Yes, that was the FFA comment.

We shouldn't have put him in charge.

So? It doesn't really matter to me what the source of a person's political philosophy is. It matters what they are going to do. Cruz is probably the one closest to a limited constitutional government advocate we have left in the race.

Now, I'm currently intrigued by rolling the dice with Trump because I'm not actually sure that anyone else can change the socialist trend. Of course I'm not all that sure which way he would really go, only that he seems to be able to rally the "troops".

Read his book, A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America and then reply. Ignorance is not bliss and you are ignorant about his history, his life and his values.

Hell, we should have left the Shah in charge of Iran.

Trump tells it like it is and we need this for 4 years. Except for Sanders, who is basically honest, all the rest of the candidates lie and manipulate. Sanders is a wacko and needs to live in Venezuela to understand his policies

I think that socialism needs to be made accountable for its terrible performances in the world. This will stop letting socialism get away with making grandiose claims with no performance

Johnson

Perhaps the version of the god that Cruz believes in will nominate and elect him

Cruz is a religious zealot driven by what he thinks HIS version of God tells him

Rand Paul showed his non-libertarian stuff when he dumped his dad Ron and turned to support Romney. Had he remained on the right track (along with Ron), there was a chance to put the L.P. on the map at along last.

Which leaves only Gary Johnson, who is on-track but it all seems that collectivism now clearly rules the roost.

Ted Cruz 100%!!!
We all must work hard to get out the votes of older people. I live in Jacksonville, FL and am working with a team that concentrates on actually calling and going to retirement centers, nursing homes and places where people may need help to request an absent ballot and reminding and/or visiting them to mail their absentee ballot. This is the Most Important Presidential Election in the history of the the Greatest Nation on Earth. Work smart and hard to make sure everyone votes to get the USA back on track before it is too late.

Yes! Wasn't is a terrorist who said that Americans have the watches but we have the time. This all or nothing approach is not going to give us the "small victories" that we need. Change is going to take time. We need to do it one senator and one representative at a time.

I agree with you on the incremental improvements approach. While purists will point out, not inaccurately, that such a technique has not resulted in a country of capitalism, freedom, and personal independence, my answer is simple: I am a scientist. Give me a base line.

We do not have an 'alternate reality' against which we can compare our current achievements (or lack thereof). We cannot answer the questions: Better than what? Worse than what?

I suspect that the world we are in is a lot better than if people who cared about freedom had stopped voting for the best person available...but then...I don't have a base line either and that is only my opinion.

Jan

Or idealistic

And while I will take small victories over no victories at any time, that does not mean I will be satisfied with the small victories. However, progress has to start somewhere, and more often than not, progress is incremental.

Should've left Sadam in charge of Iraq. He was a tyrant, but the Iraqis need and deserve no more than that until THEY take care of it, not are handed a freedom they really don't know what to do with.
With respect to Cruz, Rand and Ron are not in the running. We are here, and I want to be there. Cruz is the next best, period. Although as FFA has noted I could throw away my general election vote without consequence here in MA on an even stronger message.

I look at this site daily, and I am getting the feeling that there is a belief system on display among the participants that if we cannot get all of the positive change we want, then we don't want anything. In a representative democracy one is never going to get everything they want, and there is no politician who is going to be perfectly aligned with your thinking...unless you run for office yourself. While I fully understand the need to be strong in one's principles, I even more understand the need to achieve some substantive change. And this seemingly pure "all or nothing" approach has not worked...nor will it ever. Just remember this, if more libertarians and other Republicans would have not stayed home in November 2012, we would have not suffered under 4 more years of Barack Obama. Was Mitt Romney the end all/be all of conservative politics? Absolutely not! But he would have been far, far better than the buffoon who now resides in the White House.

Thomas Massie & Justin Amash


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...

If Cruz is one of those, he will not get the nomination.

Rand Paul was running for the GOP slot. He too then must be clueless and naive.

I think the only way we will get change is by getting person(s) into key leadership positions in a party, and then changing the nature of the party from with.

I can see where you are coming from, but if your right there is no way to correct the course, and someone like Calvin Coolidge or Ronald Reagen would never have been elected. Neither of those changed the party significantly but they were the only two presidents in the last century that moved in the right direction. Both were GOP candidates that were not the political norm.

I think Cruz is one of those again.

If they understood liberty and examined the history of the GOP they could not conclude that any of the pretenders running for the GOP slot are the best to succeed Rand Paul. Clueless and naive.

What specifically makes you say that?

Authors show themselves to be clueless and naive. .