Quote:What makes you think so? He has changed his stand on so many issues that it's impossible to know what he stands for, or more importantly what he'd stand for two years hence. His policy statements are no more meaningful than "Hope and Change." And he's made so many shady deals with government in the past that he probably owes a lot of people favors.
Rand is my favorite, and I don't think he owes big anyone anything. He's right about privacy vs. security. I'm basing my support partly on the influence of his father, since his voting record wasn't exactly "Dr. No." (Ron Paul's nickname in congress).
I'm impressed with Cruz standing up in Iowa against ethanol subsidies as part of his overall stance against subsidies for anything. He's certainly not controlled by anyone that I can tell, and has a voting record against corporate welfare better than Rand's.
Despite Donald changing his stances for the better as he has aged, he has the strongest stance on immigration, homeland security, and trade. His policies are at direct odds with globalists like Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush and he is the most inward-focused candidate. Donald Trump also exuberates confidence, strength, and leadership, more so than any candidate running. There hasn't been a candidate with this sort of aura since Reagan.That is why I support him.
I like Rand Paul, and agree he is not controlled to the extent of the other candidates, but his immigration and trade stance are a bit weak. As for Ted Cruz not being controlled, I suggest you read this. He has billionaire wall-streeters, big banks, and big oil bankrolling him. I can't trust him with those kinds of donors. The fact he flip-flopped on TPP AND amnesty while skipping the audit the fed bill puts Ted Cruz far down on my list.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/billionaire-...2016-race/
Trump also has a billionaire backing him...
Quote:Christ, it's like picking between herpes and chlamydia.
So which one are you going with Herpes or Chlamydia?
Quote:I'd vote Rand if he made as the nominee, but since the Bradley has a better chance at being a competent coach than Rand has of being the GOP nominee, I'll just vote 3rd party like I always do.
You can hand write Gus Bradley as President but he will need more than 2 terms to turn things around, but the country might show some improvement to justify the 3rd term..
Quote:You can hand write Gus Bradley as President but he will need more than 2 terms to turn things around, but the country might show some improvement to justify the 3rd term..
It's been proven time and time again that the American people are not as forgiving as Shad Khan.
I'm happy about that.
Quote:So which one are you going with Herpes or Chlamydia?
Thankfully I am European and therefor can abstain from voting in this carnaval of hilarious incompetency.
Quote:You can hand write Gus Bradley as President but he will need more than 2 terms to turn things around, but the country might show some improvement to justify the 3rd term..
Though that gives me an idea, we all write him in, and he'll be off the team, plus there will be about 20 national holidays where free ice cream is given out.
Quote:Though that gives me an idea, we all write him in, and he'll be off the team, plus there will be about 20 national holidays where free ice cream is given out.
"If nominated I will not churn. If elected I will not scoop."
Quote:If you consider stripping Americans of their rights to be "dealing with the terrorist threat", sure. Personally, I believe that we can deal with domestic terror threats without letting Rubio into our emails, browsing histories, phone calls, credit and debit card transactions, and without giving his NSA carte blanche to ignore the Consitution, conduct warrantless detentions, searches and seizures, continue militarizing police departments and driving X-Ray scanner trucks around the streets of major cities to conduct dangerous, illegal digital strip searches that establish "probable cause" despite needing probable cause themselves to be conducted.
I'd vote for Clinton over Rubio. And I hate Clinton.
First off, what makes you think Hillary would do any less than that list you presented?
Secondly, do you have a link to Rubio advocating "
warrantless detentions, searches and seizures"? I'm not big on Rubio, but I don't see him as any more supportive of such things than most of the other candidates. If he is, I'd really like to know about it. I'm opposed to those things too.
I think we have different views on what constitutes a totalitarian. I view Trump's support of Kelo and Sanders redistribution of wealth as more totalitarian than the NSA. With the NSA Big Brother may be watching, but in the other cases Big Brother is actively harming citizens.
Quote:First off, what makes you think Hillary would do any less than that list you presented?
Secondly, do you have a link to Rubio advocating "
warrantless detentions, searches and seizures"? I'm not big on Rubio, but I don't see him as any more supportive of such things than most of the other candidates. If he is, I'd really like to know about it. I'm opposed to those things too.
I think we have different views on what constitutes a totalitarian. I view Trump's support of Kelo and Sanders redistribution of wealth as more totalitarian than the NSA. With the NSA Big Brother may be watching, but in the other cases Big Brother is actively harming citizens.
Hillary's been forced left by Sanders, and I think (hope?) that would keep her honest. One of the few things that the far left, the far right and the center all agree on is that the government's constant violation of our privacy and dignity needs to stop. It's the slightly left and slightly right that seem to think that Big Brother is actually protecting us from anything.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-w...49078.html
Gitmo is just a front for warrantless detentions, searches and seizures, but in terms of the rest of his views that compromise the Fourth Amendment, well:
https://www.conservativereview.com/comme...nstitution
I consider totalitarianism to be any form of government or governmental actions that are designed to undermine the rights of the governed in order to increase government power and control. The Patriot Act does just that. The NSA was
designed to do that. Militarized police forces do that. Suspension of rights and detention without indictment or trial does that. You know which candidates that matter are on record as supporting all of those things? Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, and even Trump's comments could be attributed to political bluster.
