Some Republicans see Cruz as best alternative to Trump

So it boils down to a choice between Trump and Cruz? Several phrases come to mind: rock and a hard place, devil and the deep blue sea,....

Mark my words. If a man like Cruz gets the White House he's going to see it as a signal from God that his religious campaign has a mandate, He will be terribly anti-gay, anti-environment, and a anti-everything that doesn't include Christ. He will be worse than Trump.

Rubio won Puerto Rico

Cruz would be even less likely to win the general election than Drumpf.

They have primaries in Puerto Rico? But they can't vote for the president there.

If they put up any pictures from the PR primaries, I know some folks are going to explode when they see everything is in SPANISH.

“Some hope with Ted, no hope with The Donald,” said Graham, a Jeb Bush endorser who now backs Sen. Marco Rubio. “We’re in a demographic death spiral. What did we learn in 2012? Hispanics don’t like our message on immigration of self-deportation. I don’t think they’re going to like forced-deportation better. At the end of the day, Donald Trump has taken every problem we’ve had with Hispanics and young women and made them worse. “If Donald Trump’s the nominee, the Republican Party will get killed, will get creamed; we’ll lose, we’ll deserve it,” Graham said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/graham-dislikes-cruz-less-than-he-dislikes-trump-220326?lo=ap_b2

Cruz is indeed “emerging” as the chief anti-Trump candidate.

That's not funny, but these are:

Q: “Why do people take such an immediate dislike to Ted Cruz?” A: “Probably because it saves them time.”

“Canadians are so polite, mild-mannered, modest, unassuming, open-minded. Thank God my family fled that oppressive influence before it could change me.”

“Knowing Donald Trump, it won’t be long before he dumps the United States for a much younger country.”

Tora Puerto Rico people are real bilingual. Not like me.

Tell that to Wc who went on a rant because this webpage showed a single Spanish word on a sign in Austin, Texas.

Frank Bruni in the NY Times described Cruz as a "knight in sliming armor." His whole life has been focused on getting into the White House, and he'll say anything to make that happen, principles be damned. If being liked or respected doesn't matter, then Cruz may very well emerge as the New Nixon.

Don't tar Nixon with Cruz' name. For all his faults, he was a pragmatic leader - if not for his paranoia, he might have been judged as an effective president. No, I'm worried that Cruz would be a New McCarthy - not that he'd win a general election, but just the possibility makes me shudder. Frankly, I'd rather be subjected to Trump: He's more Nixonian.

Talk about out of the fry pan, into the fire. What a truly disastrous situation the GOP has put the USA in!

Basically you have the hate-filled racist big-business-loving/labor-hating greedhead who doesn't claim Jesus as the source of these views versus the hate-filled racist big-business-loving/labor-hating greedhead who thinks God put him on earth to wage war against the Anti-Christ.

If they put up any pictures from the PR primaries, I know some folks are going to explode when they see everything is in SPANISH.

LoL. No need. Ever want to go to Puerto Rico? Just go to new york. Besides, just like the blacks, Catholics and most other hispanic races, PR votes (D) not (R).

Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican refers to a nationality, not a race. I've been to New York City and heard plenty of languages spoken--not only Spanish. That would be a shock for someone who had trouble accepting JT showing a single word of Spanish 'aqui' on a sign in Texas, right?

White House he's going to see it as a signal from God that his religious campaign has a mandate, He will be terribly anti-gay,

I hope you know there are a lot of gay conservatives. Seriously, most conservatives couldn't care less. But I will say this most Blacks and Hispanics oppose gay marriage and they vote democratic, but are socially conservative. Sorry, but conservatives are not the problem as liberals try to make it seem.

anti-environment,

Conservatives put people's lives first to ensure people have enough food on the table and employment as top priority over the environment. Maybe that's another reason why so many people in coal and in the energy sector HATE this president because he wants to put the environment first before jobs.

and a anti-everything that doesn't include Christ.

Now you are stretching.....a lot. You're confusing and stereotyping all Christians as full on evangelicals and that's not the majority of us, but at the same time, fanatical Atheism is equally as threatening.

He will be worse than Trump

I doubt it.

A demagogue is a demagogue, though only GOP primary voters seem unaware of the nature of these 2 candidates. The eventual nominee will beaten like a rented mule in November. The real issue is less who will become the GOP candidate, but whether and in what form the GOP itself will survive. Not even Cruz's colleagues in DC will support him, so DT is the presumptive candidate. If Cruz is somehow the nominee of a brokered convention, Trump will start a third-party bid, splitting the GOP vote. If Trump is the candidate, he will fail to carry any state with a significant black, hispanic, female, or college-educated electorate. Either way, the GOP is toast - the RNC lost all credibility by paving the road to nowhere down which Trump, Cruz and Rubio are now marching.

Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican refers to a nationality, not a race

I stand corrected. Right they're nationalities. And they all stick together and vote (D) not (R).

That would be a shock for someone who had trouble accepting JT showing a single word of Spanish 'aqui' on a sign in Texas, right?

That's okay. Even some hispanics know they live in one of the reddest states, of the red states. Look at how loyal Texans are, they made sure & voted their own Governor to a home state victory. Don't mess with Texas!

A demagogue is a demagogue, though only GOP primary voters seem unaware of the nature of these 2 candidates.

I'm sure they do know.

The eventual nominee will beaten like a rented mule in November.

Don't be so sure. Liberals are not so good when it comes to political predictions.

The real issue is less who will become the GOP candidate, but whether and in what form the GOP itself will survive. Not even Cruz's colleagues in DC will support him, so DT is the presumptive candidate.

That's what his voters want and it seems like, more are coming his way, even 20% of Democrats.

If Cruz is somehow the nominee of a brokered convention, Trump will start a third-party bid, splitting the GOP vote. If Trump is the candidate, he will fail to carry any state with a significant black, hispanic, female, or college-educated electorate.

That's perfectly ok. Trump is attempting to reach the overlooked White vote and there are a lot of angry White people that the current president chastised, ridiculed and used reverse racism to marginalize them, not to mention created a hostile climate of racial tension and division. If Trump could get 64 to 70% of the White vote, he could win the presidency by compensating for the lack of Hispanic and Black votes he probably wouldn't get and by the look of things, he just might pull it off.

