R Debate #1

[zrct02]

Guys - I want/need some input.

[HiTemp]

Bottom line first:

There were actually two debates. Fiorina walked away with the first one; second was a toss-up between Rubio, Trump, and Walker. Overall winner of the whole shebang was Fiorina by a landslide. Spanking Chris Matthews in the interview about her calling Hillary a liar was icing on the cake.

As far as the debate, it was underwhelming as expected because with so many candidates there isn't enough time to probe substance nor for candidate interaction. This was, in my mind, nothing more than a video op with many (but not all!) candidates showing how they can handle being pinned down on questions. It occurred to me that Trump, as front runner, would be the natural lightning rod, but the way Megan Kelley came across with her questioning seemed like this was more about some personal animus than simply skewering him a bit about some of his previous statements. Not that they weren't valid questions, but there seemed a nastier tone in the Trump questions than any of the others.

Where the hell were the Bush pinning-down questions? An education question? Really? When everyone else is being asked about ISIS, Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, the economy, gay marriage, and the Bill of Rights. Seems like Bush got pitched a softball... and he whiffed at it too.

Rand Paul seemed to cling to the idea that because he filibustered he is somehow cemented as a conservative. He isn't. His foreign policy is all over the place as is his idea of what the military is for and how it should be used. His big concern seemed to be privacy and IMHO that's a non-starter because it's just an illusion. First, the government has been collecting data for decades, but not directly. They do it by allowing private companies to tap into every secret you have and then simply accessing those records. Do you really think anything you do is private any more if there is a wire attached to it? It isn't and hasn't been since the 90's. All this crap about warrant/no warrant is a waste of time. If they want it, a warrant is no problem. Remember it's just a judge taking the word of a person swearing an oath. Like those have never been exaggerated or stretched before, right? Paul was wasting his time. Right now, no one really gives much of a hoot about that as compared to the economy, unemployment, and the loss of jobs to people here illegally willing to do those jobs for much less.

Carson is clearly the most intelligent guy on the stage, and strikes me as a very sincere and honest guy. Truthfully, we don't need that in Washington right now because he'd be played like an amateur and stymied by the entrenched WA types. He might have great ideas but no one will support trying out something new that might disrupt the flow of special interest cash. The last thing we need is Ward Cleaver goes to WA.

Perry tried too hard to come across strong on the border issue. If he was half of what he claimed to be, TX would have a few hundred miles of fence already erected. Why don't they if Perry is so adamant about it and isn't going to wait for the fed to fix it? Hard to say about his foreign policy expertise.

Perry, Walker, Christie, and Kasich all need to get a grip as far as this idea that only governors know how to run an administration. They may understand bureaucracies better, but it doesn't grant them some magic talisman of leadership.
I didn't hear Walker, Perry, Christie or Kasich say much more than they were wonderful governors, all tough, all got things done despite odds against them, blah, blah, blah. Maybe they all need the same warning label that comes with investment prospectives: Past performance may not be indicative of future performance. Of the four of them, Walker seems most like a guy who would run on a set of principles.

Huckabee was Huchabee. What can I say? Seems like a nice guy, seems like he'd have the nation's best interest in mind, but he isn't going to attract the big bucks and isn't aggressive enough to go after those who need going after, calling them out. He seems like a non-contact sport type in the middle of an NFL locker room.

Rubio is too much all over the map for my liking. He was against immigration before he was for it, which was before he was against most of it. That's just too wishy-washy for my liking. I want to know where he stands - exactly - and if he can't articulate that, too bad. Nice family story, but that doesn't tell me squat about what he intends to do with felons who have snuck (walked) across our borders.

Trump did what I thought he'd do. He took the best shots FOX could give him and he didn't blow up like Chris Christie at a press conference. I think that's really all he had to do to stay out front. He's the only one taking a flamethrower to people and policies that are killing us, and all the scandal sheet BS won't change that. Trump will go away as a candidate when one of the others will don the same gloves and start swinging, something they aren't likely to do. Bush certainly won't. Christie won't, he's too worried about his ability to compromise. Ryan and Huckabee won't. Rubio certainly won't. Carson won't. The only competitor in that regard is Ted Cruz, who I thought did pretty well.

Cruz is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is a fighter, but he's been cast as en extremist. Now he's gotta be two things at once. He has to be soft and reasonable enough to dispel the caricature of a radical extremist Tea Partier, yet he's got to be breathing enough fire to tap into what Trump currently owns. If I had to trust my life to only one candidate, I'd trust Cruz before any of the others.

