Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2016, 09:28:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97916 Posts in 2334 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 18, 2016, 08:44:35 PM
I am chuckling at your reviews, no, I am laughing at them. 

The purpose of an article is to communicate a thought to a specific group of people. A technical article requires one type of writing, a “sophisticated” elitist requires another style of writing. And reaching a specific demographic like the middle class requires another distinctive style of writing.

This article was designed to reach the common, middle class person who has been fed the same crap that I have heard time and again about supporting Trump. It was not designed to give “full-throated” defenses of Trump to people who are “my betters”, to people who will only vote for Trump because the alternative is too “unthinkable”.

The article was written to deliver an emotional message.

1.   People supporting Trump are not alone. There are millions of people experiencing the same attacks and denigration and we stand together.

2.   The use of the term Americans in its many instances was deliberate and specific. Where the elitists use Nationalism as a degrading term, I used the term Americans to deliver a specific definition that was identified by each section and the photos that were used.  American in this case meant Patriotic.  Seems that the people reading the article caught on to that.

3.   The use of the WW2 photo of Americans at Omaha Beach was to show that the people who support Trump are the same ones that time and again, have risked their lives for an ideal, a uniquely American ideal.

4.   The Red Cross photo and the catastrophes that we respond to across the world represented the American spirit of generosity and the propensity to lend a hand wherever needed, at home or abroad.

5.   The At Home Section represented the people supporting Trump were the same people that you see every day in cities and communities. These are the people who make up the communities, who are the people who hold them together. They are the people who you will find at the core of any successful community.

6.   The All We Ask section was self-explanatory. As was what we want.

The message that I delivered was that the people who support Trump want a return to American Values from the 50’s and 60’s. Reagan values, Love of Family, Country, Community and God. We want a financially responsible country where people once again become dependent upon themselves and not the government.

With the supporters, there will be differences, represented by Pro Choice or Pro Life. But those positions do not adversely affect the underlying values that we seek a return to.

I realize that what I wrote did not meet your standards, but I don’t give a damn. You were not my target audience.

I wrote this to a specific demographic which represents the majority of the people in this country, the upper lower class, the middle class person and upper middle class people. These are the people that will Make America Great Again, not the insufferable upper class who believe themselves to be smarter and wiser than anyone else.

BTW, as to Cruz, the guy all of you loved, why don’t you check out his religion?

Read it and you realize that he was the Christians own version of Islam where religious leaders were the only ones fit to rule. Pathetic.

And as I post this, I see GM has commented again. Now I am truly pissed off. I came back just for the last couple of days, and I get this crap.

Well, I am truly through with posting here.

And GM, go fuck yourself, you arrogant bastard.

Now, CD you can ban me. I don't care because I won't be back.
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 08:29:23 PM   We are not "the other site that will not be named".

No, I do not work for the Trump campaign or anyone else. 
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 05:32:29 PM

First, I want everyone here to think about writing an article. We at HotGas want a place where we can begin to bring together the divisions within the Party, offering the Cruz supporters especially a place where they can come and discuss with the Trump supporters on how to change the country for the better. And it first begins with defeating Hillary.  Well, actually this is not true because I do not believe come the end of October that she will be the candidate.

As to the articles you ask about, I will have to take some time and go back and list them. But I can't do that for a couple of days at least. I need to finish a project I am working on for a presentation this week about taking some of my work products and turning them into Smart Phone apps. A new direction for getting my products to market.

4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 02:59:14 PM

When I said evil incarnate, I was referring to articles posted by the media that have called Trump everything in the books. So I apologize if I did  not make that clear.

I invite you to put together an article on your concerns about Trump and what you think he should do and how you think he can be influenced to make those changes. Inf fact, I invite everyone here to write something and I will get it posted.

We also welcome Reader Submissions on other topics. A recent one that generated much interest was on the coming financial crisis, and how to prepare for a general societal collapse.

At HG, we are people like all others. We have our fears and our concerns, but we just want to get the US back on the right track.
5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 10:32:36 AM
Since I quit posting here, I have been lurking, reading the posts on the election and the candidates. Several times I have almost posted, but realized that I would once again subject myself to negative articles about Trump promoting media and political talking points that have taken Trump’s words out of  context, his history having been distorted, and rants that Trump is evil incarnate. I can go anywhere for that.

Since blew themselves up by going over Facebook for posting, I have been a part of  I am a featured commenter and one of the moderators there.

There is no place generally to go and have a reasoned debate on Trump, Clinton and the ongoing election. Go to The Right Scoop, and anyone opposing Cruz is subjected to the vilest comments imaginable. (I went there once and after writing about 50 words on why the article written was misrepresenting a Trump position, I was attacked in ways that would make a sailor blush. And within two minutes, I was permanently banned.)

Conservation Review? The same thing occurs. Yep, banned The National Review, pro Trump comments are often deleted. But the same happens with the Pro Trump website, The Conservative Treehouse.

I am writing this because I am extending an offer to anyone here.

