Paul is sorta the polar opposite of Sanders economically and bureaucratically, and is also staunchly anti-federalized education and environmental regulation. Why would you have Paul over, say, Clinton or Biden? Those two candidates would be much more likely to line up with Sanders ideology than Paul ever would.

I was listing my top Dem and top Rep candidate


Sanders is my favorite candidate. His education stances are huge with me. As is his thoughts on living wages and taxes.


Paul is my top Rep candidate. I agree with a lot of his military and foreign policy stances. And his immigration policies are more my style.


Two different sides of the coin, but Sanders ideals hit home for me most.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

I was listing my top Dem and top Rep candidate

Oh ok, gotcha. Sorry.

---

Paul is sorta the polar opposite of Sanders economically and bureaucratically, and is also staunchly anti-federalized education and environmental regulation. Why would you have Paul over, say, Clinton or Biden? Those two candidates would be much more likely to line up with Sanders ideology than Paul ever would.

Paul is my second choice after Sanders also and it's simple why. There is overlap between some progressive and libertarian ideals. Namely less likelihood of going to war over all other republicans and Hillary IMO. 

---

Paul is my second choice after Sanders also and it's simple why. There is overlap between some progressive and libertarian ideals. Namely less likelihood of going to war over all other republicans and Hillary IMO. 

 

They are similar on foreign policy (isolationist) and law, which I do like. However, their stances on economics, bureaucracy, education, environment, religion, healthcare, social issues, and immigration are quite different.

---

They are similar on foreign policy (isolationist) and law, which I do like. However, their stances on economics, bureaucracy, education, environment, religion, healthcare, social issues, and immigration are quite different.

That is very true. There are some overlaps but not a lot. He is my second choice for two main reasons. His foreign policy stance, neither of which are isolationist just non interventionist, IMO and both their stances on the drug war while not being identical or close and to me those are two of the most important issues. 

---

That is very true. There are some overlaps but not a lot. He is my second choice for two main reasons. His foreign policy stance, neither of which are isolationist just non interventionist, IMO and both their stances on the drug war while not being identical or close and to me those are two of the most important issues. 

 

Fixing this economy is the most important issue. Everything else is a distant second.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Fixing this economy is the most important issue. Everything else is a distant second.

Protecting privacy and ending the government practice of spying on its own citizens, imo, is the most important issue. The economy is up there, along with foreign policy.

---

Fixing this economy is the most important issue. Everything else is a distant second.

Gee, it seems different people have a different perspective on what is most important. One of us presented their perspective as an opinion, the other as fact. Big shockers as to which you chose. 

---

Protecting privacy and ending the government practice of spying on its own citizens, imo, is the most important issue. The economy is up there, along with foreign policy.

Fair point. I'll go with that and put them at 2a and 2b in no particular order for my most important. 1 for me is obviously campaign finance reform. 

---

The Economy is a very important issue.  It's all a matter of how you fix it.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Fair point. I'll go with that and put them at 2a and 2b in no particular order for my most important. 1 for me is obviously campaign finance reform. 

I think you and I have found something that we're pretty far apart on. I really don't place any particular importance on campaign finance reform in this election. I think it's hard to focus in on more than a small handful of issues that you use to guide your vote, otherwise all the candidates kind of swirl into one jumbled mess of compromises. That's really how Rand Paul ended up at the top of my list. His strong libertarian foundation is obviously very appealing to me, and while he doesn't go quite as far as I'd like in going to a consumption-based tax system, he does propose a flat tax that eliminates most special interest loopholes and is, if nothing else, a positive start towards a consumption-based taxation system. Essentially, I'm willing to live with areas where he and I disagree in the interest of getting someone into office who will defend personal liberty and dismantle the Department of Homeland Insecurity. I do so fully recognizing that he may well try to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade, and that he will likely go after the ACA as well. Those are risks I'm willing to live with if it means tearing apart this nation's approach to treating its own citizens as terrorists until proven otherwise and rebuilding a society in which common sense takes over for McCarthyism.

---

I'll do what I did the past 2 elections, vote for the highest polling 3rd party candidate. 

