Pennsylvania – How to Vote for Donald Trump


 The total number of delegates up for grabs in Pennsylvania amounts to a grand total of 71.  And even though Trump is crushing Cruz in the polls, there’s a catch, and the catch makes the polls matter a whole lot less.  The majority of the delegates — the 54 delegates allocated to the various congressional districts are not bound to any candidate at all. Ever. They are not even bound on the first vote at the convention, which means Cruz will be pulling out all the stops to wheel and deal his way into the pocket of each and every one of them, just as he has done before. 

So when Pennsylvanian voters head to the polls on the 26th, they won’t be given a simple standard ballot but a cumbersome list of delegate names.

The names will not say whom they are supporting. The ballot will look like this:

 Congressional District 4
“Choose 3 Delegates”
[_] John Smith

[_] Sally Poe

[_] Joe Shmoe

[_] Brett Mac

[_] Jerry Jorge

[_] Sal Mangie

“Choose 3 Delegates”

Now, let’s say Cruz bought out three of the names on the roster here–the question is which three are Cruzbots and which three are Trump-friendly. Cruz is relying on low info voters to not know! So we need to be prepared.

Source, Brett MacDonald: Ted Cruz Saved His DIRTIEST Trick Yet For Pennsylvania Primary, Here’s How To STOP Him…

Now, here is everything you need to know to navigate Pennsylvania’s “unique” delegate system and ensure that your vote for Donald Trump counts in “3 Easy Steps”

  1. FIND YOUR DISTRICT ON MAP (CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE) or SEARCH

    PennDelegate

  2. FIND YOUR TRUMP DELEGATES  (List below) If there are none shown in your district that means none are committed to vote for Trump currently. Unless you see an update here or the official Trump website, JUST vote for Trump, no delegates. You can also call Trump Pennsylvania HQ> 570-266-2477

  3. VOTE FOR TRUMP AND YOUR DELEGATES ON APRIL 26th

NOTE: A vote for any other delegate cancels out a vote for Trump!

  • 1) Find a polling location.
  • 2) You can vote for Trump as long as you are registered to vote as a Republican.
  • 3) Voter ID not required unless you are voting for the first time.
  • 4) VOTE DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!
Below is a list of Donald Trump supporting Delegates by District that are the recommended candidates to vote for in your district to best support Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention.  If we are not confident of Trump support on all ballots then there will be a note indicating otherwise.  Our goal will be to identify and confirm no more than 3 delegates for each district to ensure the delegate votes are not split to ensure a strong base of delegate support at the convention.  Remember that you can vote for 0 to 3 candidates at both delegate and alternate delegate.  You do NOT need to select 3 if you are unsure of where they stand.

Print This Card

voter_info_pa_rev2

TRUMP PA OFFICE

715 North State Street
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
570-266-2477
jpughe@donaldtrump.com

For the latest Trump news join our Facebook Group:

Donald Trump – Superstar!

TRUMPsuperstarBAnner

Source: Donsld J Trump Website

Those Pesky Bankruptcies That Won’t Go Away – Let’s Clear The Air Once And For All


To start with, let’s lay out the bottom line facts. Trump has created 515 businesses and only 11 of them failed. that’s a 98.64% success rate. Let’s see YOU match that!

It’s time to get to the bottom of this “bankruptcy” issue.  “How can a person who has filed bankruptcy four times expect to be elected President of the United States?” “How is Donald Trump able to file for bankruptcy so many times?”

The answer is… “He didn’t.” Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy. His corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times.

All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts. Again, so you will understand, he has never filed for personal bankruptcy, an important distinction when considering his ability to emerge relatively unscathed, at least financially.

But to those uninitiated in bankruptcy laws, four instances of corporate bankruptcy in a row can seem staggering. “To the ordinary person in the street, it may seem surprising, but certainly not to me,” said Reed Smith partner Michael Venditto, who has represented clients in high profile Chapter 11 cases, including bankrupt airline TWA. “Chapter 11 is how you reshape and restructure a company that has problems. It doesn’t indicate anything nefarious or even bad management.”

By filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the corporation is allowed to continue running while restructuring and reducing its debt. By allowing the business to continue, employees still have their jobs and the business is still making money. Corporate debts still need to be repaid but they may be reduced. The corporation must develop a repayment plan and corporate budget. All must be approved by the creditors and by the bankruptcy court.
The purpose is to “save” the business, as opposed to other forms of bankruptcy which would liquidate the company, said Michael Venditto, a partner at the ReedSmith law firm who has extensive experience with Chapter 11.
A sharp contrast of corporate bankruptcies is found in the airline industry. If you’re foolish enough to bash Trump for keeping the businesses open through reorganization bankruptcy, perhaps you’re just confused.
Aloha Airlines filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2008, ceasing operations, leaving passengers stranded and many ‘out in the cold’ with tickets they had already purchased? Chapter 7 is what happens when the business is liquidated and closed, most unsecured debts don’t get paid and the secured-lenders get pennies on the dollar, if anything.
Maybe you thought Trump did that?

By contrast, Delta, United and American Airlines have all filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in the past 15 years. All three are now impressively profitable and employee a total of 246,000 people. So if you think we should judge any executive who took those three airlines through rough market turmoil and reorganization, which ultimately saved them from liquidation (chapter 7) bankruptcy, then you are foolish.

Trump doesn’t deny that four of his hundreds of businesses have filed for bankruptcy. He argues, however, that filing for bankruptcy is a common business decision, and he was smart to make the moves when he did.

 

“Out of hundreds of deals — hundreds — on four occasions, I’ve taken advantage of the laws of this country, like other people,” he said. “The difference is, when somebody else uses those laws, nobody writes about it. When I use it, it’s like, ‘Oh, Trump, Trump, Trump.’ The fact is, I built a net worth of more than $10 billion. I have a great, great company. I employ thousands of people. And I’m very proud of the job I did.”

Because this dead horse keeps getting beaten, let’s look at Trump’s four bankruptcies. And the opinions of some finance experts, who say Trump is correct that Chapter 11 reorganization is not always the result of bad business decisions.

 

Bankruptcy 1: The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991

Trump’s first corporate bankruptcy, for the Trump Taj Mahal, was the one that stung the most. It was also the only time at which his personal finances were at stake.

Trump first got his hands on the property in 1988 as part of a deal involving media mogul Merv Griffin. Trump ceded his controlling interest of Atlantic City hotel-casino company Resorts International Inc. to Griffin in exchange for ownership of the Taj Mahal. The casino opened in 1990 to enormous fanfare, including an appearance by pop star Michael Jackson, who Trump called his friend and a “tremendous talent.”

He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1990. By 1991, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities, so the business decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times. As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.

The Times  reported that Trump faced about $900 million in personal liabilities, which he reduced to about $550 million by the end of the year. The ordeal led to the sale of his Trump Princess Yacht and Trump Shuttle airline.

It provided an important lesson as well. Ted Connolly, a Boston Bankruptcy attorney who studied Trump for his book The Road Out of Debt: Bankruptcy and Other Solutions to Your Financial Problems, told TheStreet in an August interview that the first bankruptcy was a learning experience for Trump.

“The first business bankruptcy, he had a lot of personal liabilities, guarantees on the business debt, which would have wiped him out,” Connolly said. “What he did was leverage the amount of business debt to negotiate away his personal liability. And from that, he learned not to put his personal wealth at risk anymore. And so in the next three, he didn’t have any personal guarantees.”

Through the ordeal was bruising for Trump, one person involved in the case said his brand and persona helped him to retain more equity than he might have otherwise. And in true Trump fashion, he denied being too concerned about the issue anyway.

“You’ll never see me sitting in the corner sucking my thumb,” Trump told BusinessWeek at the time. “The name Trump will be hotter than ever.”

 

Bankruptcy 2: Trump Plaza Hotel, 1992

Trump seems to have had an inkling from the get-go that the Plaza deal may not have been the best he ever made .

“I haven’t purchased a building, I have purchased a masterpiece — the Mona Lisa,” he wrote in a 1988 essay in New York magazine. “For the first time in my life, I have knowingly made a deal which was not economic — for I can never justify the price I paid, no matter how successful The Plaza becomes.”

Trump acquired the Plaza Hotel in New York for $390 million in 1988. By November, 1992, the hotel had accumulated $550 million in debt. As a result of the bankruptcy, in exchange for easier terms on which to pay off the debts, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News.

A month later, federal bankruptcy judge Prudence Abraham approved a plan for Trump to reorganize more than $550 million in debt.

