Firearms Friday: For Whom Are You Really Voting?

This is how we started the year... how will it look in four years? 

Well, the campaigns are now in full swing and it seems like every other commercial is sponsored by the Clinton campaign (or some associated group). There are also the various campaign spots from local politicians filling the screen as well but that is another topic for another day. Back to the national campaigns… so far I haven’t seen much regarding the qualifications of Hillary Clinton being ‘promoted’ in these advertisements rather they have been going out of their way to attack Donald Trump and some of his statements which have been clearly taken out of context.

Heck, even my wife has been disturbed by this trend. But this shouldn’t really be a surprised for those of us who have put some thought into the presidential race as there are no ‘qualifications’ or ‘accomplishments’ to be found in her record that would, in any way, support her candidacy. After all, an ad buy promoting Obamacare, Benghazi, and private servers wouldn’t really be part of a winning strategy. It is actually rather pathetic the lack of concise information present to support her rather than simply opposing Trump.

However, I digress. What I really want to bring to the fore is what is of utmost importance in this election cycle. It isn’t Obamacare or the economy. It isn’t race relations or military operations. It isn’t international relations or the national debt. While these are all important in their own right they are not of primary concern this time around. In fact, it really isn’t about who is occupying the White House. It’s about the Supreme Court not the Presidency!

In addition to the seat left vacant upon Antonin Scalia’s death this past February, there are likely to be three other appointments which need to be made by the next president. After all, there are currently three associate justices who are 78, 80, and 83 years old respectively. For those of you interested, below is a list of the current court with ages and by which president they were appointed:

John Roberts (Chief Justice), 61, George W. Bush

Anthony Kennedy, 80, Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas, 68, George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginzburg, 83, Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer, 78, Bill Clinton

Samuel Alito Jr, 66, George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor, 62, Barak Obama

Elena Kagan, 56, Barak Obama

The Supreme Court is the body that will determine the direction of this nation not the individual in the oval office. Whomever wins this election and takes office in January will determine the course of this country for the next generation not the next four or eight years. Personally, and I know I am not alone in this thinking, I would prefer a conservative court that upholds our rights (especially the second amendment), limits the power held by those in Washington, and, most importantly, support and defends the Constitution. It is scary to think about the possibility of a court where five of the justices where appointed by a Clinton and two more where appointed by Obama. That is a future that none of us can afford.  

DNC Aftermath

Heading into this past week I was curious as to how the “celebration of leftist ideals” was going to progress in the wake of the WikiLeaks hack and the transition of the disgraced DNC chair from her position with the party to an integral part of the Clinton campaign. It was interesting to say the least watching the Democratic National Convention unfold this past week as speaker after speaker leveled their attacks on Donald Trump and the Republican Party. From behind the wall requiring Photo ID to get in the speakers took the stage in rapid succession: Vice President Joe “Double Barrel” Biden, President Barak “You Didn’t Build This” Obama, First Lady Michelle “I Live In A Slave House” Obama, President Bill “I Hope To Open A First Gentleman’s Club” Clinton, Bernie “Burning and Itching” Sanders, Tim “I Have No Business Here” Kaine, and many other questionable speakers.

One of those brought to the stage was the father, with his repressed wife standing beside him, of a soldier who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, Khizr Khan. Given the treatment that the military and law enforcement has received during the event, the level of hypocrisy accentuated by those six minutes is rather astounding. While I respect and humbly appreciate his son’s sacrifice I cannot say the same about his punditry. Add to this questionable selection of a presenter with the fact that the stage at one point was filled with the mothers of those “killed by the police” and it truly demonstrates the fact that this was more of a circus rather than a convention.

However, there were a few things that truly disturbed me about this past week. The first was the undenounced burning of the Israeli flag outside of the convention. The second was the simple fact that there was not an American flag to be found during the DNC until this exact fact was pointed out publicly in the media. But, the most distressing aspect of this whole charade was the blind sheep like accolades that kept filling social media. Seems as though there are too many blinded by gender and the eerily robotic call to “Join Us!”

