Ted Cruz says vote Libertarian?

[Hookin_Bull]

This Texan is for Trump! When he 1st threw his hat in the ring I did some research and stumbled upon a you tube interview he had with Oprah back in '88. Message remarkably the same as today! Was sticking with Cruz until he pulled his stunt with Carson. And later turned out to be little man/BIG Loser. I trust Trump's likelihood of selecting good candidates for Supreme Court justices WAY more than Hellary and believe this to be THE most important aspect of this election.

 

[Eli]

I'll add that there's really no concrete proof of anything he believes in. He has no voting record in Congress. We only have his word on the campaign trail.

Actually, we have the lengthy records of Trump donating to hitlery, pelosi, other liberal/leftist candidates and causes.

This Texan is for Trump! When he 1st threw his hat in the ring I did some research and stumbled upon a you tube interview he had with Oprah back in '88. Message remarkably the same as today! Was sticking with Cruz until he pulled his stunt with Carson. And later turned out to be little man/BIG Loser. I trust Trump's likelihood of selecting good candidates for Supreme Court justices WAY more than Hellary and believe this to be THE most important aspect of this election.

You're falling for the Soros/Clinton/Trump propaganda narrative. Cruz' campaign (not Cruz) repeated a CNN announcement concerning Carson, there were no stunts pulled. Would you endorse somebody that viciously slandered your wife and family like Trump did Cruz? I'd call you a 'female dog' if you did!

Eli

 

[Recoil45]

is this the daughter who said at the national convention he's for paid family leave and healthcare?

She was put up there to say that to win female voters which he desperately needs.

No conservative who is on the right of every issue is ever going to win an election. It simply can't happen. If he doesn't pickup some votes from the center Hillary wins. This shouldn't be hard hard to understand after past elections.

Are you looking for someone who supports every value you hold, to run and lose, or do you want someone who supports many good values (but not all) to go up there and win?

 

[peeps]

Where have y'all heard he donated more to Democrats? From his political opponents?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfa...trumps-campaign-contributions-democrats-and/

Idk, believe what y'all want....I imagine 99% of the folks posting here get their info from TV and internet news sites. All of which direct us to believe whatever they spew out. So, we all have formed our opinions on who knows what.

I'm good with my decision.

 

[easy rider]

There is only going to be one of TWO candidates that is going to be in the white house. I myself would like to think I had another serious choice, but I know that's a pipe dream. One of the two candidates you know for a fact wants to change our constitution.

 

[Hookin_Bull]

We're not talking choir members. They are all political dogs. Trump may be a little less so in the sense he has served no elected office. But I do realize there are some serous politics involved in running big business. I worked for a big oil company where a percentage of my salary was required to be donated to a PAC fund with the "assurance" it would be made up in my annual bonus. This was the price of doing business. And, no I couldn't choose the politician(s) that got their skids greased. Large companies must donate to stay competitive amongst the tentacles of regulations and those that impose them. Again, in my mind the upcoming appointments to the Supreme Court are the most important to me. This includes the future path of the 2nd amendment. JMHO, only worth 2 cents.

 

[Recoil45]

Nothing gets done in NYC without paying both the politicians and the unions.

 

[accordingtoome]

TRUMP.. there is no other choice.. a vote NOT for Trump is a vote for hillary.. that is all. I hated McCain and Romney but i voted for them. Save all the BS richesness

 

[sdismukes]

When you get to the core of it, you're voting for the makeup of the Supreme Court and FBI director and EPA director and so on.

Do you approve of Holder or Lynch as FBI director? Or should all lawbreakers be prosecuted? Did you agree "H" gets a pass? What about the Ferguson looters? Should they have been tried?

Do you prefer someone like Scalia or Ginsberg as a Supreme Court justice?

Do you think the EPA needs to stay radical or be more in tune with cost/benefits?

Do you approve of all the czars - most of whom are socialist academicians, or do you want people running government agencies who have actually held a job in a for-profit institution?

Depending on your answer then vote for herself or vote for Trump.

Just that simple. Add up your answers for Holder/lynch, Ginsberg, academics controlling our businesses, etc and make your choice for her. Your answers prefer a justice that prosecutes any lawbreaker, a conservative court etc then vote for Trump. But VOTE!!

 

[sdismukes]

You know, Gary Johnson a/k/a 'None of the Above'!

Eli

Until the Libertarians start winning state and local offices in substantial numbers, then parlay that into national offices, there will never be a viable Libertarian party. Kills me because I am philosophically libertarian. But there are no semi-sane people running even locally.