Either way, the GOP is toast

You guys said the same thing in 2010 and 2014 and that prediction didn't work out so well.

the RNC lost all credibility by paving the road to nowhere down which Trump, Cruz and Rubio are now marching.

Obama lost credibility 7 years ago and Hillary lost it 30 years ago and the Dems are not a party to rejoice and seek comfort in either.

@wc, and who was this great product of Texas you speak of? The guy who appointed Alberto Gonzales AG? The man who held the part time governorship before Rick Perry? What was his name...

Besides, just like the blacks, Catholics and most other hispanic races, PR votes (D) not (R).

Blacks, Catholics and Hispanics. What other group lumps these together as threats?

Any alternative to Donald Drumpf is a good alternative. Republicans have no chance this time anyway.

The fact is about 75% of total voters are whites. bass4funk is right. If majority whites band together and vote Trump, Trump will win. In past elections' whites voters were split, while blacks almost all voted Obama; that's why Obama won. Most elections are determined by the mood on race, money, economy, persuasion, fear & threats. Each particular election will be mainly determined by that "one" predominant factor. What is that factor in US 2016 Presidential Election? I don't think it is woman empowerment nor Wall Street greed.

If majority whites band together

They'll all live happily ever after?

"He will be worse than Trump"

"I doubt it."

Do I sense Bass fluttering his eyelashes in the direction of Cruz's vivarium? You had a Road to Damascus conversion to Trump when you miraculously discovered his supporters were not lunatics and now you are sympathetic to the Garden of Eden's talking serpent?

If his followers don't get raptured before November, he could be a threat. We must also consider the possibility, which you didn't rule out, of Obama cancelling the election and declaring martial law.

Interesting times.

Do I sense Bass fluttering his eyelashes in the direction of Cruz's vivarium?

No, you don't.

You had a Road to Damascus conversion to Trump when you miraculously discovered his supporters were not lunatics and now you are sympathetic to the Garden of Eden's talking serpent?

Yup.

If his followers don't get raptured before November, he could be a threat.

How so?

We must also consider the possibility, which you didn't rule out, of Obama cancelling the election and declaring martial law.

I wouldn't put anything past this president, would definetly be his style to throw a monkey wrench to foul things up. Jus sayin'......

They'll all live happily ever after?

Is that a bad thing?

Hispanics and Blacks do it, but if Whites do it, it's all of a sudden racist? Is that what you are implying?

Ah, Cruz. This is his problem: The GOP since Nixon's "Southern strategy" has pretended to meld the interests of social conservatives with big business interests; also, since the Reagan's "trickle-down economics," they have pretended to meld the interests of big business and the little guy. The problem is the lack of pretense Cruz offers.

A full-out, Christian onslaught against the unstoppable tide of American progression is doomed to fail, just as is a drop of the pretense that social programs only exist because the GOP cannot stop them - which they could, but the results would be horrifying, so it's far better to pretend to be against them (wink, wink) than to reap the whirlwind of their cancellation.

The GOP race is not establishment against non-establishment - it has become what flavor of non-establishment you prefer: The vanilla suburban south 1950s of Cruz or the prosperity theology (and surprise box) of Trump. The fear the GOP establishment has with Cruz is that he really means it - which would spell an end to the simultaneous cake-having and -eating.

Dump Drumpf !

@bass - Please provide some real examples of "fanatical Atheism that is equally as threatening." I'd like specific links to what you're referring to as well as the names of groups or individuals that are part of this nefarious threat to the fabric of U.S. society. However, when you do so, please spare us your usual tu quoque-style response of starting with "But . . . " or "What about . . . ?" and leave Hillary, Bernie, Obama, and liberals out of your reply. Focus instead on "fanatical atheism" since these are your words.

Instead of singling out groups like atheists, why not instead address a true threat to the Constitution, namely the radical religious views of Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio, who would all like to create a Christian theocracy based upon their narrow and extreme religious ideas. I wonder what Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or Thomas Payne would think about having someone like Ted Cruz as the next president.

Think outside the box : Vote Third-party.

"so many people in coal and in the energy sector HATE this" Coal is out. I prefer fresh air.

"angry White people" Bundies and KKK

"Obama lost credibility 7 years ago" Exactly and I look forward to Trump implementing a meaty mandate in ObamaCare. And it seems his voters will be happy about the influx of immigrants coming into USA as well as higher taxes. OK if you insist that is better than Obama.

"that's not the majority of us" You literally believe in zombies than?

R won GOP delegates in PR. Twenty three Both T and C are suggesting R to drop

Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican refers to a nationality, not a race. I've been to New York City and heard plenty of languages spoken--not only Spanish. That would be a shock for someone who had trouble accepting JT showing a single word of Spanish 'aqui' on a sign in Texas, right?

aquí (you need the little thing over the i)

NYC is absolutely crazy for languages. Korean, Chinese, some African and Middle East languages that I have no idea. Spanish changes from Spain, PuertoRico, Mexico etc.

Not only C and R, T lies. T said Japanese cars are shipped to USA. many ten thousand every day, At least H and S did not say such stories to. Much crowds.

Ted Cruz — the only candidate who causes as much heartburn among party elites as the billionaire businessman,

Laughable.

Cruz self-detonated in the Senate.

Reviled on both sides of the aisle, only Cruz's father thinks Ted is savior material, as in an actual Messiah. Cruz apparently believes the same thing. So despised it has been reported the Senate is united in one belief that Cruz is both dangerous and a religiously delusional character.

Still, Trump tops loonie Cruz.

Trump's currently making his dimwits pledge allegiance to Trump himself.

Skip the Constitutional debate, go straight to crazy and turn right into the GOP/Tea Party.

Likely scenario right now has Rubio dropping out and enough of his supporters heading to Cruz to put Trump in second place. As for which of the two become President, the answer is "neither". Clinton/Sanders have acquired more electoral votes than Trump/Cruz so far.

Finally. American Veterans are registering their disgust with Donald J. Trump . . . No self respecting Veteran will vote for this chump who has insulted the Armed Forces since day one.

The ads, from the conservative American Future Fund, feature veterans disavowing Trump's statements about prisoners of war and end with the text: "Trump's a phony. Stop him now."

