There are 4 options for president, 3 of them are bad

The Washington Times ^ | 1/26/2016 | Steve Deace

[Maceman]

It would take a generation or three to change this country. We really are too far gone.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If we are too far gone (which we could be), then there is no hope of changing this country in a generation or three or ten.

So no point in trying.

Or, we start now by electing someone like Ted Cruz who I believe more than any other candidate has the vision which is most likely to be successful.

I do agree that this election is our last chance.

[x]

With the exceptions of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, the remaining six have been unmitigated disasters.

Because you disagree with all of them, not because they couldn't do the job.

If you can't admit that somebody you disagree with might have been an adequate or good president for their time, people aren't going to see that much value in your assessments about who can and who can't do the job.

To be sure, this year's crop of governors and former governors running have been horrible candidates. So this time, we won't have a governor become president.

That doesn't change the fact that governors do have to face the kind of responsibilities and make the kind of decisions that presidents do, and are better prepared to do the job than other candidates.

[KGeorge]

POST REDACTED

[plain talk]

With these sorts of choices a lot of voters will stay home.

[Maceman]

Because you disagree with all of them, not because they couldn't do the job.

Well, yes. I disagree with any president who rejects the Constitution and the founding principles on which the nation was founded -- i.e. who embraces progressivism.

Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." I submit that a progressive leftist is by definition incapable of keeping that oath, and thus, by definition, cannot do the job.

It's not about what I agree with, although I do agree with the principles inherent in the presidential oath of office.

So tell me, if a president's political philosophy leads him to ignore or deliberately reject the Constitution, is it still possible for him to do the job?

If you answer "yes" to that question, then I think you really need to re-examine your worldview, because I submit that you are part of the problem that our nation faces today.

[x]

If the country's involved in something like WWII, whatever the president does to win the war is likely to involve more government. Those actions aren't necessarily against the Constitution. Indeed, not doing what's necessary to win the war might be regarded as dereliction of duty.

Theodore Roosevelt, say, certainly expanded the power of the presidency and the federal government, but I don't see where he violated or ignored or rejected the Constitution.

Whoever gets elected next time will have more power than Jefferson or Madison had. That may be a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean the next president will be acting unconstitutionally all the time.

And one thing experience has taught me is that Ted Cruz, if he gets elected isn't going to voluntarily settle for exercising much less power than his predecessors. Government and politics don't work that way.

[goldbux]

. . . virtues of American Exceptionalism whence it came.

not

. . . from whence it came.

[Maceman]

I don’t have a problem with FDR as a CIC. I think he did a great job.

But his New Deal was a complete disaster, and it set us down the path towards a Progressive government which now in 2016 is starting to feel VERY authoritarian, if not Totalitarian,

America won’t be saved by a narcissistic, charismatic deal maker who is not very focused on restoring American Constitutional values, and a spirit of liberty, free markets and government of Constitutional laaw instead of men.

There’s a lot I like about Trump, but without a firm anchoring in America’s founding principles and determination to restore the government defined by the U.S. Constitutions, he will lead us to disaster.

Will he find those principles? I certainly hope so, if he is elected.

But I don’t trust him. I don’t like his sweet talk about Nancey Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. I know he can turn on a dime, from being palsy walsy with Cruz and now fighting him downright dirty.

But I don’t think Trump has developed any real principles at all, other than a firm belief that he can make deals.

We’ll see how it works out.

But the more I see him, the less I trust him.

[xjcsa]

If Trump pulls off a win in Iowa, I think that many of them will have to be committed to some sort of mental health facility.

I'm one of them. I simply cannot believe that all of you are falling for his con.

[plewis1250]

You mean like the non elected, foul mouthed liberal, 4 time bankrupted, reality TV washout whom has achieved oh so much???

I’ll stick with the guy with a decades long conservative record.

The man who helped us keep our 2nd amendment right to bare arms
The man who helped protect religious liberty and states rights to execute its fellons, regardless of what some international court or the sitting President says...

The man who has stood up time and time again to fight the liberal cartel in Washington.

No, I’ll stick with Ted Cruz over the joke of a candidate Donald Trump.

[plewis1250]

And when he loses, what are you going to do?

What will Trump supporters think when their wonder boy flubs a small state like Iowa...?

He cannot even be courageous enough to debate a few days prior to voting...

What a coward.