Trump in lead after convention

[jimnyc]

Donald Trump bounces into the lead

(CNN)The bounce is back.
Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000. That year Al Gore and George W. Bush both boosted their numbers by an identical 8 points post-convention before ultimately battling all the way to the Supreme Court.

The new findings mark Trump's best showing in a CNN/ORC Poll against Clinton since September 2015. Trump's new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.

The poll also reflects a sharpening of the education divide among whites that has been prevalent throughout the campaign. Among white voters with college degrees, Clinton actually gained ground compared with pre-convention results, going from an even 40% to 40% split to a 44% to 39% edge over Trump. That while Trump expanded his lead with white voters who do not hold a college degree from a 51% to 31% lead before the convention to a 62% to 23% lead now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html


Aggregate polling has him up by .2%, which is let's just say a tie.


CBS Poll: Trump Gains on Clinton After the Convention

Donald Trump is gaining support across the battleground states following the GOP convention last week, according to the new CBS News Battleground Tracker Poll.

Trump has 42 percent support across the 11 battleground states surveyed — up from 40 percent he had last week before of the convention.

Hillary Clinton has 41 percent support, unchanged from last week's poll.

According to the poll, 55 percent of Republicans said Trump's message at the convention made them feel hopeful. About 40 percent said it made them feel enthusiastic.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cbs-poll-trump-gains/2016/07/24/id/740200/

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0k2-kO_yc

[jimnyc]

^^ Not sure what that has to do with the subject, or polls... but if you want to see something funnier - go look at the polls of whomever it is you may support. Is that Johnson? 7% is about right for potheads! :) Or maybe Castle, who doesn't even register? Stein, at like 4%?

But I do think the 2 main parties come much closer together after the DNC this week.

And no, I don't need a lecture about the 2 parties, and other parties not having chances, but if we voted for them they would, or any other stuff like that. Add ALL of the parties together this year and EVERY candidate - and I would still be voting for the very same person this go round.

[revelarts]

^^ Not sure what that has to do with the subject, or polls... but if you want to see something funnier - go look at the polls of whomever it is you may support. Is that Johnson? 7% is about right for potheads! :) Or maybe Castle, who doesn't even register? Stein, at like 4%?

But I do think the 2 main parties come much closer together after the DNC this week.

And no, I don't need a lecture about the 2 parties, and other parties not having chances, but if we voted for them they would, or any other stuff like that. Add ALL of the parties together this year and EVERY candidate - and I would still be voting for the very same person this go round.


you seem happy Jim, but here's the thing, both Hillary and Trump are hated more than any other candidates in decades. And the Presidency isn't won by popular vote but by the electoral college. And if Gary Johnson (or him in combo with other independents) manages to get a couple of states and keeps the other 2 from the magic 270 or whatever the winning electoral numbers are then we'd have no elected president.


this is the time for a 3rd party vote.
Lets REALLY shake the country up Jim not vote in some loud mouth rich RINO or a known Globalist lying Crook.





SaveSave

[Kathianne]

you seem happy Jim, but here's the thing, both Hillary and Trump are hated more than any other candidates in decades. And the Presidency isn't won by popular vote but by the electoral college. And if Gary Johnson (or him in combo with other independents) manages to get a couple of states and keeps the other 2 from the magic 270 or whatever the winning electoral numbers are then we'd have no elected president.


this is the time for a 3rd party vote.
Lets REALLY shake the country up Jim not vote in some loud mouth rich RINO or a known Globalist lying Crook.





SaveSave


If between write-ins, Johnson, and Stein they get a substantial percentage of votes, I'm hoping that some deep pockets from both parties that are unhappy with both major parties decide that this election is the beginning of building a solid alternative.

The past two weeks of watching the conventions my take away is that I believe BOTH candidates in the criticism of each other, I believe 0 of their 'promises.' What a mess.

[revelarts]

...
And no, I don't need a lecture about the 2 parties, ....

I won't give a lecture about them but the people who vote , both Ds and Rs, have been WOEFULLY disappoint again and again by the elected party candidates. As they have fallen WAY short of the promises, the platforms, and the principals of the parties electorate.


You tell me. Is the Definition by Albert Einstein true?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

SaveSave

[Gunny]

you seem happy Jim, but here's the thing, both Hillary and Trump are hated more than any other candidates in decades. And the Presidency isn't won by popular vote but by the electoral college. And if Gary Johnson (or him in combo with other independents) manages to get a couple of states and keeps the other 2 from the magic 270 or whatever the winning electoral numbers are then we'd have no elected president.


this is the time for a 3rd party vote.
Lets REALLY shake the country up Jim not vote in some loud mouth rich RINO or a known Globalist lying Crook.





SaveSave


This is the exact wrong time for a 3rd party vote. The right time is for the 3rd party to establish itself NOW for next election. You don't come in at the last second throwing spitballs at a Golum.

What y'all will do, is rather lose, then do nothing in the interim to change things until it's too late again. How many times do you have to repeat the same wrong things planning on a better answer?

You work from the foundation up and build. Americans are so damned nonsensical and lazy. It's too damned late for your 3rd party.

[Kathianne]

This is the exact wrong time for a 3rd party vote. The right time is for the 3rd party to establish itself NOW for next election. You don't come in at the last second throwing spitballs at a Golum.

What y'all will do, is rather lose, then do nothing in the interim to change things until it's too late again. How many times do you have to repeat the same wrong things planning on a better answer?

You work from the foundation up and build. Americans are so damned nonsensical and lazy. It's too damned late for your 3rd party.

Now is the time for it to start, not going to affect this election.

[Gunny]

Now is the time for it to start, not going to affect this election.

I agree. You start by stopping the bleeding. The way to stop it is to keep Hillary out. Otherwise, we end up with a mess we can't clean up. We keep Hillary out by whatever means it takes.

The Constitution is what is at stake here. Not my personal opinion. Keep her out and get it in gear for next election NOW.

Reality is there is no third party. There hasn't been since Teddy and he lost. The last one to win was Lincoln. You play the hand you're dealt not the one you wish for.

[Kathianne]

I agree. You start by stopping the bleeding. The way to stop it is to keep Hillary out. Otherwise, we end up with a mess we can't clean up. We keep Hillary out by whatever means it takes.

