Turkey hunting forum for turkey hunting tips

It's been killing me , I've seen all these polls and I talk to regular folks all day long and just wondering what everyday folks like you think , I see some of these cnn, fox and whatever polls sometimes they only survey 700 people and come up with a result that I feel is hardly accurate

Not intended as a platform to start a quarrel , of dem vs rep ....this is a poll to figure out what you guys will vote for in the primary

Trump

Trump, then Cruz, not so much because I trust them, but because I distrust the others so much.  I think Carson is a nice guy, but totally unelectable.  The Dems are a freak show on steroids.  If a Dem wins, there is no hope due to the ignorance of a majority of the US electorate.

Mine is cruz then trump
But hey anybody is better than what we got
Or on the other ticket

I'm a Carson fan even though I know he is pretty well done


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump or cruz. I like how trumps says what a lot of people are thinking. He has a backbone. Don't always agree with everything but at least he doesn't walk around on eggshells or worry about offending people. Anything will be better than what the Democrats are offering in my opinion.

Im just tired of paying for everyone else.

X2 couldn't have said it any better.

Trump. I'm sick of all these career politians. This is why we are in the shape we are in. Establishment politians.

Trump

Trump talks a good game but his record greatly reflects the opposite. I do not want a cry baby dealing with foreign leaders. He is a pawn to split the vote as Perot did in 92.


Sent from the Strut Zone

Cruz

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Also, I am still deciding, but if I voted today it would probably be Cruz.

www.ivoterguide.com


Sent from the Strut Zone

Quote from: davisd9 on February 14, 2016, 07:07:55 PM
Trump talks a good game but his record greatly reflects the opposite. I do not want a cry baby dealing with foreign leaders. He is a pawn to split the vote as Perot did in 92.


Sent from the Strut Zone

Perot was a ringer to give the '92 election to Clinton.  But Papa Bush was a CIA plant so no harm, no foul.  The republic was not going to win in '92 whoever got elected.  We have been hearing that great sucking sound ever since Perot got in that race but I don't blame Perot, I blame the neocon establishment GOP.  Trump or Cruz is the only hope for the republic.

Anybody but Hellery!

Cruz for sure

Trump is an abrasive, fascist and Cruz's perceptions of reality are dated by 30 years.

Both scare the hell out of me.  I'm a Kasich guy.

Personally I like Cruz.  Trump is a close second.  Bro Jeb would be my last pick. 

You folks in the northern US better be careful.  Trump could have us in a shooting war with Canada in a year. :TooFunny:
He is so abrasive I don't know how anyone could seriously consider him presidential material.  He has no substance.  It's all "winning, I'll be great, wait and see what I do".  He has no plan, he thinks he can wing it.  If you support Trump, listen carefully to his plan of action.  You won't find one.  All talk, no plan to get it done.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. :smiley-patriotic-flagwaver-an

I'm a Cruz fan. He says what he means and means what he says. After him it's up for grabs but in no way would I vote democrat. You gentlemen need to listen to Mark Levin!!!

Quote from: Clardh on February 15, 2016, 12:03:12 PM
I'm a Cruz fan. He says what he means and means what he says. After him it's up for grabs but in no way would I vote democrat. You gentlemen need to listen to Mark Levin!!!

I have been on board with Cruz ever since he was running for the Senate in Texas against the establishment candidate and Lf. Gov. Dewhurst.  Cruz started off with 2%, creamed Dewhurst in debates and campaigning, and defeated him.  A clearcut victory of Tea Party over Cocktail Party, and the Cocktail Party politicians still dislike Cruz.

What I like about Cruz is that he is a core conservative with a deeply held set of principles and I firmly believe that he will fight on principle and work as hard to advance conservative principles as liberals do to advance their ideology.  In that respect, Cruz is different than all the lazy, defeatist, surrender monkeys in the Cocktail Party wing of the GOP.  They don't develop ideas, they don't have ideals, they don't fight hard, they don't try to move the public on issues, and they are worried about what the median and Dems think about them and whether they'll keep getting invites to the cocktail party circuit in D.C.  Cruz clearly does not care about that and does not feel a need to be loved by liberals, the media, or the Cocktail Party wing RINO's like McCain and Graham.  He has consistenly made them look bad, and they resent him for it. 

Cruz has his weaknesses.  The biggest is that he did not grow up in a family business or work in a business, he was not supervising people and trying to get the lower class and lower middle class to show up every day on time and sober and try to get work out of them.  He has never been responsible for profit and loss in a business, and has never made a payroll.  He has also struggled mightily with the immigration questions, inclusive of all facets: annual quota, visas such as H1-B, and what to do with the various category of illegals here.

They all have trouble because Hispanics/Latinos are a fast growing demo in the US and they have the potential to decide future elections.  They perceive that the H/L block is sympathetic and putting brown before all else and standing with the illegals from the south over their fellow countrymen, and if they come across as shrill and hateful on immigration (and the media will do its best), they could alienate the voting block and suffer in future elections.

They also have trouble because the visa program were workers is complex, complicated, and confounding.  It can have a lot of benefit and allow the US to step out and bring in high level, select talent from around the world.  The tech industry in California is all about it, because half of the key players in Silicon Valley were born outside the US.  They can point to the facts there and make a good case for the H1-B visa program.

But the other side of the story on the visa program is that it has become a tool for companies to fill the mandate from Wall Street to contain costs by outsourcing IT work.  The visa program has therefore been abused and a lot of natural born citizens have been hurt, and the country is hurt because the foreigners work for less and OASDI/FICA are not withheld and paid in.  If American citizens were doing that work, Social Security would be collecting more.

Finally, the country has benefitted from immigration while it has also suffered.  The benefit from immigration is somewhat random, no one knew when Steve Jobs' father got a student visa that he would sire an American son that would start several companies and become a billionaire.  Jobs was a lot of brilliance and craziness wrapped up in one package.  No one knew that when the founder of Chobani came to the US in 1994 that he would found such a company and become a millionaire.  No one knew when Elon Musk was allowed in from S. Africa that he would start Paypal, become wealthy, and then start Tesla and Space X.

But there is a clear trend of self-inflicted injury from allowing muslims to enter the US.  Start with the student visa for Khalid Shiekh Muhammed, to his nephew Ramzi Yousef, to the 19 hijackers, to the two Boston bomber, to the Chattanooga shooter, to the San Bernardino shooters.  It is an undeniable trend to everyone except liberals, which is ironic, because the intolerant mandate of islam cut against all they supposedly believe in with respect to sex, abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, freedom of speech, etc.  There is no way that their liberal ideology flourishes with a lot of islam presence.

I have a hard time listening to Mark Levin, he has a nasally, whiney, yankee accent in the first instance and he screams too much.

The Donald Trump voters are just like the Obama voters in 08 and 12.  They had all the evidence they needed to see who the man was, including his own deeds and the very words from his mouth, but they voted for him anyway as if he were a centrist and populist that was going to change politics, eliminate divisiveness, and usher in a new way of business in D.C.  They ignored who he really was and voted for what he said he was, and they all got what they deserved.  They rest of us got plenty that we did not deserve.

Trump has told the world for years that he is a New York liberal with New York values.  He has told us for years that it is all about him.  He has recently told us that he likes Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and can make deals with them, as if Republican capitulation and Dem victory has not been the story of the last decade.  We don't need a deal maker and surrender monkey to flush principles just to get the issue behind them, we need someone with principles to make a stand, fight, and move people to his side of the issue.

If you folks vote for Trump and he wins, I am sure that you will get what you deserve.  But it troubles me that the rest of us are going to get it too and without deserving it.

I hope that Bernie Sanders keeps rocking and Bloomberg enters the race.  That would split the Dem votes and really help the Repubs. 

Well, it will be a republican so that eliminates Trump.  I honestly believe America's best hope is Dr. Carson.  He is the only candidate that is trying to bring this country together instead of creating further separation.

Cruz 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..

On the contrary, candidates are supposed to be a voice of the people instead of "moving the people."

The majority of the American populous is moderate on social issues but financially conservative.  The GOP, as a fundamentalist party, is becoming increasingly more obsolete. We need a candidate who reflects America, not a candidate who wants to impose values that the separation of church and state was meant to prevent.

I believe we, as the United States, cannot discriminate against any ethnic or religious group without eroding the very principles the country was founded upon.  Roe vs Wade exists for a reason and protects a woman's right to have autonomy over her body whether you agree with the morality of abortion or not.  Government has gotten too big and needs to find its way out of people's personal lives.  We need to get fix entitlements, illegal immigration, and pass trade policy that promotes domestic production. 

Too many of these republican candidates are worried about imposing their morality/religion through public policy and too many of the democratic candidates want to give the country away through entitlements and promoting government dependency.  They all disgust me.

