Doug C

The mother is vocal about gun ownership rights. I am certain that she would describe herself as a model gun owner. I am sure that she would call herself a law-abiding citizen, well-trained in gun safety, and a responsible gun owner. She created a situation where a 4 year-old child that "gets jacked up to target shoot", was able to access a handgun. If she properly and legally secured her son, properly and legally secured a firearm around a minor and didn't create prior environments where a 4 year old gets excited to fire weapons, then it's likely the son wouldn't have been able to find a gun under the seat, wouldn't have found a gun even if unsecured himself, or, upon finding an unsecured firearm while unsecured himself, would have said, "Mommy, I found a gun and am telling you about it like you taught me to do", instead of "getting jacked up" and shooting at the nearest available target, the back of mom's seat. 

My point being that many people who believe that they are a model of responsible gun ownership, are not.

2nd Amendment activists in the news: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/the-latest-florida-mom-shot-in-back-by-son-4-deputies-say/2268620

It isn't policy, Lou, it's politics. They loathe Hillary so much that they can't abide her being president. They'd rather have a very liberal man of perceived integrity, than a fairly moderate woman of perceived criminality.

Bob Dylan

I wouldn't. Cruz is a seasoned politician who is both savvy and evil (my opinion, of course--I assume yours is different). Trump, on the other hand, is such a crazy ass wildcard that I think he would be impeached. Of course, that means it'll be pretty important to see who his running mate is.

I agree. Cruz's appeal to the Christian fundamentalists is different than Trump's. Cruz is, or at least wants to be perceived as, a religious fundamentalist. Trump throws them cursory Bible bones that he, and they, know are bullshit. Trump appeals to them as an anti-establishment, straight talker. I'll take non-religious unhinged over religious unhinged. That said, no matter which one of them is the GOP nominee, I believe they'll lose.

Also, there is good reason why Cruz is loathed by his fellow senators.

To me, Christie endorsing Trump, isn't a WTF moment. Christie likely knows Trump and believes that he is more in line with Christie's agenda rather than a religious nutter like Cruz/Rubio. He won't endorse Kasich because he doesn't think he has a chance. There could be some craven self-interest there, a la veep, but as was said, a NY/NJ ticket won't fly. This election is very interesting and entertaining.

You tossed in "the highly educated" as a joke, right?

 

In other news:

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/

Being highly educated doesn't preclude someone from being an idiot. I'm certain that many Trump supporters have bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees.

I still find it all hilarious. It can't be news to everyone that many Americans are idiots. They have just been waiting for someone to unite them. Trump and/or his advisors, are political alchemists because they found a way to appeal to evangelicals, xenophobes, sovereign citizens, conspiracy theorists, the working class, the wealthy, the poor, whites, non-whites, the young, the old, the highly educated, the poorly educated, the sane, the insane, hell, you name the group, he has some supporters among them. Yes, those groups have always had some overlap, but a full on Christian like Cruz or Santorum could never get enough support from non-evangelicals and a Christie or Rubio could never get enough support from committed religious nuts. 

This morning on NPR, I heard Trump's Nevada victory speech. When he said, "I love the poorly educated!", and the poorly educated cheered, I laughed and actually yelled, "Trump!". You know that the moment he and his boys got off that stage and in a private area, they were busting a gut.

I don't think Trump is "unhinged", "nuts", "a Fascist", etc. He is very calculating. Trump says things that he doesn't really believe and wouldn't actually do. He has simply hit on what seems to be a winning formula and is both running with it and having fun with it. I am convinced that he and his inner circle sit around after events and appearances drinking scotch and laughing their asses off at what he said and how well it was received. 

I honestly worry more about a Cruz presidency than a Trump presidency. But I just don't see anyone the Republicans roll out capable of beating Clinton.

I agree. Cruz is a religious demagogue. If he wins, then that would mean Congress didn't flip, but became even more Republican. Cruz as the executive, with a strengthened legislature AND a reshaped judiciary, is frightening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHckRTkcZg&feature=youtu.be

Wow, embarrassingly sad video. He couldn't even get "Hey, I know! I'll pass out turtles because, you know, 'slow and steady wins the race'. The tortoise and the hare, that's me!" right. "They're sea turtles". When I used to sail, sea turtles would swim along side the boat, looking nothing like slow tortoises from Aesop.

