Other Resources The Political Joe » Republican debate Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2015-08-07 8:07 AM

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: Republican debate

Anyone watch?  Thoughts?

Personally I've been fans of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, but Trump was kind of interesting.  He's obviously got all his PC baggage, but I'm so sick and tired of Washington status quo that I might just have to get behind Trump because he's just about everything Washington isn't.  lol



2015-08-07 9:08 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5761
50005001001002525
Bartlett, TN
Subject: RE: Republican debate

My top three in no particular order are Trump, Cruz and Walker after the first debate.

I did not see the debate with the 11-17 candidates. 

2015-08-07 9:30 AM
in reply to: #5133565

User image

Expert
1240
100010010025
Columbia, MO
Subject: RE: Republican debate
I agree that Trump is everything DC isn't and that's a GOOD thing. Trump or Fiorina probably have me the most excited. I am a conservative but out of the Republicans 17 candidates only 4 interest me. If the 16 election ends up Clinton v Bush I will either vote 3rd party or move to Texas and pray for succession.
2015-08-07 10:21 AM
in reply to: bsjracing

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by bsjracing I agree that Trump is everything DC isn't and that's a GOOD thing. Trump or Fiorina probably have me the most excited. I am a conservative but out of the Republicans 17 candidates only 4 interest me. If the 16 election ends up Clinton v Bush I will either vote 3rd party or move to Texas and pray for succession.

amen to that.  lol

2015-08-07 10:53 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Republican debate

I listened to a good portion of the early debate and listened/watched about 2/3rd of the debate so far.  Rand Paul, policy wise, is my choice and as a libertarian leaning person no other candidate comes close.  His strategy to be aggressive, from the opening bell, was probably the best thing he could do to get back in the spotlight.  I think the attacks on Trump were strong and fairly well timed.  The joust with Christie was diminished with hugging Obama line, Christie's well planned response, and Paul's eye roll - Paul is right on the 4th Amendment NSA surveillance, but I'm not sure his position made it across.

Aside from policy, I suspect Fiorina will move up in the polls, as she had the best performance of the second tier.  Pataki sounded pretty strong as well.  On the main stage, I felt Cruz did well where Bush and Walker fizzled.  I still don't see what people see in Trump and can't imagine that he will stay on top for long.

The debate moderators did a good job of moving the questions around and striking up sparring matches between the candidates.   



Edited by Hook'em 2015-08-07 10:53 AM
2015-08-07 11:15 AM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by Hook'em

I listened to a good portion of the early debate and listened/watched about 2/3rd of the debate so far.  Rand Paul, policy wise, is my choice and as a libertarian leaning person no other candidate comes close.  His strategy to be aggressive, from the opening bell, was probably the best thing he could do to get back in the spotlight.  I think the attacks on Trump were strong and fairly well timed.  The joust with Christie was diminished with hugging Obama line, Christie's well planned response, and Paul's eye roll - Paul is right on the 4th Amendment NSA surveillance, but I'm not sure his position made it across.

Aside from policy, I suspect Fiorina will move up in the polls, as she had the best performance of the second tier.  Pataki sounded pretty strong as well.  On the main stage, I felt Cruz did well where Bush and Walker fizzled.  I still don't see what people see in Trump and can't imagine that he will stay on top for long.

The debate moderators did a good job of moving the questions around and striking up sparring matches between the candidates.   

I'm certainly not a Trump fanboy, but I felt the moderators were a bit over the top in singling out Trump.  The first question with the poll couldn't have been more obviously directed at him and was fairly hostile.  I'm a Megyn Kelly fan, but I felt she was really going after Trump to the point that it was backfiring.

The interesting thing for me is how Trump is turning his campaign into not only an anti-establishment campaign but also an anti-media campaign.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/07/trump-wins-post-debate-spin-blasts-frank-luntz-as-low-class-slob/

When I'd listen to the traditional candidates saying the same things that all candidates have said for decades it just seemed really flat.  When Trump gets up there and calls people idiots, I don't understand but for some reason i like it.  haha.  Maybe i've been sucked into reality TV too much and I can't be saved.  
I loved the dialog about Clinton coming to his wedding.  lol  The sad part is how true it is.



