It's Time: Which Candidate Do You Currently Favor?

[Cecilie1200]

I go with Trump. I can't vote for him in the primary. Reason: I think it will be more exciting, and I'm confident that I/We could survive it.

Your big interest in choosing a President is excitement? You know this is the future of our nation, not entertainment, right?

Tongue in cheek, yes. For the most part, I am the future of the nation from my perspective, and we own that severally and as a bloc. It would defy the universe if the President alone impacted my life more than me and what I do with my time, etc.

You know... excitement isn't limited to entertainment value... right?

No, I don't. In this context, there is no good about "excitement". As far as I'm concerned, proper government administration should be boring and should allow me to ignore it for days, even weeks, at a time. It's like driving a semi for a living (which I used to do): if it's "exciting", you're doing it wrong.

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

I havent voted major party for president in years but here is my take.

Trade is one of the most important issues a president deals with, that and other foreign policy. Our trade policy has been bought and manipulated by corporate whores.

Trump at least pretends to be concerned about that.....
so in a way does Paul ...or at least his father did...saying it is not true free trade.

Cruz actually worked as a trade, something or other, in the Bush admin I believe, this immediately disqualifies him as far as I'm concerned...that and his wife worked for Goldman-Sachs.

Carson hasnt addressed it as far as I've heard

Fiorina talks against the crony capitalism rampant in DC,

on the other side I dont trust Hillary's new-found opposition to trade.
Sanders is also a critic of our trade policy.

so of the republicans probably Trump, Fiorina, Paul
and the Democrats Sanders.

Well, although I don't agree with you, I do have to say you're very clear on which issues matter to you and whose positions align with what you want, so that's certainly good.

you know after posting that I realized there were two other republicans who don't seem real bad on trade that I forgot about because the media isn't giving them a lot of attention.

Santorum and Huckabee. Santorum I believe won 11 states last time around and certainly should not be ignored by the media. He should really be on the main stage debates also.

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

 

[Arianrhod]

The "who" was clear from his post; the "why" was not. His two choices were so completely disparate in their promises it's puzzling.

Liberals are puzzled by gender, so it no surprise you can't seem to comprehend what was written.

You're saying Trump and Cruz are different genders? This is big news...

 

[Programmer]

I go with Trump. I can't vote for him in the primary. Reason: I think it will be more exciting, and I'm confident that I/We could survive it.

Your big interest in choosing a President is excitement? You know this is the future of our nation, not entertainment, right?

Tongue in cheek, yes. For the most part, I am the future of the nation from my perspective, and we own that severally and as a bloc. It would defy the universe if the President alone impacted my life more than me and what I do with my time, etc.

You know... excitement isn't limited to entertainment value... right?

No, I don't. In this context, there is no good about "excitement". As far as I'm concerned, proper government administration should be boring and should allow me to ignore it for days, even weeks, at a time. It's like driving a semi for a living (which I used to do): if it's "exciting", you're doing it wrong.

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

 

[Vigilante]

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!

 

[Programmer]

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!

Trump's smarter than that, though.

 

[Muhammed]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

Yeah, after all the election was a couple weeks ago. It's about time people decided who they would vote for.

Or maybe that's just stupid.

 

[Vigilante]

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!

Trump's smarter than that, though.

There is NO ONE smarter than Cruz when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, which will play a HUGE PART in the next 4 years!

 

[Programmer]

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!

Trump's smarter than that, though.

There is NO ONE smarter than Cruz when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, which will play a HUGE PART in the next 4 years!

I just mean to say Trump wont try to take Cruz with him out of Trump's intelligence.

 

[Vigilante]

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!

Trump's smarter than that, though.

There is NO ONE smarter than Cruz when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, which will play a HUGE PART in the next 4 years!

I just mean to say Trump wont try to take Cruz with him out of Trump's intelligence.

You do realize they've already met 3 times since Trump's announcement, one meeting over an hour, and have you noticed Trump will attack everyone, except Cruz?

Both men are VERY SIMILIAR on the important issues!...Not the social issues, but that can be modified if they succeed!

 

[Programmer]

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!