As part of the restructuring and to receive easier payment terms, he gave a 49% stake in the property to Citibank (CGet Report) and five other lenders. He kept his post as chief executive — without pay — and no longer had a role in the day-to-day operations of the luxury hotel.

 

Bankruptcy 3: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004

Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004 when his casinos — including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City and a riverboat casino in Indiana — had accrued an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to the Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he was still the company’s largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations.

The third bankruptcy didn’t appear to bruise Trump’s ego. At the end of the year, he said in an interview that the Trump brand was bigger than Pepsi (PEPGet Report) andCoca-Cola (KOGet Report) and emphasized that Atlantic City was just a drop in the bucket for him. “The casinos represent less than 1% of my net worth, OK?” he said. “I’m doing something that, frankly, if someone else did it, it wouldn’t even be a story.”

 

Bankruptcy 4: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009

Trump Entertainment Resorts — formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts — was hit hard by the 2008 economic recession and missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. After debating with the company’s board of directors, Trump resigned as the company’s chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump’s name in licensing.

So four Trump companies filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. Is that as big a deal as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz said?

Risky business

While it would be better to avoid a situation where Chapter 11 reorganization is necessary, filing for bankruptcy can be a “sound business decision” when the company is facing serious financial problems, Venditto said. It’s better than the business shutting down completely.

“However, the source of the financial problems varies from case to case,” he said. “Sometimes it is the result of circumstances beyond the control of the business. Sometime it caused by poor judgment. More frequently, it is a combination.”

Trump’s four bankruptcies all happened within the past 25 years. That’s a lot, said Stephen Lubben, a leading expert in corporate finance and professor at Seton Hall School of Law. But to be fair, the gaming industry has been struggling the past few years, he added, and three out of four of Trump’s bankruptcies were tied to casinos.

It’s not fair to put all the blame on Trump for the four bankruptcies because he’s acting as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy, said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University.

He added that people typically wouldn’t personally blame former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or investor Warren Buffett for individual failures within their investment companies, Bain Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, respectively.

“The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he’s not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space,” Levitan said. “These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn’t color our view of him.”

“Filing bankruptcy” is taking advantage of  existing laws.

It would be ludicrous not to utilize a law that is available to you, either as a business or as an individual.

For example, many states have laws that allow for a “cooling off” period after purchasing something, like a vehicle.  You are allowed to cancel the contract within a certain number of hours after the sale (usually 48-72 hours).

If you changed your mind about a vehicle purchase, would you not use the law that allows you to return the vehicle without penalty?

Of course you would.

And if you did it, you wouldn’t describe yourself as a bad person or bad with business.

So there’s your answer…

Expect the liberals to continue this lie despite the facts.

 

Sources: The Moran Law Group, MJM Bankruptcy Law Group, et al.

For the latest Trump news join our Facebook Group:

Donald Trump – Superstar!

TRUMPsuperstarBAnner

BREAKING: RNC Reince Priebus Alleges Wisconsin Voter Fraud! {VIDEO}


The chairman of the Republican National Committee claimed Tuesday that voter fraud in Wisconsin is far more pervasive than official reports have shown.

“I’m always concerned about voter fraud, you know, being from Kenosha, and quite frankly having lived through seeing some of it happen,” Reince Priebus said. “Certainly in Milwaukee we have seen some of it, and I think it’s been documented. Any notion that’s not the case, it certainly is in Wisconsin. I’m always concerned about it, which is why I think we need to do a point or two better than where we think we need to be, to overcome it.”

It’s not the first time Priebus has used strong language on the issue; late last year, he said on national television that Wisconsin was “riddled” with voter fraud.

At a Manitowoc campaign stop later Wednesday, Gov. Scott Walker said, “I don’t have any reason to agree or disagree” with Priebus’ comments.

“We have seen problems in the past in Wisconsin,” Walker said. “I don’t know what percentage to predict on that. I hope it’s none. I hope there is none. But certainly we’re cautious, and we want to make sure there are enough volunteers out there.”

SURPRISE!  PRIEBUS MADE THESE STATEMENTS ON MAY 30TH, 2012

EVERYONE SHARE THIS AND THROW IT IN HIS FACE!

Source: RNC chairman Priebus alleges rampant vote fraud

Priebus opinion article: A Priebus column published in June 2011 ALSO cited voter fraud -related allegations in several states.