The Constitution is what is at stake here. Not my personal opinion. Keep her out and get it in gear for next election NOW.

Reality is there is no third party. There hasn't been since Teddy and he lost. The last one to win was Lincoln. You play the hand you're dealt not the one you wish for.
To start, it has to start. Not after voting for the two candidates that really have put dead to the system as we've known it. One a con man, the other an unindicted criminal. You're going to vote for one of them and call it a stop her vote. May or may not stop her, but mine won't be for either of these jerks.

[jimnyc]

you seem happy Jim, but here's the thing, both Hillary and Trump are hated more than any other candidates in decades. And the Presidency isn't won by popular vote but by the electoral college. And if Gary Johnson (or him in combo with other independents) manages to get a couple of states and keeps the other 2 from the magic 270 or whatever the winning electoral numbers are then we'd have no elected president.


this is the time for a 3rd party vote.
Lets REALLY shake the country up Jim not vote in some loud mouth rich RINO or a known Globalist lying Crook.


SaveSave


Even if I liked one of the other candidates, which I don't... I take a chance on that, and it fails - then we get a few liberal SC judges at minimum, leaving our SCOTUS leaning left for a generation or perhaps two. That, and potentially the beginning of the end of our 2nd amendment. That's simply a chance I would not be willing to take.

It's no ones fault but their own if those candidates are unable to secure enough votes for the nomination or the win in the general.

[Gunny]

To start, it has to start. Not after voting for the two candidates that really have put dead to the system as we've known it. One a con man, the other an unindicted criminal. You're going to vote for one of them and call it a stop her vote. May or may not stop her, but mine won't be for either of these jerks.

Well when you planning on starting? At the last minute every time because you don't like your choices? You got two established partied that keep politics in gridlock. You level the playing field and rebuild. Crying about who you don't like at the last second accomplishes nothing. Look how well it's worked so far. Same old plan ... same old result. Might as well just stay home and not bother.

[jimnyc]

Well when you planning on starting? At the last minute every time because you don't like your choices? You got two established partied that keep politics in gridlock. You level the playing field and rebuild. Crying about who you don't like at the last second accomplishes nothing. Look how well it's worked so far. Same old plan ... same old result. Might as well just stay home and not bother.

Only way I see it happening is having a "perfect storm" of an election season, and someone like Trump having been coming out independent, and having been accepted by so many voters as he has this year. I do believe it will happen, and one season we will see the big 2 fall, just a matter of the circumstances, and who is running on 3rd base.

[revelarts]

Well when you planning on starting? At the last minute every time because you don't like your choices? You got two established partied that keep politics in gridlock. You level the playing field and rebuild. Crying about who you don't like at the last second accomplishes nothing. Look how well it's worked so far. Same old plan ... same old result. Might as well just stay home and not bother.

I started in 2008 with the 1st Ron Paul Campaign. If people were really concerned about the "bleeding", the constitution, SCOTUS selections and conservative principals he was the CLEAR choice.

But like now, to many are concerned about muslims, immigrants, projecting the military all over the world and frankly having a PR style CiC face of america. Rather than a principled person working as the chief executive. Working on the conservative principals that republicans SAY they revere.
He was IN the republican party! But not enough republicans were REALLY serious about the BLEEDING. Not enough republicans could move from the establishment promoted RINO candidates. And even got excited over a clear PR pick, Sarah Palin! Who most now realize was NEVER presidential material. But it was very clear even then.


I lay the blame at the majority republican voters feet, who allowed themselves to be swayed by media personalities (the Palins, the Trumps etc) and establishment manipulations to so called pragmatism rather than sticking to the principals they SAY they believe in.

But at this point i'm convinced that many conservative are NOT really that serious about conservative social values or the constitution.
They are really concerned about "safety", american war power, immigrants, muslims, minorities and keeping their status quo more or less. If that means breaking few rules/heads internationally, ignoring the constitution where some people are concerned, using police state measures, and caving on abortion and homosexual marriages so be it.

[jimnyc]

I started in 2008 with the 1st Ron Paul Campaign. If people were really concerned about the "bleeding", the constitution, SCOTUS selections and conservative principals he was the CLEAR choice.

No, he was the clear choice for YOU. If he was the clear choice for the majority, we wouldn't have had to deal with the inexperienced jagoff for the last 8 years.

Look at Trump, ONLY as an example. Many say he's not a conservative, not even a republican, just someone out of left field. And yet there he is in the lead. So it CAN happen, someone completely out of the norm, really not even liked or supported by either party, coming out on top after the primaries and winning the nomination.

But obviously you and others want it to be a 3rd party, with of course stances that much more reflect the things you want and believe in, which of course I can fully understand.

You need the right year, and the "Trump" that will not only fit the 3rd party, but speak much more to the people than the other big 2 do. I think Trump has no even made it easier for others to take a different path. But that's yet to be seen.

[Kathianne]

Only way I see it happening is having a "perfect storm" of an election season, and someone like Trump having been coming out independent, and having been accepted by so many voters as he has this year. I do believe it will happen, and one season we will see the big 2 fall, just a matter of the circumstances, and who is running on 3rd base.

Thank you. For me, this was the year too far, I know not for others. When faced with no options, the unthinkable becomes thinkable. I appreciate your acknowledging that, in spite of disagreeing with my choice.

[revelarts]

No, he was the clear choice for YOU. If he was the clear choice for the majority, we wouldn't have had to deal with the inexperienced jagoff for the last 8 years.

Look at Trump, ONLY as an example. Many say he's not a conservative, not even a republican, just someone out of left field. And yet there he is in the lead. So it CAN happen, someone completely out of the norm, really not even liked or supported by either party, coming out on top after the primaries and winning the nomination.

But obviously you and others want it to be a 3rd party, with of course stances that much more reflect the things you want and believe in, which of course I can fully understand.

You need the right year, and the "Trump" that will not only fit the 3rd party, but speak much more to the people than the other big 2 do. I think Trump has no even made it easier for others to take a different path. But that's yet to be seen.

Again I lay it at the Republican voters feet.
they do NOT really care about conservative principals or the constitution.
If they did they would NOT have nominated Trump.
simply as that Jim.

You seem to be saying that an outsider can "win" in the republican party.
What I'm saying is that the Republican party base doesn't really WANT a social conservative or a true constitutionalist.
And it seems they never have.