Trump's smarter than that, though.

There is NO ONE smarter than Cruz when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, which will play a HUGE PART in the next 4 years!

I just mean to say Trump wont try to take Cruz with him out of Trump's intelligence.

You do realize they've already met 3 times since Trump's announcement, one meeting over an hour, and have you noticed Trump will attack everyone, except Cruz?

I'm sure Trump's met with other people, too. Cruz would be a political miscalculation on Trump's part, granted that he's better at appealing to the same group that Cruz is. For the GE, Trump will probably be looking to the center of Cruz.

Regarding Cruz and the constitution, I thought he went hustling in Kentucky with Kim Davis. That's not sound.

 

[dcraelin]

I havent voted major party for president in years but here is my take.

Trade is one of the most important issues a president deals with, that and other foreign policy. Our trade policy has been bought and manipulated by corporate whores.

Trump at least pretends to be concerned about that.....
so in a way does Paul ...or at least his father did...saying it is not true free trade.

Cruz actually worked as a trade, something or other, in the Bush admin I believe, this immediately disqualifies him as far as I'm concerned...that and his wife worked for Goldman-Sachs.

Carson hasnt addressed it as far as I've heard

Fiorina talks against the crony capitalism rampant in DC,

on the other side I dont trust Hillary's new-found opposition to trade.
Sanders is also a critic of our trade policy.

so of the republicans probably Trump, Fiorina, Paul
and the Democrats Sanders.

Well, although I don't agree with you, I do have to say you're very clear on which issues matter to you and whose positions align with what you want, so that's certainly good.

you know after posting that I realized there were two other republicans who don't seem real bad on trade that I forgot about because the media isn't giving them a lot of attention.

Santorum and Huckabee. Santorum I believe won 11 states last time around and certainly should not be ignored by the media. He should really be on the main stage debates also.

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your big interest in choosing a President is excitement? You know this is the future of our nation, not entertainment, right?

Tongue in cheek, yes. For the most part, I am the future of the nation from my perspective, and we own that severally and as a bloc. It would defy the universe if the President alone impacted my life more than me and what I do with my time, etc.

You know... excitement isn't limited to entertainment value... right?

No, I don't. In this context, there is no good about "excitement". As far as I'm concerned, proper government administration should be boring and should allow me to ignore it for days, even weeks, at a time. It's like driving a semi for a living (which I used to do): if it's "exciting", you're doing it wrong.

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government. I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be. I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

Yeah, after all the election was a couple weeks ago. It's about time people decided who they would vote for.

Or maybe that's just stupid.

Yes, I think we can agree that your post IS stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, although I don't agree with you, I do have to say you're very clear on which issues matter to you and whose positions align with what you want, so that's certainly good.

you know after posting that I realized there were two other republicans who don't seem real bad on trade that I forgot about because the media isn't giving them a lot of attention.

Santorum and Huckabee. Santorum I believe won 11 states last time around and certainly should not be ignored by the media. He should really be on the main stage debates also.

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.

 

[Moonglow]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

I'm still marking the box: None of the above.....

 

[Manonthestreet]

Bob Dole says vote Jeb

 

[Programmer]

Tongue in cheek, yes. For the most part, I am the future of the nation from my perspective, and we own that severally and as a bloc. It would defy the universe if the President alone impacted my life more than me and what I do with my time, etc.

You know... excitement isn't limited to entertainment value... right?

No, I don't. In this context, there is no good about "excitement". As far as I'm concerned, proper government administration should be boring and should allow me to ignore it for days, even weeks, at a time. It's like driving a semi for a living (which I used to do): if it's "exciting", you're doing it wrong.

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government. I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be. I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.

I'm not going to understand what you mean about government in your life because I have the control of this dynamic in my own life. It seems shallow like you had described my excitement about Trump, just because it's non-seq with policy outcomes. The US president isn't even a quiet, blue-collar job as you describe it.

Is this media footprint concern the only or primary one you weigh when making your choice?

 

[Two Thumbs]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

I'm still marking the box: None of the above.....

Okay. Don't vote. Works for me.