I expect Huckabee and Carson to be gone from the next debate, and Fiorina to be in the top tier. She strikes me as a very sharp witted lady who doesn't take long to get a good grasp of an issue. She isn't beating on the table with a mallet, but you can be sure she has a hammer in her purse and isn't afraid to use it push comes to shove. If Trump had her sense of sauve, he'd be at 75% right now. She just needs more air time and I think a lot more people will back her. She would clearly make mince meat of Hillary or O'Malley in any debate, and it wouldn't even be fair to put Biden on a stage with her.
She is the only one brave enough to talk specifics of foreign policy and calling out the administration by ticking off a list of mistakes, and each of her bullet points has substance.

That's my take. Should never have been labelled as a debate, more of a chit-chat with a splash of tabloid journalism tossed into the mix.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I didn't watch. Unfortunately my father in law passed away yesterday, so I never had the TV on until after 10 pm and then just for the weather, and I was not going to stay up and watch the rerun.

I have heard the winners and losers being interchanged depending on who you read.

Basically if you liked who ever going in you think they won and/ or were unfairly targeted. I will say one thing, the twitter pissing match Trump did on Megan Kelley afterward would probably keep him from ever getting nominated in the female vote alone. All her criticism of him attacking women who criticize him was proved accurate.

Cruz has a solid record, and he has not deviated from that to his message. Unfortunately that message is not well received by a lot of people who think its odd someone have principles. I like Paul on most stuff, but he truly is a mess on foreign policy and just as, if not more dangerous than Obama is.

I like Walker, I heard he was pretty unspectacular, and he wrorries me on some of the issues sicne he seems to couch his positions at times.

As for the rest, any who even hint at being soft on immigration is a non starter.

[HiTemp]

Very sorry to hear of your loss. My sympathy and prayers to you and your family.

The whole thing with Megan Kelley is astounding. Trump has never denied saying those things and didn't last night. It was the way she presented the question, formulated as a (Republican) "War on Women" thing -like it was fact - and wasn't just looking for an answer to a question. What she was doing was National Enquirer journalism where the only goal was to try and make Trump squirm. The answer - in fact, the question - had zero to do with why Trump wants to be President or how he intends to govern. It was just slinging slime. I thought Kelley was beyond that kind of MSNBC crap but apparently not, just another Geraldo in a dress that will do anything to make ratings go up.

If you watch how she questioned other candidates, there wasn't that nasty tone in her voice with the possible exception of one question to Huckabee. So it came across to me as deliberate animus pointed at one specific candidate.

The questions may have been equally tough as some have said - I don't think they were - but it's the tone that made the difference. I don't blame Trump for going after her in Twitter, but I don't follow Twitter so I don't know what either of them said there. Nor do I care. It's a hill of beans, a distraction from what people ought to be focusing on.

I'm not trying to defend Trump here, but something Kelley ought to at least consider is three presidencies ago we had a man in the White House cheating on his wife with an intern; a guy with a law license who went into federal court and lied under oath; a guy who was getting blowjobs in the Oval Office... and we were repeatedly told (those of us who criticized the behavior) that it had NOTHING TO DO WITH his ability to govern. Nothing. So in light of that, Kelley should be explaining how come that is okay but Trump exercising his First Amendment right to call a woman a "fat pig" while not lying, not cheating, not causing a sex scandal makes him somehow disqualified to be a candidate. The First Amendment is something the media has always claimed as a cornerstone of its industry, so why are they coming unglued when someone else exercises it?

What's upcoming as a choice may come down to a candidate who called a woman a fat pig versus a woman who put classified info on a private server, a server that just by using it violated federal laws. A guy who insulted a woman versus a Secretary of State who we can prove knew certain facts then told US, the public, a different story as regards Benghazi and the loss of four American lives.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't care what Trump called some woman he was verbally feuding with at the time. I care that we DON'T have a President who thinks she can lie with impunity after taking an oath to serve this nation. Because of that, I think Kelley was WAY off base and WAY out of line with the way she asked the question. If I was Trump I wouldn't allow a Fox correspondent anywhere near my campaign or at any speaking engagement until she apologized. And if elected, I'd personally kick FOX out of the WH press corp, giving them a 4-year suspension with the option to renew for another four. Then we'd see just how valuable and brilliant her questioning was.

Interesting to note, both Wallace and Baier asked just as pointed questions but didn't seem to attach the dripping personal disgust to them. I had no problems with how they asked the questions though I did feel they were all just out to try and trip someone up rather than simply contrast one candidate against the others which, I thought, was what these venues were all about.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Yeah he had been in a nursing home for a few months, was limited in mobility due to rheumatoid arthritis and had some dementia and memory loss going on, last week to the day he check himself out, and came home. They could do nothing without a court order, so we expected the call from her mom and a 9-11 call and ambulance ride for him (for the 4th time) because he fell and could not get up within a week or 2 and had prepared for that. Instead he died in his sleep, probably in no small part of him not taking medication correctly and drinking too much beer at home. It had been a struggle with him wanting his independence and being incapable of it, and the dementia keeping him from understanding what was going on. Still was kind of a shock to everyone since he was doing OK physically aside from the arthritis and mobility issue.


