My daughter, wife and I are Trump supporters.  My son in law is for Kasich.  My daughter will be a Trump delegate at the convention this summer in Cleveland.  Trump is a showman who knows how to use the media for effect - the bombastic approach is there only for effect.  He is brilliant intellectually, and knows how to get what he wants - and he has the best interests of Americans at heart.  Every speech has at least some reference to bettering the conditions for our veterans.
I am tired of the U.S. losing trade negotiations, conflicts abroad, and not having a realistic view of the dangers that face us.
Just this week, here in Columbus, a Somolian refugee entered a Jewish owned small restaurant and hacked 4 patrons severely with a machette.  Thankfully, the police killed the attacker, and none of the victims died.  Where was the news of this on your local TV, or newspaper?  You have all heard of the New Year's Eve attacks across Europe - what is being done about it?
Sorry, folks, I'm no racist; in fact my next door neighbors are Muslim and they are fine friends and good people.  We have to vet any refugee, or other immigrant.
Cruz is an inflexible fool who has not one fellow senator endorsing him.  Rubio is too young, and Bush is last week's news story.  Kasich may well be the best VP pick for Trump.

The news in St. Louis of that attack was a man hacked at people but the police were baffled at the motive. huh?! WTF!
A man with the name Mohammad attacks people at random with a knife in a Jewish deli and my local paper has no idea why?

The showmanship has been for effect, and to get him news media coverage.  Trump said this week that he is $45 Million BELOW budget for the campaign so far.  He hasn't had to spend money on ads - the media give him the face time he needs.  Brilliant planning on his part.
As the campaign progresses, you'll see the real DT, a calculating, calm, and very successful approach to winning the nomination, then the election.

How Trump could become president


By Peter Morici  Published February 10, 2016
Facebook - Twitter


Convincing victories by political outsiders in New Hampshire Tuesday night demonstrates, without doubt, that most voters are disgusted with both political parties. The electorate will probably make one of them—more likely Donald Trump—the next commander in chief.

Since 1976, just one candidate from either party has​ not won in both  Iowa and New Hampshire (Bill Clinton in 1992) and still won his party’s nomination. While history clearly is not determinative, it can hardly be ignored.

On the Republican side, Trump won by a compelling margin in the Granite State over Iowa winner Ted Cruz—36 to 12 percent—because he did well among both moderates and conservatives and most age categories, except the elderly.

Trump’s diverse appeal among Republicans and independents will be tough for Ted Cruz—who relies principally on religious conservatives and with Rand Paul’s departure, libertarians—to counter beyond southern states. Perhaps not even those places—he is polling a bad second to Trump in South Carolina.

As for the very moderate Ohio Governor Kasich—endorsed in New Hampshire by both the New York Times and Boston Globe—he devoted enormous resources to that small state. With Governor Bush and Senator Rubio still in the mix, he won’t have the money to mount a successful southern strategy but could do decently enough in many of the 16 states holding contests on or before March 1 to become a king maker.

With five reasonably viable Republican candidates—Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Bush, and Rubio—and a few stubborn stragglers all winning some delegates, it will be tough for Trump to gather enough delegates before the national convention to lock up the nomination.

The most logical target for one of Trump’s famous deals is Kasich, who, unless he trips, should have a nice bundle of delegates to bargain with.

Kasich, like Trump, is not an ideology-pure conservative—at least as measured by those who impose a litmus test, such as the National Review. Rather both are malleable personalities interested in workable solutions—for example, instead of denying poor folks health care for partisan reasons, the governor implemented the Medicaid provisions of the Affordable Care Act expansion in Ohio.

By offering Kasich the second spot on the ticket, Trump would show voters he is serious about finding help from seasoned politicians to deliver on trade, immigration, health care, and national security. On that score, if you can name a more solid candidate, then you can have my academic tenure.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders whipped Hillary Clinton across all demographic categories, including women, except voters over 65 in New Hampshire, but she still has a commanding hold on minority voters who are much more important in Democratic primaries elsewhere going forward.

To ultimately prevail, she will have to continue to emphasize positions that younger women embrace—such as the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act—and issues important to African-Americans and Hispanics: police behavior and social issues beyond simple economic justice.

That should be enough to ward off Sanders and win the Democratic nomination but will push her into an awkward position for the general election.

Criticizing police tactics to adequately appease Black Lives Matters will alienate many white moderates. The notion that Hillary merits women’s votes simply because she is a woman was roundly discredited in New Hampshire.

Young white women, along with white young men, often can’t find jobs that make good use of their education or pay very well. And Democratic prescriptions like more taxes, further building out ObamaCare, free trade and open immigration will not have the appeal of radical change offered by Trump.

If Trump moderates his rhetoric and, with the help of Kasich, polishes his pragmatism on taxes, health care, immigration, and national security, he offers both sexes what they want most—a change in direction from the slow growth policies of Presidents Obama and Bush and the promise of a more effective national security policy.

Enter President Trump.

Peter Morici served as Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission from 1993 to 1995. He is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and a widely published columnist. He is the five time winner of the MarketWatch best forecaster award. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

A lot of things go unreported. We have a situation where our media sided with the left of the political spectrum and have now almost become their own seperate ruling entity.

I never really thought of it this way until now, but do you realize how much influence one producer of a local news cast has over his viewership? Now multiply that by thousands as we move to larger markets and then by millions as we go national or international.

The fact is they are their own political party. They are leaderless, but guided by liberal, socialist idelogy.

Jerry's story about the Ohio attack is repeated  thousand times a day but we never hear about it. We do however get treated to 3 minutes of network news hearing about Amanda Knox and her Italian adventure....what BS!

I don't buy into Jog's conspiracy theories, but the end result is the same. A distracted population becomes aware only after the water is already boiling.

raydawg wrote on 02/15/16 at 08:14:28:


Which direction?


--Steve

Well what struck me was they are choosing a trade, that in all reality, lacks the ability to steer any social, political, etc, policies if they doing their job, which is to report, not fabricate, censor, or opine.

I think it is akin to seperation of church and state, the enfluences.....
When they allow their personal beliefs to sway their reporting, all constructiness and integrity is compromised....
In a trade where it should be the bedrock.