If they really WANTED a constitutionalist and more of a social conservative in 2008 the clear choice was Ron Paul NOT John McCain.
I'm going by their voting records and proposed actions going forward Jim.
the republican base did not WANT a constitutionalist or someone realistically socially conservative.
They wanted RINO John McCain with a side of Palin.

Today they want Trump
NOT a constitutionalist, Not socially conservative. Not even really fiscally conservative.

[jimnyc]

Thank you. For me, this was the year too far, I know not for others. When faced with no options, the unthinkable becomes thinkable. I appreciate your acknowledging that, in spite of disagreeing with my choice.

Well, it's assuming that this person coming out of this storm, is what the people want that year (I use Trump as an example) and of course that candidate ends up winning the primaries and gets the nod. But if this candidate falls just short, and the main GOP guy/gal wins the nod, my butt switches to that person for the ultimate victory.

But yes, the option of going 3rd and the big 2 losing is GOING to happen. Matter of when, not if, as they say. :)

I think politics is moving more towards who is the best candidate at the time to address all of our problems, as opposed to who is the best candidate FROM one of the main parties.

But I've always acknowledged various things. I've always said that everyone has their right to vote for whatever candidate they think is best, regardless of polls and who may be leading. Everyone should be able to do what I've always said, which is add up the things that are most important to THEM. What everyone does when it comes to election day is up to that individual. Some look at it as a war, and go for the kill. Some are voting with their conscience, and some vote for the person that has the most points when they add them up.

But I do understand completely why some don't want to vote or want to go 3rd, and that's their right, and I fully respect that.

Ok, I'm actually confused right now. Went down to get another cup a minute or paragraph ago. I have the jitters again. Don't want to offend anyone. All I know is EVERY one of use here wants to vote for the person that we truly think is the person best suited to next take care of our great country. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I started in 2008 with the 1st Ron Paul Campaign. If people were really concerned about the "bleeding", the constitution, SCOTUS selections and conservative principals he was the CLEAR choice.

But like now, to many are concerned about muslims, immigrants, projecting the military all over the world and frankly having a PR style CiC face of america. Rather than a principled person working as the chief executive. Working on the conservative principals that republicans SAY they revere.
He was IN the republican party! But not enough republicans were REALLY serious about the BLEEDING. Not enough republicans could move from the establishment promoted RINO candidates. And even got excited over a clear PR pick, Sarah Palin! Who most now realize was NEVER presidential material. But it was very clear even then.


I lay the blame at the majority republican voters feet, who allowed themselves to be swayed by media personalities (the Palins, the Trumps etc) and establishment manipulations to so called pragmatism rather than sticking to the principals they SAY they believe in.

But at this point i'm convinced that many conservative are NOT really that serious about conservative social values or the constitution.
They are really concerned about "safety", american war power, immigrants, muslims, minorities and keeping their status quo more or less. If that means breaking few rules/heads internationally, ignoring the constitution where some people are concerned, using police state measures, and caving on abortion and homosexual marriages so be it.


But like now, to many are concerned about muslims, immigrants, projecting the military all over the world and frankly having a PR style CiC face of america. Rather than a principled person working as the chief executive. Working on the conservative principals that republicans SAY they revere.

Yes Rev, we care about, ''silly shit like that" , since survival takes precedence overall other considerations!
A bit of reality that you and so may others completely disregard when screaming about not voting for Trump..
You cannot effect the change you want by letting in the damn monster Hillary for 8 years, unless you want more corruption and leftist/socialist weakening of our Constitution...
The time to re-rig the sails is not when the ship is sinking and THE DAMN ENEMY IS FIRING MORE TORPEDOES AT IT!!
BEING IDEALISTIC MUST ALSO FACE SURVIVING LONG ENOUGH TO DO SO.....
NOW GO AHEAD AND TELL ME HOW 8 YEARS OF THE BAMBASTARD AND 8 MORE YEARS HILLARY WILL NOT COMPLETELY DESTROY THE FOUNDATION OF THIS NATION!
When hell, the ffing bam-maggot himself has wrecked far more harm upon this nation than any ffing war in its history.
And the Hillary maggot will and plans on doing even worse.
Wake up... iffin you ever can....-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Again I lay it at the Republican voters feet.
they do NOT really care about conservative principals or the constitution.
If they did they would NOT have nominated Trump.
simply as that Jim.

It's a little more complicated than that. I care very much about conservative principles, but I do still feel that Trump is better suited this year, and definitely represents what I personally want more out of a president this go round.


You seem to be saying that an outsider can "win" in the republican party.
What I'm saying is that the Republican party base doesn't really WANT a social conservative or a true constitutionalist.
And it seems they never have.

What I meant was, that a 3rd party candidate can win and beat one of the major 2 parties.


If they really WANTED a constitutionalist and more of a social conservative in 2008 the clear choice was Ron Paul NOT John McCain.
I'm going by their voting records and proposed actions going forward Jim.
the republican base did not WANT a constitutionalist or someone realistically socially conservative.
They wanted RINO John McCain with a side of Palin.

Not to offend... while you always go back to RP, and his conservative stances, I don't think you ever see the downright nutty side of the man. So someone like that can have great principles, and folks are going to see them as nuts. IMO, similar but much different, I look at Johnson. While he has some decent stances, I just don't think I can ever get past the idea of being able to legalize some of the most hardcore drugs out there. But it doesn't surprise me an awful lot, considering he smoked weed and only quit for the campaigning and said he would stop if elected.


Today they want Trump
NOT a constitutionalist, Not socially conservative. Not even really fiscally conservative.

Then if folks don't like Trump, and can't put someone out other than the other 16 that failed, then somehow, some way, someone will need to be presented from the independent side, someone that will GRAB the people and make them want him/her from the get go, "speak to the people" and perhaps have a similar campaign as to what Trump has had thus far.

[Kathianne]

It's a little more complicated than that. I care very much about conservative principles, but I do still feel that Trump is better suited this year, and definitely represents what I personally want more out of a president this go round.



What I meant was, that a 3rd party candidate can win and beat one of the major 2 parties.



