Lets get real. Does anyone really think Cruz is the guy? Seriously? Cruz?

[bshole]

Same.
1. Bernie
2. Trump
3. Hillary probably

Of the pro-establishment candidates, Hillary is probably the most reasonable.

I will never pull the lever for her. The chances of me voting are around 1% unless Bernie makes it. It is Bernie or nobody for me.

 

[zinfamous]

Really? Do you not know that many of our founding fathers were God fearing men?

oh right...this FUD again. never gets old.

not only that, but Pokerguy said "fundy religious nut." Please point out a founding father that you would qualify as a fundamentalist in the vein of a sociopath like Cruz.

I'll let you consider the Unitarians and atheists among the founders, as well.

Do you think there were evangelicals hanging around Boston and Philadelphia in 1768?

 

[VashHT]

Really? Do you not know that many of our founding fathers were God fearing men?

Yeah keep pushing that BS, I mean one of the big reasons they founded a new country was to have religious freedom, but I'm sure what they really meant was that they wanted the bible codified into law.

 

[Jhhnn]

I liked Kasich a lot...until he opened his mouth about the Middle East, He's Bush & Cheney on steroids.

I never saw any reason to like him. To vote for him is to vote for the same failed policy of the GWB years, all the way around.

He does come off as more presidential than the rest which isn't saying much.

 

[kage69]

None of the choices on that side make any sense, but Cruz is definitely the most creepy of the bunch.

Cruz makes Hillary look like a principled bastion of integrity. Given the biggest, most pervasive issues we currently face, IMO Bernie is the only one who should be in the White House. His only real competition is Hillary and the dug in interests that want a return on their investment. The other side jumped the shark, became a joke awhile ago, which is why the frontrunners are a bigot from reality TV and the creepy evangelical guy who shut the government down.

 

[PokerGuy]

Really? Do you not know that many of our founding fathers were God fearing men?

There is nothing wrong with God-fearing men (I consider myself one), but that doesn't mean we want to elect leaders that seek to inject (their particular brand of) religion into government. You can be a God fearing man and allow that to guide your actions without trying to force your beliefs onto others.

The country was formed on that basis -- to allow people to practice religion (or not practice anything) on their own terms, not the terms dictated by others or government.

 

[PokerGuy]

Given the biggest, most pervasive issues we currently face, IMO Bernie is the only one who should be in the White House.

The only way he should be in the White House is he decides to join tourists in a tour of the place. Sorry, "free" stuff is not free, someone has to pay for everything and that old socialist loon brings nothing to the table that we'd want.

 

[kage69]

The only way he should be in the White House is he decides to join tourists in a tour of the place. Sorry, "free" stuff is not free, someone has to pay for everything and that old socialist loon brings nothing to the table that we'd want.

So Sanders can kiss the Banana republican vote goodbye then? Oh well. :biggrin:

You'd prefer no threats to the corruption of our financial and electoral systems, gotcha.

 

[Spungo]

I will never pull the lever for her. The chances of me voting are around 1% unless Bernie makes it. It is Bernie or nobody for me.

You might change your mind if the republican candidate is horrific.
I voted for Obama over McCain because that seemed like a very important election. Sarah Palin with nuclear weapons? No thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

There is nothing wrong with God-fearing men (I consider myself one), but that doesn't mean we want to elect leaders that seek to inject (their particular brand of) religion into government. You can be a God fearing man and allow that to guide your actions without trying to force your beliefs onto others.

The country was formed on that basis -- to allow people to practice religion (or not practice anything) on their own terms, not the terms dictated by others or government.

But religious extremists running countries works great in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to do that here, too? /s

(In other words, I agree 100%.)

 

[Davidpaul007]

Yeah keep pushing that BS, I mean one of the big reasons they founded a new country was to have religious freedom, but I'm sure what they really meant was that they wanted the bible codified into law.

The bible is and was integral into the constitution and the very worldview of our founding fathers. Not sure how you can deny something that is so widely documented.

 

[Bowfinger]

The only way he should be in the White House is he decides to join tourists in a tour of the place. Sorry, "free" stuff is not free, someone has to pay for everything and that old socialist loon brings nothing to the table that we'd want.

I think you're fixating on the wrong things. Remember, Sanders is running for President, not king. His ability to enact "free" things will be checked by Congress. His ability to bring attention to the underlying issues -- better health care, off-shored jobs, out of control education costs, and the corrupting influence of too much money in politics -- is where Sanders can really help Americans. Sanders will ensure those issues stay in front of Americans, pushing Congress to make some progress.

Plus, Sanders seems to be the only remaining candidate who isn't chomping at the bit to start more wars in the Middle East. In my book, Sanders deserves support for that alone.

 

[Bowfinger]

The bible is and was integral into the constitution and the very worldview of our founding fathers. Not sure how you can deny something that is so widely documented.