At HotGas, we would welcome anyone here to pen a thought out article on your views of Trump, other candidates, or the coming General Election.  Then, we can have a reasonable discussion, no name calling, etc.

If anyone chooses to write an article, be prepared to back up claims with proof or facts to support the claims. You will be challenged on what is presented.
Know that HG does support Trump. But know this also…..over 50% of our posters and readers were either Cruz people, as a first or second choice, but most have flipped. We would be happy to discuss why the flipping.

This is your opportunity to present your views to a website that has over 15k unique visits per day, and about 30k hits per day.  Just amazing for a website that began on Feb 8, 2016 and has been operational for just 3 months.

If you want to submit an article, just send me an email, and I will get it posted as a Featured Reader Submission. Just make sure it is well thought out and not just a series of rants.

6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: January 06, 2016, 01:36:26 PM
I haven't been commenting on posts because I am tired of going over the same old crap each time. But both of you have taken the Trump comments out of context so I must intervene. Here is what he was pointing out.

1. The Courts have never ruled on the question of what constitutes a natural born citizen and the Constitution is vague about it. In fact, courts have been loath to address this subject.

2. Grayson, the Florida Rep, has already indicated that

Speaking on Alan Colmes’ radio show last week, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson let us in on his nefarious plan:

I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination, and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s …Call me crazy but I think the President of America should be an American,” he added.

3. There are already at least two lawsuits regarding this in the State Courts right now, Florida and either Vermont or New Hampshire. The allegation is that Cruz and Rubio are not natural born, so they cannot be on the state ballots.

4. If you read comments on the different websites, there are huge numbers of people who state that they will not vote for either because they are not eligible to run for president.

Each of you argue that the Dems will use anything possible to attack Trump if he is the nominee. Why do you not think that the Dems would use eligibility to attack either Rubio or Cruz?  Of course they Grayson proves.  (Who cares if he is a nutter? Who needs the distraction?)

It is better to get this out in the open and resolved now, instead of waiting for the General Election for it to come up. 

BTW, from my own reading, I believe that they are eligible. But I also understand how it could be used against them if not countered now. Look at what was done with Obama.

Also, since I am at it, each of you have also stated that the polls are showing that Rubio can beat Hillary but not Trump. Yet you also challenge those same polls by saying when it comes to Trump beating the other GOP candidates, they mean nothing until the primaries have run their course.

You can't have it both ways!  Provide reasons for believing that they are correct in one case, but not the other, especially when Trump is showing such a huge lead in the different states and in the national polls.  (At least I do try and postulate why Rubio might be matching up better against Hillary than Trump.)

nuff said...

7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 28, 2015, 09:01:43 PM
The GOPe was the ones who pushed McCain and Romney.

And, with the polls, I have always said that Rubio first had to win the nomination, but he is so far down he cannot win at this point.

And remember, I have always said that Rubio will end up being the candidate do to Convention manipulations.

Why is every one in love with Rubio? He is going to break your hearts......and at least I have no illusions about Trump.

8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 28, 2015, 05:25:05 PM

Ignoring my sarcasm?   evil

The GOPe told us that Romney and McCain were both electable. Look what is got us. Now they are saying that Rubio is electable. Why should this time be any different?
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: TPP Trans Pacific Partnership on: December 28, 2015, 02:14:14 PM
It cannot be voted on until O'Bummer sends it to the Senate. And O'Bummer believes that it will need Rep support, but the Senate is afraid to vote on it before the election for fear of a backlash against their candidates who vote for it.  (TPP must be signed by Oct 2017 by all countries.)  So don't expect the cowards to move on it until after the election in a lame duck session.

10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 28, 2015, 12:25:01 PM
"Rubio is electable."

Where have I  heard that before?  Presidents McCain and Romney come to mind.
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 07:39:34 PM

For all of those who don't like the thought of having to vote for Trump if he is the nominee and having a wish that it was someone else...........

Welcome to the Club. This is what I and others have had to do with McCain and Romney for the past two elections. 
12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 07:11:14 PM

What the hell did Gowdy accomplish?  Not a damned thing. He let the Wicked One off. It was a typical DC display of nothing.

13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 07:09:58 PM
Yes, but he was in business. What was he to do? Ignore the benefits and make less profits?

Trump is now blowing the whistle on same. He is telling what happens and that it must be stopped. Does that not count for something?

When is everyone going to start attacking him for taking tax breaks?  I am sure that is coming.

Everyone is also after Trump because he is rick. Well, it is about damned time for the rich to stop having to apologize for being rich. They got rich by making money. And for every dollar that a person like Trump has made, he has put many times that amount into the economy through business operations and taxes.
14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM
Since you caught it, what do you think about the premise?
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 01:48:46 PM
I cannot believe that no one caught the deliberate contradiction that I put into my comments.

I wrote about the anti-federalists who did not believe in a strong federal government, and that if you read what Brutus and others wrote, that they predicted what would happen in all three branches of governments, and which has since been proven to be correct.

I also wrote about the need for a "central" government that could sort out the various issues between the states and the contradictions in the laws that might exist between states.

