User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [6] May 24, 2016 at 1:15pm

    Debating 101…..paraphrase your opponents argument into your own construct and state it in such a way that it is easier to make a point.

    When you can’t make the point that the apples are orange in color, just turn the apples into carrots and suggest they are orange in color. Who can deny that?

    We have a legal system….as imperfect as it is, it’s still better than a lot of other systems this world has to offer. A well respected judge by advocates of the BLM movement ruled that the officer was not guilty.

    There might be injustices that need to be addressed, but this isn’t one of them…that was the point Kelly was trying to make. The point Deray was trying to make was that an example of where the letter of the law was followed – and example of it actually working – was actually yet another example of it not working, and this is why we need reform.

    Tarnishing examples where justice worked (just because you didn’t get the result you wanted) hurts the whole process…..unless it is your aim to take down the whole process.

  • May 17, 2016 at 4:07pm


    In the case of a locker room situation, allowing cis-gendered women to disrobe and expose private parts while getting dressed / showering but preventing transgendered women to do the same would be discriminatory. That’s the whole point….transgendered people claim that they are uncomfortable using facilities designated for their birth given gender…and denying them full use of the facilities of their chosen gender is discriminatory.

    Dealing with penises & vaginas is only part of the issue though. The other matter is with abuse of the law. There is a whole lot of grey space between glancing at someone and leering….between incidentally exposing oneself while dressing & doing so maliciously.

  • [4] May 17, 2016 at 3:21pm


    Actually, we ended up in this situation because city officials in Charlotte tried to create an ordinance / local law that would put special legal protection on all people identifying as transgendered to attend the restroom / locker room of their choice. The only reason the state of NC weighed in on this with their own law was to prevent a legal precedent from being created in the opposite direction in their state by local municipalities.

    So what’s the big diff between before Charlotte tried passing the ordinance and after?

    Common sense…and social order.

    The issue is with how being transgendered is officially defined by authorities on LGBT matters….which is that it is completely subjective, does not require any reassignment process (visual queues & commitment to the claim) and is allowed to be completely fluid.

    Prior to that, people used common sense. If you’re trans and you’ve walked the walk so to speak, you’re not likely to put others on edge by using a public restroom of your chosen gender. If you’re trans and you haven’t gone through with any sort of reassignment process, you err on the side of caution and attend the restroom of your anatomically defined gender – as not to cause a stir.

    So really, we are only talking about a fraction of a minority group of a minority group’s preference of restroom in jeopardy with NC’s law, given the unintended consequences and social unrest otherwise…and we are treating it like Jim Crow laws.

  • [6] May 17, 2016 at 1:43pm

    Also….it was the feminist movement that pushed for 50+ years that we live in a rape & sexually violent culture dominated by men to the point that most women view strange men as a threat…..PARTICULARLY if they are in the very definition of a female safe space….a women’s public restroom.

    Funny that…..leftists created a culture of “male stranger danger” to the point of hyper-paranoia and are now pushing to create laws that would provide said male predators easier access through plausible deniability to said female safe spaces.

    American left, the inventors of the self licking ice cream cone…

  • [5] May 17, 2016 at 1:37pm

    This is about creating chaos, not solving the immorality of human kind. If our society were so hell bent on fixing actual problems within the human condition, we’d be addressing the nearly 500,000 women in AMERICA that are in danger of undergoing genital mutilation by a backward culture that gets a free pass because they occupy a minority status.

    We’d be focused on the rampant misogyny that is the life blood of a significant section of our pop culture – Rap & Hip-Hop, which also gets a free pass because of protected status.

    There is so much low hanging fruit that we could actually fix, but we are making THIS the defining issue of civil rights, fairness & equality….an issue that affects little more than the feelings of a minority of a minority group of people, at the expense of a much larger group of people.

    This wasn’t an issue until it was made an issue. People didn’t fight this hard for same sex marriage. Why? How do you prosecute abuse of this new law if the only requirement is a subjective feeling of how one feels, which can also be fluid and change over time? You can’t….it’s chaos.

  • [3] May 17, 2016 at 1:24pm

    In regard to flunking PE because they refused to play shirts vs skins…

    Women do not show their chest because they have breasts that society has deemed socially unacceptable to show in public…they are different than a male chest in how they look & function. Regardless if whether or not that social standard is warranted, a person who does not have breasts, who otherwise feels like a woman, doesn’t have a rational claim to feeling embarrassed about showing their chest. You don’t have breasts. There is no social expectation for a male that feels like a female to not show their chest in public.

