Random Political comments...

Cruz and Clinton. Hmmm....


......Well hello there, Mr. Sanders

 

I'm surprised by the Ted Cruz win. I saw the poll numbers, but I've never taken him for a serious contender. This is kind of crazy.

I'm kind of surprised that Clinton and Sanders are too close to call.

Older people are overwhelmingly voting for Clinton. I don't get it. They lived through all of the Clinton scandals. How can they be supporting that lying POS?

IF Clinton ends up winning in Iowa (please God, no), then maybe that will mobilize the younger Sanders supporters in the upcoming states to go out and vote.

 

cosign

 

Because all of those scandals were bullshit drummed up by republicans. None of those charges were ever proven except Bill lying to keep his personal sex life personal. And, it wouldn't matter to them, anyway. The Clinton years were good years for most people. Good economy, good steady jobs for anyone who wanted to work. Why wouldn't they want that again? Because of fear of more more bullshit, partison scandals? They're old, not senile.

I'm a Bernie guy. Don't like Hilary. She's too much of a politician for me and she seems plastic as hell. But, if she beats Sanders for the nomination I'm voting for her. I don't care about her morals. I don't care about Bill's sex life. I don't care that I don't like her. I only care about who is gong to keep cash in my pockets, keep me and mine safe and further the liberal agenda. Anything less and I'm voting against my own best interests. I guarantee that's how the older folks who support her feel, too.

One of my mentors, early on, told me to never vote for people . People will let you down. Vote for ideals and leave emotion out of it. Only then will you get what you get the leaders who'll move the ball in the direction you want it to go. And he was right.

 

As james carville stated "its the economy stupid"

 

Clinton rode the coattails of the dotcom era. Without the huge internet boom in the 90s, I wonder how great our economy would have been.

That being said, Hillary has taken millions of dollars from Wall Street AND foreign governments.

She is deep in the pockets of everyone aside from us average American people.

She would be no good for this country.

And sorry, I can't get behind a Liberal agenda, when I see how "great" Chicago is doing with the entrenched establishment Democrats running it into the ground for decades.

That being said, I think we need BOTH political parties to ensure the most success for the majority of the regular folks.

 

Just a suggestion Books, but you might want to consider that neither party really wants to ensure the most success for the majority of regular folks. We live in a "have vs. the have nots" world, and those in power, whether they have a D or a R after their name truly don't care about the 'regular folks', they want them to remain useful idiots that can be manipulated and spun to do the will of those in power whether they understand the policies or not.

That being said, I do believe there are some good people who try to do the right things, but Washington is so biased, partisan, and gridlocked that most of the ideas that would truly benefit the most people never have a chance to be implemented.

So what to do? The main power (when it comes to the economy at least) resides with the Federal Reserve, study them, their actions, policies and statements and do all you can to use that knowledge to build a solid financial base for you and your loved ones, in the end they are the ones that are most important, not politicians.

 

Every. Single. Word. rayer:rayer:rayer:rayer:rayer:

 

Hilary won't get my vote. Period.

 

I'm actually shocked that Ted Cruz won. Personally I find him absolutely vile and I would honestly rather have Trump win than Cruz. Luckily what happens in Iowa doesn't really matter much beyond Iowa, lest we forget Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee.

 

I dislike both Trump and Cruz. I am happy Trump lost IA just to shut him up a bit. I do realize that he'll continue on with his circus show.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/8/9866726/ted-cruz-electability


Some Ted Cruz facts

Republicans concerned about Donald Trump's electability might also want to note that:

• In April, Cruz proposed to amend the Constitution to bar same-sex marriages.
• In 2012, Cruz ran 1 percentage point behind Mitt Romney in Texas, even though the Democratic Party barely managed to field a nominee.
• Cruz favors a return to the gold standard.
• By quantitative measures of ideology, Cruz would be the most conservative GOP nominee of all time — a bit to the right of Barry Goldwater, who got 38 percent.
• Cruz thinks Plan B emergency contraceptives are a form of abortion, and, of course, he thinks abortion should be illegal.

 

Wow. Worse than Trump? Do I even want to know what's behind that door?

 

Nah, bruh. LOL

 

Check his birth certificate.

He's an illegal

 

Trump may say sexist, bigoted shit on a nearly daily basis but at least e's honest about it and we know where he stands. And despite how abrasive Trump is, there's a pretty good chance that he would at least be able to work with some of the Republicans in Congress.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz's expensive, ridiculous government shutdown stunt a couple of years ago (fiscal responsibility? How does that work) and his pointless filibusters that whose only purpose is to raise his own profile at the expense of everyone else is why his own party doesn't even like him. If he does become the nominee the party will probably fall in line to support him but that will be a clothespin vote if there ever was one. And as Loki's post pointed out, he's extreme to the point of being reactionary.

 

Well... You definitely know where he stands (at that moment), but I don't see the honesty part unless his views change often. I don't see Trump necessarily working with GOP or anyone else. I say this because he's so used to getting his way and having meltdown whenever he's challenged. In a room of massive egos... With Trump's even more inflated ego I doubt much done will get accomplished.

 

Firstly, he's not illegal. No matter what, he came into this country legally.

However, I do believe you meant to say that he was born in Canada.

That being said, MSN posted an article about his eligibility or ineligibility to be President a few weeks ago. I googled it and found another article explaining it.

Here are some snippets:

Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that "natural born" citizenship means citizenship held "at birth."

British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as "natural born," Katyal and Clement wrote.

"The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like ‘natural born,’ since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War,’" they said.

Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.

The reason a question still remains even after Romney, Goldwater and McCain is because the Supreme Court — the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions — has never directly ruled on the citizenship provision for presidential office holders. And that means a note of uncertainty remains.

Taken from: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

Regardless, this is a moot point. There's no way he will win the nomination. He's cuckoo for cocoa puffs and beyond Iowa, I don't see him having a chance.

 

I completely agree with this entire post, but especially the part in bold.

This is why it bothers me when people vote along party lines. You need to look at the character of the person you're voting for, because that MAY make a teeny tiny difference in how "better" that person makes it for the rest of us.

I just try to figure out which candidate is the least slimy (usually that's the only criteria you can go by, LOL), when deciding who to vote for.

 

But how does that work when it comes to delicate or sensitive negotiations with foreign leaders? He doesn't know the meaning of "diplomatic."