Not to offend... while you always go back to RP, and his conservative stances, I don't think you ever see the downright nutty side of the man. So someone like that can have great principles, and folks are going to see them as nuts. IMO, similar but much different, I look at Johnson. While he has some decent stances, I just don't think I can ever get past the idea of being able to legalize some of the most hardcore drugs out there. But it doesn't surprise me an awful lot, considering he smoked weed and only quit for the campaigning and said he would stop if elected.



Then if folks don't like Trump, and can't put someone out other than the other 16 that failed, then somehow, some way, someone will need to be presented from the independent side, someone that will GRAB the people and make them want him/her from the get go, "speak to the people" and perhaps have a similar campaign as to what Trump has had thus far.

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, none of them could carry off a serious threat if there is an acceptable alternative from the main parties. Folks aren't willing to buck their own histories, not to mention that any candidate has 'issues' whether in positions or personal idiosyncrasies.

As I've said for now over a year, Trump brought up issues that I think many, more than a majority of the electorate have deep concerns about. For that I'll tip my hat to him. The problem for me with Trump is him and what concerns me is what he'd actually do as President. Add to that his apparent inability to be curtailed by his own hires, much less advised. Best of the best? Not evident. Troubling too is his inability to build relationships with folks that understand the issues facing the US from within and without. Granted that they haven't made it easy, but those problems pale in contrast to what he'd face if he wins. Then there's his problem of being 'flattered' into relationships and 'enraged' by critics. Everything is personal with him. In business, politics, media. The one area where his history can be seen is business. From his 'branding' to his willingness to 'any means regardless of morality or even ethical consideration.' For some these behaviors are features, not bugs. A step too far for me.

[Gunny]

I started in 2008 with the 1st Ron Paul Campaign. If people were really concerned about the "bleeding", the constitution, SCOTUS selections and conservative principals he was the CLEAR choice.

But like now, to many are concerned about muslims, immigrants, projecting the military all over the world and frankly having a PR style CiC face of america. Rather than a principled person working as the chief executive. Working on the conservative principals that republicans SAY they revere.
He was IN the republican party! But not enough republicans were REALLY serious about the BLEEDING. Not enough republicans could move from the establishment promoted RINO candidates. And even got excited over a clear PR pick, Sarah Palin! Who most now realize was NEVER presidential material. But it was very clear even then.


I lay the blame at the majority republican voters feet, who allowed themselves to be swayed by media personalities (the Palins, the Trumps etc) and establishment manipulations to so called pragmatism rather than sticking to the principals they SAY they believe in.

But at this point i'm convinced that many conservative are NOT really that serious about conservative social values or the constitution.
They are really concerned about "safety", american war power, immigrants, muslims, minorities and keeping their status quo more or less. If that means breaking few rules/heads internationally, ignoring the constitution where some people are concerned, using police state measures, and caving on abortion and homosexual marriages so be it.

Brilliant. So after 8 years of chasing your tail you're going to chase it some more? I got a cat that does that. You like to bitch but I see no action. where's your party? What's its structure and stance?

Oh yeah. You ain't got one. Don't be bitching to me about sh*t when you do nothing to fix it but whine when it don't go your way. Get out and do something or cry at home in private.

[revelarts]

Not to offend... while you always go back to RP, and his conservative stances, I don't think you ever see the downright nutty side of the man. So someone like that can have great principles, and folks are going to see them as nuts. ....

Seriously?
But Jim Trump has no principals and talks crazy.
Would you like me to stack a few Trump quotes up to show you how sane he is in caparison to .. well nearly any R candidate in the last 20 years.

please Jim. you got no legs here.
RP was on the "nutty side"? (In saying what exactly?)So Tump is your guy! LOL!!!
Sorry Jim THAT makes ZERO sense.
If you want to honestly examine who's the nutty candidate please take few minute to reviews these articles...for a start.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/donald-trumps-narcissisti_b_9536682.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

[jimnyc]

Seriously?
But Jim Trump has no principals and talks crazy.
Would you like me to stack a few Trump quotes up to show you how sane he is in caparison to .. well nearly any R candidate in the last 20 years.

please Jim. you got no legs here.
RP was on the "nutty side"? (In saying what exactly?)So Tump is your guy! LOL!!!
Sorry Jim THAT makes ZERO sense.
If you want to honestly examine who's the nutty candidate please take few minute to reviews these articles...for a start.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/donald-trumps-narcissisti_b_9536682.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

Believe as you wish, I'm not looking to offend you by my opinion of Ron Paul. Just as you're entitled to think the same about Trump of course.

But I'm far from the only one to have felt that way about Ron Paul, and his dismal numbers show that America just really wasn't into him. And while you want to say similar about Trump, he's getting voters in record numbers. It's not just me in other words. I disagree with you about Trump, the man himself and such. But this same debate has been tossed around for the past year, and I really don't want another headache today, so please don't be offended if I don't want to get into any further debate about him! We all know where the other one stands. The massive amount of differences in numbers shows where America stands on that. Maybe someday that will change, but as of right now, it doesn't appear that America is much interested in someone like Rona Paul (or was), and more than ever before are coming out to vote for Trump. This isn't to say he'll win, as technically those numbers mean jack shit if he loses the general.

[revelarts]

Brilliant. So after 8 years of chasing your tail you're going to chase it some more? I got a cat that does that. You like to bitch but I see no action. where's your party? What's its structure and stance?

Oh yeah. You ain't got one. Don't be bitching to me about sh*t when you do nothing to fix it but whine when it don't go your way. Get out and do something or cry at home in private.

No Gunny I've been trying to get the Republicans to actually VOTE for the principals they say they believe in.
I think I'm DONE with that.
Seems republicans really don't like to reminded of their values to the point of actually acting on them.
they a perfectly happy to "WIN" an election and get 10% of features they ARE really looking for and ZERO conservative and constitutional features.

Seems you're calling that a WIN as well.
Seem you mainly think in military terms of conflict.
So Let me make make an outrageous analogy.
what if you were on a big island and you had the chance to fight with one of 2 tribes for survival.
one tribe had the practice of cutting off tribe member body parts here and there and eating them.
the other tribe allowed tribe members to rape each other but said they didn't REALLY believe in it. and said they loved the golden rule and apple pie.
which tribe would you join.
would you BITCH that both both tribes are sick.
which one would you JION to DEFEAT the other? If one side won would you call it a victory and making things "better".

please give me an answer if you really want to discuss it but I'm busy and don't want to just get in a pissing match about my personality or my whatever here today thanks.
if you've got a legit counter argument for me i'll listen but other than that. I'm not biting today.

