Yes, but he's no longer in the race. He's the other one of the 16 I would have voted for.

I think Rand Paul gets it.

Correct, it is an issue of rights.

What it needs most right now is an amendment that forbids the taking from one and giving it to another . Even the founding fathers said that what they created would not stand if the people didnt want it. And now, most of them dont. Look at the appeal of Sanders and Hillary. Its frightening.

Look, there are three functions of government: those who write the laws, those who effect the laws, and those who adjudicate the laws. You can't simply take power from one and bestow it on another without affecting the balance of those powers. And if you look back over the history of our nation and the Constitution, that is what has been happening. The Courts asserted the right of Judicial Review in Marbury vs Madison very early on and established themselves as the sole interpreters of what is and what is not Constitutional. However, because they are appointed for life, this also means that their decisions effectively create law in many instances, and some would argue that this usurps the power of the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch only had express Constitutional powers over the military and a few other things at first. The Legislative Branch was supposed to be the body with the most power, but every time they create a new bureaucracy they turn over that portion of their power to the Executive. And by letting the President get away with Executive Orders, the Legislative further undermines their own Constitutionally-mandated powers.

Our nation has been corrupted slowly over the last 200 years by the usurpations of power bit by ever-so-tiny bit by all branches of government. The People themselves in the Seventeenth Amendment eradicated one of the biggest checks on the Federal Government then in existence: the States by making Senators a popular election rather than an election by State government. Go spend some time reading the history of each Amendment after the Tenth and you may see the hints of usurpation begin to creep in.

If you truly want to make this country great again, I suggest you start by understanding the Constitution of the United States, its founding, its principles, and its original intent. Compare that to what we have now and then determine how we went from one to the other. It may take a while, but it is well-spent time.

there are courts for violation of rights presumably, and the congress could not pass laws that violated a strict constitution (which we do NOT have). We have a crony system, and abuses are rampant and unchallenged. Presidents of both parties have been guilty, and pretty much ALL of them.

Trump is a lot more honest than any of the other remaining candidates and hides less (possible exception of Sanders on the honesty part), and he would make a great administrator. Better than any of the other candidates for sure.

I think the response of the five-year old would be "I know you are but what am I." Adults reason with one another. They don't accuse. They don't call names. Grow up.

As for the rest...

A short answer to your proposal? Any time you invest in anyone a supervisory or leadership role there exists the opportunity for that individual to abuse the powers of their position. They can attempt to enlist help in the form of cronies by paying them or promising them power, but the notion that there would ever be a government which could never infringe on natural rights presupposes the notion of humans who never seek for power.

You are just a trump hater. It wouldnt matter what he said, you would still be on his case.

The basic problem with elections in the USA ( and you might even agree with this) is that the president and the congress have carte blanche to take our money and our rights, which shouldnt be at all. Thats why contributors spend 200 million to elect their candidate and get political favors they want. If the country had a real constitution that protected our rights (which it does not), we would be electing a nexecutive adminstrator and congressional administrators who would run the country efficiently, but could not tax or take away our rights. The qualifications of the person as an efficient administrator would be the issues, not all this nonsense about whose rights would possibly be abridged by one candidate or another.

If Hillary is predestined to be President, then it doesn't matter if I support Donald Trump or not, does it?

Seriously. I've met some people on this forum with whom I've disagreed but at least had an intelligent discussion. You keep running back to the same debunked talking points or assert the false choice that if I do not support Donald Trump (who has yet to be crowned either the Republican nominee or President of the United States) that somehow I am voting for Hillary Clinton (who similarly has neither been crowned the Democratic nominee nor President of the United States).

Now I supported the points you made where you expressed your desire that government be limited and campaign finance reform a positive step forward. I also support your ability to select for President whom you choose. But you've made very few other arguments which have held up to the level of scrutiny you will commonly see here in the Gulch. You certainly have not impressed me with a cogent, well-thought-out argument in favor of your preferred candidate and quite frankly, the repetition is not only pedantic, but pointless.

You have made your choice. I've made mine. We'll see how things play out.

Anyway abortion shouldnt be a religious issue at all. It should be a human rights issue. And whichever candidates make it a religious issue based on some 'belief", I would not support their stand. I do think that in todays world, abortion is going to remain legal no matter what candidates say.

No, but if I was my view would be the same. There is a time after which the fetus is another human being and shouldnt be just slaughtered. I dont know when that is. Before that time, abortion is the right of the mother. After that, it would be murder. My comment about the illegality issue is that IF something is deemed illegal, then there should be penalties for violating it or just dont make it illegal. In this case, my view would be it should not be illegal until its deemed to be murder. As I said, though, I really dont know when that is- which means it should remain legal until that is decided on some sort of rational basis.

