Sanders within the margin of error on Hitlery (he was 40 points down in May). Hitlery at 37%; first time she's polled under 50% in Iowa, EVER (including 2008).

Trump leading the Rs with 23%, and a +26 popularity approval rate. Ben Carson second with 18% and a ... +71 popularity approval rate (HOLY CRAP!). Cruz and Walker tied for third with 8%; Bush and Rubio tied in 4th at 6th. No other R worth mentioning (2% or less).

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...ll-n418471?cid=par-time-article_20150831

Unless something unforeseen crops up Trump is going to win it.

The election is more than 450 days out.

Yep, 450 days and a lot can happen. And this thread by Fost, really gives me pause that anything, EVER will change:
GOP SELLOUT

And I still don't trust Trump...

I don't trust politicians.

With Trumps refusal to stay in the republican party if he does not win the nomination, I have to wonder what his security looks like.

This is a dangerous situation for him to run as a third party. Last time this happened with Ross Perot the GOP split the vote and lost in a situation that was an easy win. Here they are again.

I am not sure this is going to happen again with the state of the country and the serious left shift we have had over the last 7 years. There are plenty of extreme people that have panic and stress over this.

He should keep his head down as this gets closer if he plays this out with the third party threat.

When has it not?

The bottom line.. And IMHO that's why Trump's numbers stay high.. The rest (other than Dr.Carson) are politicians - and the voters have elected GOP members TWICE now to stop the AIC and the damn dems and they've done NOTHING..

People are right pizzed - and, with Trump, they can tell the GOP as a party to go pizz up a rope and KMA at the same time..

Not only Trumps numbers, but Carson as well. He's no politician at all and right now he's polling second in Iowa with an unheard of popularity approval percentage.

Agreed on the GOP establishment now being very clearly seen as the other head of the snake.

Quite possible a Trump, Carson ticket.

Trump can't be trusted, Carson is a ? who knows. Where would we be with the 2nd amendment with either of them???

Ted Cruz has seen first hand, and EXPOSED all of the corruption in DC ever since he was elected to the senate TWO years ago. McConnel and Boehner hate him for exposing their game. Boehner called him a jackass the other day! Ted Cruz is the best man for the job.

Who do you trust more, Trump of Clinton?

You and me both. He's been a lifelong democrat and a HUGE supporter of Bill & Hill.

And his ego is a bit out of control. I don't like a guy like that with the launch codes when a pizzin contest breaks out with Putin.

I'm DELIGHTED to see Ben Carson surging.

If that was my choice in the general, I'd vote Trump in a heartbeat. But in the primary there is a better choice. Ted Cruz has always stood tall for what we believe in, often alone. We know exactly where he stands on the important stuff, you know, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, SMALL GOVERNMENT, LESS TAX, 2nd AMENDMENT, etc etc etc. He has never been a DEM*RAT in the past, and has never waivered from true conservative principals.

Does it really matter anymore?
Just look at the puzzies we have as leader in the House and Senate. Boner and McConald.

Can't argue with that. Cruz just needs to hand in there while some of the flies drop.

I agree 100%...Ted Cruz is the man we need!

At 6-7%, he needs more than large font in bold.

I'm a Rand man, but I'm leaning more toward Cruz all the time. I think Rand and Cruz are both cut from the same cloth, but Cruz is the more aggressive of the two, and we need aggeressive right now.

Trump is just on a publicity campaign for his own ends. I don't trust him and I don't think he's committed to seeing this through.

I'd have no problem at all if Carson was the GOP nominee.

I could vote for him with ease.

Carson-Fiorina

Cruz-Fiorina


But, we'll get our azz handed to us if Trump goes 3rd.

In December of next year Trump will be crowing about making A Democrat president. He'll claim the title of king maker and tell the Republicans to [bleep] off.

Love your positive attitude. Take a dump, you're obviously backed up.



DMc

Its fun watching Walker tank

I'm really surprised that anyone who has followed politics for any length of time believes this. Look at a year before the 2008 election - the frontrunners were Rudy Giulliani and Hillary Clinton.

Fact is, Trump is a real longshot. He's leading in the polls now, but has the highest unfavorability rating of any GOP candidate. He's going to have a hard time ever polling higher than he is right now.

He's like a robot that needs to reboot when a question comes up and he doesn't have a pre scripted answer.

