In an election like this, you have to pick the best candidate whether they are bad or not. Trump is leading in the polls due to the fact that he is saying what everyone wants to hear. In fact, he is saying things that the other candidates dare not even say. I think everyone can figure out that trump isn't gonna make America great again,but no one can do worse than Hilary would do to America in my opinion. And we all need to face reality, America won't ever be great again. It's a failing country. The government has went totally corrupt and is showing no sign of bettering itself. No government lasts forever and America is no exception. It's been over 200 years that America has had the same government and if you look in history, governments don't make it very far. No government is perfect and each one eventually has its downfall. But hey, that's just my opinion. If you have a different one, I respect that. I just hope we get a president that won't make our country go downhill even faster.
I wanted ron paul. Not sure about his son. He said income tax go poof. I say put him in office. Unfortunately the media didn't give him the coverage he deserved. But this election I'll vot for none most likely. Trump is good at selling things and Makin money. This is just the top of the ladder for him. He's done almost everything else. I think it's like a business deal to him. Let's just hope he doesn't turn the country for a big profit in his pocket.
I have a question with regards to oil prices. I was under the assumption that oil prices were dipping due to the price reduction the Saudis oil producers are putting on their oil. I read somewhere that by reducing barrel prices they can strain US oil producers who are using the more expensive fracking method to extract oil. By dropping the prices they can make the profits of the US producers drop to a point where investors would pull out. Obviously this would benefit the Saudis. Correct me if I'm wrong but I was just curious
You are in a way correct. They are trying to hurt the US by trying to make the oil companies sell, but it isn't exactly going as planned. Saudi Arabia has asked APEC to stop the production of oil due to them feel the affects too. I don't think they thought America would last this long with low oil prices. They are still dropping though. In Michigan, I heard that at certain gas stations it was 95 cents.
This analysis is correct. Saudis are mass pumping oil in the hope that they can bankrupt the American frackers. At least, that's part of the picture. Remember, there is a global recession going on, so oil usage on a global scale is also down, which helps depress the price too.
Rand has been a decent senator for us here in KY. He's got pros and cons. As to him being president, i dont think he would be great. First, he campaigned against the washington establishment, then took establishment money to get elected in november. Which ticked off his supporters in the primary. And his end the patriot act bills are horrible, it just chops up the spying and puts it under another agency. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Leave him in the senate where we can keep a leash on him
Lovely, you've provided a number of self-described evangelicals that dislike Trump, or disagree with him on some small issues. Trump is supported by Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham's organizations, and evangelicals nationwide. According to national polls, Trump has a higher percentage of support of evangelicals than the next top two put together. Even in Iowa, Trump had a strong turnout of evangelical voters (Cruz had more this time). So just as I said, perhaps not every single evangelical supports Trump, but enough of them do to support my statements, just like you felt you had to address evangelicals as a group in the OP (despite your attempted backtrack). If you can't accept the reality of the situation regarding the support for Trump, and where it comes from, you have no hope of breaking the cycle. At least Trump didn't win Iowa (not that Cruz is any better).
Just a note: The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association does not endorse Trump, or any other candidate in the race. Franklin Graham, CEO of BGEA and Samaritan's Purse is leading an exodus from the GOP to independent voting.
Perhaps he has not specifically placed an endorsement of Trump for president, but Franklin Graham has been outspoken in his support for Trump, especially his stance on banning a whole religion of people from the country. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12 ... s-gop.html http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electio ... te-n490781
You know so very little about these AM stalkers. Have you ever listened to Belling or Setyn? Are you one of the 5.5 million listeners who tune into Levin? If you were, you'd realize that the disagreements these prominent evangelicals and conservatives have with trump is major. But, instead, you just brush aside people you don't listen to and say that they have some small disagreements with trump. This shows me that you're more into believing distortions than actually trying to get an accurate look at a large and diverse group of people. Again, you refer to the evangelicals as some monolithic unbreakable block. You've disregarded all the very prominent evangelical dissenters of provided you with, cite two evangelicals of your own that like trump, and then declare that he has "nation wide" evangelical supoort, even though Iowa shows us that less than 23% of evangelicals there voted for him. (Which puts them in a clear minority) "Strong" turnout is subjective, I suppose. Trump got 23% of Iowa caucus goers, and,mits not reasonable to assume that 100% of them were evengelical, but, even if they were (which is a silly assumption) it's a clear minority. You can cite all the polls you want, but the votes speak louder than any hypothetical poll data. I have conceded the point that my OP was written poorly. I clairified it in a later post addressing you, so there is no need to keep beating that dead horse, but you can if you wish. Speaking to a broader point, however, you have 1. Cited Facebook flame bait as a legitimate reason to tar evangelicals as a large monolithic group. 2. Rejected my evangelical conservative trump opposition, and, worse, offered distortions about them. I challenging you, have you even listened to any of their shows? I'll bet not, but that doesn't stop you from distorting their stances. 3. You've rejected actual votes and cling to hypothetical polls to back your point. The majority of evangelicals in Iowa didn't support trump, and now that this is clear, you still won't let your distortions go. I agree with you on this point. I read an article that talked about "understanding the mind of a trump voter" yesterday. They were saying that the majority of trump supporters are 1. White 2. Young 3. Angry And 4. Have a lower level of education. No where in there was a reference to ANY religious group. I didn't take the time this morning to try and persuade you. I know I can't. You have shown a strong dislike for evangelicals. This is shown by the fact that you're taking distortions and linking them to the evangelicals. I get it. It makes it easier for you to hate. I've seen trump do this with Mexicans and Muslims, and I see you doing it to the evangelicals. Trumpkins work off of distortions and hate, and it appears you do to. The reason I have taken the time to engage you, is so that other forummers can see you exposed. Your opposition actually helps me make my points very nicely. So, keep throwing out flame bait. Ignore hard numbers and continue to cite hypothetical polls. Distort the possitions of people like Levin (whom you don't listen to) and forward the evangelicals that support trump, making them the spokesman for majority, even if they aren't. You won't be persuaded becsuse hate is fun! However, those who read our exchanges might be.