Anyway I'm sure Kelley was gunning for Trump. But I think his reaction is pretty telling what kind of leader he is going to be. I don't want someone to go off on a public personal insult tirade because he was insulted himself, if he can't handle that, maybe he better stay on reality TV where he belongs.

[HiTemp]

It's kind of telling to me that Trump says the word "whatever" and it gets turned into "wherever" and that gets turned automatically into a vaginal reference. Trump says he meant her nose, which could certainly be 100% damage control, but he did NOT say anything about vaginas. He said her eyes or whatever.

While I don't want a president who makes these kind of ugly remarks, I also won't be a party to a bunch of self-aggrandizing media types who think they can twist words to make a story and the world MUST accept their personal interpretation. That's precisely the same media scam tactic that was used with Bush and "mission accomplished" and numerous other examples of how the media tries to force a one-way thinking experience.

I see in the news today Trump has been disinvited from Erik Erickson's Red State gathering in Atlanta. In his place, Megan Kelley is invited to speak. That ought to tell you right there what's of primary interest to Erickson and it surely isn't anything to do with understanding candidate positions. This is all about trying to curry favor with the party bigwigs and marginalizing Trump. He could have put him on stage and grilled him about the comments but instead he opted for typical lib tactics. Don't like the message, eliminate the messenger.

Trump exercised his 1st Amendment rights. I don't agree with how he framed his message, but I've heard a lot worse out of Democrats and I don't see them being banned from speech. Kelley was basically playing the nasty bitch with him and he wasn't standing there and taking it. I wouldn't have either.

What's scaring the crap out of these people is that for all their power, none of them can simply swat Trump aside. I think this kind of thing was inevitable when the FOX attack dogs weren't able to plummet his poll numbers. And I don't think this is the end of it, I believe it will only get worse. Politics is a nasty business and most people don't have the fortitude to draw this kind of fight outside of a backroom, but Trump seems to have it. Now we'll get to see a public display of the same thing that happened to Palin.

Trump ought to start beating his Independent candidate drum a lot louder. I'm tired of these backroom king makers. I want to see them really start sweating.

[zrct02]

I too am sorry for your loss. Take care and my best to you and your family.

The initial question pissed me off. Everyone knew Trump might run third party. If he had been asked individually, that is one thing. What they did was try to make a spectacle of his position. I get the distinct impression FOX (as well as the Republican establishment) does not want him to be the nominee. I take exception to any news organization trying to influence an election. I know, they all do it, but this is yet another example of 'fair and balanced' getting shot down.

The one thing I do like about Trump I do like is he is honest - brutally honest. It won't get him elected and his actions will more than likely get the Democrat nominee elected because I do expect him to run 3rd party. I still don't think that will be Clinton. I don't see how they can keep her when an ambassador was forced to resign over a similar issue. The Republicans are going to get exactly what they deserve.

[HiTemp]

I totally disbelieve the formula that says if Trump goes Independent that equals a Hillary win.

What I think would happen in that scenario is Trump would get even higher poll numbers. Clinton has way too much baggage. The Benghazi thing; the email server thing; the Clinton Foundation scandals. And that doesn't even touch on the slimy feeling some Dems get of having Bill anywhere near a seat of power again. What makes Hillary seem like such a giant is there is no one really standing up next to her, but that could change.

I think the R's screwed themselves following winning the Senate and accomplishing nothing except Obama's agenda. All the empty promises will come back to bite them as people are reminded of them. Plus, what is a Republican candidate going to promise exactly? That he'll secure the border? HA! They've had years to address it and haven't, haven't even tried. Oh, they'll finally fix our immigration system... really? How? What's taken them so long, and how come they didn't even try the last 3 times they promised?

They'll "fix" the economy. No they won't. We owe so much money now there is no way to fix it short of cutting the budget with a huge machete, and there isn't a Republican alive that will try that. He'd have better odds trying to cut Social Security in half.

It would be one thing if ANY of the other so-called "candidates with a chance" would fight, but they won't. Gen Patton said that Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. That's why Trump is out in front, because the rest are already losers by refusing to step into the ring, whereas Trump is in there, gloves on, swinging away. He may not be the model heavyweight champion, but if he's the only one in the ring, he's going to draw voters.