Does the Second Amendment Protect Laser Guns?


Since its inscription, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has proven problematic. Weapons are not what they were in the 18th century and neither are people — at least in the lifestyle sense. Thankfully, we have an entire branch of government dedicated to resolving intractable questions into incomprehensible answers. The court has routinely ruled that the Second Amendment does not grant an absolute right to weapon ownership, but that it does grant Americans the right to — within statutes determined by states — own guns. But what about laser guns?

If that sounds like a flippant question, it isn’t. Last month, engineers from Lockheed Martin shot a hole in a Ford F-150 from a mile away. They were working on hardware to compete in the nascent laser weapons market against other offerings from Northrop Grumman. These weapons are certainly traditional in their point-and-shoot forms, but things are never simple when it comes to what are arguably the 27 most controversial words in American law.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s not exactly a well-crafted sentence by modern standards, and so not exactly a perspicuous principle. It’s not clear whether it’s intended to grant members of a militia the right to keep and bear arms, or, instead, to grant all U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no mention of lasers. Let’s see if the justices can clear it up.

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided a case that directly informs our current inquiry. District of Columbia v. Heller sought to settle whether a D.C. “prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home” was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled, with five votes against four, that the prohibition was unconstitutional. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority’s opinion to explain the decision, and now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens penned the dissent.

The majority opinion broke down the amendment into a prefatory (introductory) clause and an operative clause. The operative clause states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” while the prefatory clause introduces and accounts for that dictum. In short, then, the majority opinion argued that “the people” was intended to mean all U.S. citizens, just as elsewhere in the Constitution “the people” represented all U.S. citizens.

The dissent disagreed, arguing that this so-called prefatory clause limits who “the people” of the operative clause encompasses. In other words, “the people,” insofar as they are connected to the well regulated militia, may “keep and bear arms.”

So far, so simple. Now let’s talk about arms.

Scalia’s written opinion argued that our interpretation of what constitutes “arms” can be no different than what the Founding Fathers intended. “The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today,” Scalia wrote. “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.” No matter that the weapons of today do not resemble the weapons of yore: Scalia argued that we cannot pick and choose which constitutional rights remain applicable in modern times and which do not.

“We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications… and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

No less, Scalia agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, a 1939 case that ruled sawed-off shotguns — being, as they are, inessential to the maintenance of a well regulated militia — were not protected by the Second Amendment.

“Miller said… that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Sawed-off shotguns were designated as Title II weapons — along with machine guns and crazy explosives — under 1968’s Gun Control Act, which made them strictly regulated. People who wanted to own these highly destructive weapons still could own them, but had to register them with the federal government, pay a tax, and be approved.

Later, he goes on:

“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

Not looking good for laser guns. Though laser guns are militarily effective, and would be extraordinarily “useful against modern-day bombers and tanks” — cf. Air Force fighter jets equipped with laser guns to burn through targets — they’d definitely fall into the “M-16 rifles and the like” category. They’re most certainly “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and, as such — unlike handguns — could still be prohibited.

In addition, laser guns would likely be classified as Title II weapons after some legal tinkering. The relevant U.S Code definition, 26 U.S.C §5845, states that a shot can be “discharged through the energy of an explosive” within “any other weapon” not subjected to additional restriction. Lasers are not discharged from explosions — not as such.

Title II weapons, even in originalists’ eyes and despite their military applications, can be broadly controlled and outright restricted. The Second Amendment may federally uphold your right to arm yourself, but you still can’t own a sawed-off shotgun and, unless things go south in a hurry, you’ll probably never own a laser gun.

Laser cats, however, will be fine.

Source: Inverse

1237 For Cruz Mathematically Impossible, But Trump Needs Big Win In NY To Stop Brokered Convention


Although Texas Senator Ted Cruz won a resounding victory in last night’s Wisconsin Primary, author Joe Hoft says that the Texas Senator will be knocked out of the primary by April 26.

Even with the addition of delegates from WI, it’s still mathematically impossible for Cruz to secure the the nomination before a brokered RNC convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

There are only 769 delegates remaining, and the next contest is on Trump’s home turf: New York. New York, with a large population has 95 delegates, which is winner-take-all if one candidate gets 50% plus 1 vote.

If Trump wins New York, he will lead with 853 delegates, and Cruz will not be able to make it to 1,237.