Then I wrote that the problem with government are inherent in all institutions and firms........that they must grow and increase their power and influence or die.

Finally, I mentioned the problem with the politicians and that they are beholden to the special interests that further erode government's responsibility to the electorate.

The contradiction:

1. As proven by the Articles of Confederation, a loose collection of states means that nothing will get done. This is even more true in today's world.

2. A stronger federal government as presented by the pro federalists and which won the day will always lead to the federal government taking control of everything over the years and decades. It is human and corporate nature.

3. The end result is that neither can work over an extended period of time due to human nature.

What is the solution? We certainly can't restrain the growth of government. Many pretend that it is possible, but any measures taken to restrain government will only be temporary and in most cases, token measures only meant to appease a certain group. Yet, we can't allow it continued growth.

Thomas Jefferson was correct that the Tree of Liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But now we have gone too long for such a response to work. Government has become far too strong to allow for rebellion.

The other alternative is to let government and the country crash, and then rebuild again. But how it gets rebuilt and into what form is unknowable until it is finished.

Or, we can go DDF's route and consider three separate countries...........
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 11:07:11 AM
Come on...........the mud raking has been going on long before Trump. And he is saying only what needs to be said to destroy the pc culture.

As to Cruz and Rubio, look at their voting patterns versus what they say. Rubio is especially establishment and Cruz is only marginally better.

You don't believe that the entrenched interests influence everything that occurs? I guess that I just belong to the vast group of conspiracy minded folks who still believe that the moon landings never occurred.

Yeah, Rubio just needs the votes.  grin  If he can't beat either Trump or Cruz, where are they going to come from for him to win the nomination?  Of course!!! The GOPe changing the convention rules so that they can put in Rubio. And if they do, goodbye GOP. And that will be well deserved.

17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 10:58:09 AM
Are you going to do a Constitutional Convention for everything that comes up? Or Amendments to the Bill of Rights? Can't happen so there must be another mechanism.

Again, SCOTUS ruled on Kelo. They ruled that the State Laws were valid and it was up to the states to change the laws as necessary or desired. This is Article 10 in full display.
If you want to argue that SCOTUS overplayed its hand, then you might as well go back and force a revision to Marbury v Madison (1803) which set the boundaries for judicial review.

We are a country split into three basic factions now. The middle and extreme left, the moderates, and the middle and extreme right. The left and the right are rigid in their beliefs and want their views absolute. The middle wants compromise. What  will be the outcome, who knows? But I am predicting another round of financial and then societal collapse.
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 27, 2015, 09:49:24 AM
Yes, Donald has contributed to all of those Democrats, but at the same time he was also contributing to Republican candidates. That is what business people do, especially those living in the large urban areas.

If you want a purity candidate that has never done the same, fine. But that will eliminate large numbers of very competent people who could run the country quite well. What we are seeing with Donald is exactly the reasons why good competent people do not get into politics. Why put up with the crap and having reputations dragged across the mud? Why waste the time when they could be doing good elsewhere by making money and creating wealth and jobs?

If you want a professional class of politicians who are incompetent and care only about themselves, their party and getting elected, then let's just continue on the same course. Let's elect those who are "party approved" and "party tested" and then have them screw the people on a daily basis by passing legislation that is designed to assist their masters.

The US as it stands now only has a handful of years to change course. Will that happen under Rubio? Hell no. Under Cruz? Hell no. Both are nothing more than pawns in a huge game designed to benefit party interests and to make money.

Will it change under Trump? Probably not. But he has a better chance that the others because he can rally the masses better than most. Unfortunately, this will not be enough either because the entrenched interests that influence current politicians will not let hi prevail.

I am just going to sit back and watch Rubio be given the nomination. Then I will watch his failures and his sell outs and at the end, say I told you so. Hopefully then, I will be in a financial position where I can avoid the worst of the coming collapse.

19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 26, 2015, 02:00:25 PM
You are missing my point. Maybe I did not put it properly.

There is a need for States Rights and Article 10 protections, but when they conflict with other states and the other states do not accept Article 10 protections, then thee must be a regulating authority.

When technology introduces new innovations that causes conflicts with previous standards and the courts cannot resolve the issues, then there must be a way to resolve the issues.

There are certain needs that only a federal government can take care of like defense. There are other needs that a state is better equipped to take care of. There must be a balance between the two. But unfortunately, government intrudes in places that it should not, and they do it as a need to justify their existence and to increase their power.

With the American Creed, yes, freedom, free markets etc. are the key. But this assumes that people are also honest and through working towards their own goals, they can also benefit mankind. But human nature does not act that way. Far too many will act in ways to benefit themselves at the expense of others. And when you have entities like the banks and Wall Street firms, how does the public get protected from their practices?

Federal Government must be a fine balance between serving the public in its best interests and becoming an overwhelming force that acts against the public good. The problem is that government is now populated by those who have no regard for this balance, but instead to seek an enhancement of their powers and authority.