In one ad, former Special Forces commander Michael Waltz, who served in Afghanistan, said that Trump "hasn't served this country a day in his life" and called him a Vietnam War draft-dodger.

"He essentially called anyone who is captured in combat a loser," Waltz said. "It's something that I just personally can't stomach and am sickened by, as should every veteran and every soldier in the United States military."

Rumor ..... Romney want to be candidate with Rubio as VP

Please provide some real examples of "fanatical Atheism that is equally as threatening." I'd like specific links to what you're referring to as well as the names of groups or individuals that are part of this nefarious threat to the fabric of U.S. society.

Atheism is a threat meaning, that many of them are intolerant of people that have different beliefs other than Atheism. They are often pushy and hostile towards anyone that believes in religion. They want to push and often demand any religious vestiges of items and belongings that have been within certain parts of the culture, be it a flag, statue, scroll etc. and demand it to be removed, it could be a quote that invokes the word God. People like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens who have been preaching that religion is a complete ruse. Now, if they believe that, that's their right and personal opinion, but I think at the same time, Atheists have the respect the right of religious people. Should their be a separation of church and state, yes, but that doesn't mean atheists should go around and demonizing and harassing people that believe in religion. If they think they are so superior, they should try and be a bit more tolerant for a start.

However, when you do so, please spare us your usual tu quoque-style response of starting with "But . . . " or "What about . . . ?"

So you mean, I should let you liberals jump all over conservatives and point out all their flaws and incompetencies and give liberals a pass? Sorry, not going to happen. If the cough syrup is good for me, it's equally good for you as well.

and leave Hillary, Bernie, Obama, and liberals out of your reply.

Hold on, so the people that are central to the woes of this country, now and present, don't mention them, but we can mention Trump, Rubio and Cruz and the occasional Bush rant?? LOL, too funny!

Focus instead on "fanatical atheism" since these are your words.

In the sense of being completely intolerant of people that do have a religion and want to believe, yes.

Instead of singling out groups like atheists, why not instead address a true threat to the Constitution, namely the radical religious views of Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio, who would all like to create a Christian theocracy based upon their narrow and extreme religious ideas.

First of all, these guys will not make it to the presidency, I personally wouldn't be comfortable with an evangelical president, but do I fear they want to sweep the country and turn it into a religious theocracy? I don't believe that, I do believe that they are strong in their personal beliefs and religious convictions and it's ok but other than that atheists just get a bug up their nose and panic anytime someone says, I believe in God. Doesn't bother me one bit, I don't care what atheists believe in, but I do hate the intolerance which is stronger than the guy preaching to me, "I'll go to hell" if I don't repent.

I wonder what Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or Thomas Payne would think about having someone like Ted Cruz as the next president.

Or a Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders, I often wonder about that myself in all honesty.

I think judging by the polls, people are choosing the conservatives and the White vote is a testament to that. Will Trump win, who knows, but you do have a lot of anger and you do have a lot of people that do believe in God are rushing to the polls, so you can take it however you wish, but Obama's progressive Quasi-Atheist reign has fueled a lot of religious awakening and I am not talking about the fanatical (Westboro Church kind) in this country, truth be told.

@ bass--I knew it. You just couldn't help yourself and replied using the same old to quoque nonsense.

You failed to give any concrete example of "radical atheism" which you claimed earlier in this thread or prove how it was an actual threat. Therefore, let's try this again then: Provide actual examples of what you are claiming. I want to see this "radical atheism" and its actual threat. If you can't do this, then simply stop spouting this nonsense once and for all.

I'm no liberal. Unlike you, I am an actual independent. Just because I happened to take a side that you didn't care for, you lumped me in with this group. Labelling people won't help your cause or strengthen your argument.

I told you to leave out your pet arguments and simply deal with the issue you raised. Did you do that? Of course not. You just had to include Bernie, Hillary, Obama, and liberals. Same thing about my comment regarding the Founding Fathers. I talked about Republicans, and you replied with listing Democrats. To quoque!

Please give an example of Obama's "Quasi-Atheist" reign. I suspect that like your "radical atheist" claim from above, you won't be able to do this.

Frank Bruni in the NY Times described Cruz as a "knight in sliming armor." His whole life has been focused on getting into the White House, and he'll say anything to make that happen, principles be damned.

Actually it's Hillary that has been focused her whole life on becoming president; and given her advanced age that's a pretty long time. That's why she married Bill, stayed married to Bill, and worked so hard to destroy all of the women Bill victimized over years in order to maintain her political viability. You can't really say she slept her way to the top. She just let her husband sleep with anyone he wanted to so she could ride his coat tails to the top. Hillary is so obsessed with maintaining her political viability that she did what no one in public service had ever done before, she set up her own separate IT department in order to skirt Freedom of Information Act requests of her public records. She is Richard Nixon redux.

As for Cruz, I would imagine he would much rather be a Supreme Court justice than president. But one does the best they can.

@dmacleod

You failed to give any concrete example of "radical atheism" which you claimed earlier in this thread or prove how it was an actual threat.

Obama's attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor is a clear example of Obama's radical atheism. I am not religious but I am tolerant of those who are. Obama is forcing old Nun's to choose between their faith and their commitment to serve the poor! Since when in America has that been something that the people would want? It's that type of thing and many more similarly ridiculous public policies and pronouncements that have given rise to a guy Trump. He is the backlash to eight years of Obamaism.

Obama's attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor is not a clear example of Obama's atheism. The reasons are political. He attacked them using the guidelines that his administration established to prevent religious groups from trying to escape with complying with ACA-related rules requiring that employer-provided coverage include contraceptives.

Atheism has nothing to do with this.

I knew it. You just couldn't help yourself and replied using the same old to quoque nonsense.

Translation: "stop exposing and confronting our own hypocrisy."

You failed to give any concrete example of "radical atheism" which you claimed earlier in this thread or prove how it was an actual threat.

I did. Demanding to people that have religious beliefs should be regulated just to their homes and not allowed to express themselves and threaten them with civil lawsuits in every facet of American lifestyle is radical.

Therefore, let's try this again then:

Why when I did. Don't need to go over the mulberry bush twice. If you can't see it, then you don't. Most atheists don't.