And this brings me to the marquee speech of the event which really had me questioning the mentality of the American people who have proclaimed their rabid devotion to Hillary Clinton. Following her outline of countless programs for which there is no clear plan to pay for the government overreach, she insisted on promoting the idea of group think. Included in her “I alone can fix it” diatribe, she emphasized over and over the Utopian ideal that no one can do basically anything alone. Specifically, she said:

“20 years ago I wrote a book called “It Takes a Village.” A lot of people looked at the title and asked, what the heck do you mean by that?

“This is what I mean.

“None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community or lift a country totally alone.

“America needs every one of us to lend our energy, our talents, our ambition to making our nation better and stronger.”

And that is one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, that we face in this country. We have forgotten how to be self-reliant. Too often people are turning to others to do the heavy lifting and, in some cases, take the blame. This mentality can be seen in the increased reliance that many have on government funds and also on the other side in assigning blame to a group of people rather than an individual. We must remember that individual rights still mean something in this country and we can’t simply follow the Pied Piper as she screeches from the stage “Join Us!”

RNC Recap

Well, it certainly was an interesting week in Cleveland as the Republican National Convention officially make Donald Trump the party candidate for President. It was also a week that introduced many voters to the other half of the ticket as Governor Mike Pence took the stage for his first significant speech since being named as a Vice Presidential candidate on July 15^th. And, of course, there was the speech given by Senator Ted Cruz who spoke for many of us when we said to “vote your conscious” in November. Simply put, Trump was never my first, second, or third choice (which I have made clear over the past year on this blog) but he is the party nominee and I will be voting for him. After all, for all of his flaws, he is the best option on the table.

What was rather surprising was the lack of protesting surrounding the event and the whispers that Bernie Sanders supporters were saving their energy for next week in Philadelphia. Not surprisingly is the fact that Trump received a rather significant bump following the pomp and circumstance from the previous week. It will be interesting to see if the Democratic inmates in the Philadelphia asylum will have the same impact on the polls. However, given the WikiLeaks announcement yesterday, that is becoming less likely and will probably result in some significant changes in the race bating party.

One moment that stood out for me was the emotional speech given by Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack in Libya, who stated “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son — personally." Some have criticized the organizers for allowing such an “emotional attack not rooted in fact” but, honestly, what do you think the Democrats have been doing every time there has been a shooting in this country? The other “controversial” speech was that of Melania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama’s speech from the DNC in 2008. The amount of media coverage on this was astounding especially when you consider the fact that the questionable section is generic political filler for any candidate and by no means a verbatim copy. If that is what you are looking for you must turn to the President himself during his 2007-08 campaign.

For all the ups and downs that are usually associated with political events of this sort, it was interesting overall to see the mix this time around of ardent supporters, those who are just going along for the ride, and others whom you could tell were really hoping to see someone else on stage accepting the nomination. Honestly, it didn’t seem like the rallying moment happened until late on Friday evening when the WikiLeaks announcement was made regarding DNC emails. Could have been better, could have been worse, but, in the end, I’ll take it. Now all we have to do is wait, vote, and hope that some common sense is realized in this country come November.

Federal Bureau of Inconsistency

A little less than a year ago, on July 29, 2015, the FBI released a statement that wasn’t covered by any of the major news outlets, wasn’t the leading story on the local news, and was never committed to the black and white of the newspaper. It wasn’t news “worthy of dissemination” but, given the recent statement issued by FBI Director James B. Comey regarding Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server the verdict announced last summer is finally being brought to light. First, let us review a small section of the statement from 2015:

“Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced… According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.”

When looking at the “crime” and the penalty it is pretty straightforward and should be easily applied to future situations. This is especially true when you consider the fact that this is pretty much a textbook example of Section 793, subsection (f),”Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information“, of the US Code which outlines the following:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So now let us consider the case at hand. While clearly a much more complicated investigation than the one previously detailed, the results are much more concise in the transgressions committed by Secretary Clinton during her time at the State Department. First let us determine if any of those emails contained classified information that would warrant charges based on the aforementioned statute. For this, I reference two sections from the recently issued statement:  

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”

…

“Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

And, just as in the case of Bryan H. Nishimura, intention is not a factor in determining whether or not someone has broken the law. There is a reason why security measures are in place, systems are monitored, and all correspondences are catalogued… these are steps we need to take to protect our information and maintain the level of security necessary in this world. While the FBI is kid in the following section, I would qualify the actions of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, as grossly negligent:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

What really matters here is that this was a breach of national security and, while they haven’t been able to determine whether or not hostile parties have accessed classified information the FBI admitted noted that “…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” We were put at great risk by Secretary Clinton and she should be facing charges. But…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

And there is the double standard clearly stated by the FBI Director himself. Of course, today’s testimony makes me think a little about his “interesting” perspective on the law:

Yet Comey said while Clinton showed “great carelessness,” he did not see evidence she and those with whom she corresponded “knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.”

