Republican field for President

[Parkbandit]

Who do you believe will be the eventual nominee? Is it who you want it to be?

There are probably more than 10 right now that people believe will run. I'm including some of them in a group, when the polling is so low.

[Fallen]

Skip Andrews - DECLARED
Michael Bickelmeyer - DECLARED
Kerry Bowers - DECLARED
Jeb Bush - EXPLORING
Dr. Ben Carson - DECLARED
Dale Christensen - DECLARED
Chris Christie - EXPLORING
Ted Cruz - DECLARED
John Dummett, Jr. - DECLARED
Bob Ehrlich
Mark Everson - DECLARED
Carly Fiorina - DECLARED
Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham - EXPLORING
Chris Hill - DECLARED
Mike Huckabee - DECLARED
Bobby Jindal - EXPLORING
John Kasich
Peter King
Michael Kinlaw - DECLARED
Dennis Michael Lynch - EXPLORING
George Pataki - DECLARED
Rand Paul - DECLARED

http://2016.republican-candidates.org/

For anyone curious, that's a fairly exhaustive list.

I honestly don't know enough about most of these guys to pick one i'd like.

[Warriorbird]

Jim Gilmore was a disaster. I doubt he'll run.

[Taernath]

Rubio seems like the favorite.

[Parkbandit]

Rubio seems like the favorite.

I think Bush has to be the hands on favorite. He has the organization, money and Republican ruling class for him.

I hope Bush decides not to run. He was a good governor and would make a better President than most.. but it's time for some new blood leading the country.

No Bush.

No Clinton.

[Ker_Thwap]

I try to go by who would do the least harm.

Bush has the best resume, he's very well documented on where he stands on pretty much everything. This of course hurts him, he can't skate in on the Obama rhetoric method. Some of his weirdest ideas are quite a few years behind now. He kind of sucked at corporate life, and Florida is a freaking mess still, but that can't all be blamed on him. I categorize him as mostly harmless.

Rubio is slightly more of a mystery, but for some reason I equate him as trying to suck up to the evangelists. I think he's a proponent of a line item veto as well. Which is a scary idea.

As much as I hate the idea of family dynasty in the presidency. I think Bush has the best chance to get the nomination.

[Androidpk]

I'll put $20 on Rubio not getting the nomination.

[Warriorbird]

Bush. No.

[ClydeR]

Why did you leave Huckabee out? He currently polls higher than all but three of the candidates you listed.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/rcp_average_zpsiwmalsmf.jpg
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html)

[Wrathbringer]

Every option sucks. Samuel L. Jackson's Pulp Fiction char for president. "Hey, Vlad. How ya doin' today? You doin' alright. Good, good. That's reeeaaal good, Vlad. You ever heard of Ezekiel 25:17, Vlad?"

[Wrathbringer]

Bush. No.

...AAAAAAAAAAnd that seals it folks! I'm voting for Bush!

[Wrathbringer]

Also, I guess Rubio is tacos in this poll?

[Androidpk]

Nah, tacos have far more appeal than Rubio.

[Tgo01]

Whichever one promises me the most free stuff.

[Astray]

I vote for the one who will be the first (insert race/gender) President. It's the hip thing to do.

[Jeril]

I vote for the one who will be the first (insert race/gender) President. It's the hip thing to do.

Don't forget sexual orientation.It may not happen right away but we'll have a push at some point for a gay and lesbian President, and possibly more. After all, we have to show the world how progressive we can be.

[Astray]

Don't forget sexual orientation.It may not happen right away but we'll have a push at some point for a gay and lesbian President, and possibly more. After all, we have to show the world how progressive we can be.

Only you would think of sexual orientation in the serious business that is American Politics.

[JackWhisper]

Don't forget sexual orientation.It may not happen right away but we'll have a push at some point for a gay and lesbian President, and possibly more. After all, we have to show the world how progressive we can be.

