If the republican primary were today, who would you vote for?

[BugI02]

They don't have to spend 22 hrs on a plane. Just "move" the "main" office there and staff it with a local janitor. I'd guess the number approaches zero, where places with lower tax rates are probably a good bit higher.



The first one I posted is just a regular old hammer the second one is also, no dead blow or beryllium or anything like that. One thing that raises the price up is that they are required to buy made in America if possible. Which the one I posted is. And you might be surprised at what some nuts and bolts cost.

Could it be something like what's referenced by one of my favorite lines in Independence Day - where Jeff Goldblum's dad says 'You don't think they really pay $600 for a hammer, do you?'

 

[Que]

I still would like to know whenTrump became a Republican and why his supporters aren't asking? How come he's not so quickly labeled a RINO? Is it because he stands for true Conservative Republican values?

Jeb Bush 'The Real Donald Trump' | Campaign 2016 - The Washington Post

 

[IndyDave1776]

I still would like to know whenTrump became a Republican and why his supporters aren't asking? How come he's not so quickly labeled a RINO? Is it because he stands for true Conservative Republican values?

Jeb Bush 'The Real Donald Trump' | Campaign 2016 - The Washington Post

Que, the answer to that is simple. While I can't know the contents of Trump's head, he has managed to present the plausible belief that he is in fact saying exactly what he thinks, and is more likely to stick with it than are most others. For example, I tried one of those political quizzes the other day. While Rand Paul would be my first choice if I could wave the magic wand, it showed me with a 96% commonality with Rubio, 96% with Cruz, 94% with Bush, 93% with Paul, and only 86% commonality with Trump. In theory, that analysis (which I believe at face value to be correct) would make my voting habits a no-brainer. Rubio has already gone RINO when push comes to shove. Bush is much better at sounding conservative than acting conservative. Paul simply isn't getting traction, much to my dismay. I have concerns about Cruz and the natural born requirement, although they are no worse than my concerns regarding Obama in this regard, mitigated by the fact that he has not made clear in both word and deed a hatred for our nation as Obama has.

Back to the point at issue, with an 86% overlap with Trump, I am left with the following:

1. Most of the non-overlap being accounted for on social issues which aren't likely to change regardless of who is in office. Evil as it is, and based on a contrived constitutional right as it is (in spite of there being no constitutional authority for federal intervention one way or another), abortion isn't going anywhere any time soon, thus negating the single biggest point of disagreement I have with Trump.

2. Trump appears to have seen the light regarding guns. He is not likely to become a 2A crusader, but I can live with being left alone. After all, we were promised all kinds of improvement on this and other things 'if only we had a Republican president to go with our Republican congress'. I am happy I did not hold my breath until turning funny colors through the 6 years of that combination we had in which not a damned thing was done to further the conservative agenda.

3. It has become standard operating procedure for candidates in teh Republican primary to sound conservative enough to make most John Birchers sound like Bernie Sanders by contrast, and then take a hard left turn immediately after winning the primary, and then in practice, once in office, being just far enough right of center that they can claim to be right of center. If Trump stays the course all the way through without changing, as a president, that would leave him with a solid B for a grade. That, in my reckoning, is much better than having someone who sounds like an A student on the campaign trail producing results in office on the border between failing and passing by the skin of his teeth on a 90/80/70/60 scale. At this point, as president, I am convinced that both Rubio and Bush will faithfully read the teleprompter while trying to look and sound conservative while in practice hovering around that 60% mark. If Cruz were on the ticket, I would be much less concerned about a left turn. Now, if some of the whispers have merit and there is in fact some constructive communication between candidates happening that ultimately end up in a Trump/Cruz ticket, that could be interesting.

4. If you take the perspective championed by Ayn Rand and consider the pursuit of self-interest in ways that do not ethically violate others, Trump also has something to offer. There is no question that the man is driven by self-interest. It is also very unlikely that he cares any more about my personal well-being than he cares about the baboons of Africa. That said, his self-interest as he perceives it hinges on the strength of the United States, particularly the strength of the US economy. In that, his self-interest and mine overlap greatly and stand in clear opposition to Obama's self-interest which hinges on the destruction of the United States. I will be happy to accept the situation of someone helping me incidental to helping himself as I do not accept the liberal mentality that if it isn't done for 'noble' motives (i.e., helping me, preferably without helping himself in the process)(yes, I know, the Clintons, Gore, and a whole bunch from congress have enriched themselves greatly while spouting lip service, but that it another discussion for another time) and will happily accept the right thing being done whether the motive contains any reference to my personal well-being or not. In fact, resting on the General Welfare clause, I would argue that my personal well-being, aside from its value as a representative measure, should NOT be taken into consideration as general welfare amounts to conditions conducive to my personal success, not causation of my personal success or sustenance at some arbitrarily established level.