Perhaps you should start a thread on why you think America should be a theocracy. By burying it in this thread, you're denying a lot of P&N'ers a wonderful opportunity for mockery.

 

[BoberFett]

Same.
1. Bernie
2. Trump
3. Hillary probably

Of the pro-establishment candidates, Hillary is probably the most reasonable.

That would be my order as well.

And not because I like Trump. Trump is a blowhard and an asshole. But he'd be a big middle finger to the establishment.

 

[BoberFett]

This is a mostly socialist country, you know. Are you blind?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

 

[Davidpaul007]

Perhaps you should start a thread on why you think America should be a theocracy. By burying it in this thread, you're denying a lot of P&N'ers a wonderful opportunity for mockery.

That's anb interesting strawman statement, and clearly not the point or intent of my original question. I was simply responding to what sounded like an astonishingly misinformed statement made earlier. Perhaps I should realize how most here were educated (or lack thereof) about our founding fathers and the principles they believed in. My personal beliefs have no bearing on historical facts.

 

[BoberFett]

Plus, Sanders seems to be the only remaining candidate who isn't chomping at the bit to start more wars in the Middle East. In my book, Sanders deserves support for that alone.

:thumbsup:


Also, if anyone here hasn't watched the Cruz Bad Lip Reading, do so now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v75wCTMZoSY

What's frightening is that the bad lip reading doesn't seem entirely implausible... :hmm:

 

[fourdegrees11]

Cruz has "punch me" face. His religious beliefs make him a product of systemic brainwashing, the same as every other religious person in this century. It's very shallow and immature to not look beyond that...

The facts of the matter are he wants to shrink the Fed, give power back to the local authorities (States), and significantly reduce taxes on everyone earning over $10k a year. How is that scary? The reason we have States is so groups of people with different beliefs, and regional issues could make their own decisions. Forcing this one-size-fits-all government down the throats of everyone in a country this large and diverse is a huge part of what is tearing everyone apart right now.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's anb interesting strawman statement,

Thanks, I thought so. While it is clearly an exaggeration, it is nonetheless the direction pushed by Cruz and the zealots he panders to. They've demonstrated they are eager to write their religious beliefs into American law.

and clearly not the point or intent of my original question. I was simply responding to what sounded like an astonishingly misinformed statement made earlier. Perhaps I should realize how most here were educated (or lack thereof) about our founding fathers and the principles they believed in. My personal beliefs have no bearing on historical facts.

Perhaps you should refresh your own education as well. Those "historical facts" include NOT enshrining Christianity in the Constitution. You created your own straw man when you conflated "fundie religious nut" with "God fearing men." The issue with Cruz and his followers in not that they are merely God-fearing.

 

[blake0812]

Boogie Boy Cruz

 

[kage69]

:thumbsup:


Also, if anyone here hasn't watched the Cruz Bad Lip Reading, do so now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v75wCTMZoSY

What's frightening is that the bad lip reading doesn't seem entirely implausible... :hmm:

His wife cracks me up. She's either doing her best attempt at a smile, or wearing an expression that says "what the hell is that smell? did someone just crop dust us?!"

 

[DrPizza]

I'm guessing that a significant part of the Cruz vote is the "anyone but Trump" vote. A significant part of the Rubio vote is the "anyone but Trump" vote. I don't think Trump is getting an "anyone but Cruz" or "anyone but Rubio" vote.

 

[VashHT]

That's anb interesting strawman statement, and clearly not the point or intent of my original question. I was simply responding to what sounded like an astonishingly misinformed statement made earlier. Perhaps I should realize how most here were educated (or lack thereof) about our founding fathers and the principles they believed in. My personal beliefs have no bearing on historical facts.

Well I probably read into your statement more than what was said, but you also read into mine. I was more trying to say that our founding fathers did not want a theocracy and they wanted religious freedom in this country, so I'm not sure how that is "astonishingly misinformed" because I am pretty sure it is true.

 

[Davidpaul007]

Well I probably read into your statement more than what was said, but you also read into mine. I was more trying to say that our founding fathers did not want a theocracy and they wanted religious freedom in this country, so I'm not sure how that is "astonishingly misinformed" because I am pretty sure it is true.

I'm sorry, my initial statement was not directed at you, but at PokerGuy when he stated "...but the prospect of a true fundie religious nut in the oval office is something that should frighten everyone"

 

[blake0812]

I'm guessing that a significant part of the Cruz vote is the "anyone but Trump" vote. A significant part of the Rubio vote is the "anyone but Trump" vote. I don't think Trump is getting an "anyone but Cruz" or "anyone but Rubio" vote.

I've been thinking about that as well, but when it comes down to it I'd think that most would vote for Trump when faced with the alternative of Hitlery