Ronald 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 dont like politicians,and i always thought trump was an arrogant goody-two shoe,but my mind has been changed on the trump,if he really did what he says than im all for it,quite giving away food stamps so they can trade it for drugs,the free heat,they are selling kerosine everyday in my little town to buy drugs,that they got for free just because they are sorry,and send the muzlims and the like back instead of giving them free housing and not making them pay taxes.i hardly watch any thing to due with politics,i    live in a small country town,were we still have god,get to shoot our guns in our yards,and do what we want as long as its not bothering anyone,i think we need a president the same way,so far its trump,he doesnt care what people think and he hates obama,like me only im broke.

Well 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 ?

I have already voted by absents ballot and I don't mind telling anyone; it was for Trump. He's the only man that could start, to bring our government back from what it has been taken down the road to. herb mcclure   

Quote from: Herb McClure on February 15, 2016, 08:27:43 PM
I have already voted by absents ballot and I don't mind telling anyone; it was for Trump. He's the only man that could start, to bring our government back from what it has been taken down the road to. herb mcclure

I'm going with Trump as well . I'm tired of the same ole broken down politicians

Quote from: hookedspur on February 15, 2016, 08:16:29 PM
Well 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 ?

My thoughts exactly......

The more Trump opens his mouth the more he shows just how classless and foolish he is.

The past debate truly shows this.

Sent from the Strut Zone

Not 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: Yoder409 on February 15, 2016, 09:39:32 PM
Not 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.......

Cruz 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.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: southern_leo on February 16, 2016, 02:42:03 AM
Cruz 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.

This is all accurate.

Cruz is hardly a career politician, he has served less than one 6 year term in the Senate.  He does not fit the bill to an exact "T" for me.  I'd rather he have more time in business in the private sector trying to function in the messed up economic environment Washington, D.C. has created, to have been responsible for profit and loss, to know the battle of paying taxes and keeping the doors open, and to have made a payroll.  He is also a bit young.  Instead, he spent some time working for private sector law firms, for the FTC, and as the Solicitor General of Texas.

But calling Ted just another attorney is like calling Mario Andretti or Dale Earnhardt just another motorist.  He is exceptional.  He argued numerous cases before the Texas Supreme Court and SCOTUS, and had a good record.  There is a learning in that which can only be obtained by doing it.

Even lefty Alan Dershowitz said Cruz was one of the smartest students he ever met at Ha-a-arvahd Law.  Keep in mind that Ha-a-arvahd is the oldest law school in the country, and each graduating class has about 600 students.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/dershowitz-tex-cruz-one-of-harvard-laws-smartest-students/

Everyone should watch this video and listen carefully to the part about Cruz having principles and core values and sticking to them.  He is the ANTITHESIS of the careerist, Cocktail Party RINO's that have betrayed us for years, like Frist, Hastert, Boehner, McConnell, Graham, and McCain.  That is why Ted made numerous of the aforementioned clowns so mad and they don't like him.  The fact that they despise him is as good as an endorsement in my eyes because they are everything that is wrong with the GOP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44BfNx1ZV6U

Quote from: Fullfan on February 15, 2016, 06:16:42 PM
Cruz 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..

How do you define "career politician"?

The fact is that Cruz has served less than one, 6 year term in Congress.  He had never held a political office before being elected to the Senate.

Trump, on the other hand, is a weathervaning liberal and openly admits that he wants to make deal with the Dems.  That tells me he is too lazy to stand on principle and make the case to persuade people to his way of thinking and getting them to force Congress to go along.

I have seen no one with higher overall negatives than Trump, there is no one more caustic and divisive.

Finally, if you hear a position from Trump and don't like it, just give him a couple of weeks.  He will flip-flop on it and then deny he ever held a contrary position, accuse anyone that points out he changed positions of being a liar and call then rude names, and threaten to sue them.

Trump has some good ideas and is a business man and people like his bold talk.  But he doesn't believe he needs forgiveness  (he said so )  and is not a Christian .. Granted he is not a muslim like the one we have now but  My opinion is that he is not the man we need..   Cruz may not be either  but I think he has my support until proven different...  Granted none of them are very good choices,, surely we have some  great leaders in America that could run... :z-twocents: :z-twocents:

[/quote]
Cruz 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.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
[/quote]

THIS!

Quote from: Swather on February 15, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
Ronald 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 PM

Quote from: Swather on February 15, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
Ronald 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.

"All compromise is based on give & take, but there can be no give & take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender for it is all give and no take." Mahatma Gandhi

Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 16, 2016, 05:24:00 PM
I have a hard time listening to your fundamentalist rhetoric.

It is likely because you are an ignorant millennial that is unwashed and got a trophy for just showing up.  That is clearly why you are an apologist for homosexuality and abortion.  Your obtuse response indicates that you do not understand, and are not capable of understanding, the important points I make regarding the constitution and its construction.  You also have no idea of who is electable and who is not; people with your facile understanding of politics were touting Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney in past elections because they were "electable."  People like you were eschewing Ronald Reagan in 1979-80 because he was too conservative and not electable.  No one that fails to carry his base is electable, but that goes over the head of the simple ones.

I am far from a fundamentalist, but I am a core conservative and understand the history of the country and the constitution and have the education and experience to back it up.  I further understand how the left works in the elected space, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary.   

If you don't like reading my posts, then don't, and don't respond.       

Look up the word "conceit" in the dictionary.

I do not apologize for people who choose to live their lives differently than myself. The difference between me and you is that I do not condemn, impose or judge. I also do not subscribe to the "showing up to get a trophy" ideology.  What I do subscribe to is a rejection of myopic, ignorant, racist, conceited political positions.

I do not believe my religious beliefs and subsequent moral code should be projected upon others through policy.  I believe in God but believe the government has no business in godly dealings(that's called the separation of church and state.  The concept existed hundreds of years before we started printing "In God We Trust" on money). I support my neighbors right to be atheist and the gay farm owner who allows me to goose hunt to be themselves and live their lifestyles as they see fit.  I believe the millions of peaceful Muslims who reside in this country deserve the same rights as those who celebrate in the Jewish synagogue down the street receive.  I believe the right and wrong are very clear and agnostic in nature.  Does an act have undue and unacceptable implications on another person; it's that simple. Religion and morality are not mutually reassuring.  You can very easily have one without the other and many of my atheist friends are more virtuous than some of my religious associates.

The country was established as a sanctuary from religious persecution and based upon the opinions you spew, you'll gladly persecute and alienate anyone who does not align with your religious beliefs.  Here's a history lesson for you, professor, the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights (you know, the document that was a contingency for passing the Constitution) are designed to protect ALL American citizens. Not just those of the faith and color which you prefer.

We clearly agree to disagree.  Just remember, when your candidate (Trump or Cruz) loses to the Democratic nominee, it will be for the reasons I've articulated in these posts.

Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 16, 2016, 06:34:40 PM
Look up the word "conceit" in the dictionary.

I don't need to look up anything because I have an education and an expansive vocabulary.  I also bill more per hour than you make in a day. 

I note that you do not deny being a millennial and don't deny being an atheist either.  That is despite writing a long, meandering post not responsive to anything I've said.

But you may want to look up the "I" word for those incapable of learning. 

Kasich is going nowhere and you voting for him is a futile act.  He cannot win the election because he cannot even with the base.  And that is a good thing, because he is another defeatist, career RINO. 

This escalated quickly.


Sent from the Strut Zone

You might want to re-read my last post. It addresses a myriad of things such as your understanding of history, the constitution, the racist tenets you espouse in your response to my initial post and your narcissistic, fundamentalist, conservative orientation.

I do not deny being a millennial, actually acknowledged my faith in God (Paragraph 3, sentences 1 and 2. Are you a illiterate or just too used to legal jargon and speed-reading?), am curious about the relevance of socio-economics to this conversation and I am very certain there is no positive outcome to a debate with a narcissist southern litigator indoctrinated and drunk off his Bob Jones education.

I really like Ben Carson the best but he doesn't have a chance. So I am going with Cruz

Quote from: ElkTurkMan on February 16, 2016, 07:20:26 PM
I really like Ben Carson the best but he doesn't have a chance. So I am going with Cruz

I don't doubt Carson's intelligence or his integrity.  He may the one I would most want as a neighbor, but he hasn't shined in the debates.  He too, is an outsider, but he's not getting the love from voters that his early poll numbers showed.  I would guess it's his more docile demeanor and lack of experience in the political realm.

Carson acts like an adult and that does not help ratings.


Sent from the Strut Zone

I honestly feel that the man best suited for the job as far as conservative ideology and knowledge of foreign affairs go is, sadly, out of the running.

I really think Rick Santorum is/was the most Reagan-esque Republican candidate since Reagan.