Know which candidates that matter are flat-out opposed to it? Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. I have my issues with both of them. Cruz wants to take us back to the 1950's culturally, and his views on foreign policy are...interesting...to say the least. Despite an early draw, I'm no fan of Sanders. I don't think his economic plans are necessarily totalitarian. I do think that his sometimes subtle, often not, efforts to control the actions of Americans indirectly by thought-policing us could be construed as such, even if he does tear down the NSA, make body cameras for police mandatory, hold officials in every branch of law enforcement (or "law enforcement", if you work for the TSA) to the Fourth Amendment and excessive force laws and burn the Patriot Act in the streets of DC. I also have serious problems with his stance on gun control, and while I agree that climate change/global warming/whatever is a serious concern for all of humanity, I think that trying to paint it as a national defense issue is ridiculous.
So, basically, if it does come down to Cruz vs. either Democratic candidate, Cruz gets my vote. If it comes down to Rubio vs. Sanders, it goes to Sanders. If it's Rubio vs. Clinton...time to break out TOR and a good VPN, use offshore mail servers and start paying for everything in cash.
Anyone watching Fox? I have never seen a network shill so hard for a candidate as Fox is for Rubio. I remember why I don't watch this crap. When they make it so obvious they are pulling for one candidate over all the others they lose their journalistic integrity (not that they have had any for years).
Also, interestingly enough, Microsoft is tallying the votes for the caucus. Microsoft is also a heavy donor to Rubio's super pac. Hmmm.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-caucuses/
Quote:If you consider stripping Americans of their rights to be "dealing with the terrorist threat", sure. Personally, I believe that we can deal with domestic terror threats without letting Rubio into our emails, browsing histories, phone calls, credit and debit card transactions, and without giving his NSA carte blanche to ignore the Consitution, conduct warrantless detentions, searches and seizures, continue militarizing police departments and driving X-Ray scanner trucks around the streets of major cities to conduct dangerous, illegal digital strip searches that establish "probable cause" despite needing probable cause themselves to be conducted.
I'd vote for Clinton over Rubio. And I hate Clinton.
Wow, you need a bonus sized roll of tin foil to make your hat.
Quote:Hillary's been forced left by Sanders, and I think (hope?) that would keep her honest. One of the few things that the far left, the far right and the center all agree on is that the government's constant violation of our privacy and dignity needs to stop. It's the slightly left and slightly right that seem to think that Big Brother is actually protecting us from anything.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-w...49078.html
Gitmo is just a front for warrantless detentions, searches and seizures, but in terms of the rest of his views that compromise the Fourth Amendment, well:
https://www.conservativereview.com/comme...nstitution
I consider totalitarianism to be any form of government or governmental actions that are designed to undermine the rights of the governed in order to increase government power and control. The Patriot Act does just that. The NSA was designed to do that. Militarized police forces do that. Suspension of rights and detention without indictment or trial does that. You know which candidates that matter are on record as supporting all of those things? Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, and even Trump's comments could be attributed to political bluster.
Know which candidates that matter are flat-out opposed to it? Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. I have my issues with both of them. Cruz wants to take us back to the 1950's culturally, and his views on foreign policy are...interesting...to say the least. Despite an early draw, I'm no fan of Sanders. I don't think his economic plans are necessarily totalitarian. I do think that his sometimes subtle, often not, efforts to control the actions of Americans indirectly by thought-policing us could be construed as such, even if he does tear down the NSA, make body cameras for police mandatory, hold officials in every branch of law enforcement (or "law enforcement", if you work for the TSA) to the Fourth Amendment and excessive force laws and burn the Patriot Act in the streets of DC. I also have serious problems with his stance on gun control, and while I agree that climate change/global warming/whatever is a serious concern for all of humanity, I think that trying to paint it as a national defense issue is ridiculous.
So, basically, if it does come down to Cruz vs. either Democratic candidate, Cruz gets my vote. If it comes down to Rubio vs. Sanders, it goes to Sanders. If it's Rubio vs. Clinton...time to break out TOR and a good VPN, use offshore mail servers and start paying for everything in cash.
How many U.S. citizens are being or have been held at Gitmo?
Quote:Anyone watching Fox? I have never seen a network shill so hard for a candidate as Fox is for Rubio. I remember why I don't watch this crap. When they make it so obvious they are pulling for one candidate over all the others they lose their journalistic integrity (not that they have had any for years).
Also, interestingly enough, Microsoft is tallying the votes for the caucus. Microsoft is also a heavy donor to Rubio's super pac. Hmmm.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-caucuses/
I would beg to differ on many points.
1. MSNBC was clearly in the bag for Obama in the last two elections.
2. Most of the FOX opinion pundits that I've seen (Hannity in particular) have been more towards Trump and Cruz. Anything on their hard news programs has been based on who is willing to give interviews. The bottom line is, I don't see any blatant favoritism for one candidate or the other. Granted, I watch about 30 or so minutes of FOX News per day, so I don't see much of their coverage.
3. If there is any "funny stuff" going on with Micro$oft,
it has more to do with Hillary.
O' Malley's adviser says he's suspending his campaign, I assume this will upset about 15 people in the country.
I'll re-poll at the end of the month. It will be interesting to see if the results change.
![[Image: trust-nobody-not-even-yourself-credits-t...373367.jpg]](http://img.memecdn.com/trust-nobody-not-even-yourself-credits-to-bakoahmed-and-watermelonhero_fb_4373367.jpg)