|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102 registered members (limabean, Jdkprp70, Thread Killer, coldtrail, Birdman83, MS_Hunter, knock him down, dawgdr, Tree Hanger, Jstocks, rutwad, Shmoe, SilverBullet, HURRICANE, bamaeyedoc, fireman176, eskimo270, C3SEAST, outdoorguy88, Dixiepatriot, Semo, CAL, Moss, scrubbuck, Paint Rock 00, wareagle22, SwampHunter, CNC, Holcomb, CB5121, goodman_hunter, BamaGuitarDude, RidgeRanger, brett.smith, 007, MattIce, Ray_Coon, geeb1, Whild_Bill, Turkey Petter, 3bailey3, courseup, JAT, FreeStateHunter, quailman, weatherby, jawbone, Gulfcoast, Shane99, Bustinbeards, Mansfield, jellyhead11, Big AL 76, AU coonhunter, jbatey1, BD, leroycnbucks, BobK, 300gr, Lockjaw, Bull64, coosabuckhunter, Mack1, ImThere, SWilliamson, walt4dun, Redman3, BCD, doghouse, mw2015, jacannon, Buck2020, beetrapper, BearBranch, Exhoosier, BayedUp, GHTiger10, TEM, GomerPyle, twaldrop4, Chiller, bambam32, TexasHuntress, square, Mmiller, BrentsFX4, Okalona, NotsoBright, m97, DoubleB, Forrestgump1, Bruno, JHL, oldandwise, Bushmaster, 7 invisible),
955
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: hallb]
#1679395
03/08/16 06:00 AM
03/08/16 06:00 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,115
miss'ippi state
donia
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,115
miss'ippi state
|
rubio said the same...a vote for cruz is a vote for trump
experience is a freakin' awesome teacher....
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: hallb]
#1679434
03/08/16 06:28 AM
03/08/16 06:28 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
straycat
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
|
I'm a Ted Cruz supporter, and I agree that it is flawed thinking and a logical fallacy because ONLY a positive vote FOR someone can actually count as a vote. The absence of a vote cannot be a vote for someone else.
But like many of you said, there are implications and end results.
Where Cruz does have a point is this:
Primaries are designed, organized and put on by the Parties...much different than the general election.
IF...IF a primary voter is going to vote for one of 4 people (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich)...which is what a primary is designed to do: vote for those who qualified under party rules and made the ballot--THEN a vote for the lower 2 candidates further splits the vote and the resulting consequence is that Trump maintains his lead because Cruz isn't getting those votes. Sounds reasonable on the surface because this isn't about write in voting in a primary.
But the underlying premise is indeed flawed. A vote for Rubio or Kasich is a vote for Rubio or Kasich. So simple that the logic is often missed. Are there ramifications? Absolutely! Trumps lead will not be cut any at all with a split vote, true true true. That is the consequence, though, not a direct vote causation.
However, I hold that it is ultimately up to each individual candidate to garner support and to gather as many votes as they can and only a positive vote for someone is an actual vote. No one has special privilege to any vote; one can't assume any non-Trump vote would have been theirs in the first place. Rubio and Kasich supporters are voting that way for a reason, which should be respected even if it makes little sense. If Cruz wants those votes, well by God, he needs to go change some hearts and minds and persuade them to support him.
This holds true in the General Election as well. Whoever the nominee may be, it is up to them and their campaign and supporters to impact the voters in a way that resonates in the hearts and minds of the voters--thus earning, EARNING, the positive votes of the public who participate in the sacred civic duty of voting in a free and open election. If a candidate cannot do so, then so be it.
This is the basic premise of all types of competitions where voting is done to select a winner. Each contestant must earn it by their own merits. To do so they must capture the hearts, minds, and votes of the judges. Can't blame the other 4, 10, 20 contestants for competing and say "if they weren't in this, then I'd be leading the front runner". It might appear true on the surface, but that is making assumptions that all the votes for the others are somehow belonging to just the 2nd place contestant. That doesn't fly.
Last edited by straycat; 03/08/16 06:33 AM.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: straycat]
#1679460
03/08/16 06:47 AM
03/08/16 06:47 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 25,700
Locust Fork, Alabama
BC
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 25,700
Locust Fork, Alabama
|
I'm a Ted Cruz supporter, and I agree that it is flawed thinking and a logical fallacy because ONLY a positive vote FOR someone can actually count as a vote. The absence of a vote cannot be a vote for someone else.
