Did El Chapo Put a $100 Millon, Dead or Alive Bounty on Trump? http://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...nty-on-Trump-Dead-or-Alive-20151006-0001.html
I went to a fight and a political rally broke out http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-fight-breaks-out-at-trump-rally-between-supporters-and-protesters/
Latest polls - Trump remains dominant in 2 of the key states http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-poll-nevada-south-carolina-2015-10 Real-estate mogul Donald Trump has opened up large leads in the key early states of South Carolina and Nevada, according to new CNN/ORC polls. But more impressive, amid an overall narrative that the front-runner's poll numbers have plateaued over the past month, is his continued dominance of the issues. In Nevada and South Carolina, at least, Trump is crushing his Republican counterparts on some of the issues most important to GOP voters. When voters in Nevada were asked who could best handle ... The economy, 67% of Republicans in Nevada said Trump, 60 points ahead of his next-closest challenger, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Foreign policy, 34% said Trump, about 20 points ahead of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida). Illegal immigration, a whopping 55% said Trump. ISIS, the militant group, 46% said Trump, 33 points above Rubio.
I've gone from thinking he had no chance to now believing he has a legit chance to take the Republican nomination. It all depends on which R candidates drop and when. That is simply nuts and reflects very poorly on the poll participants. I hope this poll was severely flawed. If not, R primary voters may have surpassed swaths of the D voters in ignorance.
Did Trump foresee this when he stated that he might jump to a 3rd party bid if he didn't get the R establishment support?
Yes, I think so, the question was put to him pretty quick but he demurred. He then later agreed to support the nominee no matter whom.
You have to ask yourself, Trump or Hillary? Trump is an easy choice. Carson or Hillary, Carson is an easy choice. Do you really want the Clinton machine back in power?
Easy choice? I'd hold my nose and choose Hillary over either of those "outsiders". It's more likely I'd go 3rd party or write-in candidate though. Heck, choosing Trump or Carson would be like going 3rd party anyway.
Yeah, who cares that Carson sounds like he's completely unaware and disinterested in reality when he talks policy. He is a neurosurgeon and an unwavering evangelical Christian. I like Carson's values, but think it would be crazy to elect a president with foggy understanding of domestic policy, foreign policy and organizational leadership.
I would take someone who knows less about foreign cultures and leaders than the complete politician (and confirmed liar) that will be the Dem nominee. My expectation is Carson is wise enough to surround himself with advisors well versed on issues 'foreign' to him. I fear Trump much more than Carson.
That's an interesting theory. I too like the outsider model but it only extends to Washington outsider or at least someone who hasn't spent many years there. I think it's very dangerous to gamble our country on someone that has no political experience. In the corporate world, you wouldn't hire a CEO that had no experience running a business or at least was well established in the industry which your company is in. Google wouldn't add a CEO of a successful oil and gas company. This is where industry expertise is important, or in other words policy knowledge. This "I'll hire good people" is laughable at best. Doesn't every President attempt to hire good people? In fact, who does Carson even know in the policy sphere? Good people know good people which is exacerbated when Carson or Trump have no political background.
Not sure I agree Husker. CEO's from differing industries do cross boundaries and I believe that even more common are CEO's whom hire highly competent people (VP's) that demonstrate themselves through competency in areas where the CEO is weak. And since I consider the country to be headed into financial disaster having been led there by professional politicians, I am not as afraid about considering a non-professional politician. To be contrary I will add that there is no such thing as a corporate individual that is ignorant of politics. Corporate America, including the medical industry is rampant with political talent. I say this only mildly with tongue in cheek.
To be sure, I'm not saying CEO's don't cross industries but you don't see the industry leaders do this. Typically, it's smaller lagging companies that try this as a way to jolt the company. When Fiorina joined HP, she was an up and comer at an established technology company (Lucent). What you're talking about tends to be a board level role. Carson does sit on a few BOD. We'll have to agree to disagree but the only solace I'd have if Carson was to win is the inertia of our government inhibiting from screwing things up too bad.
My big problem with Carson is his astounding inability to discuss issues and policy. You can be inexperienced, hire top advisors (yep, insiders), and do a respectable job. However, if you have no grasp of the issues, it won't matter what your advisors tell you. You're going to be lost. Furthermore, if you can't talk policy, then how do I, as a voter, know what I'm voting for?
Just to illustrate Deez' point, here is Carson talking about Tax Policy. Will you abolish the IRS? HUCKABEE: We can get rid of the Internal Revenue Service if we would pass the FairTax, and move power back where the founders believed it should have been all along. Q: Dr. Carson, do you agree with that? CARSON: What I agree with is that we need a significantly changed taxation system. And the one that I've advocated is based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair guy. And he said, you know, if you give me a tithe, it doesn't matter how much you make. If you've had a bumper crop, you don't owe me triple tithes. And if you've had no crops at all, you don't owe me no tithes. So there must be something inherently fair about that. And that's why I've advocated a proportional tax system. You make $10 billion, you pay a billion. You make $10, you pay one. And everybody gets treated the same way. And you get rid of the deductions, you get rid of all the loopholes. And I have a lot more to say about it. What Dr. Carson said may be OK for a Miss America pageant contestant (acceptable, but hardly a home run.) From a serious candidate for president in a country with a widening wealth gap -- it's just embarrassing.
It's not the tax code or lack of experience that will sink him in a general election against any of the Dems. The moment anyone plays a sound bite of his claims about homosexuality, he loses over half the electorate. And since he's too honorable to back away from those claims, he's not going to regain any moderates who hoped he'd alter his views. It's a shame that an election with over 100 million voters comes down to that, but it's the reality we live in. I think it would just be Obama/Romney part 2 when the final exit polling numbers come in. Clinton would win by about 5 million socially-progressive votes.
He is calling for a flat tax for everyone, is it that hard to understand? Why does government have to be so complicated? People make it complicated to weed out the masses, why don't we ask Hillary about her tax plan? She has less plans than Carson and she won't get asked about them.......Why is about a person and not the issue? Let's take an issue and discuss what each person has said about it......Carson wants a flat tax for everyone, what does Trump want? What does Hillary want? Of course some have to wait for polling to say where they are at or change their position.....
I know, just showing how ridiculous that whole line of thinking is whomever it is used on by anyone, any time.
Major, The missing element in the equation is advocacy. Carson can say he supports a flat tax, but that's not the end of the discussion. A flat tax is controversial, and it will get hit with pretty severe criticism. People are going to say it isn't fair for rich people not to pay a higher rate. Some who are less critical of the alleged fairness angle are going to be concerned about the impact of his proposal on the budget deficit, what programs need to be cut, etc. That means that Carson needs to be prepared to discuss it beyond the superficial realm, and most of all, he needs to be able to anticipate the criticisms and be prepared to refute them or explain why they're misguided. Based on past interviews I've heard Carson offer, I just don't see him doing that very well. And to be honest, this problem has plagued the GOP for years. They've forgotten how important it is to actually sell conservatism to the public. The default ideology is liberalism, because it gets drilled into people in school, popular culture, and the media. To get someone to embrace conservatism, you have to advocate it effectively enough to cut through all that crap, and the GOP has come up woefully short in that department.
So Carson is for a flat tax. So what? You don't like flat tax proposal, many don't but many do. I just don't get why it is arguable that someone should give more than a billion $ to the Govt (if they make 10 bill). What Carson does need to do is come up with the financial implications of his proposal, i.e., how much revenue this will produce (without the current deductions). I would interject that my position comes from a "we have a spending problem" position and not a revenue problem. I just do not believe increasing revenue will EVER accomplish anything with this bunch except increase their spending.