Anyone of the Republican candidates is better that hillary , but some aree quite better than others

Trump has some good a tributes and many detractors,  I would not consider him a right wing conservative , he pulls ahead in the polls due to his Archie Bunker antics that seem like a breath of fresh air to people sick of the PC pandering

The one guy I really liked was Huckabee,  but he pulled out , candidates keep dropping but trump keeps floating around 35% give or take,  I feel as though all he will get is 35-40 of the Republican support , so where is the other 60-65% ...scattered amongst about 6 folks ...as they drop one by one Cruz or rubio will pop up in numbers , if they are lucky the field will clear out by super Tuesday , so all trump has to do is sit by and watch these guys take shots at each other an he has a good chance of winning

I don't know if trump can win in Florida in the general election,  but folks down here HATE Hillary

us hillbillys in kentucky hate hillary too.

I will carefully watch the Florida polls and the national polls.  I do not want to waste my vote.  I will vote for Rubio - for several reasons.  The latest poll that I showed had him having the best chance vs Hilary.  But I can be very easily persuaded to vote Cruz, depending on the polls.  I love his Constitutional base.  What else is really the President's job?  In a poll I took I agreed with Rubio 94% and Cruz 93%, so I can flip a coin with either. Trump came in at 83% and Hilary at 42%

If Trump faces Hilary, as someone that has voted Republican ever since I could vote (missed the Carter - Reagan election by 4 days), I do not know who I will vote for.  I do not believe he is a fiscal conservative, nor a head of state.  But neither is Hilary. I will probably vote for him, go home, pour a glass of rum and be depressed. 

Quote from: g8rvet on February 16, 2016, 10:19:05 PM
I will carefully watch the Florida polls and the national polls.  I do not want to waste my vote.  I will vote for Rubio - for several reasons.  The latest poll that I showed had him having the best chance vs Hilary.  But I can be very easily persuaded to vote Cruz, depending on the polls.  I love his Constitutional base.  What else is really the President's job?  In a poll I took I agreed with Rubio 94% and Cruz 93%, so I can flip a coin with either. Trump came in at 83% and Hilary at 42%

If Trump faces Hilary, as someone that has voted Republican ever since I could vote (missed the Carter - Reagan election by 4 days), I do not know who I will vote for.  I do not believe he is a fiscal conservative, nor a head of state.  But neither is Hilary. I will probably vote for him, go home, pour a glass of rum and be depressed.

As much as I like Rubio's self presentation and believe he carries himself well and speaks well my hang up in him is his very weak immigration history. Now he is trying to speak tough against it but his record shows different. I believe no one will ever find a candidate they agree with 100% but you have to look at "no go" issues. My #1 no go issue is immigration. If your weak on immigration I cannot support you. Now if he is our candidate in the general he obviously is head over heels better than the dems, but for the primary I vote my beliefs and can't support him. If he did have a strong history on being against illegals immigration I think he would be a strong contender. Cruz does not violate any of my big beliefs such as strong immigration enforcement, pro life, pro family values, pro consitution, pro firearms etc. You know all that constitutional rhetoric us crazy right wingers believe in who clutch to our guns and bibles. :D

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I think that perhaps the most important factor is culture.  Ours has been described as possessing what has been called the Judeo-Christian ethic.   Our country's immigration policy until the "immigration Act of 1965" (driven by that Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy) was proportional.  That is that if 7% of the population was Chinese, then 7% of the annual immigrants to this  country would be Chinese.  All other classes were likewise proportional.  This essentially preserved the long standing culture of this country.  With the passage of the above mentioned immigration act, this was changed to give a preference to those coming from third world countries which is quickly changing this  country into a Tower of Babel.  Call me a racist if you choose for my recognition of this fact, but facts are facts.  One only has to look at the bird kingdom to see that "birds of a feather flock together" and I much preferred this  country when there were not so many different birds who absolutely refused to assimilate into our existing culture.

Race relations were so much better before the current divider-in-chief was elected and began to stir the pot.  The anger he has fomented among much of the black population is unconscionable.  He has raised the specter of slavery from the dead and pointed a gun at the head of every citizen of this country of European descent.  Slavery was and is an abomination but every descendant of an African slave should get on his or her knees and thank God for slavery for without slavery, none of them would exist.  There are approximately 300 million sperm in the average ejaculation.  If you assume that there was no African slave trade, what are the odds that even one descendant of an African slave could have existed had they stayed in Africa  As wrong as the War Between the States was, I personally am thrilled that it occurred because it brought my great-great grandfather south with the Union army where he met my great-great grandmother, and I am glad that they had relations on the night that they did instead of the night before or after and that my great grandmother beat the one in three hundred million odds.  But, I digress.  I pray that in a few years we can return to the harmonization of the black and white races that we were experiencing before the election of the divider-in-chief.

I took a course in logic in college.  All Muslims are not terrorists; most terrorists are Muslims..................You may properly vet a peaceful Muslim couple, but when their offspring attend the Mosque and study the jihadist teachings of the Koran, San Bernardino is subject to occur.

Only a return to a sane, logical immigration policy can preserve what little culture we have left.  To do otherwise is cultural, if not actual, suicide.  I believe that this issue is most important in choosing our next President.

 am curious about the relevance of socio-economics to this conversation and I am very certain there is no positive outcome to a debate with a narcissist southern litigator indoctrinated and drunk off his Bob Jones education.
[/quote]
PERFECT

Swather, I'm very surprised you aren't a Trump supporter, because your self-righteous bragging about how much you make sounds just like him, along with your "if you don't believe just like me, you're wrong" attitude about it.

I'm tired of politicians and the continued way they pollute our society through their back handed politics.  Cruz's record shows he can be bought and that he will bow down to the money.  Trump has already been bought, and aside from his economical advantage, I think he would fail as president.

They all fall short to me, because people forget that the #1 job of the President of the United States is Commander-In-Chief of the US Military. I don't think any candidate on either side has shown they have the capacity and experience to take this on.

I'm voting for Ben Carson, because I believe he would be the best President of all the candidates.  I just wish people would stop looking at poll results to determine who they are voting for, because poll results can be skewed easily.  Plus, I'd like to see more people looking into candidates more and understanding their records and what they stand for.

Quote from: greentag on February 16, 2016, 09:49:40 PM
us hillbillys in kentucky hate hillary too.

You can add this NY hillbilly to the list too. ;D I'm leaning toward Cruz at the present time.

No reference to anything posted, but do you remember Obama saying that he was pro 2nd amendment at one time and that he wouldn't try to take our guns away from us? I do. It would be so refreshing to have a candidate stand behind what they say while they're campaigning after they're sworn in, and not just tell us what we want to hear for the votes. A lifetime of watching this stuff has left me a little skeptical to say the least. :z-twocents:

Bob

Quote from: chcltlabz on February 17, 2016, 10:09:09 AM
Swather, I'm very surprised you aren't a Trump supporter, because your self-righteous bragging about how much you make sounds just like him, along with your "if you don't believe just like me, you're wrong" attitude about it.

I'm tired of politicians and the continued way they pollute our society through their back handed politics.  Cruz's record shows he can be bought and that he will bow down to the money.  Trump has already been bought, and aside from his economical advantage, I think he would fail as president.

They all fall short to me, because people forget that the #1 job of the President of the United States is Commander-In-Chief of the US Military. I don't think any candidate on either side has shown they have the capacity and experience to take this on.

I'm voting for Ben Carson, because I believe he would be the best President of all the candidates.  I just wish people would stop looking at poll results to determine who they are voting for, because poll results can be skewed easily.  Plus, I'd like to see more people looking into candidates more and understanding their records and what they stand for.

Not trying to argue because I'm not here for that, but could you please advise when Cruz was paid for and cite reference. I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: greentag on February 16, 2016, 09:49:40 PM
us hillbillys in kentucky hate hillary too.

Hillary and Trump have the highest composite negatives of any candidates.  The potentially significant fact about that is that those two against one another may chill voter turnout and something weird and unpredictable might come out of it.

Bloomberg is talking with a lot of people about a run as an independent.  We know he will not be popular among southerners and particularly southern males that care about guns and small government. 

Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 16, 2016, 07:16:11 PM
You might want to re-read my last post. It addresses a myriad of things such as your understanding of history, the constitution, the racist tenets you espouse in your response to my initial post and your narcissistic, fundamentalist, conservative orientation.

I do not deny being a millennial, actually acknowledged my faith in God (Paragraph 3, sentences 1 and 2. Are you a illiterate or just too used to legal jargon and speed-reading?), am curious about the relevance of socio-economics to this conversation and I am very certain there is no positive outcome to a debate with a narcissist southern litigator indoctrinated and drunk off his Bob Jones education.

There is absolutely no "racist tenets" in anything that I have posted.  You have only falsely imputed that in your repetitive, obtuse posts because you are an indoctrinated millenial drone.  What you know has come from people that are not smart enough to make outside the school yard.  If I had a "Bob Jones education," it would still be more than you have.

