News is it was a pellet/air gun designed to look like a Beretta.

Makes zero difference in the story as far as the response went. If you spend even a second trying to figure out if a gun is real or not, you may get to see what comes out of it to settle the uncertainty.

But it does offer insight into the mind/motives of the subject.

I have posted several articles that were either pro-Trump or discussed the specifics of why he is seeing the support he is seeing.  Zero discussion, which is interesting to me.  But the anti-Trump stuff go on and on and on.

Should I have said 'new thread'?  I thought is was obvious.

I am trying to shift this to a positive discussion instead of the seemingly endless harping on about whatever the LeftMedia complex and RINO Establishment has decided we are supposed to be offended about Trump today.

Clarifying, this is a challenge for Pro-Kasich or Pro-Cruz folks to seek out and post positive things to discuss about their guy like I have been trying to do.

Even in this reply though, still taking a dig at Trump - I want to see if we can elevate the conversation from 'anti' to 'pro' or at least see some discussion about the other candidates.

'Gimp

My point in my snarky response is that I think  you are ignoring what I and others have already said about Cruz, and seem to be implying that us Cruz supporters don't have valid reasons to support our candidate. That was my take on it at least.

When I do point out things such as the general election chances of Cruz over Trump, you and lucifer belittle them and dismiss them. Same when I post some National Review article supporting Cruz; lucifer calls it trash GOP establishment journalism. So what's the point? 

My support for my candidate is based upon my beliefs of him as a Constitutional Conservative, which is principles-based and which doesn't lend itself to flavor-of-the-day website articles, especially in an environment where one celebrity candidate is sucking the oxygen out of the room. 

Cruz must be dead-man-walking on Fox, as he's rarely on compared to wall-to-wall Trump nightly interviews.  That's fine. Good for Trump.  But that leads to less coverage of Cruz.

Wow. Just wow... If charities were effective at lifting people out of poverty, there wouldn't have ever been a need for government programs in the past or now. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to stopping charity from getting people out of poverty right now! Charities are ineffective and while they are great to have and do their best, the results show they are not enough.

wow just wow right back at you.

If the Government was effective at charity, then the billions and billions and billions pissed away would have had some impact (other than trying to buy votes for the democrat pukes)

You might recall my hypothesis that when Trump met with Bill Clinton in private, the discussion may have included ways Trump could help Hillary get elected. Not that farfetched, since Trump had donated to Hillary in the past.

There's been nothing in the dog and pony show to date that falsifies that hypothesis, and many actions that seem to support it.

Are we talking about Obama here? 

What does it say about Trump that you feel the descriptions are interchangeable? 

How about answering the question instead of just a small piece (the only piece that agrees with you, BTW)

December 1979/January 1980

Reagan- 33%        Carter-62%

February/March 1980

Reagan- 33%        Carter-58%

April/May 1980

Reagan- 32%        Carter-40%

June/July 1980

Reagan- 37%        Carter-32%

August/September 1980

Reagan- 45%        Carter-39%

October/November 1980

Reagan- 47%        Carter-44%

ACTUAL RESULTS  Reagan- 51%        Carter-41%

 Move ahead to 1988:

 In the early months George HW Bush was trailing Michael Dukakis in April through August by as much as 5 to 16 points behind.  It was only in September that GHW Bush took the polling lead to eventually win.

1992:

 Clinton was trailing Bush by 19 points in March, 15 points in April and 6 to 10 points in May. In June he was still behind Bush by as much as 10 points.  It wasn't until July that Clinton took the lead and eventually won.

2000:

 George W Bush and Al Gore actually traded spots back and forth with various polls showing GWB ahead and Al Gore ahead. In the October and November polls GWB enjoyed a lead of 6 to 10 points over Gore in the majority of polls. The polls just before the election showed GWB at 14 points over Al Gore, and the Actual Election result was a 48%/48% split.

 So go ahead and hang your hat on the polls right now, March 2016.  Historical data has proven that poll wrong time and time again at this time frame.

 Spin away.

Well, except for 2012, when they were SPOT on.

Since the country is only half way through the primaries and the general is still 8 months away, gazing into a crystal ball and playing "who will win what state" in the electoral college amounts to mental masturbation at this point.

 Many factors are in play right now that will affect the electoral map.  Voter turnout being primary.  So far we are seeing very weak turnout for democrats and very robust turnout for republicans.  And as of today, neither party has a nominee at this point.  But yet the media in their undying effort to swing the vote is putting up electoral maps based upon witchcraft in order to persuade simple minded voters such as yourself who can and cannot win in the general, and you are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

 Please make sure to put up the electoral data your barber has come up with as yet more evidence of who the winner will be in November.

I know you think Trump can make a yuuuge deal and convince the electorate to all vote for him, because, you know, he makes beautiful deals, but someday you're going to have to learn that the tooth fairy isn't real, the Easter Bunny doesn't really bring candy, and as much as he thinks he can, Trump can't force people to do what they don't want to do.

I'm sorry if I shattered your image of any of those fables. Now go get a juice box, you'll feel better.