TGP Primary Poll: Republicans

[blotsfan 2,112]

He's not a religious zealot that wants to force his morals on us and attack our personal freedoms.

 

Yes he is. He just wants it done at the state level rather than national.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

Yes he is. He just wants it done at the state level rather than national.

 

I don't think zealot is quite the word to describe him and his faith. He definitely has tried catering to the evangelicals, but they don't really seem to buy into him and his err.... "devout" faith. He's talked about so many times how he has been "born again" but then that he strays off and how difficult of a time he has seeing God's hand in the world, especially through his eyes and in his profession of being a doctor. They question his commitment to Israel, they question his position on a lot of social issues, and his view on war. There are actually people who have went to the website of his church and scoured for his or his wife's name to no avail and then go online and demolish him for it saying he isn't active in the church and that he's a non-believer (which, may be accurate, IDK).

 

If he was "zealot", he would be polling a lot better with that group of voters... Instead, all he has is doubt and amongst many, a belief that he is actually closer to atheism than anything. I understand Paul isn't polling well anyway.. but one sure fire way to poll horribly amongst Republicans is to have your faith questioned.

 

It's a big reason why he really can't win.. He's really not a Republican (not a Democrat either).. And the base of the old school Republican party is just not on board with him. It's unfortunate, but the way it is.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

I don't think zealot is quite the word to describe him and his faith. He definitely has tried catering to the evangelicals, but they don't really seem to buy into him and his err.... "devout" faith. He's talked about so many times how he has been "born again" but then that he strays off and how difficult of a time he has seeing God's hand in the world, especially through his eyes and in his profession of being a doctor. They question his commitment to Israel, they question his position on a lot of social issues, and his view on war. There are actually people who have went to the website of his church and scoured for his or his wife's name to no avail and then go online and demolish him for it saying he isn't active in the church and that he's a non-believer (which, may be accurate, IDK).

 

If he was "zealot", he would be polling a lot better with that group of voters... Instead, all he has is doubt and amongst many, a belief that he is actually closer to atheism than anything. I understand Paul isn't polling well anyway.. but one sure fire way to poll horribly amongst Republicans is to have your faith questioned.

 

It's a big reason why he really can't win.. He's really not a Republican (not a Democrat either).. And the base of the old school Republican party is just not on board with him. It's unfortunate, but the way it is.

 

Blots was talking about Trump, not Carson.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

Blots was talking about Trump, not Carson.

 

What? .... I am... really confused. Looked like Blots was talking about Paul to me. If not, my bad. Plus, Carson is killing it amongst evangelicals... here in Iowa, at least. It's why he surged way ahead of Trump in the latest polls.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

Favre is correct. I was talking about Paul.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Oh. Sean had me confused.

 

I don't really see how he's more dangerous to be honest. Rand Paul is the only one of them that isn't a hawk. He's not a religious zealot that wants to force his morals on us and attack our personal freedoms.

 

He was replying to my post about Trump, and I thought his Rand Paul thing was an aside, and then the religious zealot line was referring back to Trump, as such:

 

"Trump is the most dangerous candidate."

"I don't see how [Trump's] the most dangerous. [All of them are warhawks except] Rand Paul, but [Trump] isn't a religious zealot that wants to force his morals on us and attack our personal freedoms."

 

I don't think Sean thinks Paul isn't a religious zealot, given what he's said about Paul earlier and given Paul's stance on homosexuality.

And then Favre further confused me with the doctor talk, as Carson is the guy normally referred to as being a doctor. (Idk, does Rand Paul have a doctorate or is he a doctor too?)

Edited October 30, 2015 by Thanatos19

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Paul is an ophthalmologist.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Zack_of_Steel

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Tomorrow, the Republican campaigns are sending a letter of demands to all networks regarding future debate questions. If we actually give a shit about democracy or free speech, that should infuriate everyone regardless of political affiliation.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Why? The debate questions were awful. If the substance of the demand is "focus on the issues instead of trying to force people to attack each other" then I'm all for it. Media has gotten away with "its free speech" for too long. They need to be held accountable when they pull shit like that 3rd debate. Their job is to tell us the news, let candidates tell us what they stand for. Instead, they try to tell us who we should vote for and why the party they hate is responsible for whatever just happened.

 

Do your damn jobs or lose your privilege. I'm all for holding the fucking biased morons that currently occupy most of the media outlets accountable.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Tomorrow, the Republican campaigns are sending a letter of demands to all networks regarding future debate questions. If we actually give a shit about democracy or free speech, that should infuriate everyone regardless of political affiliation.

 

This is stupid and here's why. For one, it sounds like we are justifying terrible behavior by CNBC by allowing them to hide behind "freedom of speech". They have / had every right to do what they did, but there needs to be a clear message that that behavior is frowned upon, unprofessional, and will not be accepted. If networks don't like the "demands" set forth by the candidates, they have every right to not host a debate.

 

Everyone has a right to free speech, they don't have a right to be shielded by the consequences of using that right to free speech.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Exactly. Favre put it perfectly.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Does it say something odd about my personality that, even though I'm a huge Bernie fan, the only Republican I would vote for is Rand? They're basically polar opposites.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Does it say something odd about my personality that, even though I'm a huge Bernie fan, the only Republican I would vote for is Rand? They're basically polar opposites.