Socio-economics?  Remember interjecting that insult and look up the meaning of the word "conceit"?   

I made one even-handed post about how immigration is a difficult issue for the candidates.  I also mentioned that allowing immigration of muslims and granting asylum is risky because of the potential for self-inflicted injury.  You cannot understand this, but islam is not a race.  But you are programmed to call everyone with whom you disagree a racist, so you fit the millenial mold well and it is expected from you. 

Because this country needs physical access to muslim dominated countries to fight terrorism and need their intelligence assistance, the US does not need to take a chainsaw approach like Trump suggested and single out muslims.  Instead, the country should impose a moratorium on all immigration, or a lesser step would be to foreclose immigration from  the countries with substantial terror activity.  The latter was proposed in recent legislation and should have been passed.

Quote from: silvestris on February 16, 2016, 11:45:32 PM
I took a course in logic in college.  All Muslims are not terrorists; most terrorists are Muslims..................You may properly vet a peaceful Muslim couple, but when their offspring attend the Mosque and study the jihadist teachings of the Koran, San Bernardino is subject to occur.

Only a return to a sane, logical immigration policy can preserve what little culture we have left.  To do otherwise is cultural, if not actual, suicide.  I believe that this issue is most important in choosing our next President.

And you would pass that logic course again today.  A halt to immigration would be beneficial from a security standpoint and an economic standpoint.  There is no dispute that there has been a long, clear trend developing of self-inflicted injury by allowing muslims into the country.  There is no failproof way to distinguish one that wants to kill Americans from those that do not.  We cannot stop domestic born threats from being physically present, we can only try to stop their actions.  The feds have a duty to protect Americans.

But the US needs the help of muslim dominated countries to fight terrorism, and a crude approach like Trump suggested of singling out muslims.  Instead, you can stop it all or stop it from certain regions of high terrorist activities.

The lower class and lower middle class would be better off as well.

The H-1B visa program is a tough issue, the purpose and intent look good on paper and sound reasonable.  A lot of talent has been added in the US under the program.  But it has been abused badly for workers less educated than intended and a readily available workforce in IT/MIS and other areas are being displaced through fraud and abuse.  We should not stand for that.   There must be reform to upgrade the requirements of education and income to qualify for that visa. 

The whole purpose of the 1965 Dem driven legislation was to dilute the vote of people here and replace them with people that were poor and needed to receive govt assistance.  The Dems essentially wanted to admit people that they thought would give them a lifetime of dominance in politics, and keep people out that would vote against them.

The Dems play to win all the time, and it is always about politics and power with them.  It is not about negotiating and compromising with them, it is about winning, and they are relentless in the pursuit of their agenda.  The Republicans, in contrast, are extremely lazy and do not even understand the game, which is why they always lose.

Quote from: southern_leo on February 17, 2016, 11:17:50 AM

Quote from: chcltlabz on February 17, 2016, 10:09:09 AM
Swather, I'm very surprised you aren't a Trump supporter, because your self-righteous bragging about how much you make sounds just like him, along with your "if you don't believe just like me, you're wrong" attitude about it.

I'm tired of politicians and the continued way they pollute our society through their back handed politics.  Cruz's record shows he can be bought and that he will bow down to the money.  Trump has already been bought, and aside from his economical advantage, I think he would fail as president.

They all fall short to me, because people forget that the #1 job of the President of the United States is Commander-In-Chief of the US Military. I don't think any candidate on either side has shown they have the capacity and experience to take this on.

I'm voting for Ben Carson, because I believe he would be the best President of all the candidates.  I just wish people would stop looking at poll results to determine who they are voting for, because poll results can be skewed easily.  Plus, I'd like to see more people looking into candidates more and understanding their records and what they stand for.

Not trying to argue because I'm not here for that, but could you please advise when Cruz was paid for and cite reference. I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Cruz's top two financial backers are Club for Growth and Senate Conservatives Fund.  Both organizations donate money to support conservative political actions.  Now while I don't have a problem with conservative views, I do have a problem with someone being paid over a million dollars by groups who's sole purpose is to back the conservative political machine.  As president, I expect someone to back political actions they support, not what they've been paid to support.  Perception is reality.  If you look further down the list, there are several donors who fund lobbyists, and several in the top tier that are lobbying firms. 

My personal views do not support this type of politics.  One of the big reasons I support term limits for every single political office, from the President down through your local mayor.  Politics should not be a means to riches.

My vote goes to  Rubio

I have had several people say you should not look at polls before you vote.  I agree that should not be your primary focus, but I strongly disagree that one eye should not be kept on them.  While they are far from fool proof, if you listen, daily, to new and different polls, it gives a feel for what is likely to happen.  If the election were held today, a vote for Carson is a vote for Trump (the leader).  Some people are fine with that, but I am not.  I would never presuppose to tell someone how they should vote, but voting for someone that has no chance of winning feels like a wasted vote to me.  Like I said, if Rubio is in the top 3, he is getting my vote, as I currently feel.  Cruz still has time to make up ground - I like a lot of his history.  I think it was William F Buckley that said he was not for the most conservative candidate, he was for the most conservative candidate that could win. 

Quote from: chcltlabz on February 17, 2016, 12:48:23 PM

Quote from: southern_leo on February 17, 2016, 11:17:50 AM

Quote from: chcltlabz on February 17, 2016, 10:09:09 AM
Swather, I'm very surprised you aren't a Trump supporter, because your self-righteous bragging about how much you make sounds just like him, along with your "if you don't believe just like me, you're wrong" attitude about it.

I'm tired of politicians and the continued way they pollute our society through their back handed politics.  Cruz's record shows he can be bought and that he will bow down to the money.  Trump has already been bought, and aside from his economical advantage, I think he would fail as president.

They all fall short to me, because people forget that the #1 job of the President of the United States is Commander-In-Chief of the US Military. I don't think any candidate on either side has shown they have the capacity and experience to take this on.

I'm voting for Ben Carson, because I believe he would be the best President of all the candidates.  I just wish people would stop looking at poll results to determine who they are voting for, because poll results can be skewed easily.  Plus, I'd like to see more people looking into candidates more and understanding their records and what they stand for.

Not trying to argue because I'm not here for that, but could you please advise when Cruz was paid for and cite reference. I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Cruz's top two financial backers are Club for Growth and Senate Conservatives Fund.  Both organizations donate money to support conservative political actions.  Now while I don't have a problem with conservative views, I do have a problem with someone being paid over a million dollars by groups who's sole purpose is to back the conservative political machine.  As president, I expect someone to back political actions they support, not what they've been paid to support.  Perception is reality.  If you look further down the list, there are several donors who fund lobbyists, and several in the top tier that are lobbying firms. 

My personal views do not support this type of politics.  One of the big reasons I support term limits for every single political office, from the President down through your local mayor.  Politics should not be a means to riches.

I gotcha I didn't realize you were speaking of campaign contributions. I thought you were referring to a "paid off" scenario like under the table deal. I understand where some don't like the super pacs and Trump does win on that issue, although at the same time me personally I'm not too bothered by it because most candidates in history can't fund their campaign and the money has to come from somewhere. So personally that doesn't make a no go issue for me. I think every voter has the responsibility to decide what's important in a candidate and vote that way even if your guy is at the bottom or the top it doesn't matter. That's the whole purpose in the primaries. I think most everyone here can agree though that the worst republican candidate is better than either of the dems.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I 100% agree.  Everyone should become educated on the areas that are important to them, know not only what the candidate says on those issues, but know the history (not that a politician would ever lie ::)) on that area as well.

True, Trump can claim that he has not taken donations from anyone, but realize that every dime he spends is tax deductible, so its a win win for him.  He is also a billionaire, so if you don't think he's going to represent and favor those that made and keep him a billionaire, you're kidding yourself.

I don't like Rubio's politics, and I don't like Trump's, well, anything.  I think Trump will have a tough time beating the democrats because he will rally the democratic voters to back whomever they put on the ticket. 

I do believe that Carson would generate enough support from both sides to win the election.  Unfortunately, I don't think he will get the nomination because of the typical hard lined GOP politics.  They would cut off their nose to spite their face.

Quote from: chcltlabz on February 18, 2016, 08:30:23 AM
I 100% agree.  Everyone should become educated on the areas that are important to them, know not only what the candidate says on those issues, but know the history (not that a politician would ever lie ::)) on that area as well.

True, Trump can claim that he has not taken donations from anyone, but realize that every dime he spends is tax deductible, so its a win win for him.  He is also a billionaire, so if you don't think he's going to represent and favor those that made and keep him a billionaire, you're kidding yourself.

I don't like Rubio's politics, and I don't like Trump's, well, anything.  I think Trump will have a tough time beating the democrats because he will rally the democratic voters to back whomever they put on the ticket. 