Government must also seek the same balance in "American Creed" freedoms. It must allow freedom of speech but at the same time, be able to place limits on it like "shouting fire in a crowded theater". It must allow for 2nd Amendment protections, but at the same time, it must have the ability to restrict 2nd Amendment protections in the case of felons, etc.

Again, the problem is that the bureaucrats over exceed their authority and place harmful restrictions based upon a whim or in the case of global warming, false science. And these bureaucrats are put into their places by incompetent politicians who likely believe in their same causes.

The problem is how to restrain government from enacting these foolish policies.
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 26, 2015, 01:26:00 PM
Knew people would not like that statement and all the other I wrote.   grin grin grin
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 26, 2015, 12:21:20 PM
DMG, in  reply....

1. The poll I posted that have the Rep oversampled, there was an "interesting" factoid found in it by another person. Turns out that in an obscure area of the results, the poll numbers showed that it was the Dems oversampled. This was brought to the attention of the pollster and they admitted that the Dems were the ones oversampled. Just a minor error had occurred on that one line.

2. What are the limits on government power? That really is the question that needs to be answered. And of which there will always be controversy.

When I consider this question, I always go back to the Federalist Papers and the arguments presented for and against the Constitution. The basic argument with the anti-Federalist position was that with the Constitution, it make for a stronger government and eventually that government would usurp the powers of the states. The anti side wanted less government and more state.  (Interesting isn't it that now the conservatives promote the Federalist Papers, and the Dems go even more extreme.)

The anti-Federalists who wrote the arguments for their side absolutely predicted what would happen in the future. They literally foresaw that the government would become a monster agency controlling the lives of all and would essentially control the states. They also saw that a new political class would emerge, and they saw that the judiciary would become the problem that it is now.  Yet, the anti-Federalists are the ones held in disgrace.

The other side of the coin is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written about 240 years ago. (This part is going to set your hair on fire.) Then, there were only about 3.5 million people in the country. The country was rural without even electricity, sewage, and the other conveniences of life. There was no way that the authors of the Constitution  could see the progress to be made and the changes to the country. In large part, that is why the Constitution was written with such vagueness in many areas.

The progress of civilization dictates that there must be an ability to adapt to the new changes that will occur in society and technology. And there must be an entity that can lead the way for adaptation. Of course, that entity must be a government that is more centralized rather than spread out fully across the states.

To provide an example on technological changes, let's take the 4th Amendment. Back in the 1700's, weaponry was breach loading firearms and cannon. The 2nd Amendment gave the right to bear arms. There was no question of limitations because the arms were certainly needed for the young country.

Now we look to today. Machine guns, missiles, RPGs, tanks, etc. Does the 4th mean that all are acceptable to own? Why own fully functional RPG's? Also fully functional tanks with the ammo?  Are restrictions required? And what about the mentally ill or felons?  So the 4th is not all encompassing and inviolate. Then who must decide whether ownership of certain weapons are allowable? The states would have some rights, but also the government.

Look at technology. Computers and the Internet. This has provoked radical change in society. Everything has been affected from privacy rights to freedom of speech. Who and how is this to be regulated?  When the changes occur and they affect previously accepted norms, then litigation is required, usually at the state level, but also the federal level. But the courts are not prepared for this nor understand the arguments, so they rely often on previous precedent. Rulings are made that may make no sense in light of the new products, but occur anyway. Who is there to sort this out?

One can argue Article 10 and States Rights, but there are problems with this. Take gun ownership for example. You live in Florida and legally own rifles, shotguns and hand guns. You decide to go hunting in Maine, loan up the SUV and go. Then you hit Maryland and get pulled over for a traffic violation. They notice the weapons in the vehicle. You are immediately arrested and become a felon, because under Maryland law, you must register weapons all weapons. Maryland does not accept Article 10 and Florida law on firearms.

The problem of Governmental Power is the result of incompetent people being elected to Congress and the Presidency. They make policies that establish Federal Agencies to administer the new policies like the CFPB and Dodd Frank, Obamacare, the EPA, DOE, etc. And when the new Agencies get up and running, they are tasked with creating the laws and regulations to enforce the new policies.

You also have the "games" that the politicians play with their electorate and their votes. Take TPA for example.

Both sides wanted TPP to be passed. They knew that they could not get the 67 votes to pass. So they create the TPA bill that essentially says instead of 67 votes to pass, you need 51 votes to deny and they pass it. So they simply changed the rules to avoid their constitutional requirements.  (Cruz voted for this bill...later he said he was deceived by it.)

TPP then comes up and with it, 51 votes against cannot be mustered, so it passes, where otherwise it would have been denied. (Cruz votes against it and can provide the excuse that TPA deceived him, or he would have voted against it.  Misdirection?) These are the games they play.

Frankly, there are probably few limits left on governmental power. This is because government is like any firm. It must grow or it loses influence and dies. So it grows by assuming more power and responsibility.

The only way to restrain this growth is to cut off funding and to cut manpower. Inefficient agencies must be eliminated and others restructured. If not, continued growth will occur. This is how government has restrained and shrunk the military. But the government will not allow this to happen to them.

