New game: “kill, kill, kill”
I hate to say it, but Trump.
Cruz scares the piss out of me. He’s a True Believer and if he got in, look for Medicare and SS to vanish, unions to be outlawed, and corporations to rule the earth. He’d be at war with the entire world simultaneously. Think of the monsters he’d appoint to the courts.
Carson would be the second worst. He’s an idiot savant, perhaps he could be managed similar to the senile Reagan towards the end of his term.
Trump may or may not believe his demagoguery. He could be a closet liberal. Maybe he’d appoint good people. Sure, he’d be worse than having the office vacant. But if it HAD to be filled and it HAD to be one of these three, then Trump.
Underline and bold mine.
You sold me, solid reasoning.:smack:
He supports freedom of religion only if your concept of freedom of religion is the freedom of religious Christians to run roughshod over everyone else’s freedoms.
He supports freedom of speech only if your concept of freedom of speech is that the person with the largest megaphone has the freedom to drown out everyone else…Or, to put it another way, the freedom of the rich to buy the politicians and hence the government.
Cite please.
Cruz signed an amicus brief in the Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby case, defending freedom of religion. He helped fight off an unconstitutional subpeona directed against pastors by the Mayor of Houston, and defended the right of high school students to make their own banners. While it’s true that all three of those cases and perhaps others that Cruz took part in involved Christians, in all cases it was the government attempting to stop Christians from speaking or practicing their religion. Thus Cruz was defending the First Amendment, as written. As for this,
He supports freedom of speech only if your concept of freedom of speech is that the person with the largest megaphone has the freedom to drown out everyone else…Or, to put it another way, the freedom of the rich to buy the politicians and hence the government.
I’m not aware that Cruz was a leader in any campaign finance case, but if he was, the First Amendment clearly protects the free speech rights of everyone including the rich.
I’d vote for Cruz, just to see how long he could keep that faux-concerned, eye-brow crinkled expression on his face. I’d give him 1 year before he loses it while trying to ‘pause for effect’ while delivering his first sanctimonious State of The Union speech and just start laughing.
Cruz isn’t principled at all. His “stand” over the debt ceiling was just grandstanding to raise his national profile in anticipation of this presidential campaign. On the other hand, there’s actually something conforting in the idea that he’s just in it for what he can get out of it.
Trump is little different; I don’t believe much of his rhetoric and I know he doesn’t either. However, his campaign has become so tone-deaf that having him win the presidency would send a really dangerous message about the future of the country.
Carson seems like he’d probably be asleep in the Oval Office most of the time, but he is the True Believer out of the three. Some of his True Beliefs are just ridiculously kooky and a man like that would be capable of anything. The pragmatist in me would rather see Trump kick out all the Muslims than Carson challenging Putin to a Jesus-inspired dick waving contest.
So I guess it’s Cruz.
Assuming suicide is off the table, I think I’d have to go for Carson.
Cruz would be the worst, as he could actually be effective in getting his odious proposals enacted, with a personality that matches Nixon.
Trump might be faking it and might be OK, but his ego scares me. Having the entire executive branch dedicated to the glory of Trump is going to be a bad for the us, and having the strongest millitary in the world backing up his bullying style of negotiation would be bad for the rest of the world.
Carson would be in way over his head, and so he would probably rely on the guidance of others to make decisions, which I would expect to likely be establishment Republicans. So in the end probably not a whole lot worse than say a Jeb Bush presidency.
Then the sergeant walked in, pinned a medal on me, and said “you’re our boy.”
Donald Trump, he is a attention seeker who says stuff that he secretly does not believe in himself. Trump is the type who is not even a true conservative, for example he does not oppose universal healthcare. I bet upon getting the nomination, he will tone the rhetoric and show his more “moderate” side in hopes of winning the White House. His current strategy is to get lots of attention before the votes.
Cruz is just an unlikable guy, too conservative. Only thing I agree with him is letting the banks fail instead of bailing them out. But that alone is not enough for me to vote for him. Look at his actions, reading a Dr. Suess book while the government shutdown. Even fellow Republicans dislike him. Liking someone is another factor, and I don’t like him at all.
Carson is irrelevant and is way too immersed in his own beliefs and fails to simply learn. He is not presidential material, least of the other two.
Cruz and Carson are both boring too, Trump is a known celebrity and will be quite entertaining. I am curious to see what kind of First Lady Melania Trump would be like.
I still hold out that Trump will moderate his views open getting the nomination and appeal more to Democrats also. But he has to stop this controversial business he is going on about these last six months.
So yes, Donald John Trump.
That’s how I read him also. And he may be able to get it to work. If he’s in the general election he’ll wave off his past statements and work on the broader audience. But he has said a lot of distasteful stuff, the electorate may not care about the traditional political rules as much with Trump, but he’s surely alienated people who can’t be brought back over even with a newer softer Trump.
True, I agree with you. Who knows if it works or not. But assuming he gets the nod, Trump hasto change his modus operandi.
He supported the right of religious owners of corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
Funny that. I guess it must be because, as we all know, Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in the Moslem/Athiest-dominated U.S. I am sure he would defend a Moslem woman in a government office who refused to issue marriage licenses for any couple who she did not feel was committed to following Sharia law just as vehemently as he defended Kim Davis! [Just give me a few seconds to stop laughing.]
Yes, because we all know that the poor are constantly trampling on the free speech rights of the wealthy. And, we all know that free speech means that you have the unlimited right to use your money to buy the government that you want.
You are making it sound like they fired employees for having the wrong religious beliefs. If Cruz has to be twisted in this way to show that he’s an extremist, painting him an an extremist is not going to fly next November. Don’t get me wrong. I’m for Clinton, and would vote for Sanders if nominated. I hope Cruz doesn’t get the nomination. But if he does, and 2016 is a GOP year, he wins. Convincing time-for-a-change economics-focused swing voters that they should base their vote on insurance coverage of birth control, or gay rights, would be a hard pull.
As far as the Slate article, I’m skeptical that we can guess which one of the three is most likely to betray conservatives. So I’d put that aside and try to judge on a non-ideological basis. Also, I’d consider that the President is a king (or queen) and prime minister wrapped in one.
Trump is the ultimate ugly American. His bigotry won’t be forgotten. He’s the last person this side of the Westboro church that I’d want as America’s face to the world. Crossing him off first is an easy decision.
Cruz vs. Carson is harder. Carson is the less-bad king, but lacks the knowledge base to lead a government.
Cruz is objectively the best qualified of the three to be a chief minister. But his relationship with his fellow parliamentarians, excuse me, senators, is poisonous. That a rather big negative when it comes to the non-king part of the job. While Carson has no experience leading a political team, at least he can do a good job of leading surgical teams.
None of them should be near the nuclear trigger, but, of the three, I agree with the OP article that Carson is least bad.
Actually no, he did not.
Let’s recall what the Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius case was about. Before Obamacare took effect, Americans both individual and employers had the freedom to decide whether the insurance they purchased covered birth control or not. Then the Obama Administration attempted to take away that freedom and force everyone to purchase insurance that covered all forms of birth control. Then many employers sued over the Obama Administration’s violation of their constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court overturned the administration’s rule and everyone had the same freedom that they had always had. Those who want insurance that covers birth control may purchase it, and those who want insurance that doesn’t cover birth control may purchase it. Everybody is free to make their own decision, and no one’s beliefs in the matter are imposed on anyone else.