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based only on what is known as “gross negligence.” At the same time, he suggested that if Clinton had worked at the FBI, she could be subject to a range of disciplinary measures including suspension or termination.

“You could be walked out,” he said.

Basically, he is stating that if you get pulled over on the highway but you didn’t realize that you were speeding then you didn’t break the law. Yeah, my head hurts too. While there are many trying to assign motive to Director Comey, I am not going to do so, his more recent statements pretty much sum up his thought process and qualification to hold his position.

All I will say is that there is no way I will ever trust Secretary Clinton… not now and certainly not as someone running for the Presidency. But, if you believe in double standards and hypocrisy, by all means cast your vote for Hillary. Personally, I would much rather vote for someone who believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility… but I will settle for Trump.  

Taxes… Late Again!

Well, it is that time of year again and as has unfortunately become an annual tradition we have filed an extension on our taxes. I was really hoping to get them done on time this year and had even lined up a new accountant but, with everything that has transpired over the last few months, it just wasn’t going to happen before the deadline. While I have much of the material and receipts set aside for this endeavor, I still need to print out a swath of statements and organize the mountain into the different deduction categories. It is definitely an undertaking that I am still not looking forward to.

The real issue that I am finding now is in the upcoming schedule that doesn’t seem to have too many free moments available to get the work done. Well, at least the next couple of months as the summer should provide enough time to pull everything together. This is a real issue, on the one hand I don’t want to spend the hours preparing the paperwork while on the other I really don’t want to give the government more money than I have to give them. After all, we are the ones that had to work for the money.

However, this rather large dilemma is actually proving to be a good thing as it is forcing me to take the tax proposals on the table by the various presidential candidates into more serious consideration. Essentially, this eliminates those whom I have already seen as a detriment namely both Democrat candidates. Basically, I have to look at what kind of financial position I will find myself in should Trump, Cruz, or Kasich take office. Well, at least what is being proposed… I won’t fully believe any of the ‘plans’ until they are implemented. And, let’s be honest, Kasich is done so I am going to focus on Trump and Cruz.

Simply put, you can go with an overhauled 10% flat tax as proposed by Cruz or a simplified graduated tax rate starting with those earning more than $25,000 ($50,000 for married couple filing jointly). For one, a flat tax is something that is manageable across the board and eliminates much of the overhead associated with the tax system (i.e. it would cut government spending) while a revised system would reduce the tax revenue while doing nothing to reduce the burden of associated overhead. Contrary to what many would want you to believe, the flat tax is sustainable and a sensible approach. Plus, I really don’t have a lot of confidence in someone proposing a tax structure when they themselves have spent years paying as little as possible while declaring bankruptcy many times over.

So, in the end, my support of Senator Cruz has been reaffirmed. It has been a long road getting here (he is the third candidate that I have decided to back) but we are now at the point when he is the one candidate that makes sense to me. Additionally, I like his decision to name a running mate in Carly Fiorina who brings a more moderate voice to the ticket as well as a long track record of executive business experience. Now all we can do is wait and see how the remaining primaries play out and what kind of contest we have during the national convention. It will certainly be interesting.

Caucus Results: Thinning the Hurd

Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always entertaining to watch the first votes cast of the year. Of course, having both tickets up for grabs makes for a much more interesting few weeks. As the results are tabulated in Iowa and then New Hampshire the following week, you can see the energy shift from one candidate to another. Sometimes the results are expected as they essentially meet the predicted percentages that the polling reflected days or weeks prior. However, sometimes there are little twists that basically throw the nomination back up in the air.

This year, Iowa gave us the first culling of the heard on both sides with O’Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and, unfortunately, Rand Paul, suspending their campaigns following disappointing support. At the same time, there were a few candidates that got a surprising level of support in the first round with the socialist Sanders nearly edging out Clinton, Cruz winning by a surprising margin over Trump, and Rubio nearly taking second place from the lewd Billionaire. However, when all the votes were tallied and the concessions faded into the campaign records, Rubio seemed to be the most presidential both in the support that he received and the gracious yet substantive speech that he made. 