I do believe that Carson would generate enough support from both sides to win the election.  Unfortunately, I don't think he will get the nomination because of the typical hard lined GOP politics.  They would cut off their nose to spite their face.

I agree with most everything you said except on Carson. I wanted to like Carson so bad but the guy is a drag. There is nothing motivating or exciting about him. Now on issues which should prevail he's great, but when your a politician you do have to play on emotions because unfortunately most people don't educate themselves enough to vote for candidates on issues. If you could give Carson the personality of Trump (the positive side) then Carson would be unstoppable. I was hoping he would realize that and ignite a fire but he hasn't which is unfortunate because I do believe he is a great man. Honestly though my least favorite is Kasich. I think he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He makes claims of how great he ran Ohio but government subsidies exploded under him. He made moves that made stuff look good on the outside but long term could be detrimental. Ill be curious how Ohio looks in 10 years.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

My first choice would have been Carly.  I think she's the most stable decision maker.  Also, her demeanor reminds me a lot of Margaret Thatcher.  And, I think she'd smoke Hillary.

Quote from: olejake on February 19, 2016, 08:26:48 AM
I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... as did our country's  Founding Fathers

I believe that Ted Cruz has the self-control that  Donald Trump highly lacks
I believe that Ted Cruz has the  personal class that the office of President highly deserves
I believe that Ted Cruz will defend our country against terrorism and American -haters by strengthening our defenses and supporting  our troops without a  shadow of a doubt
These are just three of many, many more good points that Ted Cruz has going for him in this election...Ted Cruz will get my vote...regardless of what a "poll" says

Absolutely!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/boisdarccreek/Political%20posters/train_zpsja6lqdbo.jpg

Trump! I don't want to start any arguement but the liberals and liberal policy have absolutley ruined our country. I'm trying very hard not to get on a rant

There is no way I could ever trust Trump. He's held too many liberal positions recently in his past. See video below for some of these positions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be

Cruz is the most true conservative IMO and will be getting my vote.

Quote from: southern_leo on February 19, 2016, 01:59:56 PM

Quote from: Shoot2thrill25 on February 19, 2016, 01:06:21 PM
Do you guys understand that this bu*****t is why I hunt and get on sites like this and not Facebook or anything like it. To get away from this crap for a little while. I don't want to see half the threads on a forum called OLD GOBBLER, being about politics. Go to another site and debate about our stellar options we have for president. Btw the name old gobbler is referring to turkeyS, not Hillary. In case that had some of you confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A forum is just a group of like minded folks. This is a hunting forum but that doesn't mean other things aren't important. And politics also play a direct role in hunting and firearms rights. This has also been a very civil discussion and not an argument or I'd be out. But if you don't like this conversation with all do respect you don't have to come on this thread. There have been other threads created that I did not want to participate in so I didnt. I'm not trying to come off as harsh at all but I'm confused why if you don't like the topic you clicked and replied on it. This is just important to a lot of us. If it's not to you that's fine, but that doesn't mean we should stop the discussion. BTW I agree with your Facebook comment which is why I don't have a Facebook at all.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

To point out that there seems to have been several of them lately and seem to always be at the top of the feed. I understand that this an important topic, and it is important to me as well. I just wish people would discuss it elsewhere. Believe me, I've said the same thing you have about if you don't like it don't click on it so I understand. I usually do not click on them. On other forums there are sub forums for topics like these so the like minded people can argue there. EVERYWHERE you go is people arguing about our horrible options for president. Now hunting forums are getting overrun with it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Shoot2thrill25 on February 19, 2016, 01:06:21 PM
Do you guys understand that this bu*****t is why I hunt and get on sites like this and not Facebook or anything like it. To get away from this crap for a little while. I don't want to see half the threads on a forum called OLD GOBBLER, being about politics. Go to another site and debate about our stellar options we have for president. Btw the name old gobbler is referring to turkeyS, not Hillary. In case that had some of you confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it would be simpler for you to go to another site--not the other way around as you have suggested.

We are all pretty much like minded individuals , the vast majority conservative....

I made the post for reasons stated in the original post , I like hearing others varying opinions on what republican candidates best represent the greatest democracy in the world

As mentioned not looking for a dem vs republican dispute , if one was looking for companionship in the left leaning area they are in the wrong place , if one wishes not to open up and read others conservative opinions , then simply do not OPEN the thread and read it , just move along get along . I noticed a post and decided to remove it because I thought it would start trouble , but quite a few members crimed in quoting it right away countering it , I apologize for removing them , but left the last one up made by our very valued and loved tom "catdaddy " who me many of us appreciate like the rest of you - thank you !

Again if your not up for conservative talk simple don't open the threads About them 

Back to conservative talk .....

The polls , especially the republican ones just prior to the state primary's pay attention to the numbers the mainstream media puts forth , and then what the actual numbers are after you will notice the polls are sometimes quite off , I'm very interested on the accuracy of them because ........a Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes to become POTUS , and this is impossible with out winning FLORIDA as we speak its neck and neck in Florida on the polls with it showing Rubio having a slight lead out of all of the contestants over Hillary Clinton its 46% to 46% right now and whomever wins the primary better darn well be able to beat Hillary in Florida , or we are going to looking at her face a whole lot more and hearing about her a whole bunch

They want to mobilize the college kids this time by promising to give out free or reduced college tuition.....this is the strategy .....they are buying votes , and YOU the taxpayer are going to have to pay for the bill

If an when some more republican candidates drop out , we plan on running another poll to see where people's preferences lay -- Shannon

Quote from: Old Gobbler on February 19, 2016, 09:17:44 PM
If an when some more republican candidates drop out , we plan on running another poll to see where people's preferences lay -- Shannon

Hopefully this will happen after south carolina. I'm hoping Jeb leaves and Carson. After this they will have to be at 20% in the polls to get delegates according to one interview I watched, and obviously they aren't there. Kasich also needs to go. I understand it a historic election unlike prior elections, but still at some point you gotta throw in the towel. It's primarily a three man race already. Jeb is only hanging on because of his last name, Carson (as much as I like the guy) is dillusional, and Kasich is a Rino who's acting like something he's not. I really think if the SC results show Trump, Cruz, Rubio as top three, the people need to pressure the others to leave. Kasich said in the last primary if he didn't do well he was quiting, then all of a sudden he places second and believes he's the next Potus although polls show that as a fluke from a middle of the Isle state which explains why they like him. Anyone who follows politics should remember when this all kicked off and Kasich declared candidacy he preached "bring both parties together" same stuff all the last republican candidates preached and failed with. Then when Trump and Cruz took off all of a sudden Kasich is some great conservative (with a pretty liberal record). I'm always weary of any candidate from a swing state. If they are popular in a swing state then both sides Generally find them acceptable. This is our time conservatives. Everyone go vote!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Trump is calling for boycott on Apple. I guess the privacy of American citizens is not overly important to him.


Sent from the Strut Zone

Quote from: davisd9 on February 20, 2016, 08:17:51 AM
Trump is calling for boycott on Apple. I guess the privacy of American citizens is not overly important to him.


Sent from the Strut Zone

I'm actually with Trump on this. I knew a year or two ago when Apple openingly said they would not help any investigations that it would end up in a court. Now Apple thinks they can disregard court orders? Who are they? This is being done with a court order not a random unauthorized intrution. This will also have unintended consequences. Consider if a group that was transporting children for a sex trade and they know if they use iphones then the feds will never get their information. Honestly it scares me more that it's that secure. Law enforcement should be able to gain access if a court order exist. This is already done for androids, and even your house if a search warrant is issued. I think Apple is in the wrong considering that Farooks phone could contain information that could save lives. Consider if it stopped another attack that could kill one of your loved ones. Honestly if they refuse to abide by a court order they should be punished severly. If other companies can't refuse to cooperate with investigations why can they? Why would they want too? Then they act like it's a moral stance but the facts suggest otherwise. It's purely a marketing move and all about money and disregarding America's safety. I for one will not be supporting Apple.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: southern_leo on February 20, 2016, 08:30:34 AM

Quote from: davisd9 on February 20, 2016, 08:17:51 AM
Trump is calling for boycott on Apple. I guess the privacy of American citizens is not overly important to him.