    If that’s how that person felt, they put that on themselves. Even within the bounds of the new thought process on gender & sexuality, a trans-female is not the same as a female.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 9, 2016 at 1:16pm

    As I understood the article…

    Your first quote is a preview from her interview w/ Trump that will be aired at a later date.

    Your second quote from Kelly is regarding the meeting she & Trump had previously to kiss n’ makeup and pitch the idea of having said interview.

  • May 9, 2016 at 1:14pm

    Just in the preview above, he warns her that if she throws him another fastball, he’ll line her up.

    She asks him if the outrage was manufactured and for political purposes (like how he’s treated every person he’s viewed as an opponent so far) and he plays dumb by saying it was a real reaction, and that it could happen again…like as in again in this interview. lol

    He admitted that’s what he did with Carson……said a bunch of slanderous crap about him when he was an opponent, but praised him after he was no longer a threat. He said a bunch of slanderous things about Rubio when he was an opponent, but said he was a wonderful man after he was no longer a threat. He drug Cruz & his dad through the mud, but then said he was a good guy after Cruz dropped out.

  • [9] May 9, 2016 at 1:05pm


    Please help me understand how / why you are so confident that he’ll nominate conservative (Scalia like) justices.

    The only thing anyone can be confident about Trump on is that he’s a deal maker. Getting to nominate SCOTUS justice nominees is the equivalent of an asset in Trump’s bank as POTUS and he will use it to bargain and as leverage to make deals with groups within Washington D.C.

    Even IF he strikes a deal with congress on a Scalia type justice, you best be certain that he’ll be giving over / sacrificing something else as payment to the liberal members of congress & special interest groups for going along with it.

    On the flip side of that, we may end up with another Kagan or Sotomayor as a payoff to liberal members of congress in exchange for them going along with tax cuts on businesses, getting rid of PPT or Obamacare.

    Deals will be made, that’s the only certainty here.

  • [16] May 6, 2016 at 5:31pm

    Can’t say Trump himself didn’t tell ya…

    If anyone read “Art of the Deal” or know anything about negotiations…you never start where you want to end up. You take the extreme end of your position and “let” the person / people you’re negotiating with walk you down to where you want to be. You get what you want and the other side feels like they got a deal because they were able to move you off your starting position.

    That’s why all this crap about a wall, kicking all the illegal aliens out, taking China to the mat, and all the other totally awesome – kick ass things his supporters were fired up about was never a reality to begin with. He said it himself….all that stuff people continue to give him credit for is negotiable and on the table for concessions to the other side of the deal.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] May 5, 2016 at 10:08am


    How short our memories are…

    People went in droves to Trump supposedly because Republicans were tired of getting a progressive shoved down our throats and being told…screw the base, we need the moderates & independents.

    McCain got the nod in 2008 because we needed a “Maverick” that had a history of reaching across the isle…..the base will show up because they’ll go with any Republican over the Democrat and McCain’s moderate position will get the swing voters…..WRONG

    Romney got the nod over Santorum because Santorum couldn’t get the swing voters….the base will show up because they’ll go with any Republican over the Democrat (especially a 2nd term Obama) and Romney’s moderate North East bonafides will get the swing voters….WRONG

    And the candidate that was supposed to end this cycle for Republicans is yet again a North East progressive that HAD to be the nominee because the guy that could carry the base can’t get the swing votes LOL

  • [3] May 5, 2016 at 9:55am


    in response to the “media didn’t pick this GOP nominee”…

    I disagree. NBC & other news outlets have been sitting on opposition material on Trump for months. If the media can make Romney look like a misogynist because he said he has a binder full of resume’s for women…can you imagine what will be made of Trump after the “piece of a$$” and Howard Stern interviews starts running on a loop?

    Trump got more air time than nearly all other candidates combined…and not by just FNC, a typical safe space for a Republican nominee…..but by the likes of MSNBC. He was caught on a hot mic w/ the hosts colluding on softball questions….MSNBC!

    In regard to Hannity, he got pissy with and pressed Cruz when he refused to articulate and own a GOP delegate process he had nothing to do with creating, but completely side stepped Donald’s attack on Cruz’s dad as being a co-conspirator assassin of JFK from a tabloid that runs Bat Boy & Elvis sighting stories….who just so happens to be owned by a major Trump supporter.

    Do I need to go into Breitbarts coverage of Trump, or the Drudge Report running photo shopped pictures of “Little” Marco….and to be completely fair, yes…even The Blaze’s coverage of Cruz?

    Yea…I think the media had a lot to do with the GOP primary pick.

    When ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN go guns blazing on Trump after he gets the nomination, you’ll know the rope-a-dope worked yet again.

  • [3] May 5, 2016 at 9:41am

    Technically true, but it doesn’t mean he has no effect on the perception of real people and real things involved in this process.