Many say Trump is a clown, but he's a clown that actually put serious investor's money to work and made many high dollar deals happen. That's not the work of a clown. Johnnie Cochran was a clown, but you wouldn't want to have to face him in a courtroom. Talent and accomplishment speak for themselves. Fox tried to dent this by asking about his 3 companies that went bankrupt, but the take-away is that 9 of his companies did not. If our current President was only screwed up 25% of the time I'd probably want to vote for him because in DC that's about as stellar as it gets.

The other thing about Trump that I believe attracts people is they know he isn't a pushover. It's quite possible that if he was elected and got to DC, the beltway crowd would pull one over on him, but that would be the one and only time, and knowing Trump it would end up costing them dearly. He's not going to let people ride him like a go kart; he'll rip some heads off and squelch that kind of stuff from happening again. That compared to, say, Rubio who would do... what? Think Marco would take a Pelosi to task, jump all over her case publicly? Probably not. He'd express a McCain like sense of outrage then try to avoid being taken advantage of again.

In a ?R - Trump(I) - Hillary matchup I'd predict a Trump win, 46% to 21%R and 33% Hillary. That is unless Fiorina led the R ticket; in that case she'd win 41%, to Trump 23% and Hillary 36% would both lose.

Just remember, the last election it only took 4 million people sitting home to make a difference in the election. The did that because they didn't believe Romney would do what he promised. So who else on that stage Thursday night has enough credibility to draw those 4 million people back to the polls? Does anyone think the party who promised and sat on their asses is going to do that? I don't.

I think a lot of Dems will do that if Hillary is their choice, while a lot of disgruntled R's will once again tell the RNC they will not be duped or intimidated by "if you don't vote for us you get Hillary" and vote for Trump.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I think Trump in this case is a Perot reboot. Unstable personality that carries enough rebellious support though audacity to let the opposition win by plurality. It could be we have Biden or Sanders as president, which frankly scares me more than Hillary.

The dems are going to have 40%- 45% vote share minimum even if they ran Satan himself. Too many people are dependent on govt, through entitlement, subsidy or career now, heck even Carter and Mondale got 40+%. 45% is good enough without the GOP unified. I would really be floored if Trump, when it came down to it got more than 25% actual vote share, its a pretty sure bet the GOP candidate will get 30% min, because thats just how many drones there are in it that are too scared to repeat the Clinton/ Perot dynamic even with a high polling 3rd party runner. All with record low turnout, but in the end the left will be motivated to vote their livelihood more than the right will vote for lackluster reformists or old party dogs.

And as to Trump and his business model coming to DC, its one thing to pitch a merger or buyout, and if it does't happen walk away, its another when that walking away costs lives. And I can just imagine his twitter feed in a Pelosi spat.

I appreciate his tenacity and backbone on things he has right, but its no virtue when you have it wrong.

[zrct02]

Hillary started out in front and then the Dems found someone else - Obama. I think we are going to see a similar situation again. Someone in the Dem ranks will appear that doesn't have Clinton's baggage. That person will get all of the Dem faithful and most of the moderate vote. Running against Clinton would be a dream come true as Carson said. I think the Dems know that too and they aren't dumb enough to nominate her. I fully expect the Dems to find someone else.

[HiTemp]

Aug 8, 2015 22:43:36 GMT -7 Grug - American Neanderthal said:

I think Trump in this case is a Perot reboot. Unstable personality that carries enough rebellious support though audacity to let the opposition win by plurality. It could be we have Biden or Sanders as president, which frankly scares me more than Hillary.

No doubt the lessons of Perot are applicable here. Perot crashed and burned before the election but the amount of distrust with the Republican base he sowed was enough to keep many of them from voting and we got Clinton. That's exactly the game Trump is playing with regards to refusing to take a pledge to support the R nominee if it isn't him. He's telling the RNC right now that if they torpedo him in any way he's going to pull enough support away from them and they'll be numerically outnumbered regardless of who their candidate is. It's no secret they want Trump gone despite him leading every other candidate by better than 20 points. If I was ahead by 20 and the RNC was doing all they could to deep-six me, I'd do exactly the same as Trump is doing. Politics is nasty business and survival instincts are necessary. This is Trump's attempt at survival.

Now, if Trump was to legitimately drop below another candidate, I think he would bow out and he would support the winner, but he's not going to willingly be shoved aside by some political apparatus, and if they try, he's going to go right for their throat. The RNC knows this which is why they are laying low and won't talk much about it. They're trying the traditional ways to oust him and have been hoping his own mouth would kill his chances but that isn't working. Every time Donald supposedly steps in a swamp he can't pull out of, he does pull out and popular reaction is on his side. This is mystifying all the pundits who've pronounced him dead three times now and cannot explain why he's still alive and in the lead.

