I'm with you, Chad.

I think all politicians should be allowed two terms, one in office and one in prison.

problem in this day and age is...who judges who is competent to vote...democracies lead to oligarchies and fascism ...better a republic where the right to vote is based on where you work or not...particularly if you live off of welfare...

Its called 'hiding in plain sight', given the power of the masses and the NSA.

I guess, true Conscious Humanity is doomed to extinction...those of us that remain consciously human will have to hide out until everyone else kills each other.
But even then, I'm sure, at some point, that dormant retarded gene will creep up somewhere and we'll be traveling the cycle of civilizations all over again.

I think the constitution is dead for most of americans at this point. He would have to either get elected OR abandon the constitution

No, watched him for years...on one point, I can't blame him...after taking on the establishment humanoids, hiltery and trumpet, if he really wanted to get the country back to the constitution, he had to swallow hard.
Being a hard ass, I would of just given them my BOW FINGER.

Maybe Cruz didnt have principles ever , but just talked that way FOR political advantage. So going for Trump was just him going for political advantage again. Maybe he figured Trump might win, and he wanted to be accepted somewhat better if that were to happen.

As I said, you are definitely entitled to your stance. I only brought it up because Cruz, with all his ideals, eventually recognized that the lesser of two evils is better than allowing the worse evil to take over

I understand your position, and it is definitely an option. Hopefully enough people do NOT take this position and we escape the clutches of a Hillary presidency. It will be very bad for us all, including you.

That was a political move he hopes works out...truthfully, it disappoints me...I was hoping he'd stick to principles.

I will not ever vote for the arguable lesser evil because the result of doing so is clear. Fear of one horrible unethical candidate is no reason to vote for another horrible unethical candidate. i will not consent to slavery.

I don't care who Cruz backs. Neither Trump nor Hitlery are worthy of our support.

That may be true. BUT, we are going to get one OR the other this time around. Hillary is far worse than Trump, just looking at her actions. We have tried the Obama fix to things, and look whats happened. Continuing that with Hillary will produce more of the same decline. What have you got to lose with Trump?

But even Cruz, who you were backing at some point, now prefers Trump to Hillary, given that its either Hillary or Trump who will be president.

Using reason based on trump's past actions and his statist proposals is not just guessing any more than your assumptions about Hitlery is. Both have been statist liberals in the past. Both have used government to crush others for personal gain. Both promise more government in their proposals. Neither is worthy of your respect or your vote.

Yes, that is why I am against Trump and Hitlery. They both want bigger government.

Good history lesson actually. And today, we have Obama/Hillary actively allowing muslim "refugees" to not only freely come to the USA, but we pay to resettle them here. What craziness. They already infiltrated Germany and France, and look at whats happened there. The only one who will stop this is Trump .

The issues today that make everything complicated is that, operating procedures, thinking and using technology and parts of our infrastructure has become unnecessarily convoluted instead of straight forward, simple stupid. There is Nothing like a Direct link to things. To do otherwise is like making decisions for us. Less control of the process.

Objects and inventions have become more complicated, yes. The basic moral arguments really haven't changed, however, just the circumstances in which they are presented.

Here's a rather pointed example to consider. Around 800 AD began the rise of the modern (yes, that is tongue-in-cheek) Islamic state. They began to expand into and take over the Middle East. The city-state of Vienna, seeing this aggressive expansion and after fighting off an invasion fleet, saw that either they had to take the battle to Islam in their own lands or they would constantly be watching their coastlines. So they decided to invade the Holy Land. In order to get support, they presented the problem to the Pope so as to not only re-categorize the issue as a religious problem (which it was) but to get the powers-that-be (at the time) to not only sanction the action, but actively recruit for it. And so began the Crusades which lasted for the better part of 400 years, but had the direct effect of focusing the warfare in the Middle East so the rest of the world could go about its business.

Now, a millenium later, we have nearly the exact same scenario playing out: an aggressive military expansion of Islam actively seeking to take over and expand to other parts of the world. Their ideology hasn't changed, nor have their tactics. It's just that 1000 years ago, Muslims were prevented from even entering many Western nations. Yes, now they have guns and pressure cookers instead of swords, but what else has really changed other than the tools?

You may be right, but I think it depends on the issue. I am an engineer, and designing products today is much more complicated than in the past. There are just more side effects of each design decision, as products become more complex so as to offer more and more features to the consumer. Take washing machines for example. I just bought a new one after my old one had issues (22 years old). The old one had a mechanical timer. It ran through the cycles and stopped. Pretty simple.

The new one has a computer with all sorts of sensors designed to make sure that if the cycle completes, it will have definitely cleaned the clothes without presenting any hazard to the people around it. In order to design this washer, one would need far more expertise in many areas to make the proper tradeoffs during the engineering and production process.

Although this example doesnt translate to town hall decisions automatically, I do think that things today are more complicated and have grown past the knowledge and education of most of the people

I don't think that the issues really are all that much more complex. The politicians tell us that they are complex because only with complex rules can they justify the continued growth of government and only with complex rules can they justify themselves in committing the very same crimes that the common man goes to jail for. Any time someone says that the issue is complex, they are attempting to justify different approaches and different outcomes based on who is involved - and their ideology.

Rand was very smart. Today we are so far down the track that we cant see the station any more that the train left from. Once the idea of taking from one to give to another was accepted, the rest is just arguing about from whom the money comes and to whom it goes.

I think that town halls in years past were comprised of people who had education somewhat equal to the issues at hand. Today, most people are really totally ignorant of the issues at hand (partly because those issues are much more complex than in earlier times).

You are correct, but my fear of Hillary is not unfounded. She is telling us and promising us the statist things she is going to do, and how she will raise taxes to make me pay for it. Plus she has already taken bribes from companies and foreign countries- now she is committed to making their investment in her pay off- again at my expense. You are only surmising what Trump would do, but thats guessing.