    Fox News, particularly Sean’s TV and radio shows, reach MILLIONS of people. Many of those people either willingly or don’t have the time to seek out other perspectives to keep some objectivity on the matter. If those trusted news outlets say it’s so…then it must be so.

    It’s not all that different than how John Stewart & the Daily Show worked to inform the opinions of millennial Democrats on what’s going on in the world.

    When you call John Stewart to the floor for being disingenuous on how he represented a one sided argument on someone or something…..supporters say “he’s just an entertainer”.

    Just like how the “I’m just a comedian” card is used to deflect crap that can’t stand on it’s own two feet…..”I’m just a political commentator” is used in the same vein…..both of which absolutely affect perception & reality – especially with the uninformed

  • [9] May 5, 2016 at 9:19am

    So we need our own megalomaniac to fight the Democrat’s megalomaniac?

    You think Cruz’s negatives with left leaning centrists outweighs Trump’s negatives with racial minorities, women and 30% – 40% of the Republican party?

    This will come down to who the media picks. There is plenty of material on both of these crooks to absolutely end their political & professional careers….who does the press go after?

  • [12] May 5, 2016 at 9:04am


    1. He MIGHT….just like how I thought Obama MIGHT have put up that hard left façade during the election to win over the radical lefties (that have gone green / third party in the past) and would then govern as a centrist.

    2. Just like how most of the hard core Obama supporters excuse all the crap he’s done during his time as POTUS by suggesting it was someone else’s fault……hard core Trump supporters will do the same. They will blame everyone but themselves.

  • [2] May 4, 2016 at 5:47pm

    If that’s the case, the voter base is off the reservation in terms of what matters and what doesn’t.

    No one has love for the GOP. They designed the screwed up system and every candidate had an equal opportunity to learn, understand and work said system.

    Cruz got these delegates from states like Colorado when Donald Trump had not yet received the required number of delegates to be guaranteed the nomination. What do people…expect Cruz to do? Not participate in that system because Donald Trump made a strategic decision not to? That’s ridiculous.

    The GOP deserved blame for setting up a delegate process that didn’t involve the popular vote…not the candidate charged with working within that messed up system.

    Trump BRIBED the leading Democrat presidential nominee….a Clinton at that…to attend his wedding. He gave political donations that helped re-elect Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid! If that’s not “colluding” with the establishment, I don’t know what is.

    Lindsay Graham says Ted could be murdered on the Senate floor and not be convicted, Boehner calls Cruz Lucifer and a miserable SOB, and Cruz called out McConnell on the Senate floor…but Ted is an establishment shill? LOL

    This was a media snow job and a brilliant effort of social engineering / manipulation.

  • [1] May 4, 2016 at 5:28pm

    I’ll agree with you in that Rush was likely a Cruz supporter, but he did parse those words VERY carefully. He chose to play the long game and put business over his personal convictions….but was at least much more convincing at “playing the middle” than Hannity.

  • [11] May 4, 2016 at 5:24pm

    Which speaks to the media narrative & power they have over perception.

    Cruz didn’t have momentum because the national media never allowed it. The one place where I heard Trump get a hardball interview was on Wisconsin talk radio.

    Go figure…

  • [2] May 4, 2016 at 5:22pm

    If you listened to Rush carefully, I think he was a closet Cruz supporter. He mentioned today that someone, who he thought was a friend…likely a fellow media person….sent him a text during Cruz’s concession speech that read something to the effect of “Thank god Cruz is over, I can’t stand to listen to him a day longer”, which pissed Rush off to the point he was steaming.

    That said, Rush made a calculated business decision, and that wasn’t to burn bridges. Does that make him a hypocrite, yea I guess it does….but I wouldn’t put Rush & Sean Hannity in the same category. Sean was a straight up sell out and was at least MUCH less convincing as being objective between the two as Rush has.

  • [8] May 4, 2016 at 5:16pm

    Agreed…perception is reality and that is the stock & trade of a 24/7 news cycle.

    Cruz didn’t loose momentum because he didn’t campaign in states he wouldn’t have won anyway. Trump did the same thing with those states that didn’t have public primaries or caucuses. (See Colorado)

    When a supposed conservative stallwort on THE news network for right of center politics (Fox News) gets pissy at Cruz for deflecting a request to explain the GOPs delegate process in Colorado, but allows Trump to repeat an unsubstantiated “Elvis sighting” caliber story from the freakn’ National Enquirer about Cruz’s dad being involved in the assassination of JFK, you know something stinks.

    The only difference between this primary, and the ones where we got Romney & McCain is that the people begged for this progressive running as a Republican.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love