They are not getting it! There have been so many cases of politicians involved in scandalous behavior that should remove them from office, yet they've remained because they've been surrounded by vocal support, people who don't care about the indiscretion. Now Trump is wearing that same shoe, except the outrage is on the part of career politicians and pundits and Trump's support is a normally silent group of people tired of politicians walking all over them. So they will support Trump no matter what if for no other reason than to piss off the Beltway power structure. You know what they say about payback!

And as to Trump and his business model coming to DC, its one thing to pitch a merger or buyout, and if it does't happen walk away, its another when that walking away costs lives. And I can just imagine his twitter feed in a Pelosi spat.

You know, I've listened to and read Pelosi call conservatives everything in the book. She called a sitting president an idiot, a fool, a liar. Am I supposed to feel sorry for her if someone like Trump takes to Twitter and flame sprays her?? Pffffftttt!!! In fact I'd be happy to see it. I'm tired of these bastages who run around using the coarsest language, the most derogatory speech one can use, then stand up there bitching about "the dignity of the office" and crap like that only to pressure their opposition to not fight back. Well screw them! They want to street fight while insisting their opponent live by the Queensbury rule book. Frankly I'd be happy to see someone abandon those rules and jump right down to their street level and kick their ass so hard they will not try that trick again.

Who's going to do that? Dr. Carson, you think? Huckabee? Rubio?

No, the only one with the tenacity to go after them is Trump and they all know it, both sides. I'm sorry the RNC thinks themselves too civilized to fight; let them lose elections some more running their freshly laundered candidates and maybe someday the money will dry up. Until then, I believe people want someone who will fight more than someone with a great grand plan that everyone knows will get adjusted and tweaked through amendments until it, like every other government bill, doesn't accomplish squat. They want more than a Republican promise that if you elect us we'll make changes, followed by months of accomplishing nothing except capitulation.

Conservatives have been waiting patiently for someone to stand up and wave the BS flag at political correctness run amuck, at politicians who gladly accept your money, time, and vote but then turn on you the minute they are elected. I know I'm sick of it, so sick of it I won't even vote anymore, but I might vote again if there was someone worth voting for. Someone I felt would go down to DC and not be civil to that band of thieves and decievers. Someone who would tip all their little apple carts upside down and make them play by enough rules so normal, everyday working Americans aren't sacrificed on some altar of financial gain.

As a veteran, it takes me more than 8 months to get a hearing test, and I can't get it done at the facility 3 miles away that has all the right staff and equipment, I have to drive two states away to get it. Then I have to go back for follow up, meanwhile my local facility is treating vets from Mississippi and Louisiana. Which candidate of any seems most likely to you to have the expertise and available expertise to examine these stupid "models" of how they disperse treatment and perhaps bring some more streamlined structure to them? Some common sense. Some better allocation of resources and better focus on customer needs than some slick fancy "program" that doesn't work? I don't see any but two who have the qualifications. I don't see any but two of them who wouldn't be afraid to ask hard questions of Cabinet Secretaries and demand performance to a certain standard or replace them. Sadly, our government leaders have built such a firm structure of convoluted corruptness it will not and can not be changed by some polite, well-spoken person with a likeable personality. It's going to take a pit bull who will charge in there biting and snapping and tearing pieces of flesh until something starts to change.

So I don't want a polite guy. I want a screaming, raging, lunatic with a business background, someone who understands money and where it needs to flow to make the economy better. Someone who will take a bit of perverse pleasure in putting a hurting on these elite ruling class types who have not given two seconds thought to how we feel or what's best for us.

I don't want Wally Cleaver. I want Eddie Haskell. I don't want polite, nice-guys who will continue giving half a BILLION dollars of our tax money to fund crushing human babies for cash. I want the Terminator. I don't want a polite knock on their door, I want the door busted down at 3 in the morning and a barrage of flash-bangs tossed into their party apparatus followed by them facing overwhelming force. You can only kick a dog so many times, then there is no sensible right to be upset with the dog when he sinks his teeth into you. I wish our country wasn't at that point, but years of good men standing around doing nothing have made it what it is. Now it's going to take a very tough, uncouth, war-like approach to get it fixed. I don't want someone willing to compromise with evil, I want someone willing to take it on and defeat it. If he drools and rants and raves, I don't care. If he's a foul-mouthed sot, I don't care. If he calls women fat pigs, so be it. I just want the job done.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

You know, I've listened to and read Pelosi call conservatives everything in the book.

Yeah well Pelosi sure ins't presidential material either. And I am not seeing how coming down to the lowest common denominator is the best idea for leadership since it has not worked yet.

