Where do you guys stand on this issue?  Should the UK withdraw from the European Union, or remain in?

Taking "guys" in the gender neutral manner it is oft used, I will weigh in.

Britain, for centuries, was the center of western and classically liberal thought.  From Britain the concept of government by the people and for the people was hatched.  It will be sad if the UK now dispenses with that for its own people and leaves its former colony as the primary beacon of the concept that the people should be able to government themselves through elected officials.

I didn't know how the EU was set up before this debate.  I always thought it was some trade thing, but obviously, the EU has grown to have much more control than would a free trade zone.  When I looked at the structure of the EU, it is clearly run by an oligarchy of bureaucrats and technocrats who own no allegiance to the citizenry.  Even assuming that a United States of Europe was a desirable or practical objective, the EU structure of governance would have to change unless Europe wants to create by consent, what neither Hitler nor Napoleon could create by force -- an autocratic ruler of all of Europe.

I read the words and I admit I'm not sure what your point was.

Are you trying to say that you believe the government is more efficient than private companies?

I'm trying to say that at this point, we are screwed either way. Nobody is looking after the money and as long as we continue with no real enforceable oversight, it doesn't matter if the government provides the service, or a contractor provides the service, we are going to get over charged and ripped off.

In the case of the military, IMO, the use of contractors is out of control and a dangerous situation. Contractors could be used for logistics, but using them for combat is really, really stupid IMO.

Molson Golden ale, circa 1970s,  best beer ever, by the mid 80s they wrecked it.

Gimp, if his statements about wanting to "loosen up" the libel laws don't give you pause for concern, then I don't know what to say.  It's his mindset that concerns me.  A mindset that he "would" do something that imperils the freedom of the press, among other things.  What kind of conservative or Constitutionalist would say that?

Again, I don't call him a conservative or constitutionalist yet you keep saying that, then saying you didn't say that, when I call you on it. 

Is he more conservative than ANYONE on the Democrat side, hell yes he is.  Is he more conservative than Cruz?  No.  I never said it, I don't think he is.  And I don't fucking care.

I actually think our press does get away with far too much bullshit, in particular when writing about political figures anywhere to the right of Che Gueverra, it is one of the primary complaints we on the right have had for decades. 

Liberal bias has been a fact in our media since Walter fracking Conkrite, perhaps longer, but it has reached a fever pitch over the past couple decades, the pinnacle (or depths) being the treatment of George W. Bush by the entire media.  And with opinion masquerading as news with no clean break it gets stickier and stickier.

Trump didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't nice', he didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't flattering', he didn't say 'don't say or print things he doesn't like', he said don't say or print things that are wrong, that are not true - big fucking difference and if you don't or won't see or understand that then there really is nothing else to say on this topic. 

Look, just admit it - you are unwilling to give the guy a fair shake about anything.  He isn't a big C Conservative, didn't work; he is too unpolished, didn't work; he has no details, didn't work; he is Hitler, or Mussolini, didn't work; he is an authoritarian, didn't work; he beats up women reporters, didn't work; ummm, he has thin skin and is against the 1st Amendment, no.  Just keep throwing shit at the wall to see if anything will stick.

I think the Brits have libel and defamation far more correctly defined than we do, it clearly does not keep the UK press from criticizing their power elite but it does keep things more fact based and better researched.

Demanding responsibility from the media with respect to political reporting in general and in terms of libel in particular is a start to regaining some semblance of an even discourse in my opinion.  It is along the same lines as loser-pays and tort reform, needed changes that are foundational to bringing personal responsibility back to a profession that has totally lost its compass - see Gawker verdict to Hulk Hogan.

I knew there was no purpose to reply to Jeff's post, all it begets is more of the same shit.  I actually almost deleted this.  You guys can't be even be remotely fair to the guy, which is fine.  You're not changing any minds and clearly neither am I, so be it.

'Gimp

That post is pure insanity, jumping the shark doesn't even begin to come close.

Supposed expert after supposed expert make these ridiculous assertions and we are just supposed to accept it, regardless of how outlandish.

If anything, this madness has helped to resort and refocus my reading list as I toss one formerly trusted analyst (or whole outlets) after another onto the ash heap of mistaken history given their obsession.

My prediction, Trump over Clinton, map will look roughly like 2000 with minor trades in the rust belt.

'Gimp

A-10.

I've heard that going on 8 months now.  Trust me.  I've built this wonderful business.  I own properties all over the place.  I will cut the best deal.  No once can do deals like I do deals, let me tell you something. 

The lack of specificity on everything is just stunning to me. I just don't buy into the cult of personality.

Click on any of the Read More hyperlinks below:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

These debates are a joke if you are expecting anything of real substance to come out of them.  I believe Trump understands what the value of the debates is, quick soundbites to get people interested enough to do their own research.  The man is a performer who knows how to create, hold and grow and influence an audience. 

The level of detail present in the debates is a deliberate decision on his part IMO, not a lack of intelligence, preparation or definition - he is choosing not to go as deep as the other guys and using the debates to meet his desired outcome instead of the desired establishment or media outcome.

Just because it does not meet your (or my) expectation of what should happen in a debate does not mean it is not working as he intends it.  The debates themselves have been a mockery of the process for several cycles now (but have become unwatchable this cycle and last), they ceased to be of value for evaluating the candidates many year ago IMO.

Do you guys think he makes multi-million dollar deals on the sheer force of his personality?  Do you think he is some megalomaniac who can't address difference of opinion and conflicting goals or work within the confines of the law and contracts?

Trump is a very shrewd, intelligent and well prepared professional who has been successful across a number of different industries for several decades- it makes no sense to assume he would approach this campaign or a potential Presidency with any less.  And unlike any candidate the Republicans have had since Reagan he is able to connect to the American people at will, especially as compared to not just the last couple candidates (McCain and Romney), but even more so than his remaining competition in the primaries.

We seem to forget the hostility that Reagan faced from the media and the Democrats as well as from the Party in '76 leading up to his nomination and win in '80.  Many of the criticisms being leveled at Trump by folks on both sides now echo those same tropes rolled out against a man who ultimately became one of the best Presidents in the history of the United States.  Do I think Trump is Reagan, no I don't.  Do I think Trump would be considered among the best ever?  Can't say, we live in an even more fractured and balkanized culture than ever, all the old rules seem to no longer apply.

I do believe he is serious.  I know he has specifics.  And I believe he can win the nomination and the general election.  I also firmly believe that the Republican Party needs to undergo a foundational reformation and like him or not Trump has been a real catalyst for that, the Establishment having survived/outlasted/co-opted the Tea Party insurgency.  I am not sure that the change I want to see will result but he has illuminated the real and pronounced schism between the Establishment and the people in a way that nobody has, again, since Reagan.

I no longer provide monetary or volunteer support for the Republican party having been shit on one too many times, and I won't change that, but as of now I will say I am Trump supporter. 

I have substantive policy differences with several of his stated detailed positions, and I find his approach to certain press events to be pedantic/repetitive, but in the big picture I find him to be the least objectionable alternative and I believe he is the only person being considered who has the ability to connect to the people going around the kingmakers and mainstream media and that is what is needed to enact any real change for our nation.

'Gimp

o-blow-me and his band of merry morons. The chief racists, slanted liars, egomaniacs, and most prolific criminal enterprise in the United States.