Walker is floundering badly. Quite astonishing given his conservative political gravitas in Wisconsin. He recently allowed that maybe we should build a wall on the Canadian border to keep terrorists out. Uh, newsflash Scott, the Canadian border is a bit longer than the Mexican and so far, we have no evidence of terrorists coming in through Canada. Why would they when Mexico is such a piece of cake?

Jordan

Walker's just another Kochsucker.

It's still ridiculously early in this race. Trump and Carson are making people think, and that's a good thing. Cruz is steadily raising money and speaking the truth when he gets a chance. My money is still on Cruz.

Carson is an easy to like soft spoken intelligent man

That said, I don't see how he has any capacity to be an effective president.

I don't dislike the man at all - but its about learning curves and Carson is going to have a huge one if he were to be elected.

Plenty of Jihadists in Canada...and the border is open...some reporter recently brought a fake bomb across Lake Erie. Nobody noticed...

5/20/15 “Canada's police arrested 10 young people at Montreal's Trudeau International Airport on suspicion of planning to travel to Syria to join Islamic State (Isis). The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said that the passports of the 10 suspects had been seized.”

Carson's solutions make more sense than Trump's...

The Wisconsin unionistas have chimed in, if anyone gives a schit.

Don't underestimate the man in his ability to come up to speed on difficult concepts quickly, or to be able to determine the right intelligent people he needs on his team in order to perform appropriate duties (or to replace them if and when necessary).

He should be. His campaign sends about 15 e-mails a day.




Travis

^^^^^^^^


This.


The man is a neurosurgeon for Gods sake, he's made plenty of split second life and death decisions....and they don't hand out Phds in Neurosurgery to stupid people.

maybe but that alone doesn't get you elected President.

I'll just say it - For 2016, I don't want a woman and quite honestly, given the state of race relations, I don't think the country needs another black president.

Well you can't be a Republican or a conservative don't you realize The Doctor is black. I can just imagine the attacks that man will suffer from the race baiters. He is a smart and pleasant person and easy to like. I am just not sure he has the killer instinct needed to win. The last two we put up didn't and the result is the pos we have in office now. He might be a VP pick I would give him my vote over anything the dems have, not to mention some of the top tier Republicans.

Cruz was/is my pick even before the campaigning started. But Cruz could do more good over a longer period of time on the U.S Supreme Court.

I want the best we can get. I couldn't care less what color or which sex they are.

I want the most effective we can get.

Clinton 48.3% Canadian CRUZ 40.7% you do the math.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Yet, you'd not want them if they were black or female?

Here are the leading candidates for each party nomination, currently.

The "party of the old, rich, white insider elitists" is currently running:

1) a rich white male businessman with no political experience, one of the most successful businessmen of our time;
2) a black male former pediatric neurosurgeon who was born/raised in abject, inner city poverty;
3) a white female businesswoman with no political experience, one of the most successful of our time;
4) a Cuban first term Senator, son of immigrants, who became a Supreme Court litigator and State solicitor general;
5) an Indian governor who is the son of immigrants;
6) a Cuban first term Senator, son of immigrants;
7) a white male governor who dropped out of college to take care of his family and then went into politics, successfully breaking the stranglehold of unions on his state and putting it on a conservative path.

The opposition (remember, they are the party of the "common man, the poor and minorities") are running:

1) a white female former and failed First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State under investigation for espionage who has been in politics for over 40 years;
2) a white male current Senator who has been in Washington, DC for 25 years and who lives in one of the most white, homogeneous gated closed communities in the U.S.;

I can just see dumb Walt and other liberal pukes just like him gnashing their teeth, stomping their feet, and pulling out their hair while yelling, "Impossible"!

We have a black man, a white female AND a Hispanic in the top four picks of Republican Iowans. According to progressive/liberal scumbags, this is the party of racism and female subjugation we're talking about. Clearly right wing propaganda to trick the masses before they coronate their next evil corporatist homophobic sexist theocratic warpig!

kind of feeds into the whole effective thing.

Both would have to deal with issues that would distract from their presidency.

feel free to call me racist, a misogynist or whatever term you feel is applicable. I've been called worse...on here no less.

We have a black president now - who I readily admit is a far cry from the stoic and balanced Ben Carson, but race relations which were supposed to improve have degraded horribly in the last 6 years.

Carson would have to address it and no matter what stance he took, it wouldn't be enough and it would never go away in the era of #blacklivesmatter. They will not improve with someone they see as a sellout to their race.