In the interest of factuality, this statement (from an above post) is inaccurate: "On this forum (quite recently in fact) I have been called a dick jerk, based upon my words." 

 My actual words were "there is ample evidence that you might be what the kids call a dick. I'd just say that you seem to be a bit of a jerk."

"You might be", is not "you are", and "a bit of a jerk", is not a "jerk". I did not call you a dick-with-a-line-through-it jerk. I don't even know how to do that put a line through a word thing. It's pretty cool though.

Speaking of crazies: Oregon Occupier Countersues For $666 Billion, Citing 'Works Of The Devil'.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/18/467204403/oregon-occupier-countersues-for-666-billion-citing-works-of-the-devil

I'm certain that, if asked, most of the Republican candidates would support her in some way.

Hahahaha!! Hilarious. Thanks for the laugh

Kevin G,
The guy that found him said that he found Scalia with a pillow over his head. Taking him at his word is not jumping to conclusions, it's making a conclusion from a witness' statement. As soon as I was made aware of his clarification, I made a different conclusion.
What are you on about?
Re the family, I didn't say that they WERE hiding something, I said that if there was anything odd, it would more likely be them protecting his legacy than a murder. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but at the risk of getting banned, there is ample evidence that you might be what the kids call a dick. I'd just say that you seem to be a bit of a jerk.

Chez, thanks. I hadn't come across the clarification yet. That's a horse of a different color. Rich guy should practice his communication skills.

In a statement Tuesday, the owner of the ranch clarified to CNN what he meant when he told the San Antonio Express the judge was found with a "pillow over his head."

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Thanks!

The report was that a pillow was found "over his head;" not "over his face."  Maybe a better choice of words would have been "above his head."  There's nothing to this non-story.

To me, over his head means just that. The head is completely covered by a pillow. Again, the ranch owner/Scalia finder could have misspoke, but he said "a pillow over his head". Also, I have told 5 people that "Scalia was found with a pillow over his head". All of them took that to mean it was covering his head. If the dude meant above his head, dude should have said above his head.

If there were any shred of a question that there was foul play the family and his associates certainly would want an autopsy, but since they declined one, I guess if there is a conspiracy they are in on it.  Maybe the family killed him so that this could be a major issue in the election.  Sheesh, this is too strange to even talk about at any length. Both creepy and stupid all at the same time.

 

LouieB

Again, more likely that the family might be protecting his legacy in some way with no autopsy, than protecting their murderous selves.

On your head and over your head are not the same. 

I am not not, nor ever have been a conspiracy theorist, people die in their sleep for various reasons. I doubt there are any statistics kept, but I think that it has to be rare that people die a natural death in bed with a pillow over their head. It just seems like that alone should be reason for an autopsy, especially when it is a Supreme Court Justice. "Say, this is odd and rarely seen. Order an autopsy to find out the exact cause of death".

 

 

Well congratulations you are now a conspiracy theorist.  

Um, no. 

I don't believe that he was murdered. What wouldn't surprise me is that there was something going on that would be embarrassing. That would explain no autopsy being ordered and the family not wanting one. If there is any story, it is more likely something that would cast Scalia in a negative light than some political murder.

Also, pillow isn't a rumor. The guy that found him says that's how it was. He may be exaggerating (it was only over his eyes) or completely talking shit, but that's his story.

"“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled,” Texas millionaire John Poindexter told the San Antonio Express-News Sunday, describing how he found the 79-year-old jurist in the “El Presidente” suite at Poindexter’s 30,000-acre luxury ranch on Saturday."

I am not not, nor ever have been a conspiracy theorist, people die in their sleep for various reasons. I doubt there are any statistics kept, but I think that it has to be rare that people die a natural death in bed with a pillow over their head. It just seems like that alone should be reason for an autopsy, especially when it is a Supreme Court Justice. "Say, this is odd and rarely seen. Order an autopsy to find out the exact cause of death".

I do sometimes.  I guess that means Obama is trying to murder me.

 

LouieB

No offense, Lou, but as I said above, that's pretty damned odd.