Ruth...I love reading this thread..you are all very mature how you discuss the POLITICS.

I hope it stays this way

Sheila

I just got icked out on the Ted Cruz 5 affairs.

I am sorry she felt that way. I enjoyed her comments.

April. Thanks for the link. The video is powerful. I plan to share it on my FB page after the Easter weekend. I hope those view it, if they haven't made the connection yet, will realize we've had a very pro-woman president for eight years and moving from that to one who so obviously and blatantly objectifies women at every turn would be...well, there are so many descriptions of what it would be. Archaic. Prehistoric. Unfathomable. Destructive. And so on.

Did you see the clip of the little bird that landed on the stage & then flew right up on the podium at the Sanders rally a day or so ago? If you haven't, you should google it. Adorable!

LOL suersis. I read that Ms. Palin is getting a new reality TV show. She'll be a courtroom judge.

What is surreal to me is how people are wondering how the Republican Party could end up with Trump, but not be shocked that the Democrat Party would probably be electing a declared socialist right now if they thought they could get away with it? Has anyone noticed how far that party has wandered to the dark side? Undermining Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, kissing up to Iran, destabilizing Libya and Egypt, won't let anyone say the truth about radical Islam? Blowing off attacks like they're no big deal? Calling them workplace violence....

What many of us like about Trump is he isn't walking on eggshells apologizing and trying to make people like him, he's not reading a teleprompter and droning on. You can hear the emotion in his voice when he talks about his country and the people who are suffering. And just about every politician has gotten into office and absolutely not done all the the things they said they would do. Example: We all knew wink wink nod nod that President Obama didn't really stand for traditional marriage, but he had to say it to get elected. And so it goes. We don't want that anymore.

Hillary remains married to an abuser of women. Even a patron of sex traffickers, underaged girls! I also don't like that she let our guys die in Benghazi and has treated their families shamefully. And what about the server? She just laughs at the notion she might be held accountable. What good has she done in this world, can someone tell me? And Bill Clinton is the only reason she is a candidate, how is that feminism? Not a good role model for women.

We had better candidates to vote for at the beginning, but no one voted for them. And the primary system is so jacked up, I will never get to vote for them. Here in Washington we have to wait until May. It's ridiculous. We should all vote on the same day.

Kay, this is so true what you write:

We all willingly have blind spots when it comes to our candidates. Hillary is certainly not perfect but I can respect her. I can't feel any respect for Trump after seeing his behavior in this primary.

I'm not claiming Hillary is perfect or the perfect candidate, either, just saying she is qualified because of her career background.

As for Trump, to me it is another nod to his self-importance and arrogance that he thinks that without any political experience he can become President of the United States. Right there, that tells me that he has little respect for the hard fought and hard won work of elected officials, minimizing their efforts. It is one thing to say, they're not doing this right and another thing to get in the ring and show the right way to do something. Trump is in the ring but his way is not right.

My concern with Trump: he can't be bought, but he can buy people's loyalty. And when I say buy, I mean, he's able to bribe to get support for him and his causes. He's powerful and wealthy enough and not above doing it. There is so much wheeling and dealing behind the scenes that we are unaware of. Just like was mentioned how Kasich is being used as a pawn for Democratic gain, there is much jockeying for position, power and authority. And I'm not saying this because of my House of Cards obsession! I see politics on a local level and know how down and dirty it can get and it just ramps up on the national level because the stakes are higher.

You're a better man (woman) than I am, Ruthbru.

Ruth, you are definitely a better woman than I am. I no longer have the stomach to watch Cruz or Trump

Ruth - your statement made me laugh - until I thought about the reality of it..

I just watched the entire Republican Town Hall. If someone put a gun to my head & forced me to choose between Trump and Cruz......after seriously considering just having them shoot me, I'd be forced to go with Trump.

I'm sure you'll all be hearing about Trump's latest views on abortion if you haven't already. I believe in a woman's right to chose

---

By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS March 30, 2016, 3:54 PM

Donald Trump proposes abortion ban, punishment for women who undergo procedure

Donald Trump said Wednesday that abortions should be banned and that there "has to be some form of punishment" for women who undergo the procedure.

In a pre-taped segment for an MSNBC town hall that will air Wednesday night, host Chris Matthews asked the GOP frontrunner if women should be punished for having abortions.

"I would say it's a very serious problem and it's a problem that we have to decide on," Trump initially said.

Asked what his proposal to ban abortion means, Trump said "I am against. I am pro-life. Yes. I am pro-life." But Trump failed to explain how he would actually ban the procedure.

"You know, you'll go back to a position like they had where people perhaps will go to illegal places," he said when asked how he would outlaw it. "But you have to ban it."

Matthews eventually asked Trump if he believes in punishment for abortion as a principle.

"The answer is there has to be some form of punishment," Trump said. "For the women [who have abortions]?" Matthews followed up. "Yes," Trump responded.

Matthews then asked Trump, "10 days or 10 years" and Trump said, "I don't know. That, I don't know," adding that this is a "very complicated position."

After the clip of that segment aired, Trump issued a statement of clarification.

"This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination. Like Ronald Reagan, I am pro- life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times," Trump said.

During a pre-taped interview that will also air during MSNBC's town hall, host Chuck Todd asked anti-abortion Ohio governor John Kasich if he would punish women who get abortions.

"Absolutely not," Kasich said. "I do have exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother but of course women shouldn't be punished. Look, you know -- I think probably Donald Trump will figure out a way to say that he didn't say it or he was misquoted or whatever but I don't think so. I don't think that's an appropriate response and it's a difficult enough situation then to try to punish somebody."