As for Carly Fiorina

hell, she's a woman. I don't owe any man an explanation on that line of thinking.

Not to mention option 3.

A guy that has been a Senator since 1979.

Un-fugkin-real.



Travis

I do think that we should all remember that Herman Cain was polling out front at this time four years ago, along with Rick Perry. In 2008, Hitlery was way out front for the D nomination, and Huckabee was a strong second for the R bid at the same time.

You've been on your game lately.

Biden hasn't declared yet, so I didn't put him in with the Ds. He's also been a Senator since 1972 (only job he's really ever had).

If so, then yes, the Ds would have:

3) a rich white male current VP, career politician, Senator since 1972, integral part of the most elite DC establishment, son and grandson of oil businessmen.

The biggest problem that any candidate will face upon being elected is shaking the established political machine off of it's agenda.

Most of the GOP candidate even don't want to, and of the few that do, only Trump has the strength of personality to do so.

If anything is to ever change for the better in this country, it's going to need a leader that will put his damn foot down and mean what he says.

Trump is the only candidate who can handle the political machine.

If he doesn't get elected, it's going to be business as usual.

Race relations were never set to improve. Hussein didn't want that, the Ds can't have that, and anyone who didn't catch on to that early is an idiot.

Any "conservative" that casts out a viable candidate due to race or gender is just as much of an idiot as any "liberal" who votes for a candidate based on the same.

A black president with the right message would be the best thing for race relations we can get.

No white man or woman can deliver the needed message without the professional race baiters screaming "racist!".

"Quit whining, get an education, quit raising fatherless babies, and most of all give up the perpetual victim attitude and take responsibility for your own lives" is a message only a black man (or woman) could effectively deliver. The race baiters would still try to crucify him since he's taking away their jobs, but Carson would be in the most effective position to pull a Trump and counter attack successfully. Any change in social attitudes comes at a glacierly pace. But it takes that first big push to get it moving. A few credible voices with that message can attract others. Pretty soon the message becomes "cool" so the celebrities pick it up and it becomes cool for the masses. But you gotta have someone in the right place to give that first big push.

But that's not a reason to elect him since it would sidetrack 100% of the discussion to concentrate on problems generated by only 12% of the population.

The President of the United States needs to stay focused on the economy and national security first and foremost - immigration, tax policy et cetera come under those headings. Social issues are a sideline. But at least Carson would be in a unique position to address that "other problem".

It is unfortunate that intelligence, education and a firm grasp of policy are not the most important factors in a presidential candidate - they have to look good on TV to stand a chance. The former count, but without the latter a candidate is going to be an also ran.

Still a long way to go and I'm still watching them all to see who can combine the requisite qualities.

Carson is a fine man. D.C. would eat him alive in short order.

If one put's the right people in the right positions it will all work.
No more lifers!
Either:
Trump
Carson
Cruz
Fiorina
Or a combination...

I don't believe much if anything unforeseen will crop up. Sure, it will be 'unseen' by the masses, but it's scripted.

I love what Trump is doing and him kicking lots of 'people' in the throat, but I still believe there is something else at play here.

My guess is, to keep Trump from getting the nomination the RNC is going to talk Romney into running again. Romney will pull enough votes away from Trump to allow another GOP candidate to get the GOP nomination,..who will lose to the Democrat in the general election.

The RNC will do whatever it can to scuttle a non establishment candidate even if it means the election of an establishment Democrat.

Doubtful. If he can survive, and thrive, in the shark tank that is academia and medicine at the levels and locations that he did, he can hold his own in D.C.

The few times I've heard Rove speak of late he doesn't appear very pleased with the way the R race is going, as he almost subliminally tries to get the point across that Trump will not be the candidate.

It's a different game.

An unhappy Karl Rove is a GREAT thing for America.

Carson is smart enough to survive anywhere.

Likely not as different as you think.

I have confidence in the man. If he's elected, he'll do a fine job.

Where the Rs are right now, though, is an enviable position. Their top 6-7 candidates are very well qualified and suited for executive positions and each could be a very effective candidate and President.

Carson is too meek and mild mannered to make it IMO.

Reminds me some of Arthur Ashe.

Yep, and because of the basic problem that the R's and D's serve the same masters - or at least worship at the same altar and do NOT want to see the flow of beneficence from their God interrupted.