I'm no liberal. Unlike you, I am an actual independent.

Same here, and?

Just because I happened to take a side that you didn't care for, you lumped me in with this group.

No, I just care for fairness and I was just pointing out that many atheists that I know are not and that most atheists I came across were more hostile towards anyone that believed in religion.

Labelling people won't help your cause or strengthen your argument.

Nor yours.

I told you to leave out your pet arguments and simply deal with the issue you raised. Did you do that? Of course not. You just had to include Bernie, Hillary, Obama, and liberals.

Don't hate messenger, hate the message.

Same thing about my comment regarding the Founding Fathers. I talked about Republicans, and you replied with listing Democrats. To quoque!

Just telling the truth, no need to get upset now.

Please give an example of Obama's "Quasi-Atheist" reign. I suspect that like your "radical atheist" claim from above, you won't be able to do this.

I'll say this to encapsulate the Obama presidency, his governing or lack of it has produced the likes of Trump and to a lesser socialist degree, Sanders. If you can't see how destructive and divisive and toxic Obama's policies have been over the last 7, almost 8 years, I don't know what to tell you.

@bass - I'll respond in a manner you're used to:

*"Translation: "stop exposing and confronting our own hypocrisy."

Who is this "our" you are referring to? The only hypocrisy I see here comes from you and your slanted viewpoints.

*I did. Demanding to people that have religious beliefs should be regulated just to their homes and not allowed to express themselves and threaten them with civil lawsuits in every facet of American lifestyle is radical.

No, you did not. I asked for concete examples. You talked around the issue (as usual).

Why when I did. Don't need to go over the mulberry bush twice. If you can't see it, then you don't. Most atheists don't.

Over generalization. Don't pretend to speak for most atheists. You aren't one and have no idea how they think.

Same here, and?

No, not the same. You are no independent. You defend the Republicans every chance you get and demonize the Democrats whenever the opportunity presents itself. Your arguments are not balanced and are clearly biased.

Nor yours

Right back at ya.

Don't hate messenger, hate the message.

Take your own advice here.

Just telling the truth, no need to get upset now.

The "truth" as you see it. The only thing I get upset about is dragging atheism through the mud because you think you can get away with it.

I'll say this to encapsulate the Obama presidency, his governing or lack of it has produced the likes of Trump and to a lesser socialist degree, Sanders. If you can't see how destructive and divisive and toxic Obama's policies have been over the last 7, almost 8 years, I don't know what to tell you.

Same applies to you. Your obsessive bashing of Obama and the Democrats over the past eight years has blinded you. The people elected Obama twice. Too bad you don't like it. As far as not being able what to tell me, you're right--you don't.

You defend the Republicans every chance you get and demonize the Democrats whenever the opportunity presents itself.

In the name of fairness and accuracy, I feel I must defend bass here. He does not demonise the Democrats whenever the opportunity presents itself. He makes his own opportunities, and never lets either good sense or tolerance get in the way of absurd, empty stereotypes, prejudice and bigotry.

No, you did not. I asked for concete examples. You talked around the issue (as usual).

No, you just don't want or you choose to understand the constant attacks on religion.

Over generalization. Don't pretend to speak for most atheists.

So then please don't speak for most conservatives or evangelicals. Fair is fair, right?

You aren't one and have no idea how they think.

I live and work with quite a few, I sure do know.

No, not the same. You are no independent.

Really? So now you personally know me?

You defend the Republicans every chance you get and demonize the Democrats whenever the opportunity presents itself.

No, I don't and if you don't focus solely on my criticism of hypocritical Democrats and liberals, you would know that I can't stand the GOP either, especially in its current form.

Your arguments are not balanced and are clearly biased.

Apparently, you never listened to my Trump and Cruz rants.

Right back at ya.

So we agree to disagree, good.

Take your own advice here.

I'm fine with it.

The "truth" as you see it.

No, an opinion is saying, I don't like Trump because he's an idiot, fact is: Trump numbers are off the charts and is killing everyone else and might be the nominee and could "possibly" win the general election

The only thing I get upset about is dragging atheism through the mud because you think you can get away with it.

Hey, I have NO problem with Atheists as long as they are fair, tolerant and don't demonize people that are religious.

If you can't see how destructive and divisive and toxic Obama's policies have been over the last 7, almost 8 years, I don't know what to tell you.

Same applies to you.

But I'm not the president. But if I were......

Your obsessive bashing of Obama and the Democrats over the past eight years has blinded you.

Actually, it really opened my eyes, really!!!

The people elected Obama twice.

And look at the crap we're in now.

Too bad you don't like it.

I don't and the good thing, the great thing is in 245 more days, we will all be free from the chains of this tyrant.

As far as not being able what to tell me, you're right--you don't.

Don't need to and I'm not expecting you to do it either.

@Ok bass, so you want another round. I'll be happy to oblige.

No, you just don't want or you choose to understand the constant attacks on religion.

No, there are no constant attacks on religion. Just made up ones like Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas." Atheists and others have every right to litigate the religious right's attempt at trying to insert themselves into creating our laws and influencing our society. I see nothing wrong with challenging attempts at mandatory school prayer or taking guys like Judge Roy Moore to court for trying to display a granite version of The Ten Commandments at a public courthouse (and at taxpayer's expense). These are hardly radical acts (and if anything, they are attempts to block the real radicals from the religious right from inserting their agenda). I don't see any threat to the U.S. society by atheists here. In fact, quite the opposite. The threats are by radical fundamentalists who think they can get away with foisting their beliefs on the majority when they themselves are in the minority.

So then please don't speak for most conservatives or evangelicals. Fair is fair, right?

An example of where I did this would be helpful.

I live and work with quite a few, I sure do know.

Anectdotal. So, you live and work with a few atheisits, and now you now how the millions of them around the world think? Seriously? How many books by atheists have you read? Have you attended any debates or lectures by atheisits? Have you engaged in many discussions with them?

Really? So now you personally know me?

Given your incredible volume of daily posts and all of the boasting that you do about yourself, I'd say that many people here have a good idea of who you are and what you stand for.

Apparently, you never listened to my Trump and Cruz rants.

Apparently, you have forgotten them. You've now decided to support Trump so that Hillary won't get into the White House. This is called being a partisan.

