Matt Wuerker for March 06, 2016

Me too.

Isn’t Trump’s character supposed to have a YUGE codpiece?

Is Marco Polio wearing his elevator shoes?

Bingo. What are we going to draw after this ridicules campaign?

I would love to have them change the rules so that the minute they say anything irrelevant to national issues, their mike gets cut off, preferably for the rest of the debate.

Fox continues to destroy the quality of American politics.

If Murrow were here he would be asking Murdoch “Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?”

In the last debate, Megyn Kelly’s looks seemed to be a distraction—especially with the fake eyelashes that stuck way out, the three-toned hair color (brown roots, blonde tint with graying edges that seemed to look blue-ish in the light when she moved her head up and down) and those way-too-dark eyebrows which may indicate that the “carpet may not match the drapes”.-It was hard to take her seriously as a debate moderator, even though at times she had to come across as an elementary school teacher trying to break up the arguments between third-grader Rubio and playground bully Trump or between the smarmy know-it-all Cruz and the playground bully Trump.-And Kasich was right—he did come off as being the only adult in the room and came off very well.-Chris Wallace came off sounding like Cruz (or was it the other way around) and that other guy was barely heard at all and wasn’t memorable.-And what I took away from this debate was that Kasich was the one candidate on that side of the race worth listening to and possibly worth voting for because he does represent most of my views, especially in tolerance and common sense with his explanation that it was better to find another cupcake baker that will cater to your same-gender wedding ceremony rather than sue the old baker for discrimination because they won’t bake for that kind of wedding.-Kasich may have religious beliefs and practices that I may find unacceptable in my own life and belief system, but at the same time, he comes off as tolerant, fair-minded and accepting, which is the expectation that I have in any politician who wants to be my leader.-Now, if only one could treat county clerks in Kentucky the same way as we should treat cupcake bakers…

(He would also be asking Trump, Cruz, and Rubio that…..)

¡Mira, niños: es El Pelo Loco!

It still is the case that very few whites will eat at black establishments—especially when they weren’t felt welcome, there, and that’s not discrimination, it’s prejudice.-And if it is discrimination, it isn’t legally set discrimination, it’s culturally set.-The Civil Rights Act decreed that it was illegal to make laws that allowed discrimination to take place-it did not make what could be called prejudice illegal, because at that point, one may be outlawing what people thought and believed, which could be a “slippery slope” towards getting rid of their First Amendment Rights.-When “Plessy v. Ferguson” was the Law of the Land, it legally established discrimination but also stated that blacks should have their own facilities, but that they had to be up to the same standards as white facilities, which in reality they weren’t, and that’s what made Plessy an unworkable standard, because there really was no such standard as “separate but equal”, especially in a culture that still favors discrimination like ours does even to this day.-As mentioned before, if a small businessperson discriminates against a paying customer because they may not like the fact (or possibility) that their sexual orientation may be different, the businessperson may express their rights and justify why they won’t serve that paying customer, but in doing so may ruin their own business in the process especially as word gets out that this particular businessperson won’t cater to those people the businessperson believes are of a certain sexual orientation.-Does the businessperson’s discrimination call for a boycott of that business?-Yes, it does.-Does it require that the businessperson change their ways of doing business?-Perhaps it does.-Does it require that there be laws enacted to prohibit this discrimination?-The laws are already enacted and they have been expanded to include other classes of people and protect them against discrimination, especially from state-sanctioned discrimination.-Do these laws prohibit people from thinking and expressing their views especially in their own places of business?-Somewhat, but at the same, it’s still illegal to censor any thought, view or belief that one may have that may be prejudicial and perhaps as long as it is not known that this individual may harbor that belief, view or thought, it may be tolerated, but when that individual expresses that belief, view or thought, then perhaps it could be acted upon and against.-But in the case of a small businessperson who lives and dies on the transactions they make, they should also take to heart that if they discriminate, it may be ruinous to their business to discriminate against any paying customer.-And as for those who feel that they were discriminated against by the businessperson, instead of taking them to court and making them change their ways, make it difficult for that businessperson to do business and perhaps their business will fail like it should.-Most cupcake bakers aren’t Woolworth’s and if people boycott a small business, chances are, that small business goes under, plain and simple—if a small businessperson is stupid enough to express their prejudices and discriminate based on those, then they shouldn’t be in business in the first place.

Somehow I don’t think The Donald is going to like being depicted as a Mexican luche libre wrestler with his immigration policy!!