5. Ideally, I would like a president who stands for conservative Republican values as I have over my life accepted them to stand. The problems here are that the GOP itself does not stand for those values so I have a hard time judging Trump as a Republican based on such criteria. As it stands, he is probably erring on the traditional side of the RNC position right now. He definitely has conservative fiscal values, especially compared with RNC standard. The fact that he is not sounding necessarily as conservative as others does not distress me since, once again, with a couple of exceptions, I don't expect the others to govern the way they sound today. If Trump carries the same positions through the general election and into the White House without changing, the positions he would hold in combination with standing on those same principles would make him at minimum the most conservative president since Reagan. He potentially could outperform Reagan. Of course, he could turn into a Trojan Horse, but even at that, I would fail to see where that would be any worse than having another teleprompter reader, given that between the RNC and the people who buy candidates, Bush would be all but a foregone conclusion had Trump not entered the fray.

6. Speaking of Reagan, I would point out, once again, that at one time, Reagan was liberal enough to be a Swede. I give Trump credit for being intelligent enough to grow over time as well.

All things considered, no, Trump would not have been my dream candidate. I do believe that he has some solid ideas and motives that are conducive to the well-being of the US, and motives which, while not designed for our benefit are largely parallel with our interests. I do not believe that his being elected would be any worse than any other realistically possible outcome, and could potentially be much better than the RINO which would otherwise be shoved down our throats once again.

 

[bwframe]

I still would like to know whenTrump became a Republican and why his supporters aren't asking? How come he's not so quickly labeled a RINO? Is it because he stands for true Conservative Republican values?

Jeb Bush 'The Real Donald Trump' | Campaign 2016 - The Washington Post

Without strong immigration reform, nothing else matters. R's understand that we will be permanently outnumbered soon if this doesn't get fixed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Big Win for Carly Fiorina as CNN Alters Debate Requirements

 

[BugI02]

I still would like to know whenTrump became a Republican and why his supporters aren't asking? How come he's not so quickly labeled a RINO? Is it because he stands for true Conservative Republican values?

Jeb Bush 'The Real Donald Trump' | Campaign 2016 - The Washington Post

Point taken, Que and I agree. I just don't think Jeb is the guy to be making this charge. Jeb wouldn't know true Conservative Republican values if the sommelier at his country club brought him a bottle.

 

[DWT]

OK, any of these individuals is better than Hillary. But when did we start looking for the cleanest dirty shirt instead of someone like Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Libertarian01]

Here is an update on the poll as of 2 Sept 15.

Everyone that was in the top ten (10) still is... kindof... mostly.

Let me put it this way, there is no one in the poll that you couldn't vote for today. However, ATM could(?) get his choice of BACON as Gov Christie is tied with Sen Paul at 3% each.

Here is the breakdown as of today, averaging four (4) major polls from 8/9 - 8/30. Those polls are, PPP (D), Quinnipiac, CNN/ORC, and Fox News.

Trump 26.5%
Carson 12.0%
Bush 09.5%
Cruz 07.0%
Rubio 06.5%
Walker 06.3%
Fiorina 05.8%
Kasich 05.0%
Huckabee 04.5%
Christie/Paul 03.0%

Given that I still would have been able to post only ten (10) choices, if these were the original numbers I probably would have allowed Sen Paul in and cut Gov Christie knowing the INGO boards as I do, but I would have had to put that information in and explained that I didn't want to make that choice as it is unfair of me to project my opinion of INGO onto the voting. The reason I consider this process unfair is that it is exactly what the media does by focusing on the noisy candidates like Trump and denying other legitimate candidates the same airtime. Nevertheless, a decision would have had to be made and that is how I would have made it with the transparency there for those who supported Christie.

At this stage I believe it would be best for the republican party if Jindal and Pataki would both drop out. They are each at 0.30%, less than 1% of the vote. If after being in for several monthes they can't even get 1 in 100 to vote for them a message is being sent. Perhaps they are holding on to vie for a VP position?

As of today again there wouldn't be any change in the poll as I originally posted it.

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK, any of these individuals is better than Hillary. But when did we start looking for the cleanest dirty shirt instead of someone like Thomas Jefferson?