This is incorrect. 100 voters Candidate A Candidate B Candidate A 49 votes Candidate B 50 Votes Last voter abstains from voting or writes in Mickey Mouse on his ballot. Candidate B wins the election. It's pretty simple. An absence of a vote in major numbers can and will influence an election and you will get Candidate B whom you don't want.
"Some men are mere hunters; others are turkey hunters."
-- Archibald Rutledge
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: hallb]
#1679543
03/08/16 07:51 AM
03/08/16 07:51 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
straycat
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
|
Not incorrect or it would be 51-49 or 50-50. Only, only, only a positive vote can or ever will actually be credited as a vote to any candidate. Period. Physically and Mathematically and Logically impossible to be otherwise.
Listen, I agree there might be consequences, as I stated. Everything we do in life results in "something" happening. Depending on how votes go down, there may be resulting consequences. Very true and valid concern.
To me, the real question is this: Why does Candidate A in your scenario assume that my vote would be/should be/must only be for them? That assumption is the root of the problem.
Our founders, patriot forefathers, family members, even some of us today served and fought to do what? They fought to preserve LIBERTY! They fought for something larger than the right/privilege to vote. They fought for the expression of self-determination and individual, functional, foundational, essential liberty...the essence of Freedom.
Voting your principles in a free and open election is a true form of exercising that Liberty, paid for in blood.
Other issues around the argument:
*If Candidate A wants or needs my vote, then he/she needs to earn it on the merits of their ideology, policy, vision, trust, character and leadership.
*Where is the fervor to place blame where it really belongs? If Candidate B with 50 votes is so horrible, how bout blaming the idots and morans who gave Candidate B 50 votes? I mean without that 50, this would not even be an issue, right?
*Further, if a person doesn't want Candidate A or B equally based on their own principles...should they be so shallow as to sell out their vote to someone who doesn't come close to representing what they want in an elected leader...)not talking a little compromise on some policy positions...but non-congruent core beliefs)?????
Analogy:
100 people voting for either Apples or Oranges as the best fruit; So far Apples get 50 votes, Oranges get 49 votes, but one person doesn't like, actually despises both, so they have a choice to make. Vote for 2 things they hate or abstain altogether or write in Bananas; They write in Bananas...a wonderful delicious good for you tropical fruit. 100 votes cast.
100 votes cast.
Apples earned their maximum at 50.
Oranges earned their maximum of 49.
Bananas earned their maximum of 1
The outstanding single vote wasn't for either of them, so they cannot count it as theirs. The vote isn't physically cast for either. Mathematically, the votes cannot be manipulated to give either that single vote. Therefore the basic logical rules state that the absence of a vote can never be a positive vote for something that never received the vote.
Well someone has to be at fault here. We can't have such division! People need to get on board!
So which of the 50 Apple voters is to blame for their vote cast for Apples? Their votes gave Apples the lead, right? Or is it automatically assumed that there is only one "right" thing to do and that Voter # 100 must pick Orange, with disregard for that voters Liberty? And any vote for some other fruit is a wasted vote?
Stupid analogy, but it is because it is so silly and simple that it makes sense. When we take emotions out of the equation, it is very easy to see the logic and a fallacy of the argument. But consequences do remain. We'll have Apples for supper.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: straycat]
#1679574
03/08/16 08:09 AM
03/08/16 08:09 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,502
Cullman,AL
turkey_killer
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,502
Cullman,AL
|
Not incorrect or it would be 51-49 or 50-50. Only, only, only a positive vote can or ever will actually be credited as a vote to any candidate. Period. Physically and Mathematically and Logically impossible to be otherwise.
Listen, I agree there might be consequences, as I stated. Everything we do in life results in "something" happening. Depending on how votes go down, there may be resulting consequences. Very true and valid concern.
To me, the real question is this: Why does Candidate A in your scenario assume that my vote would be/should be/must only be for them? That assumption is the root of the problem.
Our founders, patriot forefathers, family members, even some of us today served and fought to do what? They fought to preserve LIBERTY! They fought for something larger than the right/privilege to vote. They fought for the expression of self-determination and individual, functional, foundational, essential liberty...the essence of Freedom.
Voting your principles in a free and open election is a true form of exercising that Liberty, paid for in blood.
Other issues around the argument:
*If Candidate A wants or needs my vote, then he/she needs to earn it on the merits of their ideology, policy, vision, trust, character and leadership.
*Where is the fervor to place blame where it really belongs? If Candidate B with 50 votes is so horrible, how bout blaming the idots and morans who gave Candidate B 50 votes? I mean without that 50, this would not even be an issue, right?