You can't get 6 deep into the GOP candidates without at least half of them being establishment hacks.

In fact, the reason that there's so many candidates running for the GOP nomination is because the RNC wanted to split the vote in enough different directions that Jeb would be able to hold the frontrunner position with only 12 or 13% of the vote with the early primary states.

Trump fugged up that plan.

You couldn't be more off base.

Everybody talks about how a third party run would split the vote in the general election. But what they don't realize is,...the RNC works to split the vote in their own primary.

It's pretty amazing that there's 16? candidates vying for the GOP nomination, and just one of them is polling at 40% nationwide.

The RNC didn't see that coming.

Yeah, I can go that deep easily without half of them being "establishment hacks":

Trump
Fiorina
Carson

Three is half of six.

If you need a fourth:

Walker - establishment hacks don't do what he did in WI.

Or, add in Cruz. Establishment hacks don't do an end run on the House Majority leader/Speaker of the House and don't call the Senator Majority Leader a liar on the floor of the Senate.

The top three Rs in the polls in Iowa right now (again, that's 1/2 of 6) are: Trump, Carson, Fiorina. None of them are "establishment hacks". Cruz and Walker are tied for fourth. The "establishment" bunch is behind all of them.

Fiorina has already said that she would sell out on her first day in office. She's an establishment hack.

Don't get me started on Cruz.

None of them are polling at 40% nationally. The highest that Trump is getting is mid/upper 20s within reputable nationwide polls.

I'm sure the RNC is seething over the Trump phenomenon. I still don't trust him and my offer of a box of cigars still holds.

Let me guess... it's the Jews and bankers, right?

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/donald-trump-tops-nationwide-poll-with-40-support

But of course...

You missed the operative word.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...blican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Besides, national polls mean NOTHING at this point. The polls in the early states are what counts.

..and unfortunately, Bush is WAY too high in those polls.

Among other things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ike-different-tone-toward-gays.html?_r=0

excerpt:

So the juxtaposition of Mr. Cruz being the guest of honor at a home owned by two of the most visible gay businessmen in New York City was striking. Mr. Cruz was on a fund-raising tour of New York City, although the dinner was not a fund-raiser.

Mr. Cruz also told the group that Peter Thiel, an openly gay investor, is a close friend of his, Mr. Sporn said. Mr. Thiel has been a generous contributor to Mr. Cruz’s campaigns.

Bush in any of those polls is too high.

Pay attention the Iowa, NH, and South Carolina polls, first and foremost, and then to the state specific polls for the Super Tuesday states.

Those count.

WTF the PRK, or Montana, or New York or Jew Jersey think is irrelevant - the nomination will be over before it gets to those states.

The states that will decide the nomination for the Rs are, in order:

IA, NH, SC, NV, AL, AR, CO, MA, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA, LA, KY, HI, MS, MI, PR, IL, MO, FL, NC, and OH.

Those 24 states all have primaries and caucuses on or before March 15, 2016. The nomination is all but done after the March 15 "Second Super Tuesday" with IL, MO, FL, NC, and OH. For many candidates, it will be over after the March 1 "Super Tuesday" of AL, AR, CO, MA, OK, TN, TX, VT, and VA.

Polls in those states, in order, count. The national crap means nothing at this point and even through until the end of March 2016.

After that, then the national polls matter because it will be between the R nominee and the D nominee.

Cruz is not allowed to have successful gay friends?

I guaran-damn-tee that Trump has successful gay friends. Shall we cast stones at him over the same?

Then again, your views on politics are as largely irrelevant as RobJordan's. You think Ron Paul came down from on high to save us all, and Rob can't figure out wtf a conservative actually is.

We should not be fighting.

We should all stand together.

Behind Trump.




Clark

Sure,..Cruz can have all the gay friends he wants. I just wonder what they're buying from him with the large donations they're making to his campaign.

Likely the same thing(s) that were bought for and by the large contributors to the campaigns of Ron Paul and Rand Paul.

And what's that?

Don't know, any more than you know what is being bought/paid for with donations to Cruz.

Sure I know. He's buying political influence in order to support the causes that he wants represented.

But, the campaign contributors to Ron Paul and Rand Paul were different and not buying political influence in order to support the causes they wanted represented?

Yeah, right.

