I don't see it that way. I think he decided that since he's way ahead in the polls (in his mind) why subject himself to that setting? What was the positive in it for him? I can't see one. I'm not voting for the guy, but he's got hutzpah. I still am waiting for him to drop out or go 3rd-party the last minute...

I mean drugs will have a harmful effect on culture. Ask the Chinese (the Opium Wars), and even, now, Afghanistan.

I believe prohibition, anti-drug laws (which I have not a problem with, as they will harm culture/society, as well as individuals) and even anti-drinking laws were the product of Feminism, not joint state/church.

I dont have anything against people believing in religion tenets. Some the beliefs contained in religions are in fact very good- fiscal conservatism, family values, etc.

But- just I get nervous when someone wants to be in government because they tend to enforce their beliefs on others through laws. Separation of church and state in this country is a lot of talk, but little action. Look at prohibition and anti drug laws and the current anti drunk driving laws that have morphed into "dont drink at all" laws. Not to mention all this stuff about "saving marriage" by forbidding gay marriage and polygamy.

Since we dont have separation of church and state, I dont want people who believe strongly in one religion in positions of power. I want people in government who are not so entrenched in their beliefs that they spill over into politics.

Cruz, Rubio, Huckabee, and Carson are in that category for me. Rand Paul, Trump seem like they can separate religion from politics. Who knows about Christie or Fiorina.

Nothing. Most Christians just want to be left alone.
The minority who feel moved to convert you won't cut your head off for a refusal.
That Westboro Baptist bunch? They do not act like Christian IMO..

I still don't get the anti-religious zealots, out there. If it were so much doom and gloom, how is it that my marriage has lasted 37 years, but she is a devout Christian and I am an admitted agnostic?

JFK was a devout Catholic, but I don't remember being forced to attending Catholic services when he was President.

What am I missing?

Working "across the aisle" should be a good thing. We don't want a President who boldly states that the "other" party is an enemy to be dealt with.

Time will tell...

But Cruz is a southern baptist and "believes" what their bible says. Apparently he wants to get rid of the gays in the military, as they are doing things against what their god teaches. Thats what I mean. Rationality is out the window when it comes to what their belief structure is.

"I could do better."
Tell us how, Mr. Trump. You won't be negotiating a land grab affecting a few thousand people. You'll be negotiating with wolves holding knives that will affect the very lives of millions. To say, I can do this, that, or the other, without saying how is empty rhetoric. Just saying you can do it doesn't make you a doer so much as a narcissist.

Don't be silly...it's not a "GOD". It's a quantum event involving the mind (not the brain) to get something right and not just to "Be" Right.

And sometimes we get it right if we are receptive.

No guy in the sky here, just a consequence of creation...look up Quantum event.

I don't like the mystical speak of the bicameral brain: it no longer needs to be that way.

If moral principles means what his GOD tells him to do, then I agree with you. Would you say that ISIS has moral principles also then? They are going what THEIR god tells them to do

Cruz stands for moral principals and that's a trait we need in the WH; and that is not zealotry.

I think those that don't get it quantumly take mysticism way to far.

I hope to solve that problem someday.

BAD! finding things in common interests and concerns is very different than compromising.

Somebody always gets screwed or someone always gets more than deserved... in a compromise.

Solve the problem and not the symptom.
Allopathic governing = progessivism.


The founding principals and our constitutional rule of law should never be compromised. If there needs to be a change or a clarification then a convention of the states is needed.

I'm not entirely sure how that rant came about. Veteran's preference is implemented differently in various government levels. At the federal level, an application is rated by OPM for example, and points are scored on the application for meeting position requirement criteria, with an additional preference points (veteran) awarded for the category of vet - I have a campaign service medal for example, but not disabled, so I usually get 10 points (on a 100 point scale), if I'm applying for a biologist jobs, but I'm an information security officer, I would probably expect to score very low on the application and being a 'veteran' isn't going to matter. On the other hand, applying if competitively qualified in the field, should put the veteran over the top for consideration.

not voting just seems to do nothing positive, unless one could vote "none of the above" and affect the percentages of the remaining candidates. I dont recall seeing "none of the above" as one of the choices that counts just like a regular vote. I am voting Trump this time, as he at least is the only one that hasnt taken contributions (bribes) from interested parties that need to be repaid with political favors at my expense. He also has the personality to actually slow down the destruction of our country at least somewhat. The others dont have the personal power mated with the right ideas to get anywhere. Rand Paul has the ideas, but he gets NO traction in this culture right now. Trump is not consistently pro-liberty, but he wont go along with the radical socialist ideas like Sanders or Hillary propose.

Resisting is an honorable choice. I would not fault you for that. There was disagreement on the best tack to take even in AS. Galt shrugged, Dagny and Rearden thought they could win, Ragnar tried to take them down, and Francisco blew up his own mines to keep the looters from getting them.

because they have no chance to actually be nominated or elected in this upcoming election. If I thought there was a chance for Rand Paul, I would vote for him, but there just isnt. He doesnt even get to be in the debates. The rest are idiots or religious zealots (might as well vote for God, cause thats who will control them)

When I have no food I may give up, can't be sure since I don't know yet. For now I choose to resist. I refuse to be the problem. Vote for evil and you are the problem.

"Voting libertarian this time will only help Hillary or Sanders." That is true ONLY if you would otherwise vote Republican. If your second choice is to not vote, voting Libertarian will not help Hillary, Sanders or any other major party candidate. It will, however, help boost the vote totals of the Libertarian candidate.

This is why I believe Trump will be great. He will stand tall. Also, he really loves our Country which is more than I can say about the left.

So question then: why vote for him if you acknowledge he's at least a part socialist while there are several other candidates who are far more Constitutionally sound?

I wont live to see a principled government here. Its on a downward spiral due to the laziness and stupidity of the current majority of Americans. With mob rule in place, there is only one path the country will take until the majority wants freedom and liberty. In the meantime, all I can do is slow the progression to socialism down a bit. That means keeping the Sanders, Hillarys, and Pelosis, and Reids out of office. Any of the rest of the republicans would be better than that crowd. Its a matter of nominating one that can win.

You arent going to live to see an Objectivist president and congress either. If socialism really takes over while you are alive, it will be bad news for you too.

I hear you and agree. I was no Bush supporter but certainly did not like the alternatives at the time either. I cannot tell you how many times I uttered the words, GB is the worst POTUS in my lifetime. Of course the current is much worse the GB. It is angering. What I fear is people are so angry that they don't see the trees in the forest.

My point with GB is he surrounding himself with poor advisers and he followed along. Still his fault. My fear with Trump is he will surround himself by people who say yes and we will get trumped on. Of course I may be wrong and on present course I may get to find out if I am. I gladly eat my words and be happy about it if I'm wrong.

What I believe Mr. Trump did NOT say in his sound byte about Pelosi (Maiden name DelAssandro Baltimore, Md fame) and Harry is that he can WIN deals with these people.