Asked how abortion could ever be banned, Kasich said, "I think it's rape, incest, life of the mother, and you build some restrictions around it, but I think you have to be very careful in the way you do it. We're a long way from there."

Trump has admitted during this presidential election that he had once been pro-abortion, but is now strongly anti-abortion. While his opponents, however, have blasted Planned Parenthood, Trump has actually defended the organization for some of the other health services it provides to women.

Just last month, Ted Cruz released a campaign ad that targeted Trump's previous position on abortion. It used footage from an interview Trump did on "Meet the Press" in 1999 where he says, ""I'm very pro-choice" and says he would not ban partial-birth abortions.

Kay, that's exactly what the problem is. Has not thought anything thru. Just decided last year he could run the country better n anyone and threw his hat in the ring. Typical Trump.

He is flip flopping about abortion now because his controversial remarks will cost him votes.

And on another subject, foreign policy, there's this:

Trump's nuclear views are terrifying

Mira Rapp-Hooper6:33 p.m. EDT March 29, 2016

He'd ditch 'predictable' U.S. policies that have kept nuclear arms races in check for decades.

The contours of Donald Trump's foreign policy are becoming disturbingly clear. Newspapers have labeled his thinking on international affairs "isolationist" and "unabashedly non-interventionist," yet those terms fail to capture the more alarming elements of his philosophy. Trump apparently is prepared to abandon the United States' most important alliances, even at the risk of those countries acquiring nuclear weapons. In other words, he is prepared to end the decades-long U.S. policy of extended deterrence — protecting close partners against nuclear attack and thereby limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the presidential candidate gives little indication that he understands the implications of these radical policies for global security and stability.

One theme running through Trump's foreign policy is his disdain for U.S. alliances and allies. In recent news media interviews, he has called U.S. treaties "one-sided," labeled NATO "obsolete" and repeatedly called on South Korea and Japan to contribute more to U.S. basing costs overseas. Trump appeared surprised in a Washington Post interview to learn that allies pay a substantial portion of U.S. overseas basing costs, with none more supportive than Japan. Yet he also seemed unmoved by this information, insisting that allies should pay no less than a full 100% of U.S. overseas costs. A refusal to do so would force a President Trump to begin withdrawing troops, he told The New York Times. When informed this might cause South Korea and Japan to acquire their own nuclear weapons, Trump demonstrated a flippant comfort, stating that the U.S. "may very well be better off."

It hardly bears noting that abandoning U.S. treaty commitments and acquiescing to nuclear proliferation are completely at odds with decades of U.S. foreign policy. In the darkest days of World War II, American civilian and military leaders identified the merits of establishing a network of overseas bases to allow the United States to address foreign military threats before they could reach the homeland. U.S. planners understood that establishing a forward posture would require cooperation with allies who shared similar security concerns. Furthermore, since shortly after its own use of nuclear weapons against Japan, it has been U.S. policy to oppose any new countries from developing nuclear weapons, be they friend or foe. U.S. presidents have actively opposed allies such as France and Taiwan in their nuclear quests, on the theory that more arsenals would lead to a more dangerous world, no matter who owned the weapons.

Academic research has borne out the close relationship between U.S. security guarantees and nuclear non-proliferation. Political science studies show that countries under a major power's "nuclear umbrella" are far less likely to seek their own weapons. The converse holds true: When allies grow acutely concerned about whether their security patron will make good on their treaty promises, they are more likely to seek an independent arsenal. In fact, when the United States began a major troop withdrawal from Asia during the Nixon administration, both Japan and South Korea seriously considered going nuclear themselves, and allied assurance continues to be a significant challenge in East Asia today.

To understand why Trump's views on extended deterrence are terrifying, one must examine his other positions on nuclear policy and strategy. In a December GOP debate, the candidate appeared to be unfamiliar with the nuclear triad, made up of the intercontinental ballistic missile, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers that can deliver nuclear weapons to their targets. Just days ago, he refused to rule out the use of a nuclear weapons against the Islamic State terrorist group. In one of the many national security non sequiturs in his Times interview, Trump commented that no one could be sure whether the U.S. nuclear arsenal even worked. This was presumably an allusion to the fact that America observes a de facto moratorium on nuclear testing, but it is contrary to all scientific and technical evidence and a wildly misleading comment at best.

Perhaps most unsettling, Trump repeatedly insists that the United States must be more "unpredictable" in its national security policy — a chilling assertion, particularly when uttered in such close proximity to such irresponsible nuclear policies. Trump's naiveté about the world's most dangerous weapons leads one to infer that he might not have considered the fact that a nuclear Japan and South Korea could lead to dangerous arms racing with China and North Korea, proliferation by other states in East Asia and regional instability that invites major crises.

Trump's foreign policy interviews might appear to be itinerant ramblings, but on at least one issue, he is crystal clear: He is absolutely not sold on the role that alliances and extended deterrence have played in U.S. global security policy since 1945. Coupled with his erratic nuclear policy positions, this prospective commander in chief's views are not just irresponsible: They are cataclysmically dangerous

I subbed in 7th grade today. Before one class, a kid was taking a poll, "Who do you want for president? Trump, Clinton or neither?" You might be interested to know that only one kid picked Trump (with several threatening to move to Canada if he were elected). And only one wanted Clinton (which bears out the fact that she has a lot of work to do with the young!), and the rest said, "Neither." It was interesting (and gratifying) to hear how aware they are of this election.