Trump has said that he is ready to eliminate 5 different  Agencies and wants to restructure others. Then he wants to reduce waste, spending and to make them more efficient. He would be treating the Agencies as a business. Will it work? Certainly the Agencies and the Congress will do everything they can to stop him. And for the Agencies, it is try to delay changes until Trump is out of office. But if you want to restrain Governmental Power, this is where it begins.

As to Supreme Court appointments, he has indicated that he wanted judges who would follow the rule of law. As to anything else, if he cites "who" he would appoint, it would just provide the anti-Trump forces more ammunition to go after him.

Immigration? You want detailed plans....? Whatever he says, he will be "eaten alive" anyway.

Eminent Domain? SCOTUS has effectively ruled on that case. In Kelo, they stated that Connecticutt had laws on the books that governed Eminent Domain and those laws would apply. So in that case, it was Article 10 and States rights that prevailed. But SCOTUS also stated that the States had the authority to change their laws to meet what their states wanted, so Article 10 applied. And SCOTUS also stated that the States had to define Public Interest for themselves. Article 10 again.

You argue that Trump will change all of this. I ask "HOW"? He does not have the power as President to do so. You might say by Executive Order, but that only applies to Federal Agencies, and this would not work.

Frankly, I see the Eminent Domain argument as irrelevant.

22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 25, 2015, 04:59:09 PM

The war on women attitude is exactly what Trump is prepared to attack Hillary on. He is setting her up for the kill. Any other Rep nominee would be too afraid to go there.

I cannot wait for her and Trump to debate. He will get her off the "canned sound bites" and she will totally lose it. That will be the point that Trump wins the election.  (This should have happened with O'Bummer in 2012, but Romney or the others were not the "men" to do it.)
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 25, 2015, 04:56:05 PM
Thank you. Interesting points.

When looking at it from a Russian perspective, Putin does make sense.

Unfortunately, we tend to look at things from an American perspective. We forget that Russia has throughout the ages been the victim (yes, I said that) of the Mongols and many other groups. Therefore, security and the fear of neighbors and insurgents becomes a prime factor in thinking.

You are right in my opinion about what is happening in the US. We are becoming balkanized along ethnic grounds and the liberal bias is making it worse every day. I too fear what it will be like in three years.
24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 25, 2015, 02:09:34 PM
I am really beginning to love this!!!! Here is why:

The arguments against Trump.

1. He is not going to run. He is just seeking publicity. Oops, he announced.

2. He is not going to file the preliminary paperwork. This is all a game. Oops, he did.

3. He is not going to file his financials. He is running a bluff.  Oops, he did.

4. He is not a serious candidate.

5. He is only at 7%. No one supports him. He will not go any higher.

6. Trump is now at 15%. That is his ceiling. He can't go higher.

7. Trump's disapproval ratings are about 70%. He only gets about a 30% approval. With his negatives, he can't go any higher.

8. The Fox debate and his performance was pitiful. He will lose support.

9. Trump is at 20+%. He has hit the ceiling and he cannot go any higher.

10. Trumps approval ratings are up to 40%. Negatives are 60%. He can't go any higher.

11.Head to Head Trump against Hillary and Hillary wins by 20%. Trump can't win the election.

12. Trump's Kelly comments.........he is finished.

13. Trump only appeals to lo-fo voters. He cannot go higher with them.

14. Trump at 30%. He is at his ceiling. These are online polls. They are not accurate.

15. Trump at 38%. Let's quote Q showing him at 28% and running behind Hillary. No one will know.

16. We can't let Trump win. Run a 3rd Party or else support Hillary.

17. The schlong statement is not Presidential. Trump is finished.

18. The bookies are betting against Trump. Bookies are winners so they know what is going on.

19. Trump supporters will not go out and vote.

I wonder what the next round of excuses and rationalizations will be.
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: December 25, 2015, 10:22:00 AM
This is an attempt to neutralize Trump. Nothing else. Contrary to what the Dems say, they do not want to run against Trump. They would rather have Cruz, who can be easily demonized by his Tea Party connections and therefore be beaten. As to Rubio, they can knock him off as well.
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 25, 2015, 10:18:10 AM

So let's see..........

At some point, the new President will be having to engage in negotiations with Putin.  So will Putin be willing to negotiate with someone who has called him a killer? And will this cause him to take a more hardline approach with that person?

Or will Putin respond better to someone who shows a bit of discretion? 

I, for one, would want to negotiate with someone who showed the discretion...................
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 25, 2015, 10:14:10 AM

I saw that but did not post it. I did not want to ruin DMG's Christmas.  grin

Much of the difference in the polls are the assumptions being made about turnout. If 2008 or 2012 election turnouts are the basis for the assumptions, then there is a huge problem. With 2008, we saw massive turnout for O'Bummer that had not been seen before. And with 2012, we saw a lack of GOP turnout due to Romney.

