I mean, come on, even Trump doesn't want to greaten the military budget, but Cruz does.

That's why Cruz voted against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and supported Rand Paul's budget proposal to increase military appropriations only $46 billion over 7 years, which was $51 billion less than what the Congressional Budget Office projected.

Cruz is closer to Rand Paul and the non-interventionists than Trump.

At least Cruz stood against US military intervention in Libya to dispose of Gaddafi which was a catastrophic foreign policy mistake of the Obama-Clinton doctrine, while Donald Trump supported it. Donald Trump peddling himself as the guy who wants to end war and wants to make peace is another deceitful trick to claim libertarian voters, especially since his rhetoric doesn't match his attitudes or positions in the past.

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-and-the-facts-about-ndaa-defense-spending/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/26/cruz-is-correct-trump-supported-hillarys-libya-debacle/

A grossly false estimate. Just because the GOP establishment hates Trump doesn't mean the grassroots hate him. Pundits claimed that Trump's ceiling had been reached at 30%, and as his competitors drop out, they would all go to anti-Trump candidates.

I actually think the numbers in the GE will even out. The number of people who will vote 3rd Party (like me) or stay home or vote Democrat if Trump gets the GOP nomination will about even out with the number of independents, new voters, and moderate Democrats that Trump manages to bag. He won't win the GE though.

Edited 3/5/2016 02:24:55

Various reasons why GOP's numbers are higher. Voters in opposition party will usually be more enthusiastic than the incumbent one, (Think it was the same in 2008 after 8 years of Bush). Trump is attracting many new voters, yes, but also motivating the anti-Trump vote in large numbers.

I would compare the Trump phenomon with the situation of beliebers in 2010.

It really has many things in common!

-They both worship a hated guy.
-Fans of them are usually also hated and spoken otherwise by other people.
-Also very controversial.
- Social media. It also has many things to do with
- Ugly hair
- Power of the internet
- Overpopularised people on the news.
- Dumb quotes

So if you want to support Trump on presidency just ask yourself if you would support Bieber to be respected as the best singer of all time!

I can't tell if this is serious or a troll...

Edited 3/5/2016 02:39:05

That's why Cruz voted against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and supported Rand Paul's budget proposal to increase military appropriations only $46 billion over 7 years, which was $51 billion less than what the Congressional Budget Office projected.

Cruz is closer to Rand Paul and the non-interventionists than Trump.

At least Cruz stood against US military intervention in Libya to dispose of Gaddafi which was a catastrophic foreign policy mistake of the Obama-Clinton doctrine, while Donald Trump supported it. Donald Trump peddling himself as the guy who wants to end war and wants to make peace is another deceitful trick to claim libertarian voters, especially since his rhetoric doesn't match his attitudes or positions in the past.

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-and-the-facts-about-ndaa-defense-spending/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/26/cruz-is-correct-trump-supported-hillarys-libya-debacle/

Let me repeat, he wants to grow the military budget - no offence, but what argument do you have saying he's more non-interventionist; that he doesn't want to greaten it much? Gaddafi was no mistake; for America, it was great - another neutral sent into war, with everyone but allies being weak. Cruz said that he'll go bats--- on anyone who is a "threat to Americans" like most of the other Republicans, and will bring the wrath.

Edited 3/5/2016 03:02:48

Ted Cruz? You mean the candidate that neurologists are calling the man who has "a punchable face?" He's a decent orator and politican but bruh lets be real the dude has a disgusting face (that coincidentally pairs well alongside his exposed lies).

http://news.groopspeak.com/a-neurologist-explains-why-you-hate-ted-cruzs-face/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/06/modern-medicine-explains-why-your-desire-to-punch-ted-cruz-in-the-face-is-completely-natural/

Ted Cruz doesn't support NSA metadata collection (unlike Trump), doesn't support the Patriot Act (unlike Trump), doesn't support waterboarding and torture (unlike Trump), and doesn't support detainment of US citizens without due process (unlike Trump).

I can confidently say Cruz is less interventionist than all the GOP candidates in the field and certainly less than Hillary Clinton. Cruz talks tough on ISIS, but note that he consistently emphasizes the use of American ground troops in Syria only as a last resort and opposes any attempts at nation building or regime change.

