registration is free , easy and welcomed !!!
Started by Old Gobbler, February 14, 2016, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: hookedspur on February 15, 2016, 08:16:29 PMWell I'm just glad I'm allowed to vote for who l want.There is so much more I would like to say after reading this post BUT I'm not .I will vote my conscience and pray for guidance for who ever comes out the winner.I'm not going to vote for another career politician, where has that taken us ?
Quote from: Yoder409 on February 15, 2016, 09:39:32 PMNot gonna vote for any of them in the primary because I'm not a Republican and CAN'T vote in the primaries.I started to type that I left the Republican party...................but I didn't. It left ME. Today's Republican party is not much more than democrat-lite.Both me & the Mrs. registered Constitution Party USA. Yep. It's a fringe party that will never field a contender candidate for anything. But THEY stand for what WE stand for.................. God, America and her Constitution. Good enough for me.......
Quote from: southern_leo on February 16, 2016, 02:42:03 AMCruz has been studying the constitution since he was a teen. He's more knowledge on the constitution than anyone I have ever seen run for office under any parties banner. If you believe in the Constitution I don't see how you couldn't be for Cruz. Not the TV Cruz but actually research his record and his personal history it is consistent. I love Trumps attitude but as much as I wanted to like him he has yet to bring substance to the table to define how he will carry out his plans. If Trump brought substance to the table I would love to hear it and am open, but he hasn't I'm starting to think he is all talk.
Quote from: Fullfan on February 15, 2016, 06:16:42 PMCruz is a career politician and will be bought by the highest bidder, Trump on the other hand is not. Time to get the lazy off food stamps and welfare. Send the Mexicans back from where they came..
Quote from: Swather on February 15, 2016, 07:12:13 PMRonald Reagan was a movement conservative, he brought people around to his way of thinking because he had ideals and articulated them. The young people in particular are incredibly ignorant about about economics, and someone needs to inform them and move them to vote in their own best interests.Furthermore, the notion that a candidate does not need or have to move people is absurd on its face. There is a section in the middle called independents, and at least a small segment of them, in addition to the base and dedicated party voters beyond them, must be courted and won. A good candidate will also get people to cross over, e.g., the "Reagan Democrats."The states have the police power, which is the power to regulate for the "health, safety, morals, and public welfare." Moral judgments inform laws, and always have. Republicans did not make that up. It used to be that people had much higher standards and better morals, and they used the police powers to prohibit things like abortion, prohibit sodomy, and to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The states did not have to do it, but had the power to do it. And if the atheists and agnostics with moral standards as low as an alley cat did not like the state's policies and the way the people voted to use the police power, they were free to move to kooky states like Vermont, Mass., and California. The reason that decisions like Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Hodges v. Oberfell exist is because in each instance, 5 justices acted as oligarchs in black robes and mental gymnastics to find a way to undermine the Tenth Amendment and the states' exercise of the police powers. Each of those subjects--homosexual sex (sodomy), abortion, and marriage had been regulated by the colonies and the states in the same way prior to passage of the constitution and beyond the addition of amendments, including the 14th. That tells us that they knew that they were not relinquishing their rights to regulate them (or not) when they ratified the constitution and its amendments. The leftists on the courts did not care, they were not going to let a little thing like the text or the clearcut historical uses and interpretations of police powers to get in the way of the result they wanted, and they weren't going to run for office to do it. Roe in particular is an odious decision, with two female plaintiffs that openly admit that they regret having abortions and have felt loss and guilt, and the liberal lawyers involved admitting that they lied to SCOTUS about all the home abortions and injury and death resulting therefrom. It was clearly a fraud upon the court. Further, the recent videos from Planned Parenthood with discussion of discrete, identifiable body parts that could be separated and harvested from first trimester fetuses makes it painfully clear how inadequate a judicial process is to make the decision in Roe to draw the line at the first trimester. It also belies the contentions of abortion apologists and proponents that there is nothing more at stake than a mass of cells and not a discernable life form. The suggestion that women do not have autonomy over their bodies without abortion at will is absurd. Women only need an abortion in a very small percentage of cases, usually due to an ectopic pregnancy and early death of a fetus. Abortion law would easily accommodate that, but the liberals don't care about "need" until it comes to express, textual rights like the RKBA in the Second Amendment. You will hear them talk about how no one "needs" and AR 15, or a semi auto handgun, or a "clip" that holds more than 5 rounds, etc. I want a Republican candidate that will advocate for my rights as fiercely and without apology as the godless liberal heretics advocate for abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, and a free gubmint cheese . I don't want to hear a Republican tell me that I don't "need" a particular weapon and must jump through hoops and be on a registry when I have a clear, textual constitutional right borne from a violent revolution of young men that had guns and were therefore able to establish a free country. And I certainly don't want a Republican restricting my textual gun rights to "need" while simultaneously supporting a judicial fiat right like abortion based on "want" and even being willing to throw my money at the issue such as appropriations to Planned Parenthood.Finally, I will close by saying that those that believe a Republican can win an election without the support of social conservatives has a puerile and trivial understanding of politics, the core, and turn out. Social conservatives are the base and the core of the Republican party. End of story. No candidate can win without them, as George HS Bush proved in 92, Dole proved in 96, McCain proved in 2008, and Romney proved in 2012. How did an unaccomplished, modestly intelligent candidate like George W. Bush get elected twice? Because he had the base and got them to turn out. But he ran into trouble in 2000 due to the October surprise, which was a DUI Bush had gotten in Maine. He had not been honest with voters and divulged it and addressed it, and he lost some of his support late.
Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 16, 2016, 05:24:00 PMQuote from: Swather on February 15, 2016, 07:12:13 PMRonald Reagan was a movement conservative, he brought people around to his way of thinking because he had ideals and articulated them. The young people in particular are incredibly ignorant about about economics, and someone needs to inform them and move them to vote in their own best interests.Furthermore, the notion that a candidate does not need or have to move people is absurd on its face. There is a section in the middle called independents, and at least a small segment of them, in addition to the base and dedicated party voters beyond them, must be courted and won. A good candidate will also get people to cross over, e.g., the "Reagan Democrats."The states have the police power, which is the power to regulate for the "health, safety, morals, and public welfare." Moral judgments inform laws, and always have. Republicans did not make that up. It used to be that people had much higher standards and better morals, and they used the police powers to prohibit things like abortion, prohibit sodomy, and to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The states did not have to do it, but had the power to do it. And if the atheists and agnostics with moral standards as low as an alley cat did not like the state's policies and the way the people voted to use the police power, they were free to move to kooky states like Vermont, Mass., and California. The reason that decisions like Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Hodges v. Oberfell exist is because in each instance, 5 justices acted as oligarchs in black robes and mental gymnastics to find a way to undermine the Tenth Amendment and the states' exercise of the police powers. Each of those subjects--homosexual sex (sodomy), abortion, and marriage had been regulated by the colonies and the states in the same way prior to passage of the constitution and beyond the addition of amendments, including the 14th. That tells us that they knew that they were not relinquishing their rights to regulate them (or not) when they ratified the constitution and its amendments. The leftists on the courts did not care, they were not going to let a little thing like the text or the clearcut historical uses and interpretations of police powers to get in the way of the result they wanted, and they weren't going to run for office to do it. Roe in particular is an odious decision, with two female plaintiffs that openly admit that they regret having abortions and have felt loss and guilt, and the liberal lawyers involved admitting that they lied to SCOTUS about all the home abortions and injury and death resulting therefrom. It was clearly a fraud upon the court. Further, the recent videos from Planned Parenthood with discussion of discrete, identifiable body parts that could be separated and harvested from first trimester fetuses makes it painfully clear how inadequate a judicial process is to make the decision in Roe to draw the line at the first trimester. It also belies the contentions of abortion apologists and proponents that there is nothing more at stake than a mass of cells and not a discernable life form. The suggestion that women do not have autonomy over their bodies without abortion at will is absurd. Women only need an abortion in a very small percentage of cases, usually due to an ectopic pregnancy and early death of a fetus. Abortion law would easily accommodate that, but the liberals don't care about "need" until it comes to express, textual rights like the RKBA in the Second Amendment. You will hear them talk about how no one "needs" and AR 15, or a semi auto handgun, or a "clip" that holds more than 5 rounds, etc. I want a Republican candidate that will advocate for my rights as fiercely and without apology as the godless liberal heretics advocate for abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, and a free gubmint cheese . I don't want to hear a Republican tell me that I don't "need" a particular weapon and must jump through hoops and be on a registry when I have a clear, textual constitutional right borne from a violent revolution of young men that had guns and were therefore able to establish a free country. And I certainly don't want a Republican restricting my textual gun rights to "need" while simultaneously supporting a judicial fiat right like abortion based on "want" and even being willing to throw my money at the issue such as appropriations to Planned Parenthood.Finally, I will close by saying that those that believe a Republican can win an election without the support of social conservatives has a puerile and trivial understanding of politics, the core, and turn out. Social conservatives are the base and the core of the Republican party. End of story. No candidate can win without them, as George HS Bush proved in 92, Dole proved in 96, McCain proved in 2008, and Romney proved in 2012. How did an unaccomplished, modestly intelligent candidate like George W. Bush get elected twice? Because he had the base and got them to turn out. But he ran into trouble in 2000 due to the October surprise, which was a DUI Bush had gotten in Maine. He had not been honest with voters and divulged it and addressed it, and he lost some of his support late.I have a hard time listening to your fundamentalist rhetoric.For too long we have had candidates/representatives who refuse to compromise in office. Politics aren't about advancing your Christian Right, moral agenda. The country is not homogenous. It is, however, comprised of a variety of faith and non-faith based groups. We need to focus on issues that are salient to everyone such as national security, immigration, fiscal policy and economics.There are millions of Muslims who work everyday in this country to ensure our national security. Terrorism is not exclusively associated with the international community. It's rampant domestically, as well. Tim McVeigh, Dylan Klebold, Dylan Roof (Charleston shooter) were all white. The Cartels are terrorist organizations. They kill hundreds of people EVERYDAY. It's all terrorism. You're just too racist to recognize that terrorism isn't exclusive to a particular skin color or ethnic group.We don't need candidates who draw lines with conceited, faith-based rhetoric. We need a candidate who recognizes that our country is changing and that logical compromise is the only way to functional government. If the Republican party would just get the hell out of people's personal lives they'd be a lot more popular. Who cares if a gay couple wants tax benefits? Who cares if someone is pro-choice? Why can't we as a country disagree with each other without legislating for a superior position? If you don't like gays, that's fine but why feel the need to legislate their lifestyle or deny them rights? If you don't believe in abortion, that's fine too, but why feel the need to tell someone else how to live their life when their decisions have no effect on you? Cruz cannot beat Hilary in the general election. He can't beat her because he's too extreme and too offensive to the general populus. Come November 2016 I guess you'll see the misgivings of not supporting a candidate who could.
Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 16, 2016, 05:24:00 PMI have a hard time listening to your fundamentalist rhetoric.
Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 16, 2016, 06:34:40 PMLook up the word "conceit" in the dictionary.