Gotta know how to snap yo fingers if we get a gay president. Jara says so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoA-ByjIf2M

[JackWhisper]

Also, this class will be required.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX9reaHLwhk

[Kembal]

I thought it would be Walker, but it looks like he's got a corruption problem per the articles I read today.

My best guesses:

1. Jeb Bush
2. Marco Rubio
3. Rand Paul
4. Ted Cruz

No one else on that list has a chance.

[Atlanteax]

We should do this poll again when it is down to 3-5 candidates.

[Gelston]

Ronald Reagan.

[Parkbandit]

Ronald Reagan.

In his current state, he would be a huge improvement to what we currently have.

[Latrinsorm]

Don't forget sexual orientation.It may not happen right away but we'll have a push at some point for a gay and lesbian President, and possibly more. After all, we have to show the world how progressive we can be.A gay and lesbian President?

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what to some voters and a number of campaign finance lawyers seems obvious: He is running for president.


The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.


Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to the spending and disclosure restrictions. Some limited activities are allowed for candidates who are merely “testing the waters” for a run.

“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.

For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.”


The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.


But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.


David M. Mason, a former F.E.C. commissioner, said a 1981 case involving the possible presidential campaign of the former Florida governor Reubin Askew gives politicians wide latitude to take steps to “explore” a run.


“You can’t enforce the law based on what everybody ‘knows’ because that requires you to be a mind reader,” Mr. Mason said. “The broad impression — ‘oh yeah, he’s campaigning, he’s been in Iowa, he made a speech, then went to New Hampshire’ — is not enough to make him a candidate.”


Mr. Bush, who announced in December that he would “actively explore” a White House bid, has said repeatedly that he has not made a decision. But he has faced rising skepticism in recent weeks.


In an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” the host, Bob Schieffer, asked Mr. Bush bluntly whether he was violating the law by not declaring himself a candidate for the White House.


“No, of course not,” Mr. Bush responded, appearing jarred by the question. “I would never do that.”


Mr. Bush said he was “nearing the end of this journey of traveling and listening to people, garnering, trying to get a sense of whether my candidacy would be viable or not.”


He added, “We’re going to completely adhere to the law, for sure.”


Mr. Schieffer sounded incredulous. “Now you’re not telling me there’s a possibility you may not run?” he asked.


Mr. Bush did not waver. “Look, I hope I — I hope I run, to be honest with you,” he said. “I would like to run. But I haven’t made the decision.”


Last month, he slipped up for a moment, telling reporters in Nevada, “I am running for president in 2016.” He quickly corrected himself, adding “if I run.”


In his appearance at $25,000-a-head fund-raisers in Washington, New York and elsewhere, Mr. Bush and his advisers are using what are technically considered outside groups — two political action committees, both called Right to Rise — to take in the money, rather than creating an official campaign organization to do it.


Last week, two campaign watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, called on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Bush had broken election law by evading restrictions on candidates.

The groups called his noncandidacy “a charade” and called on prosecutors to intervene because they said the F.E.C. — perpetually gridlocked — was unlikely to do anything.


The groups filed an earlier complaint with the F.E.C. in March charging that Mr. Bush and three other politicians — Martin O’Malley, a Democrat; and Scott Walker and Rick Santorum, both Republicans — were evading campaign finance restrictions by not declaring themselves candidates. (Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Santorum have each declared their candidacy in the past week.)


“You can say you haven’t decided,” said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center. “But if you go off and look like a candidate and act like a candidate and amass funds, it doesn’t matter. You are a candidate in the eyes of the law.”


As he travels through Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and other key states, Mr. Bush has certainly seemed like a candidate. He arrives in a black sport utility vehicle, talks about his vision for the country, shakes hands, answers questions and poses for photographs with voters until aides drag him to his next event.

“I really like campaigning,” Mr. Bush told businessmen in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, before quickly adding, “I’m not a candidate.”


By all accounts, Mr. Bush is enjoying what he calls the “journey” of a possible candidate, but he has made sure in most appearances to throw in the legal caveats.


