Wrong providing we throw her fat butt in jail before the election. Instead of promoting Trump or Cruz we should have a giant concerted effort to have her prosecuted which will render her inert.

NB: Canada's Justin Trudeau. Elected 142 days ago promising to hold the deficit to $10 billion for three years, then bring the budget to balance, already "spurring growth" with $113-billion deficit.

IMHO, Donald Trump seems to be one of those establishment-connected businessmen part of whose success has depended on his chummy relationship with the Wesley Mouches of the world.

Congrats on your past votes against statist candidates.
I think that voting for a candidate of a party that consistently acts against the promises made publicly to voters, and against the interests of the people they represent, and against the values of individual liberty and free markets is a wasted vote.
It should be obvious that excludes statists like Gore and Kerry (as well as both Bushes, Dole, and McCain.)
As for Perot, it is impossible to know what he wanted. I think he compromised after his family was threatened, but we don't have the data to know for certain.
I am baffled at your currently considering a statist candidate given your history.

I voted for John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Harry Browne. So, I've done my share of not voting for the GOP. I even cast my first presidential vote for George McGovern, but that was because I didn't like Nixon and I knew McGovern didn't have a chance to actually win.

With the exception of Perot, these votes were in situations where the result was obvious. In Perot's case, I helped elect Bill Clinton and I regret that.

Your assumption is that since voting for the GOP didn't achieve your goal, voting for someone else would have. I don't think Al Gore would have made a better president in 2000, or John Kerry in 2004. I still think Ross Perot would have made a better president in 1992, but he didn't want to be President, he wanted to stop George Bush. It's only an error if making a different decision in your vote would have improved the outcome.

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't understand your feelings, but it doesn't look likely that you're willing to consider anything else, so I'll let you go.

Well, I'll leave you to your antipathy, then. Let's just hope that if Trump gets elected, he doesn't prove my assessment correct, or we'll have put into office someone no better than Obama.

The GOP leadership has shown in the past that they will choose someone they can control over someone who can win, e.g., Dole, McCain.
Don't assume the GOP's goal is to win the current election.

When something has the opposite effect of my goals for 30 years I don't repeat the error. I think that you (and others) assume that your action in voting for the GOP has the effect of slower evil destruction of liberty than a vote for a Democrat. I think this is called "voting for a lesser evil. " The problem is that you are following the insidious plan of the statists. You are contributing to the opposite of your goal by your own consent. The record of history is clear on this. You repeating that the third party has no chance does not change this fact. Your assumption is false. This is the method of statists and fascist-socialists. You must take a longer view because taking the short view does not work; it only contributes to the goals of your enemy. As long as you continue to act in the way that is designed by the statists to gradually reduce your liberty the result will be your gradual enslavement. Had you (et al) acted to vote on principle 20 years ago and resisted the temptation to vote for the supposed lesser evil, you would have contributed to the return to liberty, smaller government, and free markets. As long as you continue to repeat the errors of the past you will consent to your own and others' enslavement by statists and looters.
You have the opportunity to act in favor of a return to liberty.
Stop wasting your vote and stop consenting to the statists' plan.
Vote based on principle for Gary Johnson, not based on fear.

this is a good argument, sir, IMHO. . and I notice that
it's been 33 hours since you made it ... with no attempts
at refutation. . good sense stands for something!!! -- j

p.s. I contend that Cruz would fare worse against Clinton
than DT, but that's just my estimate.
.

You assert that Cruz is a liar and a cheat because of his religion, is that correct? Answer: NO.

I agree with Trump. I disagree with many of his views, but Cruz lies.

Cruz needs to repent for his lies -- after all he is a born again christian (he says so). I guess he is not a true christian (according to the other 30,000+ denominations, cults, or whatever of that line of the Abrahamic religions)

"Repent"? An odd choice of words from an atheist. What exactly would you have him do? And would you "forgive" him if he did it or would you choose to hold it against him anyways?

Trump has vowed that he doesn't need to "repent" (his word, not mine) for anything. Do you believe him? Do you hold the same feelings towards his lack of penitence you do for Cruz?

I think I finally get what you are after, but please correct me if I am wrong. You assert that Cruz is a liar and a cheat because of his religion, is that correct? As an extension, therefore, everyone who is not atheist is automatically thrown into this same camp as a liar? Is that your position?

That is not what I intended to say, but I can see how my words could be so interpreted. I don't like liars or cheaters. Cruz justifies all with his bible, and to that I do object. Politics should be religion free.

So lying and cheating are okay as long as one can self-justify those actions? I don't understand that point of view of all.

C'est la vie.

Will do. I am out of the country now, so my news is mostly from CNN Chile and they do not cover the US election more than in passing.

"Government and politics should be religion-free zones. " Morals are dependent upon religion.

I figure we will have a Christian in the WH. My real beef with Cruz is he is liar and a cheat, and when caught he is not smart enough to talk his way out. Even Bill Clinton could do that.

Actually, I do understand your point more than you might think. I understand the anti-Establishment anger and I sympathize with it. The egregious error you make is to include Cruz with the Establishment when his history shows very much the contrary.

"Government and politics should be religion-free zones"

There is no such thing. You are arguing that there should be no morals in government at all. That's pure, unadulterated nonsense. Laws are codified morality. The real question to ask is which principles such-and-such a person as X candidate would operate under. That is precisely what I have been laying out the whole time. In very fact, the Constitution specifically dictates that there shall be no religious test as a qualification to hold office. That means that it is just as un-Constitutional to mandate atheists in government as to mandate Christians or anyone else.

"but Cruz, like Bush, takes orders from his imaginary friend in the sky"

Ah, so now we get down to your real beef with Cruz: the fact that he is a Christian. Why didn't you just come out and say so in the first place rather than dancing around the issue and pretending that it was anything else? Good grief, it wouldn't be as if you were the only one who wasn't a big fan of religion and Christians in particular. Just admit your bias and that your sole reason for supporting Trump is that he isn't as Christian as Cruz!

That being said, if you want to make that the hill you die on, please excuse me from joining you. I wouldn't have any problem with voting for a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or any other "religious" person provided that their actions as President of the United States were in harmony with the Founders' expectations for that office. I want a Constitutionalist first and foremost. We've been lacking one for at least twenty years and I don't think we can afford even another four.

"I disagree with Trump about many major issues, but we I hope he can expose corruption from the inside and help bring it to an end."

I AGREE!!!! What I appreciate about Ted Cruz is that he hasn't just talked about it as a candidate, he's been calling it out on the floor of the Senate since he took office - much to the dismay of his own Party. I get that you don't like him, but I challenge you to read from several of his filibusters or floor speeches (several of which I linked above). Look at his record and the bills he has put forth. If he is a member of the Establishment, he has committed political suicide dozens of times over. I choose to simply conclude that he is like Rand Paul: an independent with an (R) next to his name.

The decision is whether you want to make a statement or have an effect on the outcome. I generally think it's better to have an effect on the outcome, you may well feel otherwise.

But, unfortunately, Cruz will have his arse handed to him in an election against Hillary. Trump might too, actually.

Always a pleasure to communicate with people of class.

If he's several hundred delegates behind Trump and can't get the majority by combining with Kasich or Rubio his odds don't look good -- the establishment doesn't like him much either. It might well be in his best interest to take VP to Trump (assuming it's offered) and be in a great position for a subsequent run. He's a young guy -- a freshman Senator.

He might not be satisifed, but you can't always get what you want.

I don't doubt what you saw, but I'd like to interpret it for myself. If you find it online, let me know, and I will do the same ;^)

Rubbish.