2015-08-07 11:22 AM
in reply to: #5133565

User image

Expert
1240
100010010025
Columbia, MO
Subject: RE: Republican debate
Well Trump may have pointed out that the media has become part of the establishment
2015-08-07 11:38 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
6834
5000100050010010010025
Englewood, Florida
Subject: RE: Republican debate

At this point I'm willing to wait, since that is one thing we have no option on anyway.  Really though, 17 hats in the ring?!? What is the point? Let's figure out who is here for real, who has more substance than bluster, and who is going to be more than a pompous, arrogant blowhard.

Oh wait, this is politics...

2015-08-07 3:14 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Republican debate
I have to admit that I'm a little mystified by the GOP. After the 2012 election, the RNC concluded that to win the next presidential election, Republicans would need to be more inclusive of women, more tolerant on gay rights to gain favor with young voters, More open to immigration reform to appeal to Latinos, and strong and outspoken on "corporate malfeasance".

What I heard (and I admit I didn't watch every minute of either debate) was candidates opposing abortion under any circumstance, even to save a mother’s life, comparing the decision legalizing same-sex marriage to one supporting slavery, and speaking as though any attempt at immigration reform amounted to "amnesty".

If you read the full report (http://goproject.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf) it outlines a few key areas where the GOP lost or is losing ground and makes recommendations for a way forward. Here are a few passages that stand out, as it relates to what I heard last night and, in general, where I see the party today:

"The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue." (my emphasis)

"Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us. We need to remain America’s conservative alternative to big-government, redistribution-to-extremes liberalism, while building a route into our Party that a non-traditional Republican will want to travel. Our standard should not be universal purity; it should be a more welcoming conservatism. "

"As one conservative, Tea-Party leader, Dick Armey, told us, 'You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you. We’ve chased the Hispanic voter out of his natural home.'"

"When it comes to social issues, the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues."

It doesn't sound as though too many of the major candidates are listening to the advice of their own party.



2015-08-07 4:22 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Buttercup
14334
500050002000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Republican debate
We watched both the kids table debate and the grownup version. In no particular order:

I don't like Rubio. I find him severe, lifeless and humorless and I find these types dangerous when given power. That said, after his first response I looked at my (Republican) husband and agreed when he said "That was pretty strong." Still, I want him nowhere near the Presidency and I think he has a good chance of being VP, if the GOP prevails.

I knew next to nothing about the guy from Ohio whose name I already forgot. After the debate, I felt like I knew much more about him and I wasn't offended by anything he said.

I thought Christie was Christie. A bully and a failed governor. How many times did he invoke September 11? Give it a rest.

I thought Ben Carson was a bit stilted. Needs work on his delivery and he finished with some vapid platitudes. A bit weak. Doctors are used to barking orders; they don't explain themselves. Maybe he needs to work on his persuasion skills. I dunno; I don't follow him.

Lindsey Graham insisting that we had to go to war in Syria and return to Iraq - not a winner. Please, no.

Carly Fiorina came across very poised. Being in business does hone one's ability to deliver the elevator speech and it's clear she had done her homework.

I think Trump is a blowhard know-nothing who cannot articulate his positions (there's no there there), a carnival barker who bullies anyone around him. That said, I thought the moderators treated him very poorly. I don't like the media trying to manipulate viewers; it was pretty blatant. Trump is perfectly able to demonstrate what a jacka** he is without anyone's manipulation. I think he will make them pay.

After the debate, I caught about 2 minutes of Frank Luntz with his focus group. It was so obvious that he was gleefully leading his little group to conclusions he wanted them to make. It was distasteful and manipulative. Today, Trump is calling him a low-life slob, or somesuch.






Edited by Renee 2015-08-07 4:25 PM
2015-08-07 4:28 PM
in reply to: bsjracing

User image

Buttercup
14334
500050002000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Republican debate
Originally posted by bsjracing

Well Trump may have pointed out that the media has become part of the establishment


My comment last night - the moderators validated Trump's claim that the game is rigged. Roger Ailes wants to choose the GOP nominee and Trump doesn't fit the bill.