We can't place ideological markers on Trump with any certainty because he has no consistency, integrity, or loyalty to his own supporters, positions, or rhetoric. Trump may sound like a non-interventionist, but with most of his other positions in this election cycle you must consider them with a grain of salt when evaluating his political associations and positions in previous years.

And to be fair, everyone wants to grow the military budget. Note what Bernie Sanders says on his own website: "Bernie firmly rejects any increase to defense spending at the cost of cuts to domestic social spending." What he's essentially saying (in politician talk) is that he is willing to increase military spending if domestic social spending is increased or stays the same. Everyone is a war hawk in some incremental form. We have to pick the least worst poison, and on the GOP side that's Cruz.

I'm a bit tired to look these things up and argue back properly(I will later), but for now, I leave you with this to show you how awful he is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v75wCTMZoSY

I honestly cannot stand any of them, I had hope for America, but then Rand Paul left, then Bush, and now we're stuck with nuclear war no matter who's elected.

As a British Conservative, I have my own take on this Donald J Trump geezer:

-Firstly, the guy is a reaction. A reaction to the fact that there is no alternative in America. You either vote for the establishment or the establishment, which has led to extreme polarisation. Bad for democracy.
In Britain, there are six main opposition parties; Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, DUP, UKIP, and Plaid Cymru. People regularly vote for these parties tactically either to prevent the election of someone else or as a protest vote. UKIP, for example, got 4 million votes nationwide in last year's General Election.
America really doesn't have an alternative, so they're going to vote for the first person who comes forth to shake up the establishment.

-Secondly, his policies and speech are revolting to say the least. What kind of person in their right mind can say, without taking into consideration the question-ability of their intellect being intact, that they'd feel comfortable preventing anyone who is of the Muslim faith into a country which is supposed to be for all people of God, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew. If you've got to ban some kind of religion, why not ban a pagan religion like Hinduism whose radical followers are the biggest single cause for hate-crimes against people of God in the Indian subcontinent today, whether Muslim or Christian.
I don't understand Trump's narrative. He says "until we can figure out what's going on". Let me tell you what's going on, Mr. Trump. You need to crack down on non-Violent Extremism first. Non-Violent Extremism is what leads to terrorism, because it provides Muslims who are ignorant about their religion and slightly concerned about all the Muslims dying in the Middle East (which is a drawback of secularism btw) with a shitload of problems, but no solutions. When these hyped-up youths start looking for solutions to their imagined problems, the only people offering them solutions are terrorist groups like al Qaeda, al Shabab in Somalia, Nusra Front in Syria, Taliban, ISIL, Boko Haram, Hamas and many other violent terrorist groups.
The solution to this problem is simple. Stop trying to dumb-down Muslims in America. Encourage them to learn about their religion in the correct interpretations. Ban the Muslim Brotherhood and other non-violent extremist organisations, and you'll find radicalisation amongst the Muslim community vastly reduced.
Also, it might be a good idea to listen to your Arab allies a little bit more.

-Thirdly, Trump wants to put a wall on the border. Now, I don't disagree with the fact that uncontrolled immigration is a massive drawback to any developed country's economy. It means there are more people who need unskilled jobs, more pay-outs in the welfare system, and negative effects on the present ethnic groups and communities. Also, the rule of law must prevail. Anyone breaking the law, must be called to account. It's not fair that a skilled IT-consultant from Slovenia has to go through a long process to get to America to be a hard-working citizen, and a person from the Dominican Republic can pay a Mexican drug-cartel a couple thousand dollars to drop them over the border knowing it's unlikely they'd ever be deported. That is discriminatory to say the least.
However, building a wall will not have any effect on the problem whatsoever. Anybody who knows Mexicans knows that if a Mexican wants to do something, they will get it done. A 12-foot wall will not be enough. What you need to do is work with the Mexican government to provide the chance for American recruitment companies to go get the people needed in specific jobs. Anyone coming to America must have a job before they arrive, and as soon as they leave their job, they must leave until they find another job. Also, stop naturalisation. It's a failed concept. Just because you were born in a place doesn't make you indigenous to that place.

