The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[BugI02]

Well, we have a bit over a year to coalesce behind somebody and the signs and portents do not look promising. I really feel the pull of a candidate who is not 'business as usual', I think this could be a once in generation chance to break the mold, but don't want to in any way aid or abet another Clinton presidency. At some point I hope I will discern the path out of the wilderness, as one of the candidates demonstrates a realistic chance of prevailing next year. I hope it is someone to my liking, but at some point the larger issue of attempting to halt/reverse the decline of my country must outweigh my personal wants and desires. I wish I could be sure how to accomplish this, or at least begin the process.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Donald Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power - CNNPolitics.com

 

[jamil]

Donald Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power - CNNPolitics.com

Though I wouldn't quibble about numbers too much I think it's fair to say the instabilities created afflter their demise makes those areas more a threat to us than when the two dictator's were in power.

 

[pudly]

Absolutely with Libya. "You broke it, you buy it" only applies to Republican administrations. Iraq was stable until Obama abandoned them.

 

[BugI02]

Donald Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power - CNNPolitics.com

He does have a point.

 

[MisterChester]

Donald Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power - CNNPolitics.com

He is right. Power vacuums in the Middle East are a recipe for disaster, and the world is paying for it.

 

[jamil]

Absolutely with Libya. "You broke it, you buy it" only applies to Republican administrations. Iraq was stable until Obama abandoned them.

Iraq was only stable because we filled the vacant rule of law. When we left, Iraq became vulnerable to their own political factions and outside forces. So yes, while we can pinpoint actions that Obama took that are directly responsible for Daesh, we still have to admit that the reason Iraqi stability required American involvement is because of the Bush administration's faux need to remove Saddam. Even if Saddam was sitting on the slam dunk arsenal of WMD, there really wasn't a good reason to believe he planned any real threats to the US.

Maybe American troops would have been able to leave a stabilized Iraq eventually. But there was no good reason to be there in the first place.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

We've Seen 'Just Asking Questions' About an Opponent's Religion Before | National Review Online

"I don't mean to get you wary about my rival's faith, I'm just wondering aloud about it in front of a crowd!"


Edit: Fourth straight poll has Trump (18.6%) losing big to Carson (30.6%) in Iowa

http://loras.edu/LorasCollege/files/b6/b660b586-9e64-4802-a4f9-d8828c22f324.pdf

 

[MisterChester]

We've Seen 'Just Asking Questions' About an Opponent's Religion Before | National Review Online

"I don't mean to get you wary about my rival's faith, I'm just wondering aloud about it in front of a crowd!"


Edit: Fourth straight poll has Trump (18.6%) losing big to Carson (30.6%) in Iowa

http://loras.edu/LorasCollege/files/b6/b660b586-9e64-4802-a4f9-d8828c22f324.pdf

Iowa has generally been not a very good indicator on who'll win it in the end. Huckster in 08, Santorum in '12 vote-wise and Ron Paul delegate-wise.

 

[MisterChester]

Iraq was only stable because we filled the vacant rule of law. When we left, Iraq became vulnerable to their own political factions and outside forces. So yes, while we can pinpoint actions that Obama took that are directly responsible for Daesh, we still have to admit that the reason Iraqi stability required American involvement is because of the Bush administration's faux need to remove Saddam. Even if Saddam was sitting on the slam dunk arsenal of WMD, there really wasn't a good reason to believe he planned any real threats to the US.

Maybe American troops would have been able to leave a stabilized Iraq eventually. But there was no good reason to be there in the first place.

+1

 

[jamil]

We've Seen 'Just Asking Questions' About an Opponent's Religion Before | National Review Online

"I don't mean to get you wary about my rival's faith, I'm just wondering aloud about it in front of a crowd!"


Edit: Fourth straight poll has Trump (18.6%) losing big to Carson (30.6%) in Iowa

http://loras.edu/LorasCollege/files/b6/b660b586-9e64-4802-a4f9-d8828c22f324.pdf

That poll says a lot about why Ben Carson is winning. He leads in both the "first choice" and "second choice" spots rather handily. He's just a likable guy. The only state he trails everyone in is "would absolutely not vote for" category. Only 3.4% said they would absolutely not vote for Carson. The leader in that category, the republican candidate that almost 30% of Iowans would absolutely not vote for is Trump.

Judging from that poll, aside from Carson's success it looks like Rubio is in a really good position. High favorablity, low dislike. Bush is in trouble, I think. He has a mediocre favorability and he's near the top on dislike.

I keep hearing Democratic pundits keep saying the Republican party needs a guy like Bush. If that's the case, what exactly is the rationale of having a Republican party at all? Evil, wicked witch notwithstanding, what else sets him all that far apart from Hillary?

 

[printcraft]

Non career politicians double digits in the polls, while career politicians in the single digits?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

CBS/NYT national poll: Carson 26%, Trump 22%. twitchy.com

 

[Thor]

Organization and money seems to put Carson and Cruz on top after Iowa, just money keeps Trump there.

Trump can always just go buy a ground game, trust fund wussy that he is; but not winning will send him screaming from with race with better things to do. The sooner he takes this platform of rude noises and angry faces and finds something else to do the better. It's getting close to time to get serious.

 

[jamil]

Organization and money seems to put Carson and Cruz on top after Iowa, just money keeps Trump there.

Trump can always just go buy a ground game, trust fund wussy that he is; but not winning will send him screaming from with race with better things to do. The sooner he takes this platform of rude noises and angry faces and finds something else to do the better. It's getting close to time to get serious.

I saw an interview with Jack Welsh, who has had business dealings with Trump. He didn't endorse Trump, but he did say that Trump got the things done that he said he'd get done. He said Trump is a doer. I don't accept the narrative that Trump is just a trust fund wussy. He may embellish his net worth, but he has made it considerably higher than whatever he started with, bankruptcies notwithstanding.

I have many other reasons to distrust Trump than the false narratives. Past performance is a fair indicator of future results. Trump will say whatever he needs to say to get people to believe whatever he needs them to believe, to accomplish his goals. I take him at what he said at a time that it didn't matter what he said. That he is a proponent of single-payer health care, and that he identified more as a democrat, at least at one time. In fairness, I'd say he's not a "today's" democrat, and the party he identified has probably moved further left than when he first said it.

I tend to think Trump's actual policies, if elected, would not be all that conservative.

 

[Thor]

I tend to think Trump's actual policies, if elected, would not be all that conservative.

The one thing I do believe is that a Trump presidency would benefit Trump. He would be able to out earn Soros.

 

[spec4]

Trump has a history of fighting back unlike a lot of the GOP. If he got in, he wouldn't give the lems any peace and would call them out at every turn. Could actually be fun.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Probably not a bad thing.

GOP candidates plot debate revolt against RNC - Oct. 29, 2015

Several Republican presidential campaigns are planning to hold a meeting in Washington, D.C., this Sunday to discuss plans for wresting more control of the debates from the Republican National Committee, CNN has confirmed.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Probably not a bad thing.

GOP candidates plot debate revolt against RNC - Oct. 29, 2015

I agree.

 

[jamil]

I wish the Republicans would have thought to take Jake Tapper to task during that debate.