I did find it shocking when he said all politicians are stupid. Shocking but not necessarily wrong. It made me giggle.


2015-08-07 6:32 PM
in reply to: Renee

User image

Extreme Veteran
1648
100050010025
Subject: RE: Republican debate
I'm curious (as an independent) do you think about who has a chance to actually win the general election? Or are you more focused on who represents your views- even if they most likely cannot win the election.

The comment about voting for a 3rd party if Bush wins makes me curious.

After watching I was very interested by Kasich- he seems to have strong personal views- but still do what is best for his electorate - medicaid expansion. And I liked that he held by his views (Vs Romney who would have taken the general election hands down if he held his views from Mass where he started the program obamacare was based on- but was so changed by the primary process he could no longer attract a majority of voters.)

It seems like there is a RINO or PINO (president in nomination only- due to inability to win the general election) game going on.

Cruz for example- I can see no way at all he can win the general election unless potentially if Sanders got the D nomination- then there would be a circus. To me a vote for him is basically a vote for Hillary. Am I missing something?



2015-08-07 9:10 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by Moonrocket I'm curious (as an independent) do you think about who has a chance to actually win the general election? Or are you more focused on who represents your views- even if they most likely cannot win the election. The comment about voting for a 3rd party if Bush wins makes me curious. After watching I was very interested by Kasich- he seems to have strong personal views- but still do what is best for his electorate - medicaid expansion. And I liked that he held by his views (Vs Romney who would have taken the general election hands down if he held his views from Mass where he started the program obamacare was based on- but was so changed by the primary process he could no longer attract a majority of voters.) It seems like there is a RINO or PINO (president in nomination only- due to inability to win the general election) game going on. Cruz for example- I can see no way at all he can win the general election unless potentially if Sanders got the D nomination- then there would be a circus. To me a vote for him is basically a vote for Hillary. Am I missing something?

Personally I don't buy into the "he/she can't win in the general nonsense because anyone can win in the general and anything can happen.

Barack Obama could "never win in the general" because he was too liberal, remember.  He had so much baggage and negatives that the Republicans could barely contain themselves and guess what.  He won by a landslide.

So, to answer your question, i personally could give two hoots what the media tells me about somebody being electable.  
If Trump gets the nomination he would likely draw more Democratic voters than any republican in history and he has developed an unexpected amount of republican support.  With the house stacked with career politicians in both parties I think Trump could even win as a third party running a "screw the establishment" message.  



Edited by tuwood 2015-08-07 9:10 PM
2015-08-07 9:33 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Republican debate
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Moonrocket I'm curious (as an independent) do you think about who has a chance to actually win the general election? Or are you more focused on who represents your views- even if they most likely cannot win the election. The comment about voting for a 3rd party if Bush wins makes me curious. After watching I was very interested by Kasich- he seems to have strong personal views- but still do what is best for his electorate - medicaid expansion. And I liked that he held by his views (Vs Romney who would have taken the general election hands down if he held his views from Mass where he started the program obamacare was based on- but was so changed by the primary process he could no longer attract a majority of voters.) It seems like there is a RINO or PINO (president in nomination only- due to inability to win the general election) game going on. Cruz for example- I can see no way at all he can win the general election unless potentially if Sanders got the D nomination- then there would be a circus. To me a vote for him is basically a vote for Hillary. Am I missing something?

Personally I don't buy into the "he/she can't win in the general nonsense because anyone can win in the general and anything can happen.

Barack Obama could "never win in the general" because he was too liberal, remember.  He had so much baggage and negatives that the Republicans could barely contain themselves and guess what.  He won by a landslide.

So, to answer your question, i personally could give two hoots what the media tells me about somebody being electable.  
If Trump gets the nomination he would likely draw more Democratic voters than any republican in history and he has developed an unexpected amount of republican support.  With the house stacked with career politicians in both parties I think Trump could even win as a third party running a "screw the establishment" message.  



I think you overestimate the degree to which Trump will appeal to Democratic voters. i can't really think of a single traditionally Democratic/Progressive constituency that he would appeal to over Hillary (Women? No. African-Americans? No. Young voters? Not really. He's certainly lost the Hispanic vote after his comments about Mexican rapists.). I know a few republican voters who are enchanted by his no-nonsense, nontraditional approach, but I don't know any democrats who think he's anything but a buffoon.

I think Trump running as a third party candidate would be a disaster for the GOP. As Renee observed, I think the spinmeisters at Fox think so too. They did everything they could think of last night to take him out, short of having somebody whack him on the kneecaps when he left his dressing room.
2015-08-08 9:41 AM
in reply to: Moonrocket

User image

Expert
852
5001001001002525
Evergreen, Colorado
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by Moonrocket I'm curious (as an independent) do you think about who has a chance to actually win the general election? Or are you more focused on who represents your views- even if they most likely cannot win the election. The comment about voting for a 3rd party if Bush wins makes me curious. After watching I was very interested by Kasich- he seems to have strong personal views- but still do what is best for his electorate - medicaid expansion. And I liked that he held by his views (Vs Romney who would have taken the general election hands down if he held his views from Mass where he started the program obamacare was based on- but was so changed by the primary process he could no longer attract a majority of voters.) It seems like there is a RINO or PINO (president in nomination only- due to inability to win the general election) game going on. Cruz for example- I can see no way at all he can win the general election unless potentially if Sanders got the D nomination- then there would be a circus. To me a vote for him is basically a vote for Hillary. Am I missing something?

I'm an independent as well, and sort of fascinated by the Republican race right now. It seems that if the Republicans wanted to win, they would choose a candidate that could appeal to more moderate voters to win the independent vote. As it stands, I see a bunch of candidates who are hard-lining on abortion (alienating women), immigration (alienating Hispanics), and railing against the gay marriage decision (alienating younger voters). Yes, this appeals to and validates extremely conservative voters, but those people aren't going to win this election for the Republicans.

I think jmk-brooklyn said it better above than I can. 

Also, I'm not really buying the comparison of Trump to Obama. When Obama first ran, I knew plenty of conservatives who thought he could "never win", but most independents I know took him quite seriously as a candidate. Trump is a joke to democrats and independents right now.

2015-08-08 6:17 PM
in reply to: Moonrocket

User image

Buttercup
14334
500050002000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Republican debate
Originally posted by Moonrocket

I'm curious (as an independent) do you think about who has a chance to actually win the general election? Or are you more focused on who represents your views- even if they most likely cannot win the election.

The comment about voting for a 3rd party if Bush wins makes me curious.

After watching I was very interested by Kasich- he seems to have strong personal views- but still do what is best for his electorate - medicaid expansion. And I liked that he held by his views (Vs Romney who would have taken the general election hands down if he held his views from Mass where he started the program obamacare was based on- but was so changed by the primary process he could no longer attract a majority of voters.)

It seems like there is a RINO or PINO (president in nomination only- due to inability to win the general election) game going on.

Cruz for example- I can see no way at all he can win the general election unless potentially if Sanders got the D nomination- then there would be a circus. To me a vote for him is basically a vote for Hillary. Am I missing something?



Well, I like to think I have an open mind about who I'd like to see prevail. It's open because I don't know enough about many of the 17 candidates. I always prefer a moderate, non-war-mongering, respectful of the Bill of Rights kind of candidate, which is why I rarely am happy when I cast a vote. I'm in the mode of evaluating the candidates, assessing their temperaments and points of view. I don't expect any of them to represent my views. I don't know that my views are the best for the country, as I am grossly under-informed and under-educated about economics and government policies. I listen for war-mongering, fear mongering, saber rattling, scapegoating, hyper-nationalism, hostile to Bill of Rights - I think those candidates are any combination of lazy minded, perhaps stupid, easily managed by larger forces, and too eager to manipulate the public on the cheap.