“Let me be clear,” he said Tuesday at an event in Orlando, Fla. “If I run, if I’m a candidate — and that decision is going to be coming real soon — my intention is to run on my record and my ideas and try to win the presidency. “


Amid the verbal jujitsu, reporters have begun to press Mr. Bush.


In Lansing, Mich., a reporter asked him, “How important is transparency in a presidential candidate?”


Smiling, Mr. Bush asked if it was a trick question. “Where are you going with it?” he asked.


The reporter then ticked off an account of Mr. Bush’s recent visits and fund-raisers before asking, “Are you running for president?”


Chuckling, Mr. Bush said, “Not yet.” He quickly took another question — this one on Senator Rand Paul, a declared Republican candidate.


The wait is making some voters anxious.

As Mr. Bush was leaving a Lincoln Day dinner in Bath Township, Mich., a woman wearing a photograph of the former governor around her neck chased him outside.


“Run, Jeb, run!” she chanted. “Run, Jeb run! We need you!”


Mr. Bush smiled and waved as he was driven away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/jeb-bush-taking-his-time-tests-the-legal-definition-of-candidate.html


Makes me dislike and not trust him.

Don't run.

[Tgo01]

I'm liking Ben Carson. He seems like a real person and not just someone spewing one liners trying to appeal to as many people as possible. He just tells it how it is.

Think he has any shot in hell at getting the nomination?

[Latrinsorm]

I'm liking Ben Carson. ... Think he has any shot in hell at getting the nomination?It will be an interesting test case of Tgo1%er as Iowa theory.

-white
-rich
-racist

Republican base, am I wrong?

[Tgo01]

It will be an interesting test case of Tgo1%er as Iowa theory.

-white
-rich
-racist

Republican base, am I wrong?

Exactly. There have been exactly 0 black Republican presidents :(

We elected a black Democrat president for no other reason than to say we did, why can't we do the same for a real candidate?!

[Back]

A gay and lesbian President?

We've already had gay presidents.

[Candor]

how about "I don't know yet" for an answer...

[Gelston]

how about "I don't know yet" for an answer...

So vote when you do think you know.

[Candor]

So vote when you do think you know.

I have serious doubts I will have picked anyone by September 25th.

[Warriorbird]

Exactly. There have been exactly 0 black Republican presidents :(

We elected a black Democrat president for no other reason than to say we did, why can't we do the same for a real candidate?!

Ben Carson = Tgo01.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/ben-carson-liberal-views-2016

[Atlanteax]

Rand Paul is out of the race...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whats-wrong-with-rand-pauls-campaign/


Something is awry at the Rand Paul campaign. The main super PAC supporting his presidential bid raised just $3.1 million in the first half of 2015, about $100 million less than Right to Rise, a super PAC backing Jeb Bush.
...
Still, Rand Paul is at his lowest point in the national polls in over two years.

[Fallen]

I'd like to see him get a VP slot on a ticket, as i'm not too fond of the rest of the field.

[Ker_Thwap]

I'd like to see him get a VP slot on a ticket, as i'm not too fond of the rest of the field.

His ratings plummeted after that picture taken with Apk. No one survives that sort of shit.

[Taernath]

Rand Paul is out of the race...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whats-wrong-with-rand-pauls-campaign/

He's a weird mix of Tea Partyer, traditional conservative, and libertarian, but satisfying none of them.

[Warriorbird]

He's also steadily been sandbagged by the conservative media.

[Kembal]

I thought it would be Walker, but it looks like he's got a corruption problem per the articles I read today.

My best guesses:

1. Jeb Bush
2. Marco Rubio
3. Rand Paul
4. Ted Cruz

No one else on that list has a chance.

Since Walker was able to get the investigation against him dismissed, I think he's back in the running. My new list:

1. Jeb Bush
2. Scott Walker
3. Marco Rubio
4. Ted Cruz

Trump gets honorable mention somewhere. Still doesn't have a chance, but he's going to be in it for a while.