I was thinking the same thing and of course agree with this statement. The reason we are in the mix we have now, is the black man in the white house is not a educated man. He is a hack who rode into position strictly on race and ability to speak. He was never qualified and believes the white man controls to much. All he did was set race relations back 50 years.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ted-cruzs-gay-marriage-money/

excerpt:

Ted Cruz’s Gay Marriage Money

One of the first things Cruz may have to do on the campaign trail is explain to his social conservative base why in 2009, while preparing to run for state attorney general, he took more than $250,000 in campaign funds from out-of-state investment bankers who supported legalizing gay marriage. Cruz in February introduced legislation to leave same-sex marriage up to the states, a clear move to cut off the U.S. Supreme Court before it rules on the issue.

Cruz took the donations in 2009 when he was trying to out-position state Representative Dan Branch in an expected race to replace then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, who had been expected to run for governor. Abbott delayed his gubernatorial quest for four years when Rick Perry decided to seek re-election. Cruz out-paced Branch by raising more than $1 million in the first part of 2009.

The gay rights donations were from two very conservative investment bankers, one in New York and one in San Francisco. While both men would be in full agreement with Cruz on many issues, they were worlds apart on same-sex marriage even in 2009. But that did not stop Cruz from taking their money – and it was their money that gave Cruz his fundraising advantage over Branch.

I never said that.

Oh the Humanity...

Then you had no problems supporting candidates who were pandering to high-dollar contributors - who were buying political influence in order to support causes they wanted represented - before, yet now it's an issue.

I thought "libertarians" who supported the Pauls were all in favor of the gov't staying out of people's personal lives, bedrooms, marriages, etc. Is this no longer the case?

It's an issue for Cruz. He's the candidate who took campaign donations from advocates of gay marriage.

So, he's just as inconsistent on that now dead issue as was Ron Paul (who was for it in 2007, then for it in a different way in 2011, then for it again in 2012, before he was against it and saying he would have been against it all along in 2012-2015).

Good to know.

The issue isn't gay marriage. The issue is credibility.

How can Cruz take campaign money from homosexual advocates of gay marriage and then say this?

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ill-be-front-and-center-in-2016-campaign

Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

were they advocating gay marriage, or are they just gay businessmen?

The same way that Ron Paul lacked credibility on the same issue.

There is no perfect candidate. The Rs have a slate of good candidates, any of them well suited for the office of POTUS and FAR and AWAY better than the D offerings.

I'm more than happy to stand by my position that either Carson and Fiorina will be an ineffective president.

I don't have a particular need to feel enlightened or politically correct about any candidate that represents the "diverse" GOP party in comparison to Democrats.

Well,...for the record, Ron Paul's stance on marriage of any kind is that the government should play no part in it.

But in any event, Just because someone lacks credibility doesn't mean that it's okay for someone else to lack credibility.

Of course, you know this.

Then you should have no problems with any D stating that they believe(d) that Hussein or Hitlery would be or was an effective president due to race or gender.

Actually Ted Cruz has stated for the record that in his opinion the issue of gay marriage per the constitution is a states issues and not a federal issue, therefore his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling.

nope, matter of fact, I'd expect that from them. I just don't expect it from conservatives who have a brain on their own candidates.

Yeah,...he's said that too.

Cruz shapes his message to his audience.

Slick Willie Clinton was very good at that also.

This is what I heard last night:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/poll-donald-trump-ben-carson-tied-iowa-monmouth/

For the first time in more than a month, mogul Donald Trump is not leading the field in one of the first four nominating states in the Republican primary, according to a new poll.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has surged up in the pack to tie Trump in Iowa, Monmouth University found in a poll out Monday.

Trump and Carson are tied at 23%, according to the survey, making it the first time since July 26 that a poll in the first four states to select a Republican nominee did not find Trump substantially ahead of all other candidates.

Farther behind Trump and Carson were former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, at 10%; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, at 9%; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, at 7%; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, at 5%; Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, each at 4%; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, at 3%; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, at 2%.