*Further, if a person doesn't want Candidate A or B equally based on their own principles...should they be so shallow as to sell out their vote to someone who doesn't come close to representing what they want in an elected leader...)not talking a little compromise on some policy positions...but non-congruent core beliefs)?????
Analogy:
100 people voting for either Apples or Oranges as the best fruit; So far Apples get 50 votes, Oranges get 49 votes, but one person doesn't like, actually despises both, so they have a choice to make. Vote for 2 things they hate or abstain altogether or write in Bananas; They write in Bananas...a wonderful delicious good for you tropical fruit. 100 votes cast.
100 votes cast.
Apples earned their maximum at 50.
Oranges earned their maximum of 49.
Bananas earned their maximum of 1
The outstanding single vote wasn't for either of them, so they cannot count it as theirs. The vote isn't physically cast for either. Mathematically, the votes cannot be manipulated to give either that single vote. Therefore the basic logical rules state that the absence of a vote can never be a positive vote for something that never received the vote.
Well someone has to be at fault here. We can't have such division! People need to get on board!
So which of the 50 Apple voters is to blame for their vote cast for Apples? Their votes gave Apples the lead, right? Or is it automatically assumed that there is only one "right" thing to do and that Voter # 100 must pick Orange, with disregard for that voters Liberty? And any vote for some other fruit is a wasted vote?
Stupid analogy, but it is because it is so silly and simple that it makes sense. When we take emotions out of the equation, it is very easy to see the logic and a fallacy of the argument. But consequences do remain. We'll have Apples for supper.
Right on
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: Beer Belly]
#1679585
03/08/16 08:15 AM
03/08/16 08:15 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
straycat
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
|
So the guy really likes apples, but voted for bananas because his apple variety wasn't chosen as the best apple in the primary apple vote. Now no one in the country can grow apples because the supreme court voted deemed that apples contribute to global warming.
You can't comprehend how Red Delicious Guy voting for the banana was a cause for the Orange to win the election. Especially when 45% of the orange guys are getting substitutes NOT to grow any oranges. They don't care what variety of orange, they just want their $ not to grow anything.
I'll take some of whatever BB has been drinking. I'm not sure if I need to agree, disagree or abstain 
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: straycat]
#1679589
03/08/16 08:18 AM
03/08/16 08:18 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 25,700
Locust Fork, Alabama
BC
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 25,700
Locust Fork, Alabama
|
Voting your principles in a free and open election is a true form of exercising that Liberty, paid for in blood.
I don't disagree. Voting for whomever you want is a fundamental American right. The thing I worry about is losing focus on keeping the Liberals out of positions of power and stopping them from running this country into the ground. I can't help who the Republican nominee is, but I can sure help that nominee (whomever it is), keep those evil Democrat bastages out of office. With the Replublicans so fractured and people writing in candidates that have as much chance of winning as I do, it only hurts the chances of keeping the Dems out of office. Why can't you guys realize you are putting the ones you are most against into office while you are on your moralistic crusade? With that mindset you better lube up because the Hildebeast is coming.
"Some men are mere hunters; others are turkey hunters."
-- Archibald Rutledge
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: charlie]
#1679603
03/08/16 08:28 AM
03/08/16 08:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,919
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,919
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
But in the real world you are going to be forced to eat apples or oranges every day for 4 years so you better pick the one you hate the least because banana is not on the menu. Those are the consequences. On the other hand I ha e no problem with you or anyone else voting your conscious as long as you know and accept the consequences. I know and accept the consequences. Neither party will give you any better than they've been giving you unless you take a stand and demand it. The consequences of voting for the lesser of two evils is never having a hope of anything better. The consequences of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils is enduring 4 years of a democrat in office that , judging by their actions, are just slightly left of most elected republicans. It took me several election cycles to realize there are worse things than losing one election. That worse thing is exactly what we've been dealing with for 3 decades. Our founding fathers were men of principle that would be rolling in their graves at the notion we should vote for a bad candidate out of fear of a slightly worse candidate.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: hallb]
#1679615
03/08/16 08:33 AM
03/08/16 08:33 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
straycat
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
|
I can only speak for me. It isn't a moralistic crusade, it is just finally voting on principles over party.
If I were to describe myself it would be in this order and the order is most important...most important:
Christian
Husband
Father
Conservative Principles
American
Provider
Recreation
Party
My Lord, My Family and my core beliefs are 1-4
My nation, my work, things i like to do, my political affiliations are 5-8.