When I say there are more important issues now to deal with, like getting rid of the war on drugs, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget deficit and things like that which will affect us all. I dont know the numbers, but I suspect there arent a lot of very late abortions being done now anyway which could be classified as murder. I think Rand weighed in on this one and as I remember said something like the fetus isnt a person until it can live outside the uterus.

Let me take a wild guess. You are not a woman.

Fine. so throw your support behind your candidate, and see what happens. You will get Hillary whether you like it or not. Have a nice time

I "hate" Trump as an option for President of the United States because of all the policy positions I have enumerated ad nauseum and the fact that in my justified opinion a better alternative exists (and that does not mean Hillary Clinton).

On every issue I have presented I have pointed out the positions Mr. Trump takes. I have agreed with some, and I have disagreed with many. But the thing I am most disappointed with is how little thought Trump puts into actually forming his policy decisions. Everything seems to be off-the-cuff, spur-of-the-moment, or unscripted. That's fine for a reality TV persona, but as the potential President of the United States, it is a recipe for disaster.

You want a very different kind of President than I do. You want a populist that says things loudly and likes to hear himself talk. I want a Constitutionalist with well-thought-out positions and a history of doing what he says he will do. We're each entitled to our own opinions on the matter. What a great land!

I don't really have a view on abortion. It doesn't affect me and frankly there are more important issues to deal with. BUT. If it's deemed illegal there should be penalties as a general rule, or just stop making it illegal

I think you just hate trump and love cruz. We get nothing from Israel at this point compared with the gifts we bestow on them. We are there now because there are lot of jews in the government here who lobby. Its a waste of money and I would just let them solve their own problem. We have enough problems right here to solve, not to mention our fiscal problems. Cruz will never get to be president, as hillary will whip him badly no matter what the polls say. Get ready for Hilldebeast and what she will do to you

So somehow one set of people has an exclusive right based on religion to land ownership - even though they aren't the owners of the land? The British owned that land for hundreds of years since their expansionist days. If you want a complete history of land ownership in the area, please go consult some history, because you're past swallowing your knee at this point. I can't understand how your foot was that tasty you had to go back for more.

Why does the US "prop up" Israel? Because we share the same emphasis on freedom and economy! We do tremendous business with the Israelis - despite them not having any oil! After oil, we get nothing from any other nation in the Arab Middle East. All they do is use our own money to scheme about how to manipulate the price of oil in their favor. It's called OPEC - it's a topic you might want to do some more research on.

"If I were an Israeli, I would leave the damn place even though its a "shrine" for their religion and go live somewhere where I wasnt hated."

[facepalm] That was the whole point about them getting their own country in the first place! They had just had tens of millions of their people massacred!

"Trump is right that its time for Israel and Palestine to resolve their differences."

You weren't satisfied with that leg, huh? [shaking head in disbelief] You're making the ouroboros jealous.

The Israeli/Arab conflict is an irreconcilable problem - that what pragmatists like Trump can not comprehend. Like Bill Clinton, they only see the $$$ and their own status from one more negotiation. They have no concept of political or religious identity, what it means, or how that is a part of the very being of those people. Unless you have actually spent time over there, Americans can not understand because we are used to being able to do pretty much whatever we want ideologically without fear of repercussions. We live in a very privileged world, but it is a world Muslim nations do not share with us. Part of being a Jew is a connection to the history of that land and what it stands for. It's a concept few Americans can comprehend and one that we have not had to face as a nation - let alone individuals. We do not grow up with a mandate to visit a land far from our birth at least once in life (Muslims) or having our history of persecution, slavery, and deliverance revisited every year (Jewish passover).

"On the other hand Cruz would just continue business as usual, giving billions to enable Israel to continue fighting terrorism and getting nowhere."

So first you take the position that Donald Trump would just solve the problem. Then you admit that maybe he can't solve the problem. Then before you actually present a potential solution to the problem, you criticize the one plan that has been around for 60+ years through presidents and diplomats of both parties. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe such folly. It is no wonder you sympathize with Donald Trump. It doesn't require any actual thought.