That was one of his stances on it. He is on the record in 2007 saying that he supported gay marriage ('Ron Paul Unplugged' interview with John Stossel". ABC News "20/20". 2007-12-07). He opposed a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (Paul, Ron (2004-09-30). "Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized". Archived from the original on 2007-02-07. Retrieved 2007-03-02). Then, in 2005, he proposed bills to remove marriage and same-sex unions from federal court jurisdiction (how's that for abiding by the Constitution?) ("GovTrack: H.R. 4379 [109th]: Text of Legislation". Govtrack.us. 2005-11-17. Retrieved 2011-10-01). He is also on the record saying that he supports and would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, even to the point of criticizing his own earlier positions that the gov't has no role in marriage to defend DOMA against the Obama administration's determination that a federal law on marriage was unconstitutional ("Ron Paul Condemns Obama's Decision to Abandon DOMA". The Iowa Republican. 2011-02-24. Retrieved January 26, 2012). Of course, and I'm sure it's just coincidental, that last position was taken in the midst of the last R nomination cycle in which he was running for POTUS.

Such consistency... it's no wonder his supporters are upset with Cruz on some issues and have no problems with Trump's vacillations on essentially every issue.

Does this mean that you won't be voting for Ron Paul in 2016?

I'm looking for the best qualified candidate and race/gender don't factor into those equations - especially not when the black male is extraordinarily bright and highly successful in a demanding field that requires split second thinking, proper decision making, and the ability to put together competent teams, or when the female involved was a highly successful business executive at a variety of levels.

It means that Ron Paul was just as inconsistent on the gay marriage issue as you accuse Cruz of being. In other words, you have no problem with inconsistency when it suits you, but are the first to bitch about it when it doesn't.

Care to discuss Trump's inconsistencies on issues?

No candidate is perfect; but the Rs have several highly qualified candidates in this cycle (unlike the previous two).

then vote for him.

My Trump shirt arrived.

JFC do I make it look nice.





Travis

I may, when the primary in this state rolls around. I may also consider Fiorina

You won't, regardless of any issues or qualifications, due to race or gender.

You doing the comb over also?

pretty much

Welcome to the same rationale as infects the D voters who vote only for a candidate based upon race or gender. You're no different than them when it comes to this issue and choice.

As I said,..even if he was, it's doesn't excuse Cruz's lack of credibility on the matter.

whats funny to me is you'll get all vested in either Carson or Fiorina and fawn about how they are clearly the best choice and then have to pull the lever for someone else in the November election - while lecturing me on how important it is I evaluate them honestly.

No, I said I'm considering them, not that I'm vested in them.

I'm evaluating the candidates honestly. You've openly stated that you are not.

If Carson can make a solid showing and continue to climb he's one person I could vote for and not hold my nose. I'd vote for Trump but I wouldn't trust his motives until maybe three or four years after his term of office expired.

Politicians go into politics because they are basically flawed people in some way. Most of them are outright scum and I mean scum - drunks, sex addicts, liars (really good liars), and plain outright thieves. Most all of them started in life as lawyers (with apologies to the 10% of lawyers who don't fit the prior description).

Carson chose to become a physician, that's a whole different mindset. Now why he wants to become President is a question that requires honest evaluation but at least his life thus far has been in truly helping people.

He is too soft spoken to be the MTV candidate but I would like to see him do better.

The only problem I have with your post is that I think your percentage of non-scum/liar/thief/drunk/sex addict lawyers is too high.

I stand corrected...

Dr.Carson IMO is a fine person,highly educated,very intelligent and one who has done a whole lot of good in the world...saving many lives. But will he be able to send troops to their possible deaths and stand up to the likes of Putin, Isis, and little Kim in N. Korea?

At this point in time I think we need Tony Montana and not Mr. Rogers.

Have you ever made the decision to tell a family that their child is going to die and there is nothing they can do about it? How about, literally, had your hands inside the skull of a child knowing that your decisions mean life or death?

Carson's dealt more with life and death decisions than has Trump or Cruz or Fiorina, or anyone else in the race.

Don't sell the man short.

Evaluate all the candidates, fully, and when the primary/caucus comes to your state then vote accordingly. Snap judgments and prejudicial thinking (not accusing you of that, but others have certainly displayed it) does us no good at all and is a detriment to putting the nation back on track.

It's a very good question and one that he would need to answer.

As a physician he is used to making life or death decisions under severe pressure although on a one to one basis. If elected he could very well turn out to be the Republican Jimmy Carter - too much involvement in details and too much hand wringing to do what needs to be done.

For those that remember, it's kind of like the Star Trek episode where Kirk was split into his good and bad halves. The good side without the balls of the bad side was namby pamby while the bad side without the conscience of the good side was plain evil. Together they were strong.

I don't know the answer but it is something to watch for and evaluate.