I have zero to fear from any politician or change.
1 Corinthians 16: 13-14
13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: bill]
#1679631
03/08/16 08:43 AM
03/08/16 08:43 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
straycat
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
|
But in the real world you are going to be forced to eat apples or oranges every day for 4 years so you better pick the one you hate the least because banana is not on the menu. Those are the consequences. On the other hand I ha e no problem with you or anyone else voting your conscious as long as you know and accept the consequences. I know and accept the consequences. Neither party will give you any better than they've been giving you unless you take a stand and demand it. The consequences of voting for the lesser of two evils is never having a hope of anything better. The consequences of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils is enduring 4 years of a democrat in office that , judging by their actions, are just slightly left of most elected republicans. It took me several election cycles to realize there are worse things than losing one election. That worse thing is exactly what we've been dealing with for 3 decades. Our founding fathers were men of principle that would be rolling in their graves at the notion we should vote for a bad candidate out of fear of a slightly worse candidate. I'll add that our political culture FOLLOWS/REFLECTS our societal culture. So we get Hillary and she accomplishes some really bad stuff or Congress halts her on most things...or....we get Trump and he is successful at implementing his plan in multiple areas....or he switches positions on lots and does nothing to help at all...with either scenario the American public is still the same. Y'all will one day have to finally wake up and realize the culture we live in is corrupted and in decay. The culture drives the political climate. One leader like trump or Hillary and their agenda will not change anything but rules, regulations and policies...no real lasting change at a root level. We need a different leader, even if it is Cruz or Ben Carson who are the ones I think have the most integrity, to even have hope. Even then I'm not sure if that will even make a dent. Until the culture changes at a heart level, we will continue to decline as a nation. Where are the masses in protest of the ills, corruption and decay in the nation that the gov't and/or courts condone and accept and tolerate and enable? But for a few outspoken men of faith and a few organizations, there is none in reality. That is the culture. So in this fallen culture, I'm going to vote for the best principled man I can, regardless. In hope that they can inspire and lead to a culture change not thru their own agenda, but through the Lord working through them. Trump ain't that guy for me.
Last edited by straycat; 03/08/16 08:46 AM.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: Ben2]
#1679671
03/08/16 09:11 AM
03/08/16 09:11 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,444
Tampa
Beer Belly
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,444
Tampa
|
Also heard some interesting info on Glenn Beck this morning (I know he is crazy but he seems to do a ton of research when he is interested in something.)
You pick a subject and a stance and I can present numbers, facts, data, and statistics to show it is true. Just depends on who is putting $ in your pocket. I assume that you believe in Global Warming. There is a ton ($4.6 billion/yr) of research done on it.
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: JAT50]
#1679727
03/08/16 09:44 AM
03/08/16 09:44 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,070
Andalusia, Al. Covington Co.
DEADorALIVE
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,070
Andalusia, Al. Covington Co.
|
just judge Trump by his enemies. First off, I am a Cruz supporter. But one thing that I find strange about Trump...for all the evil bad business, bankrupting, misogynizing, and everything else "bad" he is supposed to have done, where are all the people he's supposedly wronged, crushed, or decimated? It seems to me that if he'd been such a "bad guy" in all the years of his business dealings, and if he had ruined so many people out of the multitudes he's dealt with, that there would be a fairly large segment of them making a lot of noise about it. None of "his women" have stepped forward, no cab drivers claiming to have had gay sex with him while smoking crack, no outcry about how underhanded and unethical business practices advanced Trump on the bodies of those stomped along the way...nothing. If he's such a fraud and phony as Mitt Romney claims he is, where are all these people? On the other side of the same coin...the people who ARE making noise about needing to stop Trump...what color is their dog in this fight? Why are they so vitriolic towards him, what do they stand to gain by beating him, and maybe most importantly, what do they stand to lose if they don't beat him? ...just food for thought.
Last edited by DEADorALIVE; 03/08/16 09:45 AM.
Well behaved women never make history.~ Out back
Quit laughing...I think I broke something.
Fifteen is my limit on Schnitzen-Gruben, Baby...
I have OCD and ADD, so everything has to be perfect, but only for a minute.
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: hallb]
#1679789
03/08/16 10:35 AM
03/08/16 10:35 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
straycat
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,088
Chelsea, AL
|
I see two distinct groups/camps making noise about stopping Trump, other than the other candidates for obvious reasons.
