Who will you support after Rand's campaign suspension?

[ProBlue33]

LOL @ the 1 Hillary voter

 

[WQuantrill]

I think it's a bit too late for that now. He has already damaged his brand, no longer owns miss America, no longer runs the apprentice, is being threatened with being banned from the UK. Has pretty much fucked himself with the Chinese and Arabs. Yea, I don't think there is any recovery for this. My candidate is no longer running, so in the primaries I'll vote Trump but in the general, if I don't like the pick of VP I'll keep my ass at home.

That's cool with me. Trump doesn't necessarily have to win the White House to create the much needed chaos this country deserves.

 

[Tunink]

No One But Paul

 

[hells_unicorn]

I'm retaining my local elected office as a Republican, but apart from that, presidential politics will be another 3rd party go for me until next time. Reince Priebus and the RNC can kiss my ass.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No One But Paul

It would be nice to have a few more conservative Judges on the SCOTUS. There is always that to think about.

 

[65fastback2+2]

I hate to say it but I think I like Trump. I like his proposed tax rates and speaking of wanting to break NAFTA.

Whether that stuff happens is another story.

yup...only $10 trillion more debt, no bigs

 

[CPUd]

NO ONE BUT PAUL MOTHERFUCKERS

 

[65fastback2+2]

No One But Paul

Yup...Texas primary is in a couple of weeks...I'll be there voting Paul like has always been the plan

 

[jmdrake]

Poll is missing an option:


NOBP!

This. Vladimir Putin is about as good of a choice as who's left. But he'd have that same eligibility problem Cruz has.

 

[jmdrake]

I hate to say it but I think I like Trump. I like his proposed tax rates and speaking of wanting to break NAFTA.

Whether that stuff happens is another story.

You must not care about the 2nd amendment. Trump called for a ban on assault weapons.

 

[Fivezeroes]

You must not care about the 2nd amendment. Trump called for a ban on assault weapons.

He said that in 2000, four years before Bush II had it lifted. In 2011 he said he was against gun control. A lot changed in those 11 years I guess.

 

[CPUd]

Yes Trump now thinks guns are great and wonderful for people to hunt and target practice and has very special things planned for gun owners. Whenever the Trump goes hunting, he brings his bible because it is his favorite book, way more than "Art of the Deal".

I think that was just for Iowa though. It may be different in NH.

 

[WQuantrill]

He said that in 2000, four years before Bush II had it lifted. In 2011 he said he was against gun control. A lot changed in those 11 years I guess.

His sons helped change his mind. I believe DJT Jr. was at SHOT show this year.

 

[Kotin]

no one but Paul for me.. he represents me and leaves no doubt in my mind where he stands. I love the man and his father because I finally had candidates that I really could get behind.. nobody else in the race even comes close to that. I trust none of them because I cannot trust words alone and that is all they offer.

Cruz backtracked on Snowden and says he should be tried for treason and that is enough for me to know I cannot trust him.

Trump has said the same thing and both want to carpet bomb and "take their oil" and I will have no part of their not-so-hidden neocon agenda. Bill kristol would probably be fine with either no matter what he says

 

[Cabal]

I can't believe people are actually voting for Cruz in this poll.

Why can't you believe it?

A significant portion of this forum was all up on his nuts not too long ago.

This is what happens when you lower standards and compromise to try (and inevitably fail) at playing in the State's sandbox.

 

[charrob]

I'll be voting for Bernie. I know everyone on here will disagree with me for this but when it comes to the Presidency I only care about Foreign Policy and unfortunately he's the best remaining of the lot.

He will continue to vote for dirty wars imho (wars that are rather hidden from the mainstream but do as much, or more, damage). 99.9% of this country's wars have been dirty wars where our military trains, arms, and the taxpayers fund one group of people in a country against another group. Then our gov't watches as the country falls into civil war and is eventually destroyed: the MSM broadcasts this as a "civil war" with no mention that the U.S. was the seed that started that civil war in the first place. Soros' money was all over the overthrow of the democratically elected Ukraine president; Zerohedge had an article awhile back proving with hacked emails conversations between Soros and Victoria Nuland during the overthrow of that government. Soros was also behind Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

After the U.S. gov't creates a civil war in a country and the country is destroyed, the white knights of the U.S. with full MSM coverage go in to rescue the poor people of that nation. We then put in a puppet dictator (who the MSM applauds continuously such as Sisi in Egypt) and train his military junta to suppress any descent from their people as we rape their mineral and labor resources. (In Egypt we pay the gov't so they don't attack Israel and continue to give us access to the Suez Canal). It's a rubber stamp: we do this in country after country after country after country and wonder why a plane goes thru a New York skyscraper.