The Iowa Caucus made for some intriguing foreshadowing for what was to transpire in New Hampshire Primary where the outsider candidates, Trump and Sanders, claimed victory. Not surprisingly, following a poor debate performance over the weekend, Rubio fell a couple of spots. However, in the end, the primary did just what it was designed to do… it narrowed the field as both Christie and Fiorina suspended their campaigns following single digit turnouts.

If you want to know what role these initial dry runs have on the process, this is exactly it. We can’t head into November with a dozen candidates on the ballot. In a matter of two weeks a half dozen campaigns came to an abrupt halt. However, it seems as though the vote is still quite divided, more so than it has been in some time, and this whole process could drag on into the summer when Pennsylvania has a darn good chance of determining who will represent their party in the Presidential election. This is clearly case on the Republican side but is also a possibility on the Democrat side as the FBI may finally catch up to Clinton and the vacuum could draw a few more late entries into the fray… makes you wonder why Clinton’s campaign slogan isn’t “Catch me if you can!”

Anyway, it should continue to be an interesting race throughout the year especially if Trump keeps putting his foot in his mouth and Cruz keeps hiring actresses that will put anything in their mouths. Maybe we get lucky and both happen opening the door for Rubio. Of course, this is only half of the ticket and I am curious to see the candidates that have been bandied about as running mates. Could Rand Paul still be in the mix? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Firearms Friday: Talk To And With The People

The politics we percolating this week as the President delivered the State of the Union on Tuesday and the first Republican Presidential Debate of the year was held last night. There were a lot of words bandied about and a heck of a lot of rhetoric disguised as unity earlier in the week. However, there were some moments and some lines that caught my attention last night when common sense prevailed as the topic of the second amendment was brought to the forefront of the debate (note that the full transcript can be found at The Washington Post).  

Bush: “…I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while…And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off...”

Trump: “If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now. If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct. We have a huge mental health problem in this country… The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on.

Rubio: “Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families… criminals don't buy their guns from a gun show. They don't buy their guns from a collector. And they don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get -- they steal them. They get them on the black market. And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show.”

Christie: “I don't think the founders put the Second Amendment as number two by accident. I don't think they dropped all the amendments into a hat and picked them out of a hat. I think they made the Second Amendment the second amendment because they thought it was just that important.

Cruz (When asked “So what is the answer, Senator Cruz, to stop mass shootings and violent crime, up in 30 cities across the country?”): “The answer is simple. Your prosecute criminals. You target the bad guys… Listen, in any Republican primary, everyone is going to say they support the Second Amendment. Unless you are clinically insane that's what you say in a primary... I've got a proven record fighting to defend the Second Amendment. There's a reason Gun Owners of America has endorsed me in this race. There's a reason the NRA gave me their Carter Knight Freedom Fund award and there's a reason, when Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer came after our right to keep and bear arms that I led the opposition, along with millions of Americans -- we defeated that gun control legislation.”

The other candidates on stage did not contribute to this part of the debate. And while I was satisfied with many of the answers I think I was most impressed with those coming from Senators Cruz and Rubio. When taking into account their track records on the subject, Cruz would be the one that I cast my vote for in the primary. When taking all other issues into account, the divide becomes more pronounced and I, once again, vote for Cruz. With that said, that statement pertains to those on the main broadcast.

Of course I still believe that Rand Paul is the best candidate still in the race (and not just because of his ardent support of the Second Amendment) but there is clearly a lack of support for his campaign which was evident in his absence from the stage. However, his presence was still felt last night as the crowd chanted “We want Rand!” during the broadcast and, throughout the evening, Paul was answering questions coming directly from the voters via Twitter with the hashtag “#RandRally”. So, while the punches were being thrown (and dodged) on stage, a unique dialogue was taking place between a Presidential candidate and the people. What a novel concept.

Will This Debate Start Clearing The Field?

Well, it is safe to say that high school is back in session. Of course, we didn’t need to look at the calendar to figure it out, all you had to do was watch the first 45 minutes of the Republican Presidential Debate last night on CNN. Thanks largely to comments carelessly caste by the bombastic Donald Trump, the first part of the over saturated debate consisted primarily of name calling, quips, and generalized statements rather than substantive discussions which should have been the primary focus throughout the evening. Thankfully, once the back and forth between the candidates took on a serious tone, Trump faded into the background having little input on the points being made.

I continue to be dumbfounded by the polling numbers which have shown significant support for the former Apprentice host and after last night those figures are even more confusing. Fortunately, there were a number of people on the stage that treated the event the way it should be, as an exchange of ideas and challenging the ideas of others. And while there were many that neither helped nor hurt themselves last night, there were a couple of candidates that showed some real promise. Of course, we will have to wait and see if it has any impact on their respective polling numbers.

Honestly, I haven’t paid too much attention to Carly Fiorina during these early stages of the campaign season. However, her performance in the secondary debate last month and on the main stage last night demonstrate that she is a viable choice. I have actually been quite surprised by how quickly she has developed her political persona and impressed by her ability to educate herself on the various topics that will surely shape the political landscape over the next year. The only thing that she really lacks is political experience but that can also be a good thing. We will just have to wait and see how she handles the additional pressure as she gains more of the spotlight.

While not my preferred candidate and having previously been hesitant to back him, I have always been a supporter of Marco Rubio. He delivered succinct well informed responses to the questions put on the table displaying a broad but deep knowledge both of foreign and domestic policy. In addition to the intelligence he has shown, I agree with many of his positions and respect his combination of tact and straightforwardness. He has also been willing to forge his own political path at times but never too far from the main road. These are the things that make this Senator, at least in my mind, the front runner for the presidency regardless of what might be reflected in the polling numbers.

Sadly, Rand Paul’s performance last night didn’t help his campaign. While he got a couple of good lines in he didn’t clearly convey the knowledge, passion, or eloquence that many of us know that he possesses. Barring a tremendous comeback (see Reagan in 1984) there seems to be a marginal chance that he will make it to the stretch run. I still support his campaign but I am also a realist. Besides, maybe he can be more effective as a cabinet member and run again in the future.

The other candidates didn’t really stand out, at least for any good reason, to me with many of their words falling into the category of generality throughout the debate. However, at least there were the performances of note, Fiorina and Rubio, and hard hits, Trump, which will hopefully realign the field in the coming weeks and months. It would also be nice to have a smaller field moving forward as having a crowded field is not helping anyone.  

Debates And Big Brother

Flipping through the channels on Thursday night I couldn’t help but watch the debates, backstabbing, manipulation, empty words, and downright stupidity that some people feel is the right thing to say to get them ahead in the game. It didn’t matter if I was watching Big Brother or the Republican primary debate, the same observation holds true. With that said, the roster of candidates would also make for quite the interesting season of Big Brother. While there are a few good people in each that have the right mindset and perception to make a positive difference, there are also the ones on the media stage that are just there for the few minutes of fame.

I don’t hide the fact that I am an ardent Republican but I can’t help but look at some of the unqualified, inexperienced, and downright liberal politicians on the stage and wonder what they have against this party that makes them want to handicap the process so badly. I had this perspective long before the debates began and I feel proven correct now that this first round has concluded. But what still baffles me is the support that is still on display even after the last question is posed.

Do you really think that Trump would do anything else besides declare bankruptcy as soon as he takes office? Do you really believe Christie is a conservative given his liberal track record? Can you really see a third Bush being anything but a disappointing shell of Republican? Does the brilliance of Carson translate to politics?

It is because of these questions that I can’t support any of those candidates. While not the most effective, the loudest, or even the most eloquent, I still stand with Rand. As I previously wrote, I would like to see a Paul/Rubio ticket and after this past week I feel that is still the right choice. Paul continues to supports the rights of the people, defending against the infringements of the government while Rubio brings the eloquence and personal experience to which many can relate. It is an interesting combination and one that is far more genuine than any of the others on stage.

It will be intriguing to see how this all plays out and how the remaining debates continue to shape the campaigns. I doubt that my opinions will change before the time the election comes around and I am just hoping that the right candidates make it to the final ballot. Of course, anyone is better than what is being offered from the other side of the aisle… even Donald Trump. And since they are already such supports of big brother, it would be interesting to see the liberals locked in that house.