I agree, I like it when Trump stomps on political correctness, but there is a line between that and blustering to out right temper tantrum, the same difference between being an adult and juvenile. Knowing when to swing is as important as swinging itself. Donald has swung at everything that even comes close to the plate, and pretty soon he will strike himself out.

I see no way of winning any real political capital in calling someone names on Twitter. What he going to do, unfriend Putin on facebook when he crosses the next border if he wins? Photoshop pictures and post them to pintrest of him in a gay pride parade?

Honestly if we cannot do better than Trump on the right, then this country is done. He is just another empty suit, but with a bullhorn for a change.

I don't want Donald the clown, nor do I want Mr Rogers. I want someone who can look 5 steps ahead and already have planned how to get around opposition of media and is a not stumped by slanted questions asked and not be so insulted they have to go on a tirade afterward.

I want someone who will do things, not just talk about them, but more important I want them doing the right things, even if its unpopular.

[HiTemp]

I'm not saying what Trump is doing/has done on Twitter is model behavior for a President. I'm saying he's the only one willing to step into the ring. He may not have the pugilistic skill of an Ali or a Sugar Ray, but he's in there swinging. The others are NOT doing that, they are telling us what swell governors they've been and would like a shot at Governor of the USA. The only exceptions are Ted Cruz (in the top tier) and Fiorina (in the lower tier). Cruz has already been branded an extremist right wing type and his Republican pals sat around NOT fighting those attacks off. So now Cruz may have his mind right, but he lacks money, donors, and popular support in virtually every key state because he's seen as no different than Trump.

Who owns that one? The RNC and the R Senate reelection committee. I bet they're kicking their own asses right now for letting Cruz be cast in that light because were it not for that baggage, Cruz could easily outpace Trump with RNC support. But they've burned that bridge and put all their chips down on Bush, who can't seem to clear 15% with the wind at his back. Not only is their wonder boy way behind, but Donald the Clown is WAY, WAY ahead. They can't even come up with a sound plan to put Bush back near the front because they are so preoccupied with derailing the Trump train.

I don't want Donald the clown, nor do I want Mr Rogers. I want someone who can look 5 steps ahead and already have planned how to get around opposition of media and is a not stumped by slanted questions asked and not be so insulted they have to go on a tirade afterward.

I agree with you 100%. Now, WHO of the rest of the candidates is fitting those job requirements? Which of them is looking 5 years ahead? Which of them is getting around the media? In short, there IS no other candidate who is going to carry out anything except business as usual with all the predictable hand-wringing, fiery speeches, and kicking the can down the road. None of them are going to take us off the currently existing model. For gosh sakes, in the last 7 years we've come to have a Congress that won't even READ their own bills, and won't let you or I read them either. Who's going to fix that, the polite guy that doesn't blow up on Twitter, or the Clown that does?

Having lost faith long ago in the R brand, I'd have to pick the clown. I wish I didn't have to, I wish one of the others would step up and fight, but we both know they won't. If elected, they'll do the same thing Boehner and McConnell are doing... lay low and play whatever game the money people tell them to. To hell with those pesky voters, we're above them.

I'm just tired of that attitude.

You know, when this country wasn't yet a country and several prominent citizens were going around rocking the boat of revolution, they were hearing the same complaints. We NEED ties with England. The world will NEVER accept a government that rose up against a sitting monarch. Why, someone would have to be a clown to even think that could work.

Yet it did.

I remember a line from that Mel Gibson movie, The Patriot, where they had a town meeting about supporting a revolution. Gibson's character says, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for another 3 miles away?" This is how I view all the candidates except Trump, Crus, and Fiorina. All we would be getting is a different tyrant tied to the same tired rules of making decisions for the betterment of big business and big investors and to hell with the rest of us. They aren't going to change anything. Just a different tyrant the same distance away.

So the only chance we have for change is to put someone in office who isn't beholden to anyone in the Beltway, and in fact has a few scores to settle with some who are. That leaves the same three. Two of them can't get 10% of their own party's vote, so really unless something changes dramatically, they don't even have a shot. Unless Bush runs into a burning building and saves some children, he isn't going to have a chance either. Even if he did, he's just more of the same. That leaves Trump or Hillary/Biden/OMalley. Of those, I'd choose the clown.

[HiTemp]

As a corollary, I think at this early stage of the game the more support given to Trump, the more the RNC will be scared into moving to the right. So even if some one of the others gets out front, you know they will be told they have to attract the centrist independents and they should move more left. You know, the losing move perfected by both McCain and Romney. There is no reason to believe the RNC and their experts won't do exactly the same thing. It's like they're gonna run that play until they get the results they want.