Sent from the Strut Zone

I'm actually with Trump on this. I knew a year or two ago when Apple openingly said they would not help any investigations that it would end up in a court. Now Apple thinks they can disregard court orders? Who are they? This is being done with a court order not a random unauthorized intrution. This will also have unintended consequences. Consider if a group that was transporting children for a sex trade and they know if they use iphones then the feds will never get their information. Honestly it scares me more that it's that secure. Law enforcement should be able to gain access if a court order exist. This is already done for androids, and even your house if a search warrant is issued. I think Apple is in the wrong considering that Farooks phone could contain information that could save lives. Consider if it stopped another attack that could kill one of your loved ones. Honestly if they refuse to abide by a court order they should be punished severly. If other companies can't refuse to cooperate with investigations why can they? Why would they want too? Then they act like it's a moral stance but the facts suggest otherwise. It's purely a marketing move and all about money and disregarding America's safety. I for one will not be supporting Apple.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Apple has completely agreed to work with the FBI. The FBI wants a back door opened on IOS so they can search phones. They do not need to do this as all the information they need can be retrieved without that. This opens the door for the government to look into the privacy of American citizens. This is a violation to American privacy rights. Once this "back door" is open it will never be closed. This is just like the Patriot Act after 9/11, there may be good intentions but it steps on American citizen privacy rights.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Sent from the Strut Zone

Quote from: davisd9 on February 20, 2016, 09:11:06 AM

Quote from: southern_leo on February 20, 2016, 08:30:34 AM

Quote from: davisd9 on February 20, 2016, 08:17:51 AM
Trump is calling for boycott on Apple. I guess the privacy of American citizens is not overly important to him.


Sent from the Strut Zone

I'm actually with Trump on this. I knew a year or two ago when Apple openingly said they would not help any investigations that it would end up in a court. Now Apple thinks they can disregard court orders? Who are they? This is being done with a court order not a random unauthorized intrution. This will also have unintended consequences. Consider if a group that was transporting children for a sex trade and they know if they use iphones then the feds will never get their information. Honestly it scares me more that it's that secure. Law enforcement should be able to gain access if a court order exist. This is already done for androids, and even your house if a search warrant is issued. I think Apple is in the wrong considering that Farooks phone could contain information that could save lives. Consider if it stopped another attack that could kill one of your loved ones. Honestly if they refuse to abide by a court order they should be punished severly. If other companies can't refuse to cooperate with investigations why can they? Why would they want too? Then they act like it's a moral stance but the facts suggest otherwise. It's purely a marketing move and all about money and disregarding America's safety. I for one will not be supporting Apple.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Apple has completely agreed to work with the FBI. The FBI wants a back door opened on IOS so they can search phones. They do not need to do this as all the information they need can be retrieved without that. This opens the door for the government to look into the privacy of American citizens. This is a violation to American privacy rights. Once this "back door" is open it will never be closed. This is just like the Patriot Act after 9/11, there may be good intentions but it steps on American citizen privacy rights.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Sent from the Strut Zone

But it's not Apples place to determine what they will and won't do once ordered by the courts. And I have watched the media releases from Apple and have yet to see any where they agreed to cooperate at all. I agree that the back door should be made. It's not any of Apples business and could create a security risk if you involve civilian staff from Apple everytime your conducting an investigation if that was the case. It doesn't just open a flood gate like everyone acts. Law enforcement would still be required to obtain a search warrant which would be a court order based on probable cause. One easy way to recognize this is not about security is Apple is historically extreme left wing, since when do you really think they decided the 4th amendment mattered?
    As far as your quote, do not misuse a good quote from a good man. Obviously if a court order is in place Americans are not surrendering freedom for security. If this allowed law enforcement to proceed without a warrant then you may have standing. But search warrants have been around for a long time and are 100% legal and constitutional. It's not about surrendering any freedom. If you don't want your stuff searched don't do illegal stuff like shoot up Co workers in San Bernardino. I'm still very confused how and why any American can be against this.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Let's get back to presidential discussions as this thread is deviating off course a little. GO CRUZ!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: 2eagles on February 14, 2016, 09:40:56 PM
Anybody but Hellery!

Better than Bernie...

The GOP needs to wake up...  Trump is too much of a jerk to accomplish anything (as he pizzes everyone off, even in his own party).  His ego will interfere with his ability to accomplish anything in the Whitehouse...

I liked Carson, but it appears he is heavily medicated or something...

I do not think the country is quite ready for another Bush as president.

We need someone that appeals to the majority of the country...  Conservative fiscally while a bit more socially liberal...  And get someone who does not involve religion in politics...  Religion often scares many of the "middle" away from the GOP.

Where you Bush fans going now?

Post SC results Trump wins, Rubio and Cruz basically tie. Bush quits. I look for Kasich and Carson to follow soon. But where are you Bush supporters going now since he made it official?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

This election has been crazy for sure. Never thought that Trump would have actually done this well.
I believe that why he is doing well is that he is saying what everyone has been feeling for almost 8 years, however, I believe that is his strategy. I believe that he is capitalizing off of fear and anger, and that people are not thinking clearly.
The problem is that you do not have a strong second Rep. candidate to actually stand against Trump. Cruz at times looks like a goober, Rubio has a problem with immigration, and Bush just bailed.
So, what I see is Trump and Hillary fighting it out, and Hillary beating Trump.
I honestly hope Trump wasn't in this just for publicity or to help the Clintons ensure victory because Hillary could not win unless they split the Republican vote, and that is what has happened.
I believe that some of the good ones like Rick Perry and Rand Paul would have done better if Trump never entered the fray. We cannot get this election wrong, and I believe that we already have.
Hope I am wrong :popcorn:

Quote from: Eric Gregg on February 20, 2016, 10:57:41 PM
This election has been crazy for sure. Never thought that Trump would have actually done this well.
I believe that why he is doing well is that he is saying what everyone has been feeling for almost 8 years, however, I believe that is his strategy. I believe that he is capitalizing off of fear and anger, and that people are not thinking clearly.
The problem is that you do not have a strong second Rep. candidate to actually stand against Trump. Cruz at times looks like a goober, Rubio has a problem with immigration, and Bush just bailed.
So, what I see is Trump and Hillary fighting it out, and Hillary beating Trump.
I honestly hope Trump wasn't in this just for publicity or to help the Clintons ensure victory because Hillary could not win unless they split the Republican vote, and that is what has happened.
I believe that some of the good ones like Rick Perry and Rand Paul would have done better if Trump never entered the fray. We cannot get this election wrong, and I believe that we already have.
Hope I am wrong :popcorn:

I agree Hillary vs Trump in a head to head debate is scary. I'm a Cruz guy but really wish Huckabee could have gained traction, I always liked him.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

"Upstate New York, I'm like the most popular person that has ever lived, virtually."
-Donald Trump during his interview with CNN after winning South Carolina

It's humiliating that this man is considered for the highest office of government. What a travesty American politics has become.

[quote/]But it's not Apples place to determine what they will and won't do once ordered by the courts. And I have watched the media releases from Apple and have yet to see any where they agreed to cooperate at all. I agree that the back door should be made. It's not any of Apples business and could create a security risk if you involve civilian staff from Apple everytime your conducting an investigation if that was the case. It doesn't just open a flood gate like everyone acts. Law enforcement would still be required to obtain a search warrant which would be a court order based on probable cause. One easy way to recognize this is not about security is Apple is historically extreme left wing, since when do you really think they decided the 4th amendment mattered?
    As far as your quote, do not misuse a good quote from a good man. Obviously if a court order is in place Americans are not surrendering freedom for security. If this allowed law enforcement to proceed without a warrant then you may have standing. But search warrants have been around for a long time and are 100% legal and constitutional. It's not about surrendering any freedom. If you don't want your stuff searched don't do illegal stuff like shoot up Co workers in San Bernardino. I'm still very confused how and why any American can be against this. [/quote]

Apple has apparently cooperated in prior instances with prior Op Systems.  It's not easy for us, on the outside of the dispute, to understand why this instance is different from others.  Concern about the slippery slope and being held hostage by China appears to be weighing on the minds at Apple.  If they do it for the US, then it exists, and how do they refrain from giving it to China, which will use it as a matter of course and not as part of an official investigation that involves de jure criminal and terror acts and judicial process.

Apple says it does not exist and would have to be created from scratch.  It has an interest in appealing the lower court's decision to defend itself from becoming an involuntary servant and spending a lot of time and money doing the bidding of others.  Now, how time consuming and expensive it would be is hard for those of us on the outside to know.

Quotea Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes to become POTUS , and this is impossible with out winning FLORIDA as we speak its neck and neck in Florida on the polls with it showing Rubio having a slight lead out of all of the contestants over Hillary Clinton its 46% to 46% right now and whomever wins the primary better darn well be able to beat Hillary in Florida

Amen! I also read a poll and this was a while back, that showed Rubio was the winner by a large margin when Republican voters were asked "If your favored candidate dropped out, who would you support".  About the same time, he polled the best among independents vs Hilary or Bernstein.  This was several months ago mind you, but he was the only R that polled to beat those 2.  That factors in and I will watch for that poll in the future.

May I ask, not trying to derail, but I have read on here several times that Rubio is bad on immigration.  How exactly?  I freely admit that my attitudes on immigration tend to lean to the middle (I guess really left) of the most of my opinions like gun control and fiscal policies.  What holds some of you up on Rubio's policies?  Don't get me wrong, I would be ecstatic with a Cruz presidency, but right now I have Rubio with a slight edge were I to vote today.  My daughter loves Jeb, so I may be able to politic her vote too! 