[Taernath]

He's also steadily been sandbagged by the conservative media.

They're too busy obsessing over Trump.

[Archigeek]

I really wish the Republican party (Democratic too for that matter) would change the way they do the primaries. This business of putting so much focus Iowa, and then on to the powerhouse of New Hampshire really skews the results away from something that might be more representative of the country in general.

[Parkbandit]

I really wish the Republican party (Democratic too for that matter) would change the way they do the primaries. This business of putting so much focus Iowa, and then on to the powerhouse of New Hampshire really skews the results away from something that might be more representative of the country in general.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Candor]

They're too busy obsessing over Trump.

I'm obsessing over those who think Trump is an intelligent choice for President. I think these people need psychological help.

[Candor]

I really wish the Republican party (Democratic too for that matter) would change the way they do the primaries. This business of putting so much focus Iowa, and then on to the powerhouse of New Hampshire really skews the results away from something that might be more representative of the country in general.

You're right, but that requires change. Change is a four letter word to a lot of people.

[Latrinsorm]

I really wish the Republican party (Democratic too for that matter) would change the way they do the primaries. This business of putting so much focus Iowa, and then on to the powerhouse of New Hampshire really skews the results away from something that might be more representative of the country in general.It's not up to the party. Iowa and New Hampshire get delegates scaled to their electoral votes just like any other state. It's only up to society. Tell your candidate not to drop out if he loses Iowa or New Hampshire. If enough people do, he or she will keep running.

[Archigeek]

It's not up to the party. Iowa and New Hampshire get delegates scaled to their electoral votes just like any other state. It's only up to society. Tell your candidate not to drop out if he loses Iowa or New Hampshire. If enough people do, he or she will keep running.

Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are at the top or the bottom of the electoral vote heap. You must find correlation to go along with your presumed causation young statistician-son. The purpose of a primary is to determine who the candidate will be in the general election; I have no candidate.

[Latrinsorm]

Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are at the top or the bottom of the electoral vote heap.That's my point. The party controls how many delegates a primary gets. They don't and can't control how much worth you as a voter place in a particular primary. Iowa and New Hampshire are important only because people think they are. Stop thinking they are (and get enough people to follow suit), and they will be worth no more and no less than their delegate totals.

[Archigeek]

That's my point. The party controls how many delegates a primary gets. They don't and can't control how much worth you as a voter place in a particular primary. Iowa and New Hampshire are important only because people think they are. Stop thinking they are (and get enough people to follow suit), and they will be worth no more and no less than their delegate totals.

The reason Iowa and New Hampshire are considered more important is an issue of order and little else. There have been efforts to evolve away from that (mostly by other states) but to suggest that the way to change it is to think till it goes away makes very little sense.

[ClydeR]

Rand Paul is out of the race...

It looks that way. He's still going to work and earning his salary, unlike Certain People.


Since announcing his run in mid-April, Rubio has missed 42 votes, more than a third of roll calls on the Senate floor. Trailing not far behind him on the absentee scale are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

At the other end of the spectrum is Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has missed just two votes.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/marco-rubio-2016-job-senator-absentee-120643.html)

[Latrinsorm]

The reason Iowa and New Hampshire are considered more important is an issue of order and little else. There have been efforts to evolve away from that (mostly by other states) but to suggest that the way to change it is to think till it goes away makes very little sense.You have repeated my point: it's only up to society. Tell your candidate not to drop out if he loses Iowa or New Hampshire. If enough people do, he or she will keep running. Complaining on a message board and basking in the approval of people who feel the same way isn't going to change anything.

[Kembal]

The reason Iowa and New Hampshire are considered more important is an issue of order and little else. There have been efforts to evolve away from that (mostly by other states) but to suggest that the way to change it is to think till it goes away makes very little sense.

In some sense, Iowa is a damned good proving ground for a campaign. If you can't do well in those caucuses, you don't have the organizing skills or staff to win a general election. NH is a counter balance for when a crazy person wins Iowa, since it's an open primary state.