[Gunny]

Believe as you wish, I'm not looking to offend you by my opinion of Ron Paul. Just as you're entitled to think the same about Trump of course.

But I'm far from the only one to have felt that way about Ron Paul, and his dismal numbers show that America just really wasn't into him. And while you want to say similar about Trump, he's getting voters in record numbers. It's not just me in other words. I disagree with you about Trump, the man himself and such. But this same debate has been tossed around for the past year, and I really don't want another headache today, so please don't be offended if I don't want to get into any further debate about him! We all know where the other one stands. The massive amount of differences in numbers shows where America stands on that. Maybe someday that will change, but as of right now, it doesn't appear that America is much interested in someone like Rona Paul (or was), and more than ever before are coming out to vote for Trump. This isn't to say he'll win, as technically those numbers mean jack shit if he loses the general.

No, you're not. Ron Paul was a congressman out of Houston. He's a kook. Which, goes to my argument about the RNC. Stop letting kooks run as Republicans. Get some rules. If I just say I'm a Republican I can run and I ain't been one in my life. If you're so right and damned good, run as an independent.

What needs to be broken is the tyranny of the 2-party system. They got a lock on it and it needs to go.

[revelarts]

Believe as you wish, I'm not looking to offend you by my opinion of Ron Paul. Just as you're entitled to think the same about Trump of course.

But I'm far from the only one to have felt that way about Ron Paul, and his dismal numbers show that America just really wasn't into him. And while you want to say similar about Trump, he's getting voters in record numbers. It's not just me in other words. I disagree with you about Trump, the man himself and such. But this same debate has been tossed around for the past year, and I really don't want another headache today, so please don't be offended if I don't want to get into any further debate about him! We all know where the other one stands. The massive amount of differences in numbers shows where America stands on that. Maybe someday that will change, but as of right now, it doesn't appear that America is much interested in someone like Rona Paul (or was), and more than ever before are coming out to vote for Trump. This isn't to say he'll win, as technically those numbers mean jack shit if he loses the general.

i don't deny that he got votes. I'm just saying he's demonstrably nuttier than most candidates.
the fact that a LOT of people like him (he says "EVERYBODY LOVES ME"!) doesn't make him any saner.
ands it doesn't show that he's got any constitutional of social conservative principals.

Why you like him you've stated.
How that lines up with the things i've mentioned is another story.

[jimnyc]

No, you're not. Ron Paul was a congressman out of Houston. He's a kook. Which, goes to my argument about the RNC. Stop letting kooks run as Republicans. Get some rules. If I just say I'm a Republican I can run and I ain't been one in my life. If you're so right and damned good, run as an independent.

What needs to be broken is the tyranny of the 2-party system. They got a lock on it and it needs to go.

Let me ask you this - suppose Trump ran the same campaign on the same issues and went after the same people and did the same in the debates and nothing was different. The only difference would be that he would have been running as an independent. How well do you think he would have done? Dropped much earlier? Had a chance even? Prior to the ending of the primaries, it's not like the GOP gave Trump a huge amount of support.

[Gunny]

i don't deny that he got votes. I'm just saying he's demonstrably nuttier than most candidates.
the fact that a LOT of people like him doesn't make him any saner.
ands it doesn't show that he's got any constitutional of social conservative principals.

Why you like him you've stated.
How that lines up with the things i've mentioned is another story.

So what you are saying is you fear the unknown. That's as opposed to fearing the KNOWN criminal.

[jimnyc]

i don't deny that he got votes. I'm just saying he's demonstrably nuttier than most candidates.
the fact that a LOT of people like him doesn't make him any saner.
ands it doesn't show that he's got any constitutional of social conservative principals.

Why you like him you've stated.
How that lines up with the things i've mentioned is another story.

I say "different", not nutty. But just like the Never_Trump folks, I really don't think you'll change your mind on anything should there be an extended debate/discussion. I've read much about what you have to say on the matter, and while I disagree with you, I respect your stance. That's about where we were 4 years ago as well. :)

[jimnyc]

So what you are saying is you fear the unknown. That's as opposed to fearing the KNOWN criminal.

That's it? Just "criminal"?

[Gunny]

I say "different", not nutty. But just like the Never_Trump folks, I really don't think you'll change your mind on anything should there be an extended debate/discussion. I've read much about what you have to say on the matter, and while I disagree with you, I respect your stance. That's about where we were 4 years ago as well. :)

That's the problem here. Respect. Anyone that thinks I'm not a nutcase, raise your hand. I honestly don't understand why people have to take everything so personally. I disagree with you so I don't like you. Default defensiveness. Needlessly.

I can speak for a few here, but we think nothing more or less whether we agree or not. I'll argue with you all day in one thread and agree with you in another.

Interspection: the argument was never yours to begin with. Someone else thought it up. Taking personal offense over someone disagreeing with someone else's argument doesn't make sense.

[jimnyc]

That's the problem here. Respect. Anyone that thinks I'm not a nutcase, raise your hand. I honestly don't understand why people have to take everything so personally. I disagree with you so I don't like you. Default defensiveness. Needlessly.

I can speak for a few here, but we think nothing more or less whether we agree or not. I'll argue with you all day in one thread and agree with you in another.

Interspection: the argument was never yours to begin with. Someone else thought it up. Taking personal offense over someone disagreeing with someone else's argument doesn't make sense.

I love you man!!

But you still can't have any of my Bud Light.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xglqe2UhJME

[revelarts]

So what you are saying is you fear the unknown. That's as opposed to fearing the KNOWN criminal.
I'm saying I won't support EITHER one.
the Loud mouth nut with 85% policies i don't agree with, who i can't be sure will follow through on the 15% i do agree with him on.
Or if he'll have a crazy fit and start something he won't finish.

Or the known globalist lying crook with 99% of policies don't agree with.

I won't support those choices and pretend I'm DOING GOOD by picking one over the other.
It seems to ME the best course is for people NOT to FEED either of the beast.
if people stop feeding the beast they'll die... or try to kill us and show their true colors.