Quote from: g8rvet on February 21, 2016, 07:11:48 PM

Quotea Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes to become POTUS , and this is impossible with out winning FLORIDA as we speak its neck and neck in Florida on the polls with it showing Rubio having a slight lead out of all of the contestants over Hillary Clinton its 46% to 46% right now and whomever wins the primary better darn well be able to beat Hillary in Florida

Amen! I also read a poll and this was a while back, that showed Rubio was the winner by a large margin when Republican voters were asked "If your favored candidate dropped out, who would you support".  About the same time, he polled the best among independents vs Hilary or Bernstein.  This was several months ago mind you, but he was the only R that polled to beat those 2.  That factors in and I will watch for that poll in the future.

May I ask, not trying to derail, but I have read on here several times that Rubio is bad on immigration.  How exactly?  I freely admit that my attitudes on immigration tend to lean to the middle (I guess really left) of the most of my opinions like gun control and fiscal policies.  What holds some of you up on Rubio's policies?  Don't get me wrong, I would be ecstatic with a Cruz presidency, but right now I have Rubio with a slight edge were I to vote today.  My daughter loves Jeb, so I may be able to politic her vote too!

Rubio is weak on immigration. In the literal term, he has held positions for and against so he is very inconsistent which ever way you believe. Early on in his career he supported the DREAM act to give children of illegals in state tuition prices. Then in 06 he was largely supported by the illegal community as supporting their views. Then he runs for Senate as a tea party candidate and preaches strongly against illegals immigration. Then turned around and joined the gang of eight and voted for a path of citizenship for illegals. He was also blamed in I think 2006 for stalling legislation aimed at illegal enforcement that ultimately failed. Now he is back to being anti illegal. So he says what he needs to when he needs too. It should also throw up red flags to you that the establishment is now throwing their weight behind him....hint hint. I like Cruz because I think he is the best candidate. Strong conservative values with a consistent record to support that. I like Trump but I'm starting to believe he is all talk. I like the tough talk but we get that he can do that now we need to see substance, which he still hasn't shown. To me Cruz is the only viable option for a realistic conservative.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

QuoteIt should also throw up red flags to you that the establishment is now throwing their weight behind him.

Didn't the establishment back Ronald Reagan?  And didn't he have some more centric views early on? 

So what you are saying is not that he is weak, but he has waffled.  I will look into it and thanks.

Quote from: g8rvet on February 22, 2016, 12:07:10 PM

QuoteIt should also throw up red flags to you that the establishment is now throwing their weight behind him.

Didn't the establishment back Ronald Reagan?  And didn't he have some more centric views early on? 

So what you are saying is not that he is weak, but he has waffled.  I will look into it and thanks.

I can't answer the Reagan candidacy questions honestly because I was born during his term so it was a little before I was involved in politics. What I do know though is that even if the establishment backed him the Republican party was alot different back then, for that matter so we're the Democrats. Either way if Rubio is your guy, vote for him. I was just stating why I cant. If he is the nominee I will support him, but not in the primaries. And I do consider him weak on immigration. I think if someone legitimately changes their mind is one thing, but changes views to appease multiple times means you have no back bone aka weak. Just my opinion though. One thing I give him is he is a great speaker which is why I think most like him......but so is Obama.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: g8rvet on February 22, 2016, 12:07:10 PM

QuoteIt should also throw up red flags to you that the establishment is now throwing their weight behind him.

Didn't the establishment back Ronald Reagan?  And didn't he have some more centric views early on? 

So what you are saying is not that he is weak, but he has waffled.  I will look into it and thanks.

No!

The establishment hacks attacked Reagan as being too conservative and said that he could not win.

What scares me more than anything is that you have a generation of millenials voting now that think that Socialism is a great idea.
A group of young, unemployed college kids who do not have mortgages and do not pay income tax yet are making decisions without even knowing what Socialism is, and, how it has destroyed other countries.
That lets me know that this next generation is primed and ready to embrace socialism.
Rich people are mean and greedy, let's take all their money so that everyone gets a "fair share" at life.
Great idea until they get a degree, go into a field expecting a large income, and are told that there is not only a minimum wage, but there is a social limit on how much they can make for the "greater good" of the country.
Politicians have capitalized off of minorities and young inexperienced voters for years to get to this point.

Quote from: g8rvet on February 21, 2016, 07:11:48 PM

Quotea Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes to become POTUS , and this is impossible with out winning FLORIDA as we speak its neck and neck in Florida on the polls with it showing Rubio having a slight lead out of all of the contestants over Hillary Clinton its 46% to 46% right now and whomever wins the primary better darn well be able to beat Hillary in Florida

Amen! I also read a poll and this was a while back, that showed Rubio was the winner by a large margin when Republican voters were asked "If your favored candidate dropped out, who would you support".  About the same time, he polled the best among independents vs Hilary or Bernstein.  This was several months ago mind you, but he was the only R that polled to beat those 2.  That factors in and I will watch for that poll in the future.

May I ask, not trying to derail, but I have read on here several times that Rubio is bad on immigration.  How exactly?  I freely admit that my attitudes on immigration tend to lean to the middle (I guess really left) of the most of my opinions like gun control and fiscal policies.  What holds some of you up on Rubio's policies?  Don't get me wrong, I would be ecstatic with a Cruz presidency, but right now I have Rubio with a slight edge were I to vote today.  My daughter loves Jeb, so I may be able to politic her vote too!

2/22/16

As I speak , before the debate , I predict in Nevada ......rubio will barely surpass Cruz in Nevada primary votes and will almost tie with trump , Cruz will take a beating for that doctored  video that he fired his staff over ,  and I think many voters that liked Jeb ,and kaisich (sp) will gravitate to rubio and Cruz

Trump didn't do so well in sc as he did in new Hampshire and is slipping , and as contestants drop out he is not gaining in popularity,  this isn't a opinion , it's what's going on. Trump lost a good portion of his  of his vote from new Hampshire to sc

It's anyone's game ...but I see the nomination eventually going to Cruz or rubio

Rubio is portrayed as being weak on immigration,  this may be true, but take into mind this is a long term GOP stay ago to capture Latino voters that are critical to some swing states

After Nevada if more people drop out , it will change the game

Quote from: Old Gobbler on February 22, 2016, 09:54:42 PM

Quote from: g8rvet on February 21, 2016, 07:11:48 PM

Quotea Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes to become POTUS , and this is impossible with out winning FLORIDA as we speak its neck and neck in Florida on the polls with it showing Rubio having a slight lead out of all of the contestants over Hillary Clinton its 46% to 46% right now and whomever wins the primary better darn well be able to beat Hillary in Florida

Amen! I also read a poll and this was a while back, that showed Rubio was the winner by a large margin when Republican voters were asked "If your favored candidate dropped out, who would you support".  About the same time, he polled the best among independents vs Hilary or Bernstein.  This was several months ago mind you, but he was the only R that polled to beat those 2.  That factors in and I will watch for that poll in the future.

May I ask, not trying to derail, but I have read on here several times that Rubio is bad on immigration.  How exactly?  I freely admit that my attitudes on immigration tend to lean to the middle (I guess really left) of the most of my opinions like gun control and fiscal policies.  What holds some of you up on Rubio's policies?  Don't get me wrong, I would be ecstatic with a Cruz presidency, but right now I have Rubio with a slight edge were I to vote today.  My daughter loves Jeb, so I may be able to politic her vote too!

2/22/16

As I speak , before the debate , I predict in Nevada ......rubio will barely surpass Cruz in Nevada primary votes and will almost tie with trump , Cruz will take a beating for that doctored  video that he fired his staff over ,  and I think many voters that liked Jeb ,and kaisich (sp) will gravitate to rubio and Cruz

Trump didn't do so well in sc as he did in new Hampshire and is slipping , and as contestants drop out he is not gaining in popularity,  this isn't a opinion , it's what's going on. Trump lost a good portion of his  of his vote from new Hampshire to sc

It's anyone's game ...but I see the nomination eventually going to Cruz or rubio

Rubio is portrayed as being weak on immigration,  this may be true, but take into mind this is a long term GOP stay ago to capture Latino voters that are critical to some swing states

After Nevada if more people drop out , it will change the game

I do agree as people drop out those votes will go to Cruz and Rubio. I think Trump has everyone he's going to get. If your drawn to Jeb, Kasich, or sleepy Carson, then chances are Trump isn't on your radar.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Trump carried a large part of the evangelical vote in SC last weekend, which is hard to understand.  The country is in a strange place when social conservatives do not consider character and morality high on the list of qualifications.  That is usually the starting point and litmus test for social conservatives, and if they fail that, the vote does not follow.

If Trump is the nominee, we will have a fine candidate for Commander In Chief.  He survived the STD war in New York as a highly accomplished seducer and fornicator in the 1980's and deserves a medal for it.