You raise a good point, and this is the position I generally take. The problem is that the ship is sinking right now and I will settle for the person realistically available who is most likely to be able to stop the process of taking on water and worry about improving from good enough to what we really need long term after we avoid sinking before we have a chance to put that Jeffersonian candidate on the ticket.

You are right so far as political compromise amounting to making an argument for picking up the turd by the clean end. My point is that if this election cycle I have to pick up one turd or another, I prefer one that is dry and solid rather than one that is going to smear sh*t all over me. Unfortunately, that is the choice we have this round. If we do in fact manage to pick the cleanest this time, then we open the door for picking one that is cleaner yet next time until we work our way back to the position of having an electorate which would actually vote for a Jefferson or a Washington, or a Madison. If we don't, I have my doubts that the next election after this will be relevant.

 

[halfmileharry]

Hillary isn't done. She has a good percentage of the female vote and the "lever pulling Dems". She's still the horse to beat. I'm still holding hope for Webb on the Dem side.
My thinking is to find about anyone that can beat her.
Oh, Nothing wrong with a moderate Repub right now that can start healing this country again. We got major problems with the cultural divisions that need addressed
It's going to take more than a good politician to fix these things after the damage Obama has encouraged. It's also going to take a good person with a good mind.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The DNC adopts resolution supporting the "Wrap 'em in a Blanket, Fry 'em Like Bacon" movement...they immediately reject them.

Dems Officially Endorse Anti-Cop BlackLivesMatter Movement | Frontpage Mag

 

[ArcadiaGP]

EXCLUSIVE: Trump will sign GOP loyalty pledge

 

[jamil]

EXCLUSIVE: Trump will sign GOP loyalty pledge

I think eventually this primary race will be a battle between the base and the RINOs. I think Trump wants to win that battle and the biggest problem Trump supporters expressed with him was his threat to run as an independent. Now he can be seen as forcing the Republican establishment to play fairly with him, which I think they are overtly.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Protesters dressed as Klan members clash with Trump campaign security outside presser | Twitchy

 

[printcraft]

SMOKING GUN: GOP Establishment Strategy to Nominate Bush by Flooding Race With Candidates Exposed | Restoring Liberty

 

[spec4]

SMOKING GUN: GOP Establishment Strategy to Nominate Bush by Flooding Race With Candidates Exposed | Restoring Liberty

Strikes me as too pat. If it was true, why isn't Romney in the White House?

 

[printcraft]

Strikes me as too pat. If it was true, why isn't Romney in the White House?

That's the point. Who REALLY wanted Romney at that time? Who REALLY wanted McCain at that time?
They were both the "establishment" candidate. And both lost.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Strikes me as too pat. If it was true, why isn't Romney in the White House?

This opens a complex can of worms, but there are some things we can sort out:

1. There is no question that the RNC's intent is to shove Jeb Bush down our throats and/or up our asses.

2. This had been done with both Romney and McStupid, with the obvious results, which I would guess that even Hillary or Bernie could stomp Jeb in a general election, but that doesn't slow the RNC down any.

3. As for the immediate suggestion of a staged flooding of the stage, I am not sure what to think. I wouldn't put it past them, although I would have a hard time seeing some of the participants willfully participating in such shenanigans. The problem isn't the question of whether or not they are actually doing this, but rather the fact that it is so plausible when considering the possibility.

 

[MisterChester]

SMOKING GUN: GOP Establishment Strategy to Nominate Bush by Flooding Race With Candidates Exposed | Restoring Liberty

This is why the GOP establishment is so out of touch and will continue to lose presidential elections. They actually THINK Americans want another Bush in the White House.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

SMOKING GUN: GOP Establishment Strategy to Nominate Bush by Flooding Race With Candidates Exposed | Restoring Liberty

Wow! Good find! Everything fits...and given that the analysis shows that only Jeb or Trump can win...I'm thinking Trump is who I may vote for. If the Powers-that-Be both inside and outside the party don't want Trump, then that is who us regular folks should vote for. I think some of the other candidates would be better, but if they can't win and realistically it's between Jeb and Trump...we have to go Trump because Jeb will just be more of the same unsustainable crap. Honestly, it's horrible that we are so constrained this early in the process, but the Powers-that-Be have given us no choice. Trump is the nuclear option, but it is the only option that us regular folks have left. The time to kick them in the balls and let the chips fall where they may has arrived.

This is why the GOP establishment is so out of touch and will continue to lose presidential elections. They actually THINK Americans want another Bush in the White House.

No, they don't think that Americans want another Bush. In fact, they KNOW that we don't and that is EXACTLY why they are having to resort to the calculated and underhanded tactics spelled out in the article.