No, an opinion is saying, I don't like Trump because he's an idiot, fact is: Trump numbers are off the charts and is killing everyone else and might be the nominee and could "possibly" win the general election.

Trump's numbers are only "off the charts" with his supporters and certain members of the Republican party. Let's remember here that it's going to be the independent voters who will determine the outcome of the election. Right now, I don't see any polling amongst independent voters--especially ones supporting Trump.

Hey, I have NO problem with Atheists as long as they are fair, tolerant and don't demonize people that are religious.

Yet you continue to bash atheists along with your other rants on liberals whenever you get the chance (or as Cleo pointed out, you create the opportunity.)

And look at the crap we're in now.

Compared to 2008 before Obama took office? Are you serious? The world was on the verge of another depression and was in the midst of a financial meltdown. Unemployment was in double digits. Gas was at a catastrophic high. When I look at that and compare it to now, I'd say that we are far from being "in the crap." Maybe you see it that way, but the facts (look at statistics) say otherwise.

I don't and the good thing, the great thing is in 245 more days, we will all be free from the chains of this tyrant.

Stop your childish usage of "tyrant" with Obama. It's obvious that you don't know what the word means. Stalin was a tyrant. Hitler was a tyrant. Mao was a tyrant. They killed and repressed millions of people. To put Obama in the same category is ridiculous. The only good thing that I see in 245 days is that you will finally shut your trap about this.

Finally, for someone who gets more "thumbs down" than a condemned prisoner at the Coliseum during the height of the Roman empire, it might behoove you to re-examine some of your posts--or at least the way that you post them. Right now, the only one you are convincing of your arguments is yourself (and I'm sure some of what you say resonates with a few of the other right-wingers who also post here).

.

"I should let you liberals jump all over conservatives and point out all their flaws and incompetencies" Did Bobby Jindal do a good job?

" I don't like Trump because he's an idiot, fact is:" No, Trump is great because he wants to give the healthcare mandate a bite, raise taxes, and let lots of immigrants in. Do you know that Reagan inked millions greencard amnesty? Trump will do the same thing. Go Trump!

"we will all be free from the chains of this tyrant." Good point. More government healthcare with Trump. I'm glad you and I agree with Trump's healthcare policies.

"No, you just don't want or you choose to understand the constant attacks on religion." How about the devil worshipers, Scientologists, and Moonies?

"NO problem with Atheists as long as they are fair, tolerant and don't demonize people that are religious." They just think you are nuts for literally believing in zombies. Because Jesus is a zombie

"I live and work with quite a few, I sure do know." This is in Japan? Because you are a Japanese citizen now. Why did you become Japanese? Who are you voting for in the Japan election?

No, there are no constant attacks on religion.

So you are trying to say, Atheists are tolerant people of any religion and would never oppose them or ridicule them in ANY manner? You actually believe that?

Just made up ones like Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas." Atheists and others have every right to litigate the religious right's attempt at trying to insert themselves into creating our laws and influencing our society.

Made up? Lol. Telling and in some cases forcing staff NOT to say, Merry Christmas. A federal holiday that in our nation that has been celebrating Christmas forever and atheists get bent out of shape when people say Merry Christmas or are afraid to see a nativity scene? If you don't like it, walk past it. I respect your right fully if you don't like it, respect my rights if I want to enjoy it, there is enough space that we all can share and partake in our beliefs without atheists trying to run Christians off.

I see nothing wrong with challenging attempts at mandatory school prayer or taking guys like Judge Roy Moore to court for trying to display a granite version of The Ten Commandments at a public courthouse (and at taxpayer's expense). These are hardly radical acts (and if anything, they are attempts to block the real radicals from the religious right from inserting their agenda).

So why does it bother you, it shouldn't impose anything on you, that is, if you are not afraid of religion. This is exactly what I am talking about, you just made my point, thanks.

I don't see any threat to the U.S. society by atheists here.

I do, we just happen to disagree. If Cruz or Rubio were to win the presidency, you liberals would have a complete meltdown. The one great thing about a possible Trump presidency is that Miley Cyrus won't be here anymore to torment us.

In fact, quite the opposite. The threats are by radical fundamentalists who think they can get away with foisting their beliefs on the majority when they themselves are in the minority.

As you said, a few, but if you live in California the Atheist Capitol of the US, you would know how pushy they can be.

Anectdotal. So, you live and work with a few atheisits, and now you now how the millions of them around the world think?

No, but the vast majority have the same outlook to anyone that has religious beliefs. Again, just the messenger.

Seriously? How many books by atheists have you read?

A few.

Have you attended any debates or lectures by atheisits? Have you engaged in many discussions with them?

Yes.

Given your incredible volume of daily posts and all of the boasting that you do about yourself, I'd say that many people here have a good idea of who you are and what you stand for.

Boasting? No, they don't, not a clue.

Apparently, you have forgotten them. You've now decided to support Trump so that Hillary won't get into the White House.

Yes, that's true. 100% 8 years of Progressive Atheist rule has done more than enough damage to the country and NO, I don't want the country to be ruled by Evangelicals as well.

This is called being a partisan.

Never have been, but I know most liberals ONLY pay attention to my criticisms of them and not the GOP.

Trump's numbers are only "off the charts" with his supporters and certain members of the Republican party.

If Trump can gain more than 52% of the White vote, he should do fine. The man already siphoned off 20% of the liberal votes and many unions are slowly supporting Trump, so that's a great thing.

Let's remember here that it's going to be the independent voters who will determine the outcome of the election.

That's right and let me remind you 49% of independents don't trust Hillary, almost half of all independent voters, that's really bad, not to mention vital. So yes, they do determine the outcome of the general election, but for Hillary it's not looking so great.

Right now, I don't see any polling amongst independent voters--especially ones supporting Trump.

Trump is pulling in about 36% of independents, not too shabby, but still quite a bit.

Yet you continue to bash atheists along with your other rants on liberals whenever you get the chance.

It's because liberals usually get personal and pretty.....well....

Compared to 2008 before Obama took office? Are you serious? The world was on the verge of another depression and was in the midst of a financial meltdown.