So every time I see Trump gaining, I'm glad to see it. I want those crooked RNC bastages eating Tums by the brick while they try to figure out how to get rid of the elephant.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Actually when you look at what Walker has done, I think he plays the long game and took every bit or more fire than Trump has to date. That he is not in news cycle is because maybe he thinks before he speaks, which I am finding it hard to fault him for.

But I agree, no one else is stepping up and saying things like Trump, even if that is not a plus in some of the things he has said. Trump has shaken up the status quo of elections, but I am not so enamored with this bluntness to forget what he really is, and I believe he would be just as disastrous as the leader of this country as the traitor we have in now. He is not Reagan no matter how bad people want that.

[HiTemp]

Yeah, you're right about Walker, I should have included him on the short list. He faced down the Dem walkout where they all took off to IL to avoid a vote. Could be he has the sand too. Problem is, he's not getting enough traction and in a Walker- Bush runoff he's predicted to lose. I'm not sure why that is, and I wish it wasn't so, perhaps it's a matter of campaign cash.

What I'm hearing from some is that they are afraid of Trump, as President, acting like a total fool and having public, down-in-the-gutter fights with people who don't really matter. I agree that's a possibility to be concerned about, but I think it's far more likely that Trump would be well attuned to the power of the Presidential Snub too; that not giving his critics the time of day works every bit as well as a Twitter bitchslap.

Where he could come unglued, and I think it would be positively received, is when he sends a budget or a bill to Congress and they start their normal process of saying nebulous things about it while quietly tweaking it to their liking, effectively gutting any real change. I don't think Trump would take that lying down to be honest with you. I think he'd be interrupting prime time to put the torch to a few Senators or Reps that are trying to play games with him.

Recall Obama's first SOTU address where he called out some Congress Critters AND the SCOTUS. When he did, many said it was over the line tact-wise, but a day later it was no longer a story. I just think Trump has a way of ramping that kind of thing up to a level that won't easily go away. Can you imagine him confronting Senators voting on a bill they haven't read, and doing it from a Presidential address to the nation in prime time? Nothing like the light going on to scatter a few cockroaches, only it would be times ten with Trump's ability to call people out.

I fully believe that has a lot to do with why the establishment politicians of both brands want him the hell out of the way. He knows exactly how to make a story a media magnet, and they don't want to be that story.

What would be ideal is for Trump to win a few primaries, Cruz and Fiorina and/or Walker to rise along with him, and then throw his support to one of them. I don't think he will go Indy unless he's cheated out of a nomination, but I do think he'd bow out if he felt others were inclined to stop the Beltway nonsense.

And if not, I'd sure feel better with a Trump-picked team negotiating on our behalf than John Effing Kerry, Viet Nam Purple Hearts thrown over the WH fence. I don't think a Trump would sit idly by and hand out cash to nations who refuse to get in line and support us. There wouldn't be questions about who is and who might be our ally.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

It was not a story because it was Obama, but remember back to when Bush slipped in poll numbers and it was either lead or backup story in political news for the rest of his term, how many times have you heard his poll numbers mentioned except of course MSNBC internal polls etc? You think they are going to give trump a pass? He can't even get 'right wing' media on his side.

He is riding high because he is the DC outsider and media figure all in one package, but when it come down to the nuts and bolts of policy and people are really thinking about who is going to lead this country, things like -

"I'm going to make Mexico pay for the fence."
"How?"
"I'm just going to say 'Hey mexico, your paying for the fence'"

While that's amusing to watch no doubt, its not leadership or vision. He can't fire Mexico. Not that it will matter to the reality TV crowd they will gladly jumps on the trump wagon, he is cool you know just look at how he can insult people.

And if not, I'd sure feel better with a Trump-picked team negotiating on our behalf than John Effing Kerry

Thats the problem, I have no idea who he would pick to be on his team, and I have not yet seen anything he has done to show he has mine, or the countries best interest at heart. Campaign promises are cheaper and easier to forget than Bangkok prostitutes.

[HiTemp]

Has it been established that Bangkok prostitutes are easy to forget?

No, we really don't know who Trump would pick or what his plans are any more than we do any other candidate in the mix. The only information we have to go on is that he has negotiated a lot of big financial deals and come out on top.

Rather than just focus on the what of those deals, I'm thinking more along the lines of what it takes to make one of those deals. In the case of financial/investment deals, it's going to take good lawyers, good accountants, and persuasive people who have sat down before hand and cemented what they'd like, what they'll accept, and what gets traded for what. In short, they have a strategic plan and goals up front.

I don't get the impression our current State Dept does that. Hillary's infamous "Reset" button is a good example. It's like they have people engaged in it, but they aren't experts with rigorous attention to the last detail. Now the Iran deal... a deal so good, so well negotiated that WE can't see it, it has to be done under a blanket. Yeah, encouraging, eh?