We can't change the history of the area. It is what it is. All we can do is deal with what we have now. Neither can we can't force either side to change their minds. Neither do we have the moral authority to dictate the terms of how each group uses their land. Here are the options we have:
1. Take no side. We can refuse to give money to either side and let them battle it out. If we do that, it is just like taking the side of the Palestinians (see below).
2. Take both sides (the one we currently do). We give both sides money and aid. We give Israel aid in the form of fighters and aircraft and money with which they develop their own firearms and ground weapon systems (take a look at their systems - they are pretty impressive). And we know that's where they are going to use the money. We give money to the Palestinians - ostensibly for infrastructure projects like building schools. They turn around and use the money to build rockets to fire at Israel, tunnels to use to capture Israelis or engage in suicide attacks, and payments to the families of the martyrs. And even though we tell them that's not where they are supposed to be using their money, we keep giving it to them knowing they will keep doing the same thing.
3. Overtly take a side.

a. If we side with the Palestinians, it will mean that we choose to abandon the only pro-democracy and pro-market nation in the region. It will mean that we will side with those whom even the State Department has listed on the terror watch list. We wouldn't be fighting terrorism, we'd be joining it. It would result in the ultimate destruction of the nation of Israel. Bully for us.

b. If we side with the Israelis, it means that we will call upon ourselves the wrath of 2 billion Muslims across the globe. It means that we are forced to confront an ideology that currently occupies 98 of 100 top positions on the global terror watch list. It means open war, and dragging most of our allies - even some Muslim allies - into a World War III that would dwarf all previous wars. We would even have to go to war with the Muslim believers in our own nation. Just wonderful!

Given the options, which one would you choose? To me, staying the present course isn't all that unreasonable.

Eh...flatfooted, at least. You know - you can't run for the GOP nomination unless you think government can, and should, solve all our problems. Not defending the guy. Just, yet again, thinking about how much the system does not represent my values anymore. First off...get the hell out of education. Time to hang up those spurs...

Yes, he is entitled to his views and we, as voters, are entitled to judge him based on his stated views. His view is that abortion should be illegal and, as of Wednesday, that the woman should be subject to undefined criminal penalties. I disagree. You are trying hard not to disagree with him for some reason. You are entitled to not judge him if you wish but the rest of us need to find out what principles drive this guy because he could, conceivably, become President of the United States for four years.

Going back to the formation of Israel, the english are to blame. Somehow england took title to the place and then installed the jews where the arabs also had religious roots. What a formula for disaster !! There is no rationality when religion is involved.

So from day 1, the palestinians hated the jews and wanted the complete destruction of Israel, which they have stuck to ever since. There is no other solution for them than elimination of the jews and israel. Thats why the conflict goes on to this day, and will continue.
The US got involved (I think that was a mistake) and propped up Israel with billions upon billions of our country's resources. There was no real solution to this issue other than for the Israelis to kill off the palestinians, or vice versa.

If I were an Israeli, I would leave the damn place even though its a "shrine" for their religion and go live somewhere where I wasnt hated.

Trump is right that its time for Israel and Palestine to resolve their differences. Either they kill off one side or the other, or they find some common ground. He is the only one who says we should be neutral and see if there really IS a solution (other than mass genocide). He says it would the toughest negotiation he would ever do, and it may not work. Thats telling it like it is.

On the other hand Cruz would just continue business as usual, giving billions to enable Israel to continue fighting terrorism and getting nowhere.

He is entitled to his views, but the congress and the supreme court sets the rules. I am sure Cruz opposes abortion also with his religious zealotry behind it. It think the battle is over "when" the abortions can occur. If the baby is in the birth canal coming out, I would think it was essentially a human being at that ponit and shouldnt be killed. Right after conception, I would regard the fetus as part of the mothers body and she should what she wants with it. Somewhere in the middle is where the arguments lie, and I really dont know where the line should be drawn, and neither does Trump or Cruz. The issue has been around for a LOT of years now, and I havent heard a good rationale for drawing the line yet.

All organizations grow unless they are controlled. In for profit organizations the need to keep a profit makes people make tough decisions.

I've often said that if you assigned someone to sit at a desk and do nothing but look out the window, you would be able to come back in five years and find the "looking out the window" department with a manager, assistant and three "viewers" one of them a "senior viewer".

I am not misleading myself. Cruz is a sneaky person, and thats my own analysis, not Trumps. As to Trump, you have probably won the PR battle and Cruz will sneak into the nomination. I wont EVER vote for Cruz or Hillary, so I guess I will waste a vote on the libertarian candidate or just not vote at all. If Trump goes independent I will waste my vote on him, however. And I will remain angry over washington and do whatever I can to bring down the establishment of which Cruz will have made a deal with in exchange for his nomination.

I don't think we need 40-50% to effect change or at least start to slow down Leviathan. A mere 5% (which is much higher than where we are now) could gain enormous attention and start a true movement for fundamental change in the right direction.