What’s wrong with the two-party system? Assuming that you have only two choices.

As we we’ve seen in 2012, voters ALWAYS have a THIRD option. They can STAY HOME.

Romney would have won if REPUBLICANS had turned out in the same numbers for Romney as they had for McCain. But in the meantime (since 2008) we’ve learned what establishment Republicans stand for (nothing but TEA Party bashing), and a lot of us chose not to vote.

Thanks but no thanks; by not bothering to vote, all we got was “four more years” to further the “fundamental transformation.”

People on radio and the internet expressed their belief both in 2008 and in 2012 that if they vote for 0bama, the country will finally see what socialist “fundamental transformation” means, and there will be a revolt to wipe out all the socialist changes since the New Deal. Well, having lived through a real shooting war of a revolt in 1956, I don’t wish that on my country (America, you dope…) but I am hoping we will have a peaceful revolt as in 2010 and this time not elect a socialist, not elect a RINO, but elect a real honest to goodness proud American who understand and respects our founding principles and the Constitution enough to preserve, protect, defend and promote it.


With respect to an article posted by Pat Buchanan,
GOP elites plot to purge Trump

there is a plot afoot in the Washington Post Conservative Club to purge Trump from the Republican Party before the primaries begin.

“A political party has a right to … secure its borders,” asserts the Post’s George Will, “a duty to exclude interlopers.” Will wants The Donald “excommunicated” and locked out of all GOP debates until he kneels and takes a loyalty oath to the nominee.
“Marginalizing Trump” carries no risk of “alienating a substantial Republican cohort,” Will assures us, for these “Trumpites” are neither Republicans nor conservatives. Better off without such trash.

Doesn’t this sound crazy to you —
a PARTY has the right to secure its border… but the COUNTRY DOES NOT?
a PARTY has the duty to exclude interlopers… but the COUNTRY DOES NOT?

And if the “trumpites” are not “republicans” then what are they, the wonted “independents” in the “middle,” “without whom no one wins an election”? Isn’t that the very reason why the establishment is advocating a “moderate” position rather than an honest conservative position, the (mistaken) idea that you have to veer to the middle to win the general election? So here it is, a candidate who (they say) appeals to non-Republicans, and that’s BAD?

Of course I don’t buy that notion that you have to fake to the right to win the nomination and then dash to the middle to win the election; Reagan disproved that notion, and the losses by Dole, McCain and Romney disproved it again. People elected the real conservative and rejected the fake ones.

To me all this whining by the angry pundits of the establishment sounds like the “Republicans” of the 1950s; happy to be cloistered in their exclusive country clubs, feeling superior to the unsophisticated rabble down in the valley below, satisfied with leaving the messy, un-gentlemanly business of politics to the Democrats.

The poll numbers say somewhere about a quarter of REPUBLICAN voters like Trump, and about a tenth like the latest entry from the Bush family. Do YOU  really want see what happens if a quarter of the voters — THE BASE — is drummed out of the Party?

The angry pundits of the establishment don’t have an argument, so they resort to name calling. “Trumpites.” What will they do next, call the women (s)Trumpettes…?

The Donald wants to Make America Great Again. The least that the other candidates could do is RESPECT the VOTERS and engage Trump and the voters in an intelligent conversation about how best to do that. We ARE united in that goal, aren’t we? Maybe not…