1. Those would really want to vote for a true, principled conservative who holds a majority of the same ethics, morals and values as they themselves hold. They want a President to be someone they trust and someone who has honor, integrity and virtue. They are tired of voting for the GOP party and the poor choices of candidates, so they will vote their conscience. They want to stop Trump because he doesn't appear to share the same core beliefs and is only pretending to be a deep conservative.
2. The locked in, ingrained, establishment Republicans who live to play politics and retain power in DC, even when they lose elections. Their goal is to wield power, even if the minority party, and win re-election as they talk tough on camera but vote soft. The establishment wants a candidate they can control and handle as necessary. They dislike the tea party, grassroots conservatism that has been brewing because it calls for things to radically change in DC in how things are done. Trump is a lone wolf and unpredictable and uncontrollable as a political power and how he will ultimately stand on the issues is a question... so he is a major threat to their scheming system in multiple ways.
(This same group wants to stop Cruz too, but they actually know what he will do and what he wants to do and what he stands for--and that is precisely what they do not want to ever see happen because it means a reform of the party and the gov't system which equates to a loss of their power and influence which makes them vulnerable in elections). So they are eagerly hoping for a brokered convention where they can run a moderate RINO that has mass appeal to defeat Hillary if possible...and if they lose, they will get to publicly blast the Dems and be tough occasionally while working with them in private for 4 years because they are scared of any negative media.
I'll add a 3rd group:
3. The Democrats. They want the power regardless of who runs. Trump is a handful with lots of virtues that are dislikable, so they see his lead and ae making a little noise now. But if Trump is the nominee, they will eventually bring the barrage of claims when it is time. To be expected.
Last edited by straycat; 03/08/16 10:44 AM.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams
|
|
|
Re: Ted Cruz says...
[Re: hallb]
#1679821
03/08/16 11:02 AM
03/08/16 11:02 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,095
Anniston, AL
ikillbux
ishootatbux
|
ishootatbux
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,095
Anniston, AL
|
Blah, blah, blah, blah... Problem is not the candidates, it's the voters. I'm not mad at Trump for running, I'm mad at low-information voters fawning after him. You have this ill-pointed anger at the establishment, but the problem is the electorate! There is no such thing as "the government", YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT! We aren't electing turncoats, we're electing ideologues, on both sides! Trump is an ideologue on steroids!...he cannot fix the problem, all he can do is theoretically make the problems more to your slant. And we can split philosophical hairs all day long, but in REALITY we know (almost) for certain by now who can/can't win, thus voting for one of the two candidates who cannot win (in our example it appears to be Rubio and Kasich) is EFFECTIVELY voting for Trump. Cause and effect, everything is. In this Republican cycle, there are two camps, and fans of each camp won't vote for the other. It was Trump in "Camp A" vs Cruz/Rubio/Kasich/Carson/Bush/Christie/Paul in "Camp B". Trump is the least qualified of all candidates in either party, period, this ain't up for discussion. Donald Trump being a candidate for the POTUS is as disgraceful of an indictment as was Obama for the Democrats. It's exclusively emotion, period, end of story. You dookie heads have been sold by a salesman! When I'm selling life insurance, and I know you want "whole life", guess what I like too? Yep, whole life!  You don't like illegal Messicans? Guess what I don't like?...in fact, let's build a wall! (Forget that doing so is as physically and financially impossible as is manning it with robots riding unicorns) He's selling what you want to hear! He's literally never given one answer that has content or constitutional merit/fidelity. So this brings me back to why I'm mad at the voters. I'm mad that ill informed voters are influencing MY government with officials who are selling emotional talking points, are unconstitutional in understanding, and are extremely inarticulate and unprofessional. This can only mean that the voters themselves are that way. No self-control (emotion driven), little or no knowledge of or concern for the only document that matters in or government (the constitution), and attracted to an immature leader (remember the hands/wiener joke). You are fully caught up in issues that don't matter! IF...IF there are 13,000,000 illegal immigrants in this country, how the heck do they affect 300,000,000 legal citizens? Hunh???? Well??? 4%??? That's like much of the country believing we needed sweeping healthcare change because "15%" had no insurance. What else is Trump saying that other candidates aren't also saying? Nothing! THE problem in this country is TAXES!!!! Trump, to give him credit, has a decent tax plan. But he still plays unconstitutional class-baiting by saying fund managers ought to be taxes X%. NOBODY needs to be taxed differently than another. Cruz stands on 10% flat.
We were on the edge of Eternia, when the power of Greyskull began to take hold.
|
|
|
|