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/41/77/59/417759f003c902a03c8e0613529b0757.jpg

[jimnyc]

...

Clipped because I only want to ask a question...

I agree no blame, we all vote with our consciences and such. So, with that said. Suppose Hillary wins, and then she ends up nominating 2, and maybe 3 left leaning SC justices. Also, suppose she somehow enacts gun control measures that trample on the constitution as many of us have feared/discussed when it comes to guns/rifles over the years.

Now that happens. And a reminder, I already stated there is no blame to go around. We all have the right to vote for the major parties, a 3rd or whomever we feel like. But with that said, this is the reality and/or realities that we are potentially facing. It's not just a chance of happening, it's sitting their right in front of our faces.

Should Hillary get elected, and she places in 2 liberal judges, and she enacts gun control and/or somehow a change to the 2nd amendment... I know you would personally be against that, I don't doubt that, I know your stances. So I know where your stances would be on those 2 issues in a perfect world. But this isn't a perfect world. With that said, would you be ok with those changes happening if/when she gets elected?

[revelarts]

I say "different", not nutty. But just like the Never_Trump folks, I really don't think you'll change your mind on anything should there be an extended debate/discussion. I've read much about what you have to say on the matter, and while I disagree with you, I respect your stance. That's about where we were 4 years ago as well. :)
"different" ...ok sure.

I think you know I think everyone has the right to their candidates and their views.
But the thing always i try to point out is how those candidates views line up to the constitution, conservative social and fiscal principals.

As far as I can tell Trumps clearly DO NOT.
And if you and many other republicans LIKE him as a candidate, well, it seems to me fair to draw my conclusion from that.
I respect you but I respect Gabby too.
Gabby's candidates have views that DO NOT align with a lot of conservative values either.
As I mentioned to gunny when I point things like that out it just seems to upset "conservatives". but not enough to change a POV or a vote.
I'm not hung up on PARTY at all, i'm far more concerned about Christian values and the constitution.
So how can i support Trump if he does not honestly seem to support what I consider is foundational to the country?
and seems opposed to them in various ways?

you say i can never support him. please give me the 30% of something TO support... based on the principals i think are vital.
i'm not afraid of immigrants or Muslims, or minorities so what's Trump got?
As you've said there's nothing there that would probably change my mind.
SaveSave

[jimnyc]

As you've said there's nothing there that would probably change my mind.

And that's ok, so we disagree on who to vote for. We're all different. Like I said in another thread, I don't doubt for a second that we all at least want what is best for America. We just sometimes disagree on who is best to drive the vehicle to get us there.

If that vehicle were a 2017 Ford Mustang GT500, well then you should vote for me. :)

[revelarts]

Clipped because I only want to ask a question...

I agree no blame, we all vote with our consciences and such. So, with that said. Suppose Hillary wins, and then she ends up nominating 2, and maybe 3 left leaning SC justices. Also, suppose she somehow enacts gun control measures that trample on the constitution as many of us have feared/discussed when it comes to guns/rifles over the years.

Now that happens. And a reminder, I already stated there is no blame to go around. We all have the right to vote for the major parties, a 3rd or whomever we feel like. But with that said, this is the reality and/or realities that we are potentially facing. It's not just a chance of happening, it's sitting their right in front of our faces.

Should Hillary get elected, and she places in 2 liberal judges, and she enacts gun control and/or somehow a change to the 2nd amendment... I know you would personally be against that, I don't doubt that, I know your stances. So I know where your stances would be on those 2 issues in a perfect world. But this isn't a perfect world. With that said, would you be ok with those changes happening if/when she gets elected?

gun control measures.

Jim
I've been screaming about the bill of rights for Years.
the 1st

Freedom of Religion, speech, the press, assembly and pettition.
But some on the right don't mind if protesters are beat down and run off. Or that people in the press have been pressured and spied on. or that religion is being pressed by homosexuals and the gov't, or that Trump is looking at censoring the internet giving a foot in the door right wing excuse that others can build on for more

the 4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Many on the right have been Positively PROMOTING the destruction of the 4th. Claiming that FOR SAFETY LEOs should have free reign to do anything.

the 5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Many on the right have been positively promoting the idea that keeping people in jail WITHOUT TRIALS or due process of law is FINE. That People must be compelled to witness against themselves. that property can be taken and not returned. dogs killed. Or people killed in the street over minor incidents.

the 6th
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Speedy trails have been a Joke for a long time (if you can even get a trail) . Some Conservatives have claimed that the accused do not need to see the witnesses against them.

the 7th
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Many on the right think TORTURE (or water boarding) and other forms of physical violence against suspects at home or abroad is NOT unusual or even cruel but in fact necessary.

the 9th and 10th
Have any "electable" Republicans EVER taken those 2 amendments seriously?



So Jim what are saying about the 2nd Amendment? Are you trying to tell me that the amendments are very important to Trump and the republicans?
Or that I should be upset about Hillary possibly attacking the 2nd and the supreme court becoming MORE liberal not following the constitution even more than it already doesn't.

But JIM I think ...if i remember correctly... you told me a few time that if the supreme court decides it then that means IT IS in fact Constitutional.
So no worries right?

Look I don't want the 2nd to go under.
But i'm tried of fighting BOTH side trying to defend the constitution.
There's more than one amendment in the bill of rights and Trump and many republicans are NO friends of the constitution either Jim.

[jimnyc]

So Jim what are saying about the 2nd Amendment? Are you trying to tell me that the amendments are very important to Trump and the republicans?
Or that I should be upset about Hillary possibly attacking the 2nd and the supreme court becoming MORE liberal not following the constitution even more than it already doesn't.

But JIM I think ...if i remember correctly... you told me a few time that if the supreme court decides it then that means IT IS in fact Constitutional.
So no worries right?

Look I don't want the 2nd to go under.
But i'm tried of fighting BOTH side trying to defend the constitution.
There's more than one amendment in the bill of rights and Trump and many republicans are NO friends of the constitution either Jim.

No offense, I clipped out the things I didn't ask about to save space.

Yes, the 2nd amendment is important to both Trump and the republicans. And yes, I would think you would be concerned about Hillary potentially attacking the 2nd amendment rights. And of course I would expect you to be concerned about the SC potentially leaning left by 2 justices.