Can Trump turn out the numbers? All appearances so far seem to indicate yes. (Contrary to the NYT article last week, he does have a large GOTV effort in all the states. It is just "unconventional" from previous efforts.) Will the new turnout be greater than the GOP non-Trump stay at homes?  That will be the question.
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 24, 2015, 06:07:48 PM

Objection!  Speculation!

Judge:  Sustained
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 24, 2015, 05:22:27 PM

Could you explain more on Putin?  I would love to hear what you have to say and have experienced. This is the type of input the media will not give us.
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: December 24, 2015, 04:38:55 PM

I caught it with you.....and added to your sarcasm.

My wife who is 1st gen from San Salvador says send them back.
My son whose ex was Canadian had to go through the process with her. He says send them back.
My neighbor who did it legally says send them back.
The son-in-law who is 1st gen says send them back.
Other relatives with legal spouses say send them back.
The only one who does not say to send them back is a La Raza supporter, and her sister who is an immigration attorney. (She sees the money.)

Everyone in my family and circle of friends did it legally and want the illegals to go back and do it legally.

31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: December 24, 2015, 01:43:09 PM
And then open the borders for everyone else to come.  And after that, return the Texas, the Southwest and California to Mexico.
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 24, 2015, 01:39:43 PM

Damn, you caught it!
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate - Housing Recovery Postponed on: December 24, 2015, 12:01:43 PM
 grin grin grin

Zerohedge just caught the Commerce Department and their "fun with numbers" on Housing Sales. Home Sales are not as good as claimed.  (Commerce learned for the NAR how to play the game.)
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: December 24, 2015, 11:55:35 AM
10 Year bill is at 2.24, which was about equal to what it was prior to the rate hike. So there is little change in the 30 year market. More increase will be needed there.

For the ARMs and Lines of Equity, that is where the first impacts will be felt. Most Lines of Equity were tied to the Prime Index. Prime has been raised by .25% to reflect the rate hike. So over the next couple of months, LOE's will see the first increase.

Most ARM's are tied to the 6 Month LIBOR, 12 Month LIBOR, CMT and MTA Indexes. These indexes take the monthly Index average for the last 6 or 12 months to calculate what the Index  is at any one time. So it will take a full year for the complete effect of the rate hike to apply and increase the ARM rates.

35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 24, 2015, 11:47:20 AM
DMG, To your comments above:

1.   Abortion will NEVER be reversed and that is the reality of the situation. It is used to divide the country and to get political donations for the advocates on each side. It may be an issue to a segment of the right, but most conservatives I know support abortion. It is the moderate conservatism position.

2.   Defunding Planned Parenthood falls in the same category as abortion.

3.   Megyn Kelly did not deserve it? You forget that in the debate she, Baier and Wallace deliberately set up Trump for a fail. First with the pledge and then the war on women. Baier even admitted afterword that they had alerted security and had a plan in place to have Trump forcibly removed. Is that not a set up and deserving of Trump’s reaction?

You also seem to forget that in the minutes earlier in the interview, Trump said the exact same thing about Baier. So was Trump suggesting he was a girl? Or did Trump plan to use it first on Baier so as to be able to use that as an excuse for the comment on Kelly?

You also ignore that Kelly was going after Trump every night on her program. Her attacks and her guests against Trump was at the level of MSNBC going after all Reps. And it continues to today.

But I guess that the above means nothing……

4.   Schlonging should not be coming out of the White House, etc.  And the less than 50% support. And Trump is not a serious candidate.

At least someone has the balls to attack the Dems, instead of laying down with them. And the support? Each poll brings him closer to 50% levels, even with 13 candidates in the race. If nominated, then most of those not supporting him should vote for him in the general election. If not, then blame them for a Hillary presidency.

Not a serious candidate? Even the pundits have given up on that argument.

5.   Cruz and Rubio? I almost wish that either would win and then watch what happens. They will flip and flop all over the place like they do now. Under them, TPP moves forward, Amnesty is granted. HIBI visas increase. Rubio gets us into a Syrian way and maybe one with Russia.

You complain about Trump changing his views from years ago, but ignore the Cruz/Rubio flip flops and also their connections to Big Money and the Super Pacs.

6.   How will Obamacare be changed? Certainly not repealed. It will have to be a compromise between the parties and Cruz has so totally pissed off his side, he could not get anything through. Rubio? Depends upon who is in his pockets at the time.

7.   Immigration reform. If you want Amnesty, both Cruz and Rubio will deliver it, no matter what they claim now.

8.   Military spending must be done with an eye to the force structure, not by politicians who push their local industry products. We have to ask serious questions about what is needed to meet the threats. First among the questions is “what is the threat”? What is needed to meet the threat?  We have to quit procuring weapon systems based upon the last war fought.

Right now, we have far too much “support” personnel and not enough shooters. We need to focus on increasing the shooters and design the weapon systems to support them. We don’t design weapon systems that take forever to bring into service and cost hundreds of millions per unit like the F-35 which appears to have serious deficiencies in what it can do?