And now he will be leaving the country with a staggering and higher amount of debt, destroyed race relations, put 45 million people on food stamps. Blacks are still hovering at over 10% unemployment, Hispanics a little less. He never addressed the national debt. Never concerned himself with creating high wage jobs, never concerned himself for our veterans, military.

Unemployment was in double digits. Gas was at a catastrophic high. When I look at that and compare it to now, I'd say that we are far from being "in the crap

Yes, you are right at that time, Bush did tank the economy, so now that Obama has tanked the economy, who do you think can set it right and get us an even bigger financial hole than when he took office.

Maybe you see it that way, but the facts (look at statistics) say otherwise.

I did and they look very different when you read the fine print.

Stop your childish usage of "tyrant" with Obama.

When Obama stops subverting the constitution and follows the will of the people and stops worrying about the next election and thinks he can rule strictly by using his phone and his pen and leap frogging over congress, I promise, I will stop referring to him as a Tyrant.

It's obvious that you don't know what the word means. Stalin was a tyrant. Hitler was a tyrant. Mao was a tyrant.

And so is Obama

They killed and repressed millions of people.

With the exception of killing millions, he did repress the people's will and that's bad enough.

To put Obama in the same category is ridiculous.

That's your personal opinion, I have a different opinion.

The only good thing that I see in 245 days is that you will finally shut your trap about this.

After I celebrate for a week, I probably will.

Finally, for someone who gets more "thumbs down" than a condemned prisoner at the Coliseum during the height of the Roman empire, it might behoove you to re-examine some of your posts--or at least the way that you post them.

No, not at all. I never tow the political line, never did and never will, it makes me take it all with a grain of salt and where it like a badge of honor, let's me know that I touched some nerves and know that the truth.

Right now, the only one you are convincing of your arguments is yourself (and I'm sure some of what you say resonates with a few of the other right-wingers who also post here.

First, I'm not a right-winger for the record, so now that we have that out of the way, whether I do the convincing or not depends on the individual to determine that and if the majority of liberals or anyone else doesn't like it, so be it. That's not my concern.

Bass, you were a refugee to Japan and became a Japanese citizen because of Obama because you thought he was going to be like Stalin and murder millions and you thought your life was in danger. When Trump wins do you plan on returning to the USA? It will be safe for you?

So you are trying to say, Atheists are tolerant people of any religion and would never oppose them or ridicule them in ANY manner? You actually believe that?

No, I am not saying that. You are. Don't put words into my mouth.

Made up? Lol. Telling and in some cases forcing staff NOT to say, Merry Christmas. A federal holiday that in our nation that has been celebrating Christmas forever and atheists get bent out of shape when people say Merry Christmas or are afraid to see a nativity scene? If you don't like it, walk past it. I respect your right fully if you don't like it, respect my rights if I want to enjoy it, there is enough space that we all can share and partake in our beliefs without atheists trying to run Christians off.

First, cut the LOL crap. It's childish. As far as forcing staff members not to say "Merry Christmas" goes, that's wrong, and most atheists don't believe that or wouldn't go that far, so don't lump the entire group of people who call themselves atheists in with these people. Most atheists couldn't care less about nativity scenes or how people choose to celebrate Christmas. What many atheists really do not like is fundamentalists trying to write legal legislation based upon their beliefs.

I am so sick and tired of hearing Christian groups complain about being "persecuted" or that there is a "war" on their beliefs. Such nonsense as "secularists are attacking Christmas! Gays are attacking marriage! Liberals are attacking values! White girls are being abducted at an alarming rate!" ad nauseum. The worst part is, the people complaining the loudest about being persecuted for their Christianity aren't Christians at all. They're demagogues,conmen, and scolds. The only thing they worship is power. If you believe Jesus ever had anything good to say about war, torture, tax cuts for the rich, or raping the earth, then you might as well believe bunnies lay painted eggs.

So why does it bother you, it shouldn't impose anything on you, that is, if you are not afraid of religion. This is exactly what I am talking about, you just made my point, thanks.

What? Having mandated school prayer or people like Roy Moore bother me a lot. I don't fear religion. I fear the fundamentalists in government who abuse their office to push their religious beliefs on others--and no, I didn't make your point. I countered it.

. . . you liberals would have a complete meltdown.

For the last time, please get this through your thick skull: I am not a liberal. Like many Americans, I find ideas that I agree with in both parties. I just happened in this thread to defend a side which you oppose and automatically decided to put me in that category. It's one of your many logic flaws. Finally, I don't consider atheists to be affiliated with any party.

As you said, a few, but if you live in California the Atheist Capitol of the US, you would know how pushy they can be.

There you go again. Painting the entire group of atheists as being pushy based upon your narrow California experience shows how little you know about atheists in general. Stop over-generalizing.

I don't live in California and have no desire to do so. I live in Japan. There are a lot of atheists here too. I haven't encountered any "pushy" ones during my 20 years of residence here.

No, but the vast majority have the same outlook to anyone that has religious beliefs.

Really? Proof? Sources?

Yes.

Oh really? What books have you read? What debates or discussions have you attended? Who did you talk to? Let's have some details here.

Boasting? No, they don't, not a clue.

Oh, they have all the clues they need. You've ignored Nishkat's questions about having Japanese citizenship and how you are somehow able to vote here in Japan as well as in Europe--and don't try to deny this because you posted it before. Here is the exact exchange: Nishkat: I assume you cannot vote in a European country nor in Japan. Bass: I can vote in both. Feb. 19, 2016 - 12:34AM JS

8 years of Progressive Atheist rule has done more than enough damage to the country.

Damage to the country? Really? How so? Progressive Atheist rule? There you go again--bashing atheists. Last time I checked, Obama was not an atheist. Ditto for many in his cabinet, so please, identify these closet atheists so we know who they are.

. . . but I know most liberals ONLY pay attention to my criticisms of them and not the GOP.

What criticisms of the GOP? One or two words? In comparison to your criticisms of Democrats, your so-called criticisms of the GOP could fit on the head of a pin. In order to convince me that you are not a partisan, you need to attack the GOP with the same vitriol and fervor that you do the Democrats--and this has yet to be seen.

That's right and let me remind you 49% of independents don't trust Hillary,

Also:

Trump is pulling in about 36% of independents, not too shabby, but still quite a bit.

