Absolutely, we all have to vote, but we have until the general election to thoroughly continue to watch and research the candidates. As you recall, no was was doing that during either Obama election. The information was there, if you put forth the energy to find it, the history of Marxism, the ties to domestic terrorists, the connections to Alinsky and Soros. Now that a lot of us have had our primaries, we must continue to be sure all the campaign rhetoric has a basis in reality. As I recall, Obama promised the most "transparent" presidency ever - how'd that turn out! I worked in a Congressional office for a time, I tend to be less trusting and know the games. All we can do is try to find the man who most likely will keep his promises. I have already ruled Kasich as a player and one funded in part by Soros.Who knows who the convention will throw at us, but Jeb is a deal breaker with his one-world, pro-Common Core beliefs. Cruz is in the running, Trump still somewhat risky, but the convention could throw us someone else altogether.We'd better anticipate and research.

And Cruz is viable?? Hillary (or Sanders) would make mincemeat of his ties to the religious "Dominionist" movement.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Ted-Cruz-a-d...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...

Correct because he would actually do what is right.

Gary Johnson will never be in the general vicinity of anything vaguely resembling viability.

Gary Johnson is becoming more viable by the day! Today's New York Times: *Gary Johnson, Libertarian Candidate, Sees Opening Created by Donald Trump"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/...

Ok, I go back to "Cruz is the best, potentially viable candidate".
Just saying "they all suck" is not a vote and abstinence is irresponsible, unless we really have a Gulch.

Frankly, I have not found a candidate I feel is straight with us. I would prefer his wife had true pro-capitalism and loyalty to the US as traits. I have had enough of Michelle and her spend our money for vacations while bad-mouthing the US. If she had a passion for something that supported our economy (not one world), stood for dismantling the Dept. of Ed., or promoted bringing people together to be producers. Not too much to ask for the position! We do not elect First Ladies (not always a fitting title), but we do have to put up with them and the damage they can do via influence. My favorites of the past: Jackie Kennedy (intelligent, cultured, promoted history. Also, Nancy Reagan, also a lady, supportive of her husband and the USA.

Which potential first lady do you like?

Not quite! A candidate steeped in the statism that, with rare exception, exceeds that in the United States in other parts of the world, would be far less sympathetic to the ideal of government sticking to Rand's Big Three (and Milton Friedman's Big Three). And a bi-, tri-, or otherwise multi-loyal person would be more likely to support a scheme to subsume the United States government, and all other governments in the world, into one over-arching "United Federation of Mankind."

Better than Trump. I think Hillary can take apart Trump.

At best it is wholly irrelevant to having good ideas for small government,

This is a silly issue.

The options are somewhat limited with our election rules. Of the available choices, he has the best shot at beating Hillary, who is a known evil. If the others cant beat Trump in the primaries, how will they beat hillary in november?

Is Trump really honest??? I don't know. Will he return to his liberal ways if elected? I don't know. Is it worth taking a chance?

Cruz is a religious zealot who is arrogant and sneaky. I dont make those charges lightly. I have watched him on debates and interviews. He was 99% behind the pictures of Trump's wife being distributed. I dont buy the idea it was someone else and he didnt know. If that was true, why didnt he disavow and disapprove of the pictures after they came out. He wanted to disparage Trump by using his wife as the tool.

That is sneaky. Trump should have just stuck to this argument and not posted the picture of Cruz's wife. But, I can understand his upset with dragging the wife into the campaign (she is not being elected for anything).

Cruz also had something to do with leaking out Carson was dropping out of the race, conveniently n the night before a big primary battle. Another sneaky move.

Candidates have to disclose the "gifts" they get. I see nothing for Trump disclosed, so I conclude its a trivial amount, and certainly not anywhere to the extent Cruz has made back door deals.

I would NEVER vote for Cruz, Rubio, or Hillary under any circumstances at all. I wouldnt be upset if Kasich got nominated, but I wouldnt pick him as my president. I dont think I would ever vote for Romney after seeing how sneaky he is, and I am not sure about Paul Ryan after he rammed through that last big spending bill.

My interest in Trump for 4 years (only) is that he is anti establishment and will bring to light anything he sees- without political correctness. That is a good thing that we need. He speaks out and antagonizes the establishment, but in the quiet of the oval office I think he will consider the governmental issues as carefully as he considers his business issues. He is not an idiot and he wont let people tell him what to think.

Hillary on the other hand is bought and paid for by her supporters. She is a chameleon who flaps in the wind according to the political winds of the moment. Sanders is a nice old man who has VERY messed up ideas and would not get anywhere as president at this time in our history (give him maybe 4-8 years from now, and socialism will be rampant and he might get somewhere)

This country has already put an ineligable person in the White House. He was born in a hospital that did not exist under the name on the birth certificate till years later and has a SSN from a state that he never lived in.

Trump started the mud slinging way before Sen. Cruz responded. If you go to Trumps website you will find a donate button so he is not self funding his campain.

Ted Cruz has not exactly stuck to one thing, nor has he been consistently Objectivist. If he were, then he might be less apt to waffle to his wife's side. We cannot dismiss who a person associates with completely when we are giving them a national platform, including the wife. If people had paid more attention to Obama's closeness with Ayers, nor his wife's American-hating comment, we might have avoided a lot of damage to our economy. If you notice, he really does not want let anyone talk about his wife, maybe for fear of them seeing into that relationship and any damaging unstated loyalties.

Heidi Cruz would have a national stage as First Lady, remember Mrs. Roosevelt, or Hillary stirring up race wars on her own? Besides that, Cruz has not been exactly transparent about what he believes when, whose to say he does not hold similar, yet unexpressed views not made public? I did not expect him to gall to the nasty in the mud remarks either. If Mrs. Cruz sits on committees and has friends who are one worlders, enough for CFR nomination by a World Bank official, those are the people with whom the couple will associate. If they were a private couple, okay, but she will have the spotlight and influence if he becomes president. What would Rand say?

Hello MichaelAarethun,
Like herding cats... that's the problem, isn't it?
Respectfully,
O.A.

Would you care to elaborate on your claim? Would you rather us side with the Palestinians who are run by Hamas, an acknowledged terror organization by the FBI and State Department?

My pleasure, bigjim.
That would be a good start. :) I don't fear his religion. We have had plenty of religious Presidents; many more so. Yet our Constitution has thus far protected us from any institution of such. If he respects the Constitution, as he proclaims, then there should be little to fear.
I would like nothing more than to see a groundswell for a third party candidate. I would like to be on that bandwagon.
Regards,
O.A.

Reportedly some lawsuits that have been filed are still undecided. And several that were dismissed were done so on procedural grounds, with no mention of the potential merits or lack thereof. While I agree it seems unlikely, as does a HRC indictment, one never knows till the final ruling is made.

I have given you the facts. If you refuse to recognize them, that is your lookout, not mine.

On the other hand, you made a definite accusation against me, and now decline to back that up. So I am within my rights to dismiss your accusation.