9.   How to get rid of the illegals? You want full details. And the second he releases all details, everyone attacks him and starts to figure out ways to ensure any plans do not get implemented.

This is classic “Art of the Deal” Trump. You tell them what you can do, and then when they are ready, the negotiation occurs on what will happen. For example, with the proposal I just finished, I let the client know what I could do, what I brought to the table. Did I provide details of how I would do it? No way. Did I give them for a price what I could do the work with a small profit? No way. I provide them a price that is commiserate with the value of what I do. Trump is doing the same thing.

10.   You and I have different views on the Eminent Domain issue and the public interest which we will never agree on. As to what type of Judges to appoint, well that worked out well with Souter, Kennedy and Roberts, didn’t it?

11.   As to Trump bringing in new people into the party who will destroy it, the people that Trump is appealing to are the same people that the GOP has “claimed” that they wanted to bring into the Party. These people are more moderate and not purity ideologues. They come with their own desires, opinions and needs. Yet the GOP wants them to convert to the GOP fully and without retaining their own views. And if they do not convert, then the GOP does not want them. No wonder the GOP keeps losing.

The GOP left its base long ago. With people like Ryan, McConnell, Boehner, McCain, Romney and the other fools running things, they will not appeal to the base. That is why the GOP cannot win nationally any longer.  And until they change, they will continue to lose, and that is if they can even remain a viable party.

Parties must change to reflect the wishes and the views of the electorate, especially their base. If they don’t change, they will become more and more ineffective in the future as the base leaves them which is now occurring.  That is what is happening with the GOP and the Dems now.

BTW, when Trump made the Schlong comment, he knew exactly what he was doing. He was baiting Hillary and setting a trap which she has fallen into. She played the woman card as she loves to do when her position on something is weak or worse. Now, Trump can nail her on the woman card, doing something that no other candidate would ever do. That is bringing up the contradictions in her “support for woman”, and especially with issues like rape. Trump can beat her over the head on how Hillary would support Bill with the Bimbo eruptions. And it will be fun to watch.
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 24, 2015, 10:35:35 AM
Long night crunching numbers. More to follow. But in the schlong view of thought..........guess that the expression has been used before in politics.  And, it was the paragon of virtue Truman holding up the paper.  Much ado about nothing.  But

Trump is finished!!!!  (for the 872nd time)

37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 23, 2015, 03:37:28 PM

I will reply to your posts later. Time to do some work.
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 23, 2015, 03:35:57 PM
Thanks. And the accent is gone. But about Oklahoma, don't let me get started on the outhouse and having to go out there at night with a flashlight. Talk about frightening when you are 5 years old.

What I did not say is that though I had a roof over my head when I was 16 to 17, I frequently did not have food to eat and I had few clothes. Most noticed that I would wear clothes until they were about ready to shred. I was lucky that one family took interest in me during that time. They would frequently prepare more than enough food and bring some to me, or else I would have really starved. Can't tell you how many nights a week I had bologna sandwiches. Only when I got a job washing dishes in a greasy spoon did I finally have food that I could count on daily. (They let me eat breakfast and lunch.)

Where I live now is a solid middle class neighborhood. It's a mixture of white and hispanic, working and retired, with a few Section 8's included. I can say with absolute certainty that over half worry about their future and their jobs. Many worry about having a job the next week and are making a decision of which bills to pay weekly so that they can have food on the table. Moreover, they worry what type of country that their kids and grandkids are set to inherit. They fear, an rightly so, that it will be a future where their kids will not be as well off as they are. I have the same worries for my grandkids.

This is why I am so sympathetic to the middle class and why I understand them so well. I have been there and lived the lives that so many have at one time or another.  And I can be just like them again with another stroke of a government pen.

Trump has hit upon the concerns of this demographic that others cannot see, probably due to a lack of shared experience. That is why they are going to him in droves.  If you look at Trump rallies, it is not just the numbers of people, but it is the make up of the crown. Though mostly white, there are significant numbers of blacks and hispanics. And based upon their clothing and appearance, it is not just middle class but also a significant portion would appear to be upper middle class. Ages are across the board.

Trump has resonated with the people like no one since Reagan or "spit" O'Bama. And as people pay attention, that is why his support is growing.

For the record, I never watched the Apprentice or his other shows. I never paid attention to him, read the book or anything. But it was watching one of his rallies on tv that I realized he was speaking to me.


You and I have lived different lives and circumstances, but we do have a shared experience in many ways. Good luck with building your own company. Hard work and long hours, but well worth it. Maybe we can both leave a legacy on the world with our efforts.

39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 23, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
Bill Kristol represents the old GOPe as well as many others. Then there was the DC dinner with Prebius in attendance where the talk was about manipulating the convention to get their candidate in....denied by Prebius of course.

Then you have Super Pacs pushing for a 3rd Party candidate if Trump wins. Also you have the Romney threat of a 3rd Party. And there have been GOP officials make remarks about it was better to support Hillary rather than Trump, also against the pledge to support the GOP nominee. Where there is smoke,  there is fire.