If the bigger states had an earlier role, it'd totally be dependent on TV advertising to determine the winner. I suspect you'd get worse nominees that way.

[Archigeek]

In some sense, Iowa is a damned good proving ground for a campaign. If you can't do well in those caucuses, you don't have the organizing skills or staff to win a general election. NH is a counter balance for when a crazy person wins Iowa, since it's an open primary state.

If the bigger states had an earlier role, it'd totally be dependent on TV advertising to determine the winner. I suspect you'd get worse nominees that way.

I largely agree with what you're saying, except for the proving ground part. At the heart of it, you're right that you probably right about the proving ground comment, but I don't think Iowa is representative of the rest of the country. That's the problem from my perspective, not that it isn't a good proving ground. Also, I don't really know what the right solution is. America, you'll have to figure this one out without my help.

[Kembal]

I largely agree with what you're saying, except for the proving ground part. At the heart of it, you're right that you probably right about the proving ground comment, but I don't think Iowa is representative of the rest of the country. That's the problem from my perspective, not that it isn't a good proving ground. Also, I don't really know what the right solution is. America, you'll have to figure this one out without my help.

The problem with any small state is that they're unlikely to be representative of the entire US. The one good thing about Iowa is that both parties are relatively strong there (that's partially a function of both state parties getting a ton of money because it is the first primary state), so one side of the primary isn't anemic.

[Atlanteax]

Better that Iowa is 'representative' of the entire US vs metro Chicago.

In the meantime, Iowa/NH is indeed of 'proving grounds' nature, as it is meant to evaluate whether candidates are personable (unfortunately overly important in modern mass media vs *values/platforms*) and to filter out disorganized/weak candidates so that when the 'serious' candidates are engaged in the major states (NY/California/Texas/Florida/etc), it is essentially a warm-up for when it comes time for the national elections which will involve significantly more (expensive in $$$ and time) canvassing/marketing/etc.

[Thondalar]

Better that Iowa is 'representative' of the entire US vs metro Chicago.

Actually, Iowa is a pretty strong representative of the entire US. If you look at a population density map of Iowa, you have about 7 or 8 areas of "very heavy", almost 2 dozen "moderately heavy", and the rest pretty low. This translates fairly well to the rest of the US.

While I get that it's not all about population density, if you look at the history of Iowa's four congressional districts, you'll find a fairly even split between Republican and Democrat representation over the last 30 years or so. The Republicans DO have the overall edge in three of the four historically, but the DPVI shows two of the four leaning Democrat, with only one leaning Republican, and one "even".

While it doesn't have a ton of electoral votes, it is a fairly solid weathervane for national intent, which is why it is central in the talk during most election cycles.


In the meantime, Iowa/NH is indeed of 'proving grounds' nature, as it is meant to evaluate whether candidates are personable (unfortunately overly important in modern mass media vs *values/platforms*)...

Too true. We haven't given a shit about values and platforms since Reagan. (this is in no way meant to be an endorsement of Reagan, I think he did a LOT of shady shit I wouldn't have approved of if I were of voting age back then) Actually, I think that kind of died with Reagan...or I guess, technically, with Carter.


...and to filter out disorganized/weak candidates so that when the 'serious' candidates are engaged in the major states (NY/California/Texas/Florida/etc), it is essentially a warm-up for when it comes time for the national elections which will involve significantly more (expensive in $$$ and time) canvassing/marketing/etc.

That is generally what the primaries on both sides are for, yes.

[Atlanteax]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/silver-datalab-gopcandidate-venn-7-29.png?w=610&h=613

[Fallen]

Here are the rankings for the top 10 candidates according to the Washington Post.

10. Ben Carson:

9. Chris Christie

8. Rand Paul

7. Mike Huckabee:

6. Ted Cruz:

5. John Kasich:

4. Donald Trump:

3. Scott Walker:

2. Marco Rubio:

1. Jeb Bush:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/31/how-we-rank-the-10-men-most-likely-to-win-the-republican-nomination-now-with-much-more-trump/

[Androidpk]

When did WP turn into the Onion.