We created the death squads all over Latin America (even before communism when Smedley Butler watched United Fruit rape the people of Guatemala); we created the death squads (called jihadists, or isis, or al Qaeda, or al nusra, or al sham, etc.) all of over the middle east and north Africa. We used jihadists in the Yugoslavian war-- one of the leaders of ISIS today was trained by U.S. special forces in Chechyna and used in Bosnia against the Serbs. And we are of course arming literal neo Nazis in Ukraine. All these groups are death squads that are nothing but mercenaries for the U.S. gov't. Doing the dirty work out of sight from the MSM.

THESE wars sicken me most of all because they are dishonest and out of sight.

And Bernie stated repeatedly he wants to arm the Sunnis against the Shias. When he refers to "our friends in the Arab world", he means the Saudis, Qataris, UAE, the Turks, etc. ie. the Sunnis against the Shias. He wants, and has previously stated (although he's flip flopped now) that "Assad must go".

Syria. Iran. Russia. I truly believe the neo-cons want it all. The big juicy prize is Russia. But first they want to destroy then control Russia's smaller friends.

The goal? One world government. Total control over all nations. Globalization. Loss of sovereignty. Corporate control of the entire planet.

I believe Bernie supports this and I think a lot of people are believing in something that is not true. Bernie voted for sanctions against Russia. He voted for sanctions against Iran. He's never met a war he refused to fund. And he supported the war on Yugoslavia.

I may be dead wrong about Trump. But I really do believe the true antiwar vote should go to him.

 

[craezie]

Since I'm still registered Republican (but not for long) I'm still voting Paul in the primary.

However, I'm definitely 3rd party in the main race, probably Libertarian because Constitution never makes it on my ballot. Basically both parties are running the biggest douchebags in decades (ever?) Especially if Trump or Hillary (or even Bernie?) makes it, there will be a huge portion of people finding the candidate so offensive that they will be unwilling to vote for the nominee of their usual party. The silver lining is that this could be the year to break the 10% third party threshold.

See ya in 4 years.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Actually shocked at the numbers who said they would support Cruz and Trump. Did you not learn anything the past few election cycles?

I will either vote for LP or not vote.

 

[The Midnight Ride]

While everyone is obviously free to do as they please, I would offer this word of caution to those who are considering Cruz:

Cruz loves to cite "liberty" on the campaign trail. Every single one of us has seen it. Whether it is in a debate, a town hall, or a stump speech. In fact, he even signs his emails "For Liberty." Cruz's framing and association is becoming clear even though his policies do not align with the movement. This association (buzzword) is much simpler for the average voter to remember. Having the "liberty candidate" being Ted Cruz, a candidate who stands no chance in a general election, is dangerous. If he is the nominee, he will eventually lose. The electoral landscape will not have changed significantly enough to hand him the presidency. What will result is the idea that "liberty" is a failing election strategy against Democrats and voters will be hesitant to embrace another "liberty" candidate come 2020.

Sure, Cruz comes from a Paul endorsement. But his policies have strayed since that time (while I want to, I won't go as far as saying Cruz's motivations are nefarious in embracing the term). Cruz's brand of "liberty" does not match the Paul brand of "liberty." But that does not mean voters won't consider them the same.

I look forward to continuing to support the likes of Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and other candidates in the coming elections who truly believe in a more limited government, a more sane foreign policy, and a more civil liberties focused governance.

I hope you all do as well.

 

[Unknownuser]

Rand will still be on the ballot in at least some states even after dropping out. Michele Bachmann of all people was still on the ballot in 2012.

Honestly think we should all turn democrat and not elect Hillary.