Why is that? Because Cruz would NEED 732 delegates, and there will only be 674 obtainable before the convention!

That’s why New York is far more important than Wisconsin, which is why so much focus will now shift toward New York.
From The Gateway Pundit:

Based on current delegate counts and poll numbers Ted Cruz will be mathematically unable to reach the delegate count required for him to win the Republican Presidential nomination.

Donald Trump still leads Cruz by over 200 delegates.

cruz delegates trump

Even after Wisconsin Ted Cruz will not have enough delegates to win the election and will be out of the race by April 26th.

By the end April it will be clear that Ted Cruz has no chance of reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Actually, in only 3 weeks, on April 26th, it will be clear that Ted Cruz cannot win.

This is in part because New York is leaning heavily towards Trump who leads according to polls listed at Real Clear Politics by as much as 36%. New York has a Republican primary where the delegates are split proportionally. So even if Cruz wins a third of the delegates, it won’t be enough. This is because come April 26th, there are five Republican Presidential primaries and three of these are winner take all (WTA). All three of these states are in the East where polls show Trump leading (Maryland and Pennsylvania) or there is no polling available with the state highly likely leaning towards Trump (Delaware).

Even if Cruz wins a third of the delegates in Rhode Island or Connecticut or any of these states, it will not be enough to keep him mathematically in the race.

Based on current numbers, come April 26th, Cruz will need 640 delegates to win the election but only 621 will be available.

Then Cruz’s only chance at the end of April to win the election is the highly unlikely scenario where Trump doesn’t gain enough delegates to win the nomination outright and that the Republican elites in a contested convention support Cruz.

Even if there were a contested convention, it is unlikely that the elites would offer the Presidency to Cruz over some other establishment candidate. The only other scenario is that Cruz hangs on and takes the candidate delegates from Kasich and Rubio for example, and hopes this is enough to overtake Trump. This, too, is a far out strategy.

** Cruz may have a chance in picking up the RNC superdelegates but if these GOP party elites all vote for Cruz there will be a revolt to break up the party.

If Cruz hangs on and doesn’t concede to Trump at the end of April, like Kasich is currently doing, Cruz comes across as unrealistic, out of touch and a sore loser.

After the Wisconsin call, Trump’s campaign issued a statement via Hope Hicks, his communications manager, shortly before 10 p.m. Central time. Trump, who did not congratulate Cruz, believes he’s been maligned.

“Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him,” the statement read. “Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet — he’s a Trojan horse being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump.”

More than $2 million was spent on ads trouncing Trump by various groups, according to NBC, with the Cruz campaign and Cruz backers ponying up $1.4 million. Trump spent less than one-fourth that total on his ads.

CNN’s exit polling shows that 53 percent of GOP primary voters say they are angry with the government and 32 percent expressed dissatisfaction with the government. And while that may seem high, it’s actually lower compared to earlier primary states.

And that may be why Trump’s message did not resonate here as much as it has in other states.

Tuesday night’s results signal a shift in the campaign that makes it possible that no candidate will arrive at the GOP convention in Cleveland with the necessary delegates to secure the nomination. Some GOP insiders even believe a scenario could play out in a floor fight that sees U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin emerging as the Republican nominee.

How Cruz fares in New York, Indiana, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico down the line will determine how much momentum he brings into the convention.

A full Trump turnout could secure things for Trump, who has an overwhelming lead there, but it expected that as voter participation has been going that Cruz will get a good share of the delegates.

The next big test in stopping Trump will be New York, the state he calls home. A Monmouth University poll of New York Republicans released on Monday showed Trump with 52 percent of the state’s support, a huge lead over Kasich at 25 percent, and Cruz at 17 percent ahead of the state’s April 19 primary.

Trump needs a bigger win there.

Trump held a rally in Bethpage, New York, on Wednesday evening where he referred only obliquely to his Wisconsin loss, saying it “takes guts” to run for president and criticizing Cruz for drawing small crowds in the state.

The Trump campaign also announced members of its New York-based team, including party leaders in each of the state’s 27 congressional districts.

“It’s very important for Trump to bounce back strong in New York. The sense of his inevitability is one of his strengths,” said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Center at Southern Illinois University.

Do you agree with this analysis that Cruz’s campaign is essentially over, even though he won Wisconsin, and should drop out? Share your thoughts below!

Source: Elections Expert