.

Where was Donald before he entered the race -- running his businesses. Of course he isn't going to be taking the lead on various bills or congressional investigations.

And, Donald actually helped put the 'birther' theory to rest -- as a result of Donald's attention, Obama's birth certificate was finally released after years of talking about it.

Now I like Ted, but there is a difference between filibustering to block something and getting congress to go along with your plans. I actually like a lot of Cruz's small government ideas, I am just dubious as to his ability to get congress to go along with him. Yes, he will sign the executive orders canceling Obama's but we don't want to rely on government via executive order. It isn't enough to nominate good Supreme Court justices -- you have to get them ratified -- and the Republicans aren't going to have 60 votes to block a filibuster.

I'm actually toying with the idea of Trump/Cruz to solve the problem of the establishment putting in their pawn. I can't really see Cruz/Trump working but the other way around does, and lets Cruz be the apprentice to the deal maker for a few years before going for it again.

There are classifications based on specific time, manner, place restrictions put into place by the federal government. Depending on the gravity of the "non-public" use, would determine whether Mr. Trump's right had been per se violated.

I,of course, don't know the legal details at this site but I am assuming that if you are staging an event for thousands of people you rent the hall for your exclusive use, provide insurance, security and all the other things the facility management requires.

This isn't a case of saying, "Hey, let's go gather down at the park." I would think it qualifies as a non-public forum -- otherwise there would be no legal right to remove protesters which is routinely done.

I'm FINALLY happy everyone is starting to see my point, which has not changed, since at least September on Ted Cruz.

Is he an evangelical preacher? Is he a defender of liberty? No, he's a politician that takes money in the form of donations but are effectively bribes to run for office. In one of his roles as the Solicitor General (Texas) he argued the State of Texas' position on various matters before the Supreme Court - and served at the pleasure of the Governor and argued the position of the Governor.. so were they his views or the Governor's views? But it wasn't under G.W.Bush, it was in 2003, so would have been Rick Perry (I think), not the most appealing guy in the world...

Before that, he had been an attorney for about a year or two, about his only time in the public sector, if you can call it that, then he was the Deputy Director of Policy & Planning for the Federal Trade Commission in 2001 - he worked on the Bush campaign, so that was a gimme appointed job commensurate with his low level in the campaign.. What the hell is Policy & Planning for the FTC anyway? That sounds like an in by 9 am & leave by noon kind of job. He brags that he defeated collective bargaining proposals from doctors... huh? Doctors are independent contractors... pretty much all of them unless working at a University Hospital or something like that, can't be that hard to defeat a 'union' proposal from them..

While Solicitor General, his only resume of substance, he worked on a total of 8 cases in 5 years. Well, his staff worked on 8 cases in 5 years. Again, he kind of / sort of worked I would guess.

Then he went into private practice again for about a month, realized it's pretty hard to actually make a living as a business owner, but puts we business owners on a pedestal like he's one of us... then announced his run for the Senate and probably started paying himself again out of his campaign donations/etc.

I'm sorry... I just don't see a lifelong struggle and freedom fighter here... I see a guy that has always been on the taxpayer tit in one way or another.

The question becomes if the facility qualifies as a public or non-public forum at that point.