 

It means you care more about your belief in the conviction of politicians than the issues themselves. I don't think its too surprising that people feel this way given the seemingly endless stream of negativity about our politicians.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

It means you care more about your belief in the conviction of politicians than the issues themselves.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Like Bernie, the issues are more important to me than anything. That's probably one of the main reasons I like him so much.

[blotsfan 2,112]

But like you said, Paul is almost the exact opposite of Sanders on the issues. I'd say the only thing the really have in common is that they are known for having a strong conviction about their beliefs even if it might hurt their chances to be elected.

 

I guess my questions is, if the issues are the most important thing to you, and you generally agree with Sanders (and therefore disagree with Paul) what is it about Paul that you like? I don't think theres anything wrong with liking a candidate because you want someone you feel is credible and will be less likely to be corrupt. Just that you said its not reason.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

This is stupid and here's why. For one, it sounds like we are justifying terrible behavior by CNBC by allowing them to hide behind "freedom of speech". They have / had every right to do what they did, but there needs to be a clear message that that behavior is frowned upon, unprofessional, and will not be accepted. If networks don't like the "demands" set forth by the candidates, they have every right to not host a debate.

 

Everyone has a right to free speech, they don't have a right to be shielded by the consequences of using that right to free speech.

 

Of course, and I'd say CNBC have been held accountable. The backlash following the debate has been pretty severe. Likewise, Republicans could simply refuse to appear on their network.

 

But the idea of politicians setting the agenda for debates is unnerving. A healthy democracy would not allow political candidates to set the debate questions and content.

[Thanatos 2,847]

We're not a healthy democracy. No healthy democracy only has two parties, and no democracy with a first past the post voting system will *ever* have more than two parties that can compete.

 

We need a fundamental change to the way things work.

Why do you think the people who currently run the major news networks are any better at forming and asking questions?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Debate starts now.

And it is comments like this why Carson has jumped into the lead:
Let me stand resolute in your strength. Guide my words Lord, quiver the arrows of divisiveness, that you will be found first and foremost the healing hands we rest upon.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Thought this was Rand Paul's strongest debate thus far and Carson's weakest. Cruz is still the worst.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Rand Paul dominated. Marco Rubio having to fall back on the "you're an isolationist" after Rand asked him the same question like 5 times. Also, him being the only candidate to point out that China isn't part of the TPP gave him center stage for a couple minutes and shut Trump down, which is great. That answer came on the cusp of FOX going to commercial break as they started playing music and eventually Paul's answer and re-quesiton from Baker of the WSJ led to Fox holding off on their break. And he also brought up a solution to foreign threats that nobody else has talked about...

 

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/664286973717143553

 

 

I thought Carson was fine. Trump sucked a lot. Fiorina was mostly good ( i still strongly disagree with a lot of her foreign policy comments ). Kasich needs to go away. Cruz, like I said, last time is too rehearsed and too slick for me ever to support him. Jeb has flat lined. Rubio is pretty blah.

 

Also.... If anyone watched a lot of or all of the debate, you heard Carly Fiorina emphasis multiple times that we "have to take our government back"

This is Rand Paul 5 years ago

 

 

Rand dominated and social media is mostly agreeing... Top 3 in mentions overall, massive breakthrough especially from men (#1, #5 amongst women). Finally he has his moment. I hope it snowballs, but I dunno.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Thought it was interesting Rubio called Rand an "isolationist" considering that's a bold-faced lie, and then worsened his argument by arguing for increased military spending and an expansive world police presence. No thanks.

 

Carson, to me, doesn't appear to have given more than a minute of thought to foreign policy or financial industry. I don't think he answered a single question last night that made any sense. Totally lost and just mumbling about nothing.

 

Edit: Almost forgot, Carson said the US took off economically within 100 years of its founding due to entrepreneurs and an environment that encouraged "risk taking" and "capital investments." No mention of slave labor.

 

Cruz is...my god...there's literally nothing to like about him. Abolish the IRS??? Wouldn't bail out banks in a crisis?? And like Favre mentioned, he pauses at the end of certain lines and awkwardly anticipates applause. He's painful to watch.

 

Trump again proved he doesn't understand (nor care to understand) public policy when he included China in the TPP (it isn't) and complained about currency manipulation (there's a side agreement in the TPP to control for currency manip). Carly Fiorina isn't much better but she seems to have at least taken an interest in public policy, even if she can't say a single sentence without lying.

 

Jeb Bush insisted that Dodd-Frank decreased capital requirements for large banks (it didn't) and implied Dodd-Frank bailed out the banks during the crisis (it didn't). Made the argument Dodd-Frank should be repealed and capital requirements raised. Jeb, Dodd-Frank already does that. Only memorable moment for him in the debate and it wasn't a good one.

 

Anyway, those are my takeaways. Still wouldn't vote for Rand Paul but he's the only candidate on stage with a single iota of common sense.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Phailadelphia

[BwareDWare94 723]

Debate starts now.

 

And it is comments like this why Carson has jumped into the lead:

Let me stand resolute in your strength. Guide my words Lord, quiver the arrows of divisiveness, that you will be found first and foremost the healing hands we rest upon.

 

And it is comments like that which make it paramount that we do not elect him if he wins the nominaton.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Like I have said before, Rand is the only GOP hopeful I would vote for.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Apparently the GOP is afraid of Trump or Carson winning the nomination and are practically begging Mitt Romney to run again. So far, he has refused their advances.

[GA_Eagle 595]

So President Hillary Clinton is nearly a guarantee any way you slice it. Yech. There isn't a candidate in the GOP that will beat her, imo.