Source? Where are you getting those numbers?

And now he will be leaving the country with a staggering and higher amount of debt, destroyed race relations, put 45 million people on food stamps. Blacks are still hovering at over 10% unemployment, Hispanics a little less. He never addressed the national debt. Never concerned himself with creating high wage jobs, never concerned himself for our veterans, military.

More unsupported and unsubstantiated bluster.

When Obama stops subverting the constitution and follows the will of the people and stops worrying about the next election and thinks he can rule strictly by using his phone and his pen and leap frogging over congress, I promise, I will stop referring to him as a Tyrant.

Again, let's have some examples here. How has Obama subverted the Constitution? If he has, how has the Republican-controlled congress or the Supreme Court let him get away with this? Perhaps you are upset about some of the executive orders that he signed since the congress decided to refuse to do their jobs from everything from debating the continued military actions in the Middle East to immigration reform. Executive orders are quite constitutional, and every president has signed them. The Supreme Court can put a stop to them if they believe a president has gone too far, so save your bile for the do-nothing congress led by the obstructionist Republicans or the Supreme Court for not doing their jobs in a checks/balances system.

Obama is not a tyrant, and you are being childishly stubborn by continuing to call him that, especially when you look at the real tyrants throughout history. "Killing the people's will? You mean the people that voted him in office to do his job, make decisions, and govern on their behalf? Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

. . . let's me know that I touched some nerves and know that the truth.

I'll get the code breakers to work on that last part, but from what I can understand, your hubris is preventing you from doing some much-needed self-reflection. Stubbornness is not an admirable quality.

First, I'm not a right-winger for the record,

Your posts indicate otherwise.

. . .whether I do the convincing or not depends on the individual to determine that and if the majority of liberals or anyone else doesn't like it, so be it. That's not my concern.

That's fairly obvious.

No, I am not saying that. You are. Don't put words into my mouth.

If I'm intolerant then I wouldn't be debating with you.

First, cut the LOL crap. It's childish.

So you're saying I am not allowed to laugh if I think what you're saying is comical, so now are back to the intolerance issue once again.

As far as forcing staff members not to say "Merry Christmas" goes, that's wrong, and most atheists don't believe that or wouldn't go that far, so don't lump the entire group of people who call themselves atheists in with these people.

Ok, then most.

Most atheists couldn't care less about nativity scenes or how people choose to celebrate Christmas.

Then why oppose any vestiges that pertain to religion, they don't bother you, you don't bother them, everyone respects their perspective boundaries. Then you and are should be in agreement.

What many atheists really do not like is fundamentalists trying to write legal legislation based upon their beliefs.

Or vice versa.

I am so sick and tired of hearing Christian groups complain about being "persecuted" or that there is a "war" on their beliefs.

If thousands complain, then there must be a reason, but making that argument is like liberals saying why are so many people complaining about Obama or Hillary, apparently there must be a good reason, so it's safe to say, of Christians feel that they are being persecuted by Atheists, there must be some serious evidence for that.

Such nonsense as "secularists are attacking Christmas!

They have been.

Gays are attacking marriage!

No, but there have been gays that get up in people's face and try to push their values on people wherever they are and some people don't like it, some people don't want their kids to see it and they have the absolute right to not be pushed or bothered and by the way, I live in one of the largest lesbian cities in California, I know.

Liberals are attacking values!

So true, don't even know where to begin.

White girls are being abducted at an alarming rate!" ad nauseum.

What??? Come on now....

The worst part is, the people complaining the loudest about being persecuted for their Christianity aren't Christians at all. They're demagogues,conmen, and scolds. The only thing they worship is power. If you believe Jesus ever had anything good to say about war, torture, tax cuts for the rich, or raping the earth, then you might as well believe bunnies lay painted eggs.

But that's not for any atheist to decide, let people believe what they want, I couldn't care less whether a person believes in something or not.

What? Having mandated school prayer or people like Roy Moore bother me a lot. I don't fear religion. I fear the fundamentalists in government who abuse their office to push their religious beliefs on others--and no, I didn't make your point. I countered it.

I fear, the progressives trying to stomp out religious freedoms of people that want to worship.

. . . you liberals would have a complete meltdown. For the last time, please get this through your thick skull: I am not a liberal.

Are you angry? Why? We both respect each other, right? Ok, so you are a conservative like me, then let me rephrase that, most liberals and some conservatives and libertarians. How's that?

Like many Americans, I find ideas that I agree with in both parties.

Again, we agree on something, we have a lot in common.

I just happened in this thread to defend a side which you oppose and automatically decided to put me in that category.

For the record, I apologize if you felt offended.

It's one of your many logic flaws.

Hmmm, I beg to differ.

Finally, I don't consider atheists to be affiliated with any party. As you said, a few, but if you live in California the Atheist Capitol of the US, you would know how pushy they can be.

I'm just going by my experience and in my business, I deal with them every single day.

So, yeah, for the most part.

There you go again. Painting the entire group of atheists as being pushy based upon your narrow California experience shows how little you know about atheists in general. Stop over-generalizing.

I've been to 38 states, I'm not over generalizing, but if you believe so,Chou are allowed to think whatever you wish, I just go by my experience.

I don't live in California and have no desire to do so. I live in Japan. There are a lot of atheists here too. I haven't encountered any "pushy" ones during my 20 years of residence here.

I live here as well. Travel a lot between the two countries. Again, we both have something in common.

No, but the vast majority have the same outlook to anyone that has religious beliefs. Really? Proof? Sources?

Take your pick.

Oh really? What books have you read? What debates or discussions have you attended? Who did you talk to? Let's have some details here.

It's a substantial list.

Oh, they have all the clues they need.

You think so? I don't.

8 years of Progressive Atheist rule has done more than enough damage to the country. Damage to the country? Really? How so?

Go to California and you can see it with your own eyes. Before the liberal progressives took it over it had the 5th largest economy in the world, the state now has become a huge entitlement cesspool. Go to San Francisco downtown, LA, Oakland and other parts of the states where liberals govern and take a trip to Orange County and you see a huge social and economical discrepancy between the two, it also helps to know it's the last refuge where conservatives can be safe and live in a clean, low crime district in the state of California. 
>Progressive Atheist rule? There you go again--bashing atheists. Last time I checked, Obama was not an atheist.