I've said that I don't think either of them will be effective for their race or gender. I'm not sure how much more honest I can get.

You just happen to believe your criteria for establishing them as viable candidates is valid. I do not.

Your criteria for evaluating an effective candidate is the exact same as the Ds who only look at race or gender, and just as inadequate.

I'm not voting for a bleeder either.




Clark

projecting that because a man is a surgeon, he's ready to send young men off to war?

thanks but no thanks. I'll keep my logic.

I don't think they should even be allowed to vote, let alone run for public office.

Projecting that someone is (or is not) a viable candidate because of race or gender is not logic.

I knew exactly who I was voting for once the field was set in June, and it isn't a used to be DEM, a mild mannered soft spoken doctor, a moody hot flashing woman or any other rino. It was not a difficult decision.

How it can be so difficult for so many who frequent a site such as this, leading one to believe they are true conservatives who cherish country, freedom, liberty, security, family, GUNS, etc. and want someone who has the stones to put the establishment of both parties and our enemies in their place, shrink government and tell the truth, AND be able to deliver the message in a clear concise steadfast way ...... I'll never know.

sure it is. Its a calculated risk that regardless of how qualified they may be, race and gender will be an obstacle to their effectiveness.

or do you not think race and/or gender is not an issue in this country

How someone can cast in with only one candidate, NOW, this early on - regardless of who they are - is not an evaluation of the candidate or alternatives.

There's a long time between now and March 2016 when the primaries and caucuses that matter will happen.

I think race/gender is a minor issue and should be treated as such. Stating plainly that one will or will not vote for a candidate simply because of race or gender is infantile, illogical racism and sexism; no matter whether that is a D saying "yes" to a woman/black, or a pseudo-conservative R saying "no" to the same.

So, in other words, you have nothing of substance to say in response.

A D who voted for Hussein because he was black, or will back Hitlery because she is female is infantile, illogical, and racist/sexist. A pseudo-conservative "R" that will not consider Carson or Fiorina because of his race or her gender is exactly the same; infantile, illogical, and racist/sexist.

I'm not sure what more I can say.

we've never had a female president, and our first black president has been a complete failure - especially in race relations.

and you're telling me that two candidates with no history and zero experience to support the job should be considered viable.

matter of fact, its "infantile" not to.

I am saying vet them based upon qualifications and platform; not race and gender.

Hell, we've had unmitigated failures as President from former governors and Senators and military men (Carter and Kennedy, among others), sons of former Presidents (W, among others), and successes from those who ran hat shops (Truman) and were actors (Reagan). Neither Carson or Fiorina have "zero experience", as they have both lead highly complex organizations in very high pressure situations. Of course, if one simply wanted to go by "experience" in DC, then of course you have Biden (been there since 1972) or Clinton or Graham, or you can reach for the "well vetted" Governors like Bush and Kasich.

Hussein has been an unmitigated failure, but that isn't because of his race. It's because infantile, illogical, racist fools voted FOR him based on race, and now others of the same ilk are not considering another and actually potentially viable candidate because of race.

No women Presidents. No explanation necessary.

As for Carson, he'd be valuable in many administrative roles and he's probably one of the most honorable men in the running, but I don't think he's mean enough to take on the D.C. machine.

Nice try on one of your typical spin attempts, but Cruz told the entire queer parade at that gathering that he was in total support of their rights as individuals, but would never support gay marriage, but acknowledged also that it is State's issue. They supported him in spite of it. Then they got fried by the left.

I'm not selling the man short...he has my utmost respect( did you notice that I called him by his title "Dr." and not simply by his family name?

Telling a family " I'm so sorry but we've tried everything in modern medicine but we cannot save your loved one" is no doubt hard but I don't think even close to sending thousands of troops into harms way to kill thousands of the enemy and then contacting the families of your troops that were KIA to express your condolence and to give them the "thanks for your sacrifice from a grateful Nation).

This whole Trump issue has been going on long enough that I don't really think it's a snap judgement by now... people are fed-up and disgusted by the GOPs same old/same old...we've all seen references on the shooting forums to the surplus French Military rifles (only dropped once),that's pretty much the way a lot of folks have been seeing the GOP the last several years.

You vote for Cruz,Walker,Jeb,or Hilary ,whomever, that's your call...myself I'm thinking Trump!

There's nothing wrong with a grudge vote. Just don't be afraid to love again.