I was receptive to Kasich's comments, someone I knew next to nothing about beforehand. I liked that he didn't fly like a flag in shifting winds; he defended his past policies and actions in a reasonable manner.

I do think there are candidates who are obviously never going to win, as their constituency seem to be mostly fringe and contextually miniscule. Cruz, Huckabee, Graham, Trump immediately come to mind. The establishment GOP doesn't like Rand Paul, so he'll never be the GOP nominee. I think a moderate who is generally accepted by the GOP establishment/Powers That Be will be the nominee. That list includes Bush, Kasich, Pataki (I think). Fiorina's star is ascending, so I think she and Rubio will be in contention for VP (catering to either females or Hispanics).

A note about Trump. It seems the GOP field of candidates and their overlords are trying to figure out how to toss Trump out of the lifeboat without him puncturing it and taking the rest of the candidates with him. Oh, the conversations that must be taking place this weekend!

My 2 cents, which is probably over valued.



2015-08-08 7:18 PM
in reply to: #5133565

User image

Extreme Veteran
1648
100050010025
Subject: RE: Republican debate
It just feels like Republicans are leaving it all on the swim and blowing up on the bike/ run where it really matters.
2015-08-11 4:04 PM
in reply to: Moonrocket

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Somebody just posted this on facebook.  lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

This could be a preview of the next debate.  

2015-08-12 12:19 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Republican debate
what I do not get about the whole debate is why do we need to spend more military spending?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendit...

according to that wiki if we brought it down to Chinese levels and assuming this is accurate at 100 billion in student loan debt. from USA today we could have debt free college students and 300 billion left over.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/2011-10-19...
2015-08-12 8:08 PM
in reply to: Moonrocket

User image

Expert
1240
100010010025
Columbia, MO
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by Moonrocket The comment about voting for a 3rd party if Bush wins makes me curious.  

 

I've voted for a Bush in 88, 92, 00, and 04.  The family in general has revealed themselves to be Progressives rather than conservatives.  I also do not trust Jeb to be tough on immigration and I think that is a real security concern.  

There is no chance that any of the Democrats can convince me to vote for them, and quite honestly I hope by election time Ms. Clinton is in jail. 

So with that said I would have little choice but to 1.  not vote(which I refuse) or  2. vote for a 3rd party candidate(either Trump or the Libertarian candidate)

2015-08-19 10:33 AM
in reply to: bsjracing

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Republican debate

I was just reading this article from The Hollywood Reporter and this is the one thing (quoted below) that really makes Trump stand out to me in a good way.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

If I weren't a successful person, it wouldn't work as well. Voters have great confidence in me because I really have been successful. I have an income of over $400 million a year. I don't need anybody's money. I was offered $5 million last week by a lobbyist to put in the campaign. I said, "No, I don't need it." He said, "What do you mean, 'I don't need it?' " I said I don't need it. This is a guy that I know well, a good lobbyist, a tough cookie. He's not giving to me because he thinks I have the most beautiful hair he's ever seen. He's giving to me because when he has one of his companies in trouble or needs something, they want to call me and say, "Hey, Don, how you doing? Remember me?" I don't need that stuff. Whereas Jeb Bush, with $114 million that he raised [so far this year], and Hillary with the $60 million [CBS News reports she raised $47 million in the campaign's first quarter] and everyone else with the money they raised, they're going to be called upon, and they're going to have to do those things like little puppets. So people do respect that about me. I don't need it.

 



2015-08-19 10:53 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by tuwood

I was just reading this article from The Hollywood Reporter and this is the one thing (quoted below) that really makes Trump stand out to me in a good way.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

If I weren't a successful person, it wouldn't work as well. Voters have great confidence in me because I really have been successful. I have an income of over $400 million a year. I don't need anybody's money. I was offered $5 million last week by a lobbyist to put in the campaign. I said, "No, I don't need it." He said, "What do you mean, 'I don't need it?' " I said I don't need it. This is a guy that I know well, a good lobbyist, a tough cookie. He's not giving to me because he thinks I have the most beautiful hair he's ever seen. He's giving to me because when he has one of his companies in trouble or needs something, they want to call me and say, "Hey, Don, how you doing? Remember me?" I don't need that stuff. Whereas Jeb Bush, with $114 million that he raised [so far this year], and Hillary with the $60 million [CBS News reports she raised $47 million in the campaign's first quarter] and everyone else with the money they raised, they're going to be called upon, and they're going to have to do those things like little puppets. So people do respect that about me. I don't need it.