Out-*******-standing, Private Trump!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h822LPnM5uw

Quote from: southern_leo on February 22, 2016, 01:56:58 PM

Quote from: g8rvet on February 22, 2016, 12:07:10 PM

QuoteIt should also throw up red flags to you that the establishment is now throwing their weight behind him.

Didn't the establishment back Ronald Reagan?  And didn't he have some more centric views early on? 

So what you are saying is not that he is weak, but he has waffled.  I will look into it and thanks.

was just stating why I cant. If he is the nominee I will support him, but not in the primaries. And I do consider him weak on immigration.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

That is exactly what I was asking. I wanted to hear some opinions. I was not debating, I really wanted your opinion.  Thank you.

Quote from: Swather on February 22, 2016, 04:25:21 PM

Quote from: g8rvet on February 22, 2016, 12:07:10 PM

QuoteIt should also throw up red flags to you that the establishment is now throwing their weight behind him.

Didn't the establishment back Ronald Reagan?  And didn't he have some more centric views early on? 

So what you are saying is not that he is weak, but he has waffled.  I will look into it and thanks.

No!

The establishment hacks attacked Reagan as being too conservative and said that he could not win.

Thanks. I read up on that and you are correct.  I was too young to vote in the 80 election (by 4 days I think, or less), so I was not really following it as well as I did in 84.  By then, Reagan WAS the establishment, so it was a very different race.  I was actually a registered Democrat (Dixiecrat) at the time and finally said to heck with local elections, I wanted to align with the party that was closest to my opinions. 

Robert Reich makes the case for voting for Ted Cruz.

And he did not even meant to do it.  But like Jimmy Carter, he elucidates how Cruz is what conservatives say they want.  (He, like others, has his weaknesses).

Reich is an unabashed leftwing moonbat that was in the Clinton administration.  Reich was on one side positioned against Bob Rubin, Sec. of Treasury, moderate and fiscally responsible by Dem standards and former Goldman guy.  Rubin won Clinton's favor, and Clinton was pragmatic since he lost the Congress to the Repubs.  Reich felt marginalized and left the admin because Clinton did not follow his advice and pursue his whacky leftwing policies. 

I give Clinton credit for listening to Rubin.  (To be honest, Rubin pushed for more financial restraint than anyone in W's admin.  Who knew we'd long for the days of fiscal prudence in a Democrat admin?)

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_z6_wU2ZXU

Quote from: g8rvet on February 23, 2016, 12:45:15 PMThat is exactly what I was asking. I wanted to hear some opinions. I was not debating, I really wanted your opinion.  Thank you.

When Rubio was in the FL House he proposed a state cap and trade program on carbon because he thought it was inevitable at the federal level.  Instead of pointing out the obvious problems with AGW theory, the confounding variable of using temp measurement and reporting stations surrounded by concrete or asphalt, and the empirical evidence of satellite temp measurements showing no substantial change in temps as CO2 emissions rose, he just wanted to go with the flow to get the fight behind and not have to worry about facts and arguments.

Rubio ran for the Senate to rep FL and promised no amnesty.  That promise did not last.

He stated in Spanish on univision that if elected, he would not take immediate steps to reverse BHO's executive orders on illegals, including the dreamers.

He also served as a principal of the Gang Of Eight, which was a jointly retarded effort to betray the public and pass a bill loaded with amnesty.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/12/19/the-ugly-truth-about-marco-rubio-and-his-gangofeight-amnesty-bill-n2095418/page/full
 

As I said earlier in this thread, immigration is a boiling water issue for politicians and it is hard for them to take a position that pleases a plurality or even a majority of their constituents.  Then there is the top down pressure from the RNC not to alienate hispanics and latinos because they have a high birth rate and a growing population segment.

I have concerns whether any politician will get the issue right, and particularly hispanic/latino politicians.  Can they withstand the criticism and pressure from their ethnic peers?

No one seems to be courageous enough to admonish hispanics and latinos that they are in the wrong if they are siding with brown before all else and siding with foreigners over Americans.  A lot of hispanic/latinos don't see that for themselves.  But I do know that a lot of old line Tejanos in Texas do not like the illegal alien invasion mess.

This country made a big mistake in 1986 in granting amnesty based on the same old promises and platitudes we hear today.  The problem was in the magnitude of 3MM or so illegals.  Today, it is about 12MM illegals, but it is hard to say and probably depends on the time of year and amount of work.  So granting amnesty laid the foundation for a problem that is 4 times bigger than it was 30 years ago.  If we let them get away with granting amnesty this time, how big will the problem be 30 years from now?

The missing element in immigration is enforcement.  We have a visa system based on trust of compliance and self removal.  But about 40% of the illegals in this country are over-stays on expired visas.  It is said that there is somewhere around 40,000 Irish in this country illegally as stay-overs.  But you don't hear La Raza, the Pope, etc. advocating for the Irish to get to stay and keep coming in at will. 

Am I the only one now starting to become angered at Carson and Kasich? It is blatantly obvious they are unelectable at this point. They now are dragging out their base voters which robs those votes from the top three, one of which will win. I have a lot of respect for a candidate that knows when to quit and fight another day but at this point I believe they are causing damage. They continue to take contributions and have their base vote for them, essentially wasting both. While I realize this is all their perogative I see it as very irresponsible and almost pouting not to let it go. I think Carson is doing it out of inexperience, not really sure about Kasich. Then Kasich said in a speach his "purpose may not be to become president". What does that even mean? He was speaking from a religious stand point as in God's purpose, not a conspiracy purpose, just to clarify. But especially after Nevada I think Carson and Kasich need to leave before super tuesday.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

         Post-Houston debate...

   personally, I  still maintain that Senator Ted Cruz is the only man ,at this point , qualified for the Oval Office...
I will say,  that I believe  Trump has been good for this country in  one big  way.....his loud mouth and abrasiveness have awakened a lot of people ...and that's as far as it goes for him in my book

I'd really love to see a Rubio/Kasich ticket.

Too many people in this thread discussing an extreme, uncompromising brand of conservatism.  Wake up; the demographics of the country are changing and demographic changes mean constituency changes. You can't continue to alienate the ethnic minorities with unfavorable policies (I.e Latinos) and expect to win elections.  You can't continue to offend social progressives and win future elections when the country is indisputably embracing those positions.

The erosion of white, judeo-Christian political dominance is happening and if you want to have any efficacy you can't preach ideology that forces your values on other people.  Christian conservatives want to draw lines in the sand and the more lines they draw the more they make themselves obsolete.

Let's talk about reality. Trump will never beat Hilary in the general election and neither will Cruz.  The numbers just don't get them to the Oval Office.  It's time to realize that compromise and bipartisanship is the way to functional government and you aren't always supposed to win when compromise is involved. It's time for the far right to realize they need to rally around a more centrist republican candidate in order to ensure their interests are at least considered, instead of being ignored under a democrat President. 

Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on February 26, 2016, 10:29:55 PM
I'd really love to see a Rubio/Kasich ticket.

Too many people in this thread discussing an extreme, uncompromising brand of conservatism.  Wake up; the demographics of the country are changing and demographic changes mean constituency changes. You can't continue to alienate the ethnic minorities with unfavorable policies (I.e Latinos) and expect to win elections.  You can't continue to offend social progressives and win future elections when the country is indisputably embracing those positions.

The erosion of white, judeo-Christian political dominance is happening and if you want to have any efficacy you can't preach ideology that forces your values on other people.  Christian conservatives want to draw lines in the sand and the more lines they draw the more they make themselves obsolete.

Let's talk about reality. Trump will never beat Hilary in the general election and neither will Cruz.  The numbers just don't get them to the Oval Office.  It's time to realize that compromise and bipartisanship is the way to functional government and you aren't always supposed to win when compromise is involved. It's time for the far right to realize they need to rally around a more centrist republican candidate in order to ensure their interests are at least considered, instead of being ignored under a democrat President.

I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong. Bipartisanship does not win (reference last two elections when Republicans nominated text book bipartisan candidates). Also the concept that Latinos are all Democrat's is wrong. Yes dems try to cater to them to sucker their votes, but most legal immigrants you speak with main concern is jobs, because most came here for work and they are not stupid.
    As far as beating Hillary where are your facts? The polls so far have been unstable at best. In a debate I do think Trump would have difficulty against Hillary, but Cruz would absolutely destroy her, I promise you. But debates may not play into election results.
    You have to vote for people based on principles not on who you think will win. I believe, and so far nominee results are showing, a silent majority does favor a strong conservative, not a middle of the aisle guy. If you like Rubio, then vote Rubio, but don't vote for him just because CNN polls say he will beat Hillary.
    BTW from my understanding those poll numbers do not take into account unforseen circumstances like prison time  :P

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk