Is Boehner to be believed?

[mojo84]

All three of the remaining GOP candidates have abandoned that pledge.

Well, no one would expect any of the three to honor the pledge - so much for party loyalty.

In "Meet The Press" yesterday Cruz was asked many times as to whether or not he would support the Republican nominee if it were Trump but he would not give a direct answer. In case you missed it, see http://pages.suddenlink.net/daleb/index.htm

What a cast of characters we have running in both parties. Still, I am sure the Constitution and the Republic will survive.

Some people put principle above party. When the party no longer supports my principles, I no longer support the party. Supporting the party for the party's sake is not what I'm willing to do when the party no longer represents my principles. The republican party has become too similar to the progressive democrat party.

[JALLEN]

Former House Speaker John Boehner is unloading on Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, calling him "Lucifer in the flesh."

"I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a gun in my life," Boehner tells students at Stanford University according to The Stanford Daily.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

[Bitter Clinger]

Former House Speaker John Boehner is unloading on Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, calling him "Lucifer in the flesh."

"I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a gun in my life," Boehner tells students at Stanford University according to The Stanford Daily.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

THE MAN IN THE ARENA by Teddy Roosevelt
Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic" delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

[MechAg94]

IMO, Trump is not an enemy of gun rights. He isn't pro-gun, but I won't call him anti-gun. That is a big step above Clinton who is rabidly anti-gun. If I cannot make up my mind on anything else, I will at least vote for the better candidate with regard to gun rights. I keep hoping I can vote for Cruz, but I will at least vote against Hilary (sad that I feel I have to). I also want to make sure I vote in all the other down ballot races.

[mojo84]

At one time several months ago, I was excited and optimistic that we would have a nominee in the general election "for" which we could vote. Instead, it seems we are going to end up having to vote against the worst of the two. Same as in the previous few elections.

I am not sure what I will do at this point. I realize not voting for the republican nominee will be helping the democrat. I also believe voting for the one that appears will be the republican nominee will not be much better for the country than the democrat. Just being angry does not make for a good president.

Going from one dictatorial narcissistic president to another will not result in our country being restored. Unfortunately, there are serious issues facing our country in addition to gun rights. It is quite the dilemma.

[stroo]

Trump isn't "anti-gun" but the judges he nominates will be just as bad on gun issues as those that Hillary nominates - they may even be the same judges. Since that is the primary influence a President has on 2nd Amendment issues, I see little real difference between them on guns. And that is giving Trump the benefit of the doubt when he says that he supports the 2nd Amendment, which I personally doubt give his past record of supporting anti-gun politicians and his anti-gun statements before this campaign.

While the Republicans have caved to Obama on a bunch of issues, one issue they didn't cave on is the 2nd Amendment! If for no other reason, we should vote for Republicans down ballot.

[JALLEN]

At one time several months ago, I was excited and optimistic that we would have a nominee in the general election "for" which we could vote. Instead, it seems we are going to end up having to vote against the worst of the two. Same as in the previous few elections.

I am not sure what I will do at this point. I realize not voting for the republican nominee will be helping the democrat. I also believe voting for the one that appears will be the republican nominee will not be much better for the country than the democrat. Just being angry does not make for a good president.

Going from one dictatorial narcissistic president to another will not result in our country being restored. Unfortunately, there are serious issues facing our country in addition to gun rights. It is quite the dilemma.

It used to be so much simpler. You just voted for whoever the machine told you to vote for, or paid you to vote for, or got you your job, or everyone in your peer group voted for. None of this high brow moralizing, handwringing over seeming imponderables, indecision, trying to figure "what is best for the country", "the best man for the job", etc.

Of the only 44 men elected so far, I doubt whether any were "the best man for the job" out of the entire adult male population. Some of them seemed to have grown into the job, or risen to the occasion. I also doubt that those who voted for the winner imagined that he was a perfect candidate. I dare say that quite a few believed they were voting for the least worst candidate, of those who didn't just pull the lever like they were told, or always had, without a thought,

[John Galt]

Boehner is a pompous ass.

[mojo84]

At one time several months ago, I was excited and optimistic that we would have a nominee in the general election "for" which we could vote. Instead, it seems we are going to end up having to vote against the worst of the two. Same as in the previous few elections.

I am not sure what I will do at this point. I realize not voting for the republican nominee will be helping the democrat. I also believe voting for the one that appears will be the republican nominee will not be much better for the country than the democrat. Just being angry does not make for a good president.

Going from one dictatorial narcissistic president to another will not result in our country being restored. Unfortunately, there are serious issues facing our country in addition to gun rights. It is quite the dilemma.

It used to be so much simpler. You just voted for whoever the machine told you to vote for, or paid you to vote for, or got you your job, or everyone in your peer group voted for. None of this high brow moralizing, handwringing over seeming imponderables, indecision, trying to figure "what is best for the country", "the best man for the job", etc.

Of the only 44 men elected so far, I doubt whether any were "the best man for the job" out of the entire adult male population. Some of them seemed to have grown into the job, or risen to the occasion. I also doubt that those who voted for the winner imagined that he was a perfect candidate. I dare say that quite a few believed they were voting for the least worst candidate, of those who didn't just pull the lever like they were told, or always had, without a thought,

I didn't say anything about the best of all males. I was just hoping to get to vote "for" someone this go around. I realize no one is perfect but there are and have been good options. I don't believe we are going to have that luxury this year either.