 

I agree 100%.  I think it's possible the guy's train has jumped the tracks......but one thing seems to be for sure, he's not beholding to anybody, not even the big wigs of the GOP.  I like that.  Washington needs it.  Lots of rats will be scurrying if he gets in office.  That's not a bad thing.

2015-08-19 11:00 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Republican debate
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

I was just reading this article from The Hollywood Reporter and this is the one thing (quoted below) that really makes Trump stand out to me in a good way.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

If I weren't a successful person, it wouldn't work as well. Voters have great confidence in me because I really have been successful. I have an income of over $400 million a year. I don't need anybody's money. I was offered $5 million last week by a lobbyist to put in the campaign. I said, "No, I don't need it." He said, "What do you mean, 'I don't need it?' " I said I don't need it. This is a guy that I know well, a good lobbyist, a tough cookie. He's not giving to me because he thinks I have the most beautiful hair he's ever seen. He's giving to me because when he has one of his companies in trouble or needs something, they want to call me and say, "Hey, Don, how you doing? Remember me?" I don't need that stuff. Whereas Jeb Bush, with $114 million that he raised [so far this year], and Hillary with the $60 million [CBS News reports she raised $47 million in the campaign's first quarter] and everyone else with the money they raised, they're going to be called upon, and they're going to have to do those things like little puppets. So people do respect that about me. I don't need it.

 

I agree 100%.  I think it's possible the guy's train has jumped the tracks......but one thing seems to be for sure, he's not beholding to anybody, not even the big wigs of the GOP.  I like that.  Washington needs it.  Lots of rats will be scurrying if he gets in office.  That's not a bad thing.




It was one of the things I liked about Bloomberg, when he was mayor of NYC-- he was a billionaire with a huge company bearing his name and so he wasn't beholden to anyone and didn't have to worry about what would happen to him if he lost the next election. He didn't even accept a salary for being Mayor or live in the Mayor's residence.

The challenge for Trump, ( other than, you know, that he's crazy and all), will be that all of those "special interest" will, to use LB's term, scurrying, if he wins. So there's going to be a LOT of effort and resources brought to bear by a lot of powerful people and lobbyists to make sure that they get the person elected that THEY want. It might take every penny of that billion dollars he's pledged to spend on his campaign to fight them off.
2015-08-19 11:26 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Republican debate
Honestly I think trump this year has a chance because people are fed up with money in politics. They are fed up with the political robots. He seems like a very credible guy for better or worse.
2015-08-19 9:57 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Republican debate

Originally posted by chirunner134 Honestly I think trump this year has a chance because people are fed up with money in politics. They are fed up with the political robots. He seems like a very credible guy for better or worse.

At first I was very skeptical, but he has definitely hit a nerve.  His republican support is off the charts in every demographic.  Even the women love him.

However, here's the weird part.  He's the most liberal guy I think I've ever seen run on the republican ticket.  I know everyone likes to bash him as a show boat, but isn't that exactly what every liberal/progressive has been saying for years?  Nominate a more liberal/centrist candidate and the Republicans have a shot.

With Hillary imploding and the other Democratic candidates essentially non-existent there's a real shot that Trump could go all the way.  Ironically as a fiscal conservative libertarian myself I'm really digging what he's got going on.  I haven't ordered a T-shirt yet, but I might have to send one to JMK.  

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Republican debate Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8
 
 
RELATED POSTS

The whole homosexuality debate Pages: 1 ... 2 3 4 5

Started by dmiller5
Views: 9867 Posts: 123

2016-04-18 11:06 AM tuwood

Republicans are LOSING! Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6

Started by jeffnboise
Views: 11051 Posts: 139

2013-11-25 10:28 AM jeffnboise