I do believe that if the SC decides on something, it is then in fact constitutional. But of course the worries come with which way the court leans.

[revelarts]

No offense, I clipped out the things I didn't ask about ....
thats the problem in a nut shell right there.

[jimnyc]

thats the problem in a nut shell right there.

And I see it as the opposite. Right now the 2nd and the SC are the most pressing issues we are facing. Is Hillary and/or the SC threatening to change or do away with the amendments you point out?

[Gunny]

Let me ask you this - suppose Trump ran the same campaign on the same issues and went after the same people and did the same in the debates and nothing was different. The only difference would be that he would have been running as an independent. How well do you think he would have done? Dropped much earlier? Had a chance even? Prior to the ending of the primaries, it's not like the GOP gave Trump a huge amount of support.

Doesn't matter. I don't support him in any sense except a concerted effort to beat Hitlery. The GOP needs to get its sh*t together and get us a real candidate. I don't want McCain or Trump.

I ain't a fan of the GOP either because they lost their balls. My point was you start building from the ground up, Not the top down. You don't come in bitching at the last minute when you didn't do the groundwork to make anything happen. You pull some nerd out of a basket nobody even knows and suddenly he's Mr Third Party. Practice guaranteed failures much?

We're on the same side, just for different reasons. I don't want to hear any whining if you screw shit up. At this point, abstaining or voting 3rd party is screwing shit up. But who do think will the first to bitch?

[revelarts]

And I see it as the opposite. Right now the 2nd and the SC are the most pressing issues we are facing. Is Hillary and/or the SC threatening to change or do away with the amendments you point out?

Right now all the other amendments i mentioned are in jeopardy as well.
Both Hillary and Trump have different amendments in their sites. And neither have sincere plans on reversing the unconstitutional actions ALREADY in play.
the 2nd amendment has been under threat for 8 years under Obama as well. it's not that easy.

[Gunny]

Right now all the other amendments i mentioned are in jeopardy as well.
Both Hillary and Trump have different amendments in their sites. And neither have sincere plans on reversing the unconstitutional actions ALREADY in play.
the 2nd amendment has been under threat for 8 years under Obama as well. it's not that easy.

Your red herring ain't going to change jack, bubba.

[jimnyc]

Right now all the other amendments i mentioned are in jeopardy as well.
Both Hillary and Trump have different amendments in their sites. And neither have sincere plans on reversing the unconstitutional actions ALREADY in play.
the 2nd amendment has been under threat for 8 years under Obama as well. it's not that easy.

I don't think any of it is easy, nor will get any easier. But I do think the 2 issues I pointed out are the most pressing issues right now, and the 2 in the most danger.

[Abbey Marie]

It's a little more complicated than that. I care very much about conservative principles, but I do still feel that Trump is better suited this year, and definitely represents what I personally want more out of a president this go round.



What I meant was, that a 3rd party candidate can win and beat one of the major 2 parties.



Not to offend... while you always go back to RP, and his conservative stances, I don't think you ever see the downright nutty side of the man. So someone like that can have great principles, and folks are going to see them as nuts. IMO, similar but much different, I look at Johnson. While he has some decent stances, I just don't think I can ever get past the idea of being able to legalize some of the most hardcore drugs out there. But it doesn't surprise me an awful lot, considering he smoked weed and only quit for the campaigning and said he would stop if elected.



Then if folks don't like Trump, and can't put someone out other than the other 16 that failed, then somehow, some way, someone will need to be presented from the independent side, someone that will GRAB the people and make them want him/her from the get go, "speak to the people" and perhaps have a similar campaign as to what Trump has had thus far.

Johnson will stop smoking weed if elected? Seriously? Holy God, that's hysterical!

[jimnyc]

Johnson will stop smoking weed if elected? Seriously? Holy God, that's hysterical!

He actually quit for the primaries, and said he would continue if he wins the WH. But I guess it's back to the bong if he loses!! :420:

I also didn't know that he was a CEO of a marijuana related company. 'splains a little bit!! :)

-----

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson explained during an interview with Business Insider this week why he won't be smoking marijuana if elected to the White House.

Johnson, the former CEO of Cannabis Sativa Inc., which sells medical-cannabis products, said he stopped smoking marijuana once he began campaigning.

If elected, he said he'd put the habit on hold because he believes that he'd have to "be the best that you can be" when serving as commander in chief.

The former two-term governor of New Mexico, who made a bid for the presidency as the Libertarian candidate in 2012, is polling at 8.5% against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Republican and Democratic nominees, in the RealClearPolitics average of several polls. In a recent Fox News poll, Johnson garnered as high as 12% of the vote in a three-way race.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-johnson-smoke-weed-president-2016-6

[revelarts]

Johnson will stop smoking weed if elected? Seriously? Holy God, that's hysterical!

At least he's Honest.
Bill only had had pot once and he didn't inhale

[jimnyc]

At least he's Honest.
Bill only had had pot once and he didn't inhale

I will give him that, I do respect the honesty.

[Abbey Marie]

Right now all the other amendments i mentioned are in jeopardy as well.
Both Hillary and Trump have different amendments in their sites. And neither have sincere plans on reversing the unconstitutional actions ALREADY in play.
the 2nd amendment has been under threat for 8 years under Obama as well. it's not that easy.

Actually, it's pretty damn easy once the balance of the USSC is liberal.

Btw, I'm curious who is your socially conservative candidate?

[revelarts]

Johnson will stop smoking weed if elected? Seriously? Holy God, that's hysterical!

But here's another question along that line.
Since it is technically illegal to smoke pot would it be OK if cops killed him if they found him in his yard high and "resisting arrest"

[Abbey Marie]

At least he's Honest.
Bill only had had pot once and he didn't inhale

Your candidate, right or wrong, eh? That sounds very much like the argument you've been making against Trump supporters.

[Elessar]

Personally, I think anyone clinging to Ron Paul's philosophy is still grasping at straws.

He would have tried to make us totally isolated from the rest of the world, putting
us back into the early 1800's.
With 320 million people here, that would not be possible.

He would have shredded the 2nd Amendment if given the chance.

He would have opened the borders freely.

He would have further cut our military and security.

************************************************** *****

Right now, we are given what we are given.