-And lastly, good look with the feminazis. I hope you crush them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

Enjoy this.

If you've got to ban some kind of religion, why not ban a pagan religion like Hinduism whose radical followers are the biggest single cause for hate-crimes

How ignorant. So you've explicity said you're alright with banning a religion, as long as you ban a "polytheistic" one instead of a monotheistic one? What a bigot, and how unequivocally uniformed. I bet you think Islam is the religion of peace too.

Edited 3/5/2016 04:09:42

Just leaving this here.

Trump is an idiot, hated by both parties.

Rubio doesn't vote in Congress.

Carson is a criminal, and too soft spoken.

Cruz is absolute scum, stealing votes from Carson, photoshopping Rubio shaking hands with Obama, all the while calling himself a Christian.

Sanders is already dead, and is the most extreme in American politics.

Clinton is more fake than a high school girl's face, to say the least. She sleeps on a bed of scandals and lies, uses her gender to get votes, and has no intention of closing the bipartisan gap, as you can tell by her speeches.


It's Russian Roulette, America, but you are so drunk and dumb that you put in all 6 bullets.

How is Ben Carson a criminal?

How ignorant. So you've explicity said you're alright with banning a religion, as long as you ban a "polytheistic" one instead of a monotheistic one?

I wasn't saying that it was alright to ban any religion, I was merely making a point that Muslims are people of God as well. They believe in Jesus, they revere him, and I think they shouldn't be alienated especially under the pretext of them being so different from Christian 'Murica. If you'd have read my whole post, you'd have realised that I'm referring here to the 1 billion people worldwide who are Muslim and do not blow shit up or even sympathise with people that blow shit up.

What a bigot, and how unequivocally uniformed. I bet you think Islam is the religion of peace too.

Resorting to name-calling instead of engaging in a peaceful conversational debate is typical of the arrogant type you are portraying yourself to be. Again, you misunderstand me and I apologise sincerely if that is due to a shortfall on my part, and I regret dearly if it is due to a shortfall on your point, as basic comprehension skills, or the lack of them on your part, is greatly impeding our ability to have an intelligent conversation.

If you're over the age of 15, you should probably kill yourself at this point to save some other intelligent human being the trouble. If you're under 15, you need to go back to primary school and patiently await maturity, passing the time by learning the basic skills you will need in future life.

Resorting to name-calling instead of engaging in a peaceful conversational debate is typical of the arrogant type you are portraying yourself to be.

I regret dearly if it is due to a shortfall on your point, as basic comprehension skills, or the lack of them on your part, is greatly impeding our ability to have an intelligent conversation.

If you're over the age of 15, you should probably kill yourself at this point to save some other intelligent human being the trouble. If you're under 15, you need to go back to primary school and patiently await maturity, passing the time by learning the basic skills you will need in future life.

So. First you chide Jai for being arrogant and resorting to insults, insisting that there should be a peaceful conversational debate.

Then you proceed to arrogantly insult his intelligence and demean him repeatedly.

Real classy. I'm aware you're known for trolling, but come on.

I don't understand Trump's narrative. He says "until we can figure out what's going on".

Thirdly, Trump wants to put a wall on the border.

Trump is not going to build a wall or ban all Muslims. He uses those bold statements for two reasons: 1. to stand out from the crowd during the primaries and get nominated, and 2. as a bargaining chip when president. If he starts an energetic program to record all the illegals and deport at least the worst of them, he can say that at least he didn't build a wall. When he cracks down on radical Islam, he can say that at least he didn't throw all Muslims out of the country.

Then he is a liar. Who does not do what he says is not a trustworthy person. He could do whatever he wants and no one has an idea what it could be.

I prefer him color the truth a bit and getting things done to not getting things done. So I'm happy with what he does.

That said, it's funny how mostly those who would not vote for Trump anyway are the most offended at the idea that he doesn't do exactly what he says. Shouldn't you be happy if he isn't going to ban all Muslims?

BERNIE SANDERS 4 PREZ!