---

I think you and I have found something that we're pretty far apart on. I really don't place any particular importance on campaign finance reform in this election. I think it's hard to focus in on more than a small handful of issues that you use to guide your vote, otherwise all the candidates kind of swirl into one jumbled mess of compromises. That's really how Rand Paul ended up at the top of my list. His strong libertarian foundation is obviously very appealing to me, and while he doesn't go quite as far as I'd like in going to a consumption-based tax system, he does propose a flat tax that eliminates most special interest loopholes and is, if nothing else, a positive start towards a consumption-based taxation system. Essentially, I'm willing to live with areas where he and I disagree in the interest of getting someone into office who will defend personal liberty and dismantle the Department of Homeland Insecurity. I do so fully recognizing that he may well try to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade, and that he will likely go after the ACA as well. Those are risks I'm willing to live with if it means tearing apart this nation's approach to treating its own citizens as terrorists until proven otherwise and rebuilding a society in which common sense takes over for McCarthyism.

That's perfectly fair. Again it's all a matter of perspective. In my case I believe campaign finance reform should be at the top because it would put the of the people part back into the equation rather than being of a few people with a lot of money. If you can fix that than the will of the people matters again because iny opinion, it doesn't right now.

---

I think you and I have found something that we're pretty far apart on. I really don't place any particular importance on campaign finance reform in this election. I think it's hard to focus in on more than a small handful of issues that you use to guide your vote, otherwise all the candidates kind of swirl into one jumbled mess of compromises. That's really how Rand Paul ended up at the top of my list. His strong libertarian foundation is obviously very appealing to me, and while he doesn't go quite as far as I'd like in going to a consumption-based tax system, he does propose a flat tax that eliminates most special interest loopholes and is, if nothing else, a positive start towards a consumption-based taxation system. Essentially, I'm willing to live with areas where he and I disagree in the interest of getting someone into office who will defend personal liberty and dismantle the Department of Homeland Insecurity. I do so fully recognizing that he may well try to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade, and that he will likely go after the ACA as well. Those are risks I'm willing to live with if it means tearing apart this nation's approach to treating its own citizens as terrorists until proven otherwise and rebuilding a society in which common sense takes over for McCarthyism.

 

And those are the reasons I couldn't support a Republican candidate.  They just aren't able to take Elsa's advice when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And those are the reasons I couldn't support a Republican candidate.  They just aren't able to take Elsa's advice when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. 

---

Gee, it seems different people have a different perspective on what is most important. One of us presented their perspective as an opinion, the other as fact. Big shockers as to which you chose. 

 

What is your problem with me? Of course it was my opinion.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Regardless if you would ever vote for Donald Trump or not, you have to love the fact that he is running for office.  It's too funny to watch.

 

"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president," Trump told Rolling Stone magazine while watching her on the news. . "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

 

The funny thing is I kind of thought the same thing, but my filter wouldn't let me say it.  Whereas Trump has no filter, and I think that's what a lot of people love about him!

---

I am glad Trump clarified that he is not for taking in refugees, saying we have enough problems in the US with our own immigration. It is kind of disappointing though that he and Carson are engaging each other now. I was hoping they would just keep sticking it to the establishment, but I suppose the establishment have become such a non-factor at this point that they have to start addressing each other.

---

Regardless if you would ever vote for Donald Trump or not, you have to love the fact that he is running for office.  It's too funny to watch.

 

"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president," Trump told Rolling Stone magazine while watching her on the news. . "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

 

The funny thing is I kind of thought the same thing, but my filter wouldn't let me say it.  Whereas Trump has no filter, and I think that's what a lot of people love about him!

Trump shouldn't be one to talk.  Just look at his face. Look at his hair.  Actually is it hair?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Regardless if you would ever vote for Donald Trump or not, you have to love the fact that he is running for office.  It's too funny to watch.

 

"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president," Trump told Rolling Stone magazine while watching her on the news. . "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

 

The funny thing is I kind of thought the same thing, but my filter wouldn't let me say it.  Whereas Trump has no filter, and I think that's what a lot of people love about him!

 

Actually, that comment was in very poor taste when considering someone for the most powerful position not only in our country, but the world.  The guy can't comment on her policies or background, so he resorts to personal attacks just to get attention.

 

I personally can not stand Trump running for President.  He's making a mockery of something that I feel is very important.  He thinks that this is some kind of "reality show", and unfortunately, so does a certain percentage of our population.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.