[Kembal]

Since Walker was able to get the investigation against him dismissed, I think he's back in the running. My new list:

1. Jeb Bush
2. Scott Walker
3. Marco Rubio
4. Ted Cruz

Trump gets honorable mention somewhere. Still doesn't have a chance, but he's going to be in it for a while.

Still not ready to pick one of them yet, but my current top 4:

1. Jeb Bush
2. Marco Rubio
3. Donald Trump
4. Scott Walker

Yes, I now do think it's possible for Trump to win the nomination. I didn't realize how Republican primary rules worked, but they're not winner-take-all until after March 15, which means many candidates may not drop out until then. If he takes plurality wins through the early states (possible with his polling numbers and the wide field of candidates), he could gain enough momentum that it's impossible to stop him.

If the RNC had any brains, they'd be trying to push the lower-tier candidates out right now. Except for Rick Perry, I don't see that happening.

[Parkbandit]

How are these 4 people even still in the race?

When you get sat at the kiddie table.. it might be a good sign to gtfo.

[Androidpk]

How are these 4 people even still in the race?

When you get sat at the kiddie table.. it might be a good sign to gtfo.

Most likely it's just to feed their own egos.

[Kembal]

Ok, 8 days left before I have to make a pick, but my new top 4 (big changes after last night's debate):

1. John Kasich
2. Donald Trump
3. Marco Rubio
4. Carly Fiorina/Ben Carson (tie)

I'm leaning toward Kasich being the nominee. Dems are screwed if that happens.

[Androidpk]

How so? I wasn't impressed at all by Kasich.

[Parkbandit]

How so? I wasn't impressed at all by Kasich.

^^

[Thondalar]

How so? I wasn't impressed at all by Kasich.

Kasich lost points in the last debate, imo, and he didn't have many to begin with.

Fiorina and Christie impressed me the most, tbh.

Not that I'll be able to vote in the primary anyway, but still. Just my take.

[Kembal]

How so? I wasn't impressed at all by Kasich.

Bush got basically neutered in this debate. The Republican party establishment is scared of Trump and needs a new candidate. Christie's in legal trouble. Rubio's still considered too young. They're going to go for Kasich.

I know none of you will like that answer, but I don't see either party's establishment losing control of the nomination process yet.

[Androidpk]

Kasich lost points in the last debate, imo, and he didn't have many to begin with.

Fiorina and Christie impressed me the most, tbh.

Not that I'll be able to vote in the primary anyway, but still. Just my take.


Christie.. marijuana smokers are unproductive! It's a gateway drug!!1

[ClydeR]

Ok, 8 days left before I have to make a pick, but my new top 4 (big changes after last night's debate):

1. John Kasich
2. Donald Trump
3. Marco Rubio
4. Carly Fiorina/Ben Carson (tie)

I'm leaning toward Kasich being the nominee. Dems are screwed if that happens.



What happens in 8 days? I hope you realize the election is in 2016, not 2015.

[Fallen]

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm

He's a bit of a Jesus freak, but I guess all politicians D or R still have to toe that line. I just hate voting for anyone who believes Intelligent Design has a place in the classroom.

[~Rocktar~]

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm

He's a bit of a Jesus freak, but I guess all politicians D or R still have to toe that line. I just hate voting for anyone who believes Intelligent Design has a place in the classroom.

Awww, it has a great place in a classroom, the theater classroom for comedy.

[Androidpk]

Scott Walker polling at 0% in new national poll.

http://www.wkow.com/story/30072499/2015/09/20/walker-at-0-in-new-national-poll

[Parkbandit]

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” - Dr. Ben Carson

:bye:

[Androidpk]

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” - Dr. Ben Carson

:bye:

What year is this again?

[Parkbandit]

What year is this again?

Same year when he said that being gay was a choice or something along those equally dumb lines.