Because he says so? Lol

Ditto for many in his cabinet, so please, identify these closet atheists so we know who they are.

That would be the Democratic Party.

What criticisms of the GOP?

Have you been watching or reading the news???

One or two words? In comparison to your criticisms of Democrats, your so-called criticisms of the GOP could fit on the head of a pin.

Because the hypocrisy of liberals is that asinine.

In order to convince me that you are not a partisan, you need to attack the GOP with the same vitriol and fervor that you do the Democrats--

If they deserve it, I will.

and this has yet to be seen.

Once they start doing the exact same lying and scheming tactics the Dems are using, I promise, right between the eyes.

More unsupported and unsubstantiated bluster.

Actually, no.

Again, let's have some examples here.

Takes too long, we'll be here for another year.

How has Obama subverted the Constitution?

Are you aware of the two pending cases that are tied up in the Supreme Courts? Those are two examples.

And again, leap frogging over congress.

.

Readers, no more bickering please.

Bass, will you be returning back to the USA when Obama is out of the WH? Or if Hillary is elected will you be staying?

Go to San Francisco downtown, LA, Oakland and other parts of the states where liberals govern and take a trip to Orange County and you see a huge social and economical discrepancy between the two, it also helps to know it's the last refuge where conservatives can be safe and live in a clean, low crime district in the state of California.

Exactly. Orange County, is way better than those other counties. Too bad though the 9th Circuit Court and their liberal-rainbow "judges" don't throw the book at crime like the Red States do, ur right bass4funk . . . . CA was a great place to live before liberal progressives took it over.

Thank god Law Enforcement Officers and their DA's still tilt to the Right.

"I live here as well. Travel a lot between the two countries. Again, we both have something in common." Why did you become a Japanese citizen?

@macleod

Obama's attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor is not a clear example of Obama's atheism. The reasons are political.

The fact that Obama uses politics to attack devout Christians like the Little Sisters of the Poor is an expression of his anti-Christian bias just as his support of affirmative action discrimination is an expression of his black supremacist views (as is clear by his two decade association with a racist church in Chicago). He sees his ideology as superior to the first amendment right to religious freedom. This is what he means by 'fundamentally changing America'.

Some Republicans see Cruz as best alternative to Trump

Obama's Leftist extremism is why so many Americans distrust government and why there is such a backlash now manifest in Donald Trump. I don't think any of the current candidates with the possible exception of Kasich are presidential material. The two leaders, Trump and Clinton, are the worst of the bunch.

@woflpack:

My original objection and concern about this issue was the charge that Obama was an atheist, or that atheism was somehow behind his attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor. I pointed out that atheism had nothing to do with this. By your own admission, he is not an atheist:

as is clear by his two decade association with a racist church in Chicago

Since he is affilitated with a church, he cannot be an atheist, now can he?

Also, a person can be an anti-Christian but not an atheist. For example, some extremely radical muslims are anti-Christian, but this does not make them atheists, now does it? They believe in a god--just not the Christian one--ergo, they are nott atheists--just anti-Christians.

For the record, I don't think that contraception should be a part of the ACA, which is what many religious groups are against (and rightly so). Obama went after The Little Sisters of the Poor because he didn't want them to get out of their obligation to provide this under the rules of the ACA. I feel this is also wrong because I always thought having health insurance should be for catastrophic illnesses or costly major medicial issues such as getting cancer, MS, or other diseases which a person has no control over. A person does not choose to get these things, so I think there should be some kind of coverage in place. However, if a person decides to engage in sexual activities, then that is their choice and should be on their dime.

To the moderators: At the risk of going off topic here, I am simply trying to defend atheism against baseless and false charges.

"For the record, I don't think that contraception should be a part of the ACA" Including free condoms at the health department? To what end?

Decades before the ACA poor women have been able to get free BC at the free clinics. Why such a controversy now. There wasn't any even during the 12 years of Reagan/GHWB. Really, what sane woman (other than Kim Davis) would want to vote Republican these days?

It seems the people most fixated on the BC issue are old bitter people who look like Rush Limbaugh.

The fact that Obama uses politics to attack devout Christians like the Little Sisters of the Poor is an expression of his anti-Christian bias just as his support of affirmative action discrimination is an expression of his black supremacist views (as is clear by his two decade association with a racist church in Chicago).

I couldn't agree more. This has always been a ruse of this president and what gets me the most is that he portrays himself as a Christian, if he came out and proclaimed what many believe that he really is and that is NOT a Christian, there wouldn't be so much criticism of the man, I can respect that fully, that's my only objection, if he's an atheist, be proud and say it, but don't piggyback off the people, in particular the Black and Latino community that THINK the man is Christian like, when he is anything but....

He sees his ideology as superior to the first amendment right to religious freedom. This is what he means by 'fundamentally changing America'.

BINGO!

" This has always been a ruse of this president and what gets me the most is that he portrays himself as a Christian" Of course he doesn't believe in an invisible man in the clouds. So what?

Nishkat: As much as I'd like to respond to your question about the ACA and mandated birth control, I'm afraid that the moderator is going to step in and either close this thread or delete posts about this issue since it is off the topic. My last reply to Bass yesterday was deleted. This is a shame since despite our rather robust "bickering," I actually found some common ground with Bass and talked about it. Now, it's gone. So be it.

Therefore, we should be talking about Ted Cruz and whether he is a viable alternative to Trump and not the ACA, atheism, Obama, and other non-related topics. I was reminded of this after my exchanges with Bass yesterday, and since I'm part of the guilty parties that got off the topic by responding to them, I can see why they shut our little debate down, so unless we can get back to the original topic of this thread, I'm done in here. However, if another thread opens up and these other topics come up, then I'd be happy to chime in.

This post is slowing down so go for it. And don't forget BC is also for men to have fun as well.

We are talking too much about Christians. How about other religions like Satanists? Those people are cool. I remember when I was a kid the role of church and Sunday school was a way for parents to get rid their kids for a few hours.

Marco Rubio Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.,

Has dropped to 3rd in his home state of Florida. Looks like he might finally be done. Wonder if he'll endorse Trump?