Vote for someone who should be up on charges and wants to continue the ruin of this nation.
Vote for someone who is bombastic and non-PC that wants to change the downward spiral.
Cast a ballot for one who stands not even a ghost of a chance
( A LA Ron Paul).
Or just sit out, refuse to make an adult decision, yet complain later
over the eventual winner.

I am all for our Formative Documents yet 3 of the 4 above will attempt to weaken them further.

[revelarts]

Your candidate, right or wrong, eh? That sounds very much like the argument you've been making against Trump supporters.
I never said he was my candidate.
I'll probably vote constitution party.

[Abbey Marie]

I never said he was my candidate.
I'll probably vote constitution party.

Okay, who is their candidate? Is he or she socially conservative? I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just know that 3rd party candidates tend to not be socially conservative.

[Abbey Marie]

But here's another question along that line.
Since it is technically illegal to smoke pot would it be OK if cops killed him if they found him in his yard high and "resisting arrest"

No, I think they should just shoot him for no reason at all. :rolleyes:

One should not resist arrest, regardless of reason for the arrest.

[Gunny]

I'm saying I won't support EITHER one.
the Loud mouth nut with 85% policies i don't agree with, who i can't be sure will follow through on the 15% i do agree with him on.
Or if he'll have a crazy fit and start something he won't finish.

Or the known globalist lying crook with 99% of policies don't agree with.

I won't support those choices and pretend I'm DOING GOOD by picking one over the other.
It seems to ME the best course is for people NOT to FEED either of the beast.
if people stop feeding the beast they'll die... or try to kill us and show their true colors.



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/41/77/59/417759f003c902a03c8e0613529b0757.jpg

I missed this one. I DO understand your point. I do NOT agree with your pointless solution. You aren't proving anything. You aren't making a point. No one's listening to you.

Here's the point you make: the left and MSM can manipulate your vote. You're so busy hating your own you can't see the truth.

Need to change in your avatar. You don't rate that one. At least Roddy could see the truth.

[Elessar]

But here's another question along that line.
Since it is technically illegal to smoke pot would it be OK if cops killed him if they found him in his yard high and "resisting arrest"

Silly question. Give me a better scenario than that.
On private property unless there was a reason to go after him...crime committed, hit and run driving.
driving while impaired, assault, fleeing felon, warrant out for search and arrest, threatening with a weapon..
...the list is endless.
So you choose what straw argument you wish to use.

Use of Force Continuum comes into mind. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx

[jimnyc]

But here's another question along that line.
Since it is technically illegal to smoke pot would it be OK if cops killed him if they found him in his yard high and "resisting arrest"

Is he carrying a weapon? Is he reaching into his waistband? Is he trying to take the weapon away from the police officer?

[Elessar]

I will give him that, I do respect the honesty.

Missed this.

What is funny...is that you do not have to inhale! How do you not
take something smoky into your mouth and the nerves not detect it?
Try a poke of SKOAL or other tobacco...or hold a shot of whiskey in your
mouth and not swallow it.

One of his stupidest statements. In par
with "I did not have sex with that woman" :laugh:

[revelarts]

Okay, who is their candidate? Is he or she socially conservative? I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just know that 3rd party candidates tend to not be socially conservative.

Washington Journal Constitution Party | Video | C-SPAN.org (http://www.c-span.org/video/?408188-3/washington-journal-constitution-party-presidential-candidate-darrell-castle)

Darrell L. Castle, native of the Volunteer State of Tennessee, is a true statesman – volunteering to serve with the United States Marine Corps in Viet Nam, as the founder of a humanitarian organization serving orphans in Romania, and as a leader in his community. He has taken an active leadership role in the Constitution Party since its founding in 1992, at both state and national levels. With degrees in Political Science, History, and Law, as well as his own personal study, Darrell is well-versed in the founding principles of the American Constitutional Republic, and takes the long view of history, current events, and the future of our nation. He was the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2008. – Read Darrell’s full bio

Vice-Presidential nominee Dr. Scott N. Bradley, native of the Beehive State of Utah, has spent his life learning and teaching the principles of the Founders of the American nation. Having served his nation in the U.S. Army National Guard, he went on to earn degrees in Public Administration and Constitutional Law. He has experience working in both the public and private sectors, as well as serving in the Constitution Party of his state as well as at the national level for many years, including two runs for U.S. Senate. Scott is also the founder of the Constitution Commemoration Foundation.- Read Scott’s full bio

Adherence To The Constitution
The Constitution is the charter of liberty for the American Republic. It is much more than just a piece of paper or just a legal document. It is evidence of the grand design the founders left us and it secures the rights that God granted to us.

In the Declaration of Independence Mr. Jefferson told us that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. That is the purpose of government and the reason why the Constitution was and is necessary.
Adherence to the Constitution brings liberty and ignoring and denigrating it brings tyranny.
That’s why my political party is the Constitution Party. It is not perfect but it is the best there is.

Issues - Castle 2016 - Darrell Castle for President (http://castle2016.com/issues/)

7 Principals
Quote:

<tbody>
SANCTITY OF LIFE
Life for all human beings: from conception to natural death.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
PERSONAL LIBERTY
Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual.

FAMILY
One husband and one wife with their children, as divinely instituted.

PERSONAL AND PRIVATE PROPERTY SECURITY
Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden.

CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM
The Founding Documents interpreted according to the Actual Intent of the Founding Fathers.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY
Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Foreign Policy
American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, with no entanglement in foreign alliances.


</tbody>

[fj1200]

Personally, I think anyone clinging to Ron Paul's philosophy is still grasping at straws.

He would have tried to make us totally isolated from the rest of the world, putting
us back into the early 1800's.
With 320 million people here, that would not be possible.

He would have shredded the 2nd Amendment if given the chance.

He would have opened the borders freely.

He would have further cut our military and security.

************************************************** *****

Right now, we are given what we are given.

Vote for someone who should be up on charges and wants to continue the ruin of this nation.
Vote for someone who is bombastic and non-PC that wants to change the downward spiral.
Cast a ballot for one who stands not even a ghost of a chance
( A LA Ron Paul).
Or just sit out, refuse to make an adult decision, yet complain later
over the eventual winner.

I am all for our Formative Documents yet 3 of the 4 above will attempt to weaken them further.

You do know that Ron Paul isn't running don't you?