 

[Big Dipper]

If you don't vote for Trump, you are indeed voting for the Democrats' platform which specifically calls for:

Preventing gun violence

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success ofthe lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection ofLawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...emocratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

I personally believe that there are more reasons than this to not let Shrillery win, but this "next" step in the incrementalism of gutting 2A is going to be a frightening direct result of a Clinton victory.

 

[TheDan]

I worked for a big oil company where a percentage of my salary was required to be donated to a PAC fund with the "assurance" it would be made up in my annual bonus. This was the price of doing business. And, no I couldn't choose the politician(s) that got their skids greased. Large companies must donate to stay competitive amongst the tentacles of regulations and those that impose them.

That is asinine. If they want to bribe politicians then they should just pay you less, not pay you the money and then demand that it be "donated."

 

[zincwarrior]

She was put up there to say that to win female voters which he desperately needs.

No conservative who is on the right of every issue is ever going to win an election. It simply can't happen. If he doesn't pickup some votes from the center Hillary wins. This shouldn't be hard hard to understand after past elections.

Are you looking for someone who supports every value you hold, to run and lose, or do you want someone who supports many good values (but not all) to go up there and win?

So you're saying women won't vote for Trump and whatever policies he is proposing at the time. Race is over then as they represent the majority of voters. Maybe they should have put Bill Clinton on.

 

[Hookin_Bull]

That is asinine. If they want to bribe politicians then they should just pay you less, not pay you the money and then demand that it be "donated."

They can't. The politcians passed political reform years ago in which a company can only donate $2500 a year maximum to political interests. Of course, the "loophole" in said legislation is that a company can create a PAC account that its employees can "contrubute" to and there is no cap on this account. They left themselves an obscure pathway to continue the graft. Again, they are all political dogs.

 

[zincwarrior]

Where have y'all heard he donated more to Democrats? From his political opponents?

[url]http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/09/ben-ferguson/donald-trumps-campaign-contributions-democrats-and/ [/URL]

Idk, believe what y'all want....I imagine 99% of the folks posting here get their info from TV and internet news sites. All of which direct us to believe whatever they spew out. So, we all have formed our opinions on who knows what.

I'm good with my decision.

Lets play that game
BBC
CNN
Al Jazeera
Fox
CNBC
Bloomberg
Financial Times
Wall Street Journal
Drudge
Townhall
Slate
Lucianne

 

[zincwarrior]

They can't. The politcians passed political reform years ago in which a company can only donate $2500 a year maximum to political interests. Of course, the "loophole" in said legislation is that a company can create a PAC account that its employees can "contrubute" to and there is no cap on this account. They left themselves an obscure pathway to continue the graft. Again, they are all political dogs.

And why would I want that at a federal level?

 

[Mike1234567]

We're not talking choir members. They are all political dogs. Trump may be a little less so in the sense he has served no elected office. But I do realize there are some serous politics involved in running big business. I worked for a big oil company where a percentage of my salary was required to be donated to a PAC fund with the "assurance" it would be made up in my annual bonus. This was the price of doing business. And, no I couldn't choose the politician(s) that got their skids greased. Large companies must donate to stay competitive amongst the tentacles of regulations and those that impose them. Again, in my mind the upcoming appointments to the Supreme Court are the most important to me. This includes the future path of the 2nd amendment. JMHO, only worth 2 cents.

That is asinine. If they want to bribe politicians then they should just pay you less, not pay you the money and then demand that it be "donated."

They can't. The politcians passed political reform years ago in which a company can only donate $2500 a year maximum to political interests. Of course, the "loophole" in said legislation is that a company can create a PAC account that its employees can "contrubute" to and there is no cap on this account. They left themselves an obscure pathway to continue the graft. Again, they are all political dogs.

Isn't it illegal for a company to coerce their employees into donating to a cause that company supports?

 

[Hookin_Bull]

Isn't it illegal for a company to coerce their employees into donating to a cause that company supports?

Sure. But bonuses are based upon merits of performance/loyalty. The amounts are individual and confidential. Shoot yourself in the foot if you want. Keep in mind these are salaried positions. The hourly employees are not allowed to donate.

 

[Mike1234567]

Sure. But bonuses are based upon merits of performance/loyalty. The amounts are individual and confidential. Shoot yourself in the foot if you want. Keep in mind these are salaried positions. The hourly employees are not allowed to donate.

And all those salaried workers are too afraid to stand up and expose that company for its abuses? That's sad... very very sad.

 

[Recoil45]

So you're saying women won't vote for Trump and whatever policies he is proposing at the time. Race is over then as they represent the majority of voters. Maybe they should have put Bill Clinton on.

Trump is certainly the underdog. If I had to bet my life savings on who would win right now I wouldn't hesitate to bet on Hillary. Hopefully the changes he makes over the next few months will increase his chances. This will require him going more center on many issues.