No, just going to WWI. If we had missed that big mistake and stayed out of the peace negotiations afterward there wouldn’t have been a WWII. Imagine a world where that hadn’t happened.
November 24, 2015 at 9:15pm
Nice job of pointing out the half that supports your case. Very accurate word for word quotes and activity. You left out of course the part about Trump saying he just wanted to be treated fairly like anyone else in the GOP and if he could be assured of that he would support the nominee. Looks like his fears were born out. Even after signing the it looks like they aren’t going to honor their side. Honor among thieves I guess.
 November 24, 2015 at 8:59pm
On the surface you are correct but I suspect if the party told Mr. Kasich it would not support him if he went that route he might think twice about doing it. At least attempt to discourage his supporters from doing it instead of encouraging them as he seems to be doing now.
 November 24, 2015 at 8:54pm
You are nuts! Trump’s kids are running his empire and doing a splendid job of it. He trained them well. You have no knowledge of what was discussed in his phone call with Bill Clinton and neither do I. The difference is I don’t set around making up tails about it.
 November 21, 2015 at 1:30am
Luntz is a straight shooter. Tough but not interested in the gotya or hidden agenda. Thanks for the info.
 November 21, 2015 at 12:57am
Not nice for the VP to P off the President and Ted knows it.
Trump/Cruz 2016, 2020
Cruz/Paul 2024, 2028
2032? On your own I won’t be around or if I am no condition to vote!
 November 21, 2015 at 12:33am
WOW! Wish I had heard those responses. Glad none of them were directed at me.
 November 21, 2015 at 12:24am
Congrats on your taste in beer!
 November 21, 2015 at 12:22am
I see your spin.
“Well, I’ve asked God for forgiveness many times,” Cruz said, pausing.
“But is there one time that really stands out to you,” Luntz pressed.
“….one time that really stands out to you.”
Get the story straight, dude. I respect your comments and agree mostly but your attempt to spin it into something it wasn’t sucks!
 November 21, 2015 at 12:04am
Just a nit but the US legal term is “Citizen by birth”. The term “natural born citizen is a reference to the Swiss “Law of Nations” document the early republic referred to in dealing in international affairs until we had a body of laws passed by Congress and signed into law of our own. Natural born citizen as defined in the Law of Nations was never adopted by congress who has sole responsibility under its enumerated powers under the Constitution to enact all laws regarding citizenship and naturalization.
Striking the words “natural born” in the Constitution in regards to the President was debated in the first Congress in 1793 but after all it had taken to get the original Constitution ratified by the states and the daunting task of getting the, at that point, 12 stand alone Amendments ratified the amendment to strike was abandoned. Of course 10 of the Amendments on the table became our Bill of Rights.
Is Cruz qualified to be President or Vice President? Absolutely according to the laws of the US passed by US Congress who has sole authority in such matters and duly signed into law by the then setting President of the United States.
 November 20, 2015 at 2:11pm
So let’s see now, to disprove Mr Trump’s assertions we go right back to the same source that he questions and rightly accuses of doctoring the numbers. Yeap, that is what all good researchers do just regurgitate already proven doctored data. Just like the Global Warming folks but at least they change the name to “Climate Change” to confuse the uninformed.
My money’s on Trump on this one especially when you include those working 2 or 3 jobs just to keep food on the table and college grads mowing lawns because the jobs they trained themselves for no longer exist.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:52pm
Yeah, that first 50 to 100 miles right along the coast sort of rules the area all the way from the Canadian to Mexican borders. San Diego was a bright spot of sanity at one time not so sure any more.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:47pm
Just keep this crap up and the environment will become carbon deficient killing off plant life and resulting in mass starvation and early triggering of the next ice age. These interglacial warm periods only come around every 80,000 to 110,000 years and only last about 20,000 years. Let’s enjoy being born at this point in time and enjoy the sunshine and bounty.
Carbon dioxide levels are now about 400 ppm. For over 400,000 years, CO2 levels have never been below 180 ppm or above, until now, 300 ppm. Three hundred years ago they were 280 ppm. At its lowest, the Earth was about 10 C° colder than it is now, and glaciers covered much of the Earth. So, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 was 100 ppm more than at the depths of the glaciations. Now it is 120 ppm higher than at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
No one is suggesting we lower CO2 amounts below 280 ppm. We will be lucky to keep them below 450 ppm. Slowing, and eventually almost halting, the rate at which we add CO2 to the atmosphere is the best that we can hope for.
 November 20, 2015 at 1:34pm
I don’t live in Washington. This decision was by a Washington State Judge based on the Washington State Constitution. If enough sane folks exist in that state perhaps they should consider plugging this hole in their state constitution the good judge has discovered.
Maybe the progressive judge on a whim instead of law...abuses their constitution, as the SCOTUS does our national Constitution.
Convention of States.com fixes the problem.
November 20, 2015 at 1:23pm
He is basing his ruling on the Washington state constitution. Not familiar wit the document. I will say the few excerpts of various state constitutions I have read have some pretty weird passages. The California State Constitution is especially messy due to the ease of constitutional initiatives that appear on almost every ballot. Don’t know if Washington has similar problems or not.
I don't think the state constitution is germane and I'll explain. This 'judge" is saying the state has a duty to protect it's citizens against a nonexistent problem, a theory. This "judge" isn't a climatologist so he isn't qualified to say weather or not man made global warming exists.
This is the first I've heard of this activist "judge" and in my opinion he isn't qualified to be a judge based on this asinine ruling alone.
In science, theories are the gold standard. Progressives layer, you have just demonstrated your abysmal ignorance.
No ultra, SCIENTIFIC LAWS are gold standard. I'm only 16, and I understand this, but some 60 year old fat guy does not!
 November 20, 2015 at 1:15pm
He is a state judge. The US Constitution pretty well lets the states do as they will which is as it should be. Agree that some form of accountability should be levied on the judiciary. I lean toward what Mark Levine suggests some form of nullification by popular vote on rogue judges and decisions at the federal level. States should be able to decide for themselves. Judges like their executive and legislative brethren are still supposed to be servants of the people.
 November 20, 2015 at 12:17am
I think she was in the beginning but got a taste of the “good life” and liked it. Ain’t a lot of Cruz’s, Lee’s and Paul’s around.
 November 20, 2015 at 12:14am
Sadly she will probably be there long after Mike has bowed out and gone back to a job he doesn’t feel the need for 6 showers a day.
 November 20, 2015 at 12:04am
You still around? You seem to conveniently forget all the Dems voted for that “illegal Iraq” thing also. The only Senator voting against it was an Independent Bernie Sanders. Was it a mistake? Hell yah! Only difference is I said so at the time. Where were you turp?