He was far too soft spoken for me... and the way he carried his hands up creeped me out.

[Androidpk]

Another one bites the dust. Scott Walker is pulling out.

[Taernath]

Another one bites the dust. Scott Walker is pulling out.

He will forever remain in our hearts.

[Wrathbringer]

He will forever remain in our sharts.

fixed

[Atlanteax]

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” - Dr. Ben Carson

:bye:

Actually...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/ben-carson-fundraising-muslim-comments-fox-and-friends/index.html


Ben Carson said Wednesday he's pulling in lots of money amid all the backlash he's received for remarks he made regarding Muslims in politics.

The retired neurosurgeon said he raised $1 million within 24 hours following the CNN debate on Sept. 16, and that donations have poured in after remarks he made over the weekend about Islam and the presidency.

"The money has been coming in so fast, it's hard to even keep up with it," he said Wednesday morning on Fox News, when asked about whether his comments had affected his donations. "I remember the day of the last debate, within 24 hours we raised $1 million. And it's coming in at least at that rate if not quite a bit faster."

I am unsurprised...

[Androidpk]

Hopefully someday the Republicans will field a worthy presidential candidate. It's certainly not this year.

[Atlanteax]

But the United States was founded by WASPs for WASPs.

[Androidpk]

Pretty hilarious to see all the right wing religious conservatives getting all butthurt because the pope is going to address income inequality and climate change.

[Taernath]

Pretty hilarious to see all the right wing religious conservatives getting all butthurt because the pope is going to address income inequality and climate change.

The really hardcore ones generally aren't Catholic.

http://i.cubeupload.com/FLL8dn.jpg

[Androidpk]

They're lizards?

[Taernath]

I don't get it.

[Androidpk]

I don't get it.

Lizard people!

[Candor]

Pretty hilarious to see all the right wing religious conservatives getting all butthurt because the pope is going to address income inequality and climate change.

I have a big problem with the claims that the the Pope is essentially God's spokesman on Earth. We're talking about someone who can introduce new material from God anytime he wants and claim Divine authority.

"the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."

Yeah, right. I know the Pope isn't exactly the only person making this sort of claim, but he does seem to be the one that gets the most attention. You will excuse me for being only mildly interested in what the Pope has to say about pretty much anything.

[Androidpk]

I have a big problem with the claims that the the Pope is essentially God's spokesman on Earth. We're talking about someone who can introduce new material from God anytime he wants and claim Divine authority.

"the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."

Yeah, right. I know the Pope isn't exactly the only person making this sort of claim, but he does seem to be the one that gets the most attention. You will excuse me for being only mildly interested in what the Pope has to say about pretty much anything.

In not religious so generally I wouldn't care but this particular pope has a lot of good things to say about modern mankind and it isn't just talk as he seems to live by what he preaches. Refreshing to say the least.

[Silvean]

Power in the care of souls is not the same as being able to "introduce new material from God anytime he wants." The pope participates in the magisterium or teaching authority of the church and that's a more complex and nuanced institution than you suggest. Papal authority has meant different things at different times in history, of course, and the extent of papal power is a hot theological topic. Still, I don't look at the Catholic Church as a font of wild innovation; at its best, it responds to the signs of the times. I recommend reading Gaudium et Spes on that topic:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

This, of course, has no bearing one way or the other on whether or not you care about what he says. It's worth noting that the vast majority of Catholics ignore the magisterial teaching on birth control while messages concerning environmentalism and human dignity seem to resonate well beyond the church.

[Kembal]

Bump.

I guess the five of us technically win this poll?

Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump 5 17.86%
Ardwen, Candor, elcidcannon, Kembal, Methais

[Gelston]

Bump.

I guess the five of us technically win this poll?

Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump 5 17.86%
Ardwen, Candor, elcidcannon, Kembal, Methais

Yes, but you are also all 3/4th of a loser, which rounds to 100% loser with the rest of us.

Insane that back then no one saw Trump has a true candidate.