I just have a sense that Trump knows what makes these other government tick, and it's always money. So we want a deal with Iran that's reasonable, we find all the ways to put our hands around their financial neck before we sit at the table, rather than sit and listen to all manner of demands to lift sanctions so they can fund their new dangerous toys while vaguely promising to comply with future things they have no intention of honoring.

There are never any guarantees with any candidate. The best we can do is look at what they've done and try to envision how they would apply their experience to a federal government.

That he is not in news cycle is because maybe he thinks before he speaks, which I am finding it hard to fault him for.

That may be part of it. Look back to when he was engaged in the fights he is now holding up as his resume and we see he was never out there making many sharp remarks at all. He isn't the kind to take his fights to the media, instead he operates much like Bush II did. Honestly I'm not much of fan of operating that way because you give up a huge advantage to your critics in doing so. They stand at the microphone bashing you ceaselessly while you remain dignified... but silent. People only hear one side of the story so that's what the story becomes. I know with Bush it was a personal matter of how he viewed the office as having a certain dignity. That's fine, but remember this is politics and it's a dirty, nasty business. You can't give your opponents a free weapon like that to use against you and expect to prevail. It's Queensbury v. Street Fighter all over again.

I'll sacrifice a little presidential dignity in view of the fact it has already been stained, we aren't preserving something spot-free to begin with. I'd rather have someone totally focused on winning at his goals than one who is trying to meet several constraints at once and ends up losing.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Bangkok itself may not be, but tell me names...that you may have heard of course.

I have no doubt he would probably get people who are real negotiators, for one thing, I would not be negotiating with Iran at all in the way they have. I have doubts that what he would negotiate for would be in the countries best interest. Some trade deals for example are not in US production interests, but are in the interest of futures traders and the stock market. Being strong on trade is a generic term, its the details that make it good or bad.

Anther thing that's strikes me is he is similar to the clown we have in charge now in his boasting that apparently form his personality and superior people skills alone will convince Mexico to stop dumping people on us and OPEC to stop shorting oil. I don't need think we need to learn that lesson yet again.

As to Walker, yes he is relatively quiet, though he did go and make statements that denied and contradicted the allegations of him at the time. The media was doing everything it could to try and bury him, and still failed, he still remained popular with who counted, rank and file voters, by doing what he said he would and dismantling the union influence and stranglehold on the state that was bankrupting them. Bush on the other hand did not, because he really was not conservative in his approach. He grew govt entitlement, and presided over the original wealth transfer to banks and doubled the debt in doing it, created or perpetuated infringements on rights like the free speech zones and patriot act which grated on people, and did nothing on the border despite all the talk. Those combined with the non stop antiwar meme and allegation of corruption the media fed us worked together to get people to just turn away.

I don't know if Walker is all that, he seems pretty soft some key things, like immigration, and running on your record only gets you so far, you have to explain how that is going to work nationally. Doing like Romney explaining how Romney care was not Obama care, when it clearly was, and then saying what worked for the state won't for the nation isn't going to fly. If that was the case how are you qualified to even run for the office.

[HiTemp]

Bangkok itself may not be, but tell me names...that you may have heard of course.

I've only been to Bangkok once and that was on a tour bus that took us to see the Temple of Dawn. It was magnificent. As the sun rises in the morning, just as it's about to pop up from the horizon, the light catches the shiny, reflective stone of the temple and makes it appear to glow radiantly with light while the surroundings are in semi-darkness. Our busload was steered to all the tourist attractions and trinket shops; no hookers were on the itinerary.

Back in Pataya Beach, however, the hookers were as common as hedges in a subdivison. I had never been immersed into a scene quite like that. I observed what I thought was a group of young (late teen/early 20s) ladies waiting at a bus stop next to an open air fruit market. I thought they were waiting for a bus; the only unusual thing that struck me was how so many pretty girls all happened to be taking the same bus. I learned later that they weren't waiting for a bus, they stand there hoping to sell their "wares" in exchange for some fruit purchased at the stand. I have it second-hand that the going rate was one bunch of bananas or four good sized mangos.

The hotels (I stayed in two different ones on different dates) there had a glass wall on the first floor directly off the lobby. Behind the glass were various ladies in limited states of dress, each with a numbered band worn on one arm. If you wished to partake of their company, you went to this desk and gave them the number and a liaison was arranged. I'm told it cost more than the fruit stand girls, I presume because the hotel had larger overhead.

I don't know any of their names, but I'd never forget the array of girls behind glass windows like the front of a large store like Macys in NY. I never saw anything quiet like it, with possible exception of Hamburg, Germany where the windows were smaller, they were in different buildings along the sidewalk, and there wasn't anything at all beautiful about them.