Straw men?   grin   No I am along with millions others pushing over an old and useless party that exists only to keep itself in power and money.  Just like the old Communist Party in the 1980's. 

It's time for them to go.....
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 23, 2015, 02:18:53 PM
How do you define the American Creed?
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 23, 2015, 02:18:23 PM

My story........

Born in Oklahoma. Moved to San Bernardino in 1963. Mother died when I was 14, and Dad worked and had no time for me so I fended at home for myself. By 16, never saw my data because he had taken up and moved in with a woman and her 3 children. So I was completely on my own at that point.

After high school, went to work for a bank as a teller, but it was a job where there was little future. Had no motivation or time for college, so at 23, joined the Air Force. While in, I recognized that I could go to college and did so, graduating from Troy State and then going to LSU Shreveport. After graduation, held positions in a number of different administrative positions in hospitals and start up companies, but never a real future. Made several people wealthy in the start ups, but I never got anywhere. Finally went on my own, and since then have gotten to a good point professionally and monetarily, but three times, the government (both state and federal) has instituted new regulations and statutes that caused me to have to "re-invent" what I do. Each time, it damned near bankrupted me. Now I am at it again from a different direction that may finally give me what I want.

I have never lost my "working class" roots. I certainly identify with the working class more than with anyone else. I find the working class honest, trustworthy, and with more common sense than those who are over educated. I would much rather have a beer with them than with wine guzzling elitists.

I am becoming more and more a "pragmatic" conservative, call me moderate, recognizing that societal and cultural changes make purity conservatism a dinosaur that can never but achieved. For me, it is supporting a candidate that focuses upon the 2 or 3 most important issues that I care about, Security, Illegal Immigration, and Economic/Tax issues. Everything else is immaterial because the division of the country will not allow other change to occur.

You are right that the end is not the end, but is a new beginning. That is what the country is facing and what the politicians have wrought makes it likely that the end/beginning will begin soon. And it cannot be postponed. When it begins, we will need a pragmatic leader who can face the challenges and do what is needed, and not stick to old dogmatic beliefs.

42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential - New Party on: December 23, 2015, 01:02:19 PM
Let's see. Trump had to provide a no 3rd Party pledge.  What happened?

1.  Bush and others making talk about a 3rd Party run.

2. Bill Kristol now on a 3rd Party run.

What is good for the GOP is not good for others.
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 23, 2015, 12:58:26 PM
So Jeff Greenfield who does not like Trump is not credible. 

Would it have made any difference if Trump had said that Hillary got "screwed" in the election? Probably for the Trump haters..............but for the working class, no.

Actually, Trump's comment was GREAT. He uses a throw away line and the entire media is once again talking about it. More free publicity. Bet the rest of the candidates wish they were getting the publicity. (BTW, publicity is good even if it sounds bad. In this case, it just cements Trump supporters to him. Others will find the whole thing just another media hit job, and only the Trump deniers will jump on it.)

How many people do you actually think knew what schlong meant? Even more, how many really care? And if the media had not jumped on it, few would even know that the statement was ever made.

This is just another diversionary tactic to distract from what Trump is saying because the media and the elitists do not want their apple cart disrupted. Same as with Megyn Kelly and the bleeding comment.  If you remember, Trump had previously made the same comment about a Fox male anchor.  (So maybe the anchor was transgendered.) No one made a fuss at that time. Just when it was the Ice Princess Prima Donna Kelly.

Yes, let's bring back dignity with some weak kneed RINO candidate. That way, no one will pay attention to what is being passed that screws the middle class over again and again.

Let's also keep campaigning on subjects that will never be changed:

1. Abortion. It is here to stay, but it makes a good distraction from what is otherwise going on, and it keeps generating money for those on each side of the issue.

2. Defunding Planned Parenthood. Another distraction which will never be changed, but keeps bringing in money.

3. Balanced budget. Something else that will never be changed, except with tax increases. (Yeah, I know...Trump.)

4. Repeal of ObamaCare. It can never be fully repealed, only modified. After all, there are all these new people with insurance who are subsidized and if repealed, what happens there? Does one simply forget about that now?

5.  Social Security reform. Neither side has the guts to do what is needed, so it will remain the same. But it does remain as another election distraction.

6. Immigration reform. Nothing substantial going to happen there. COC wants the cheap labor.

7. Military spending........more distraction. And more crony capitalism. Think the F-35 brought in to also serve as a replacement for the A-10. No military leader is going to take an F-35 and put it into a Close Air Support role. Too much danger of losing them to ground fire and other weapon systems. That is, even if it can dogfight.

I could go on and on but all of this stuff is designed to keep the American public divided and separated. That way, the DC elites and Wall Street can continue to reap the benefits at the expense of the people.

44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 23, 2015, 12:28:42 PM
The end of America?  Oh yeah, here we go again with that argument. 

Why would it be the end? Oh right, because the GOPe would be afraid to challenge her, like they are afraid to challenge O'bummer. Instead, the GOP comes up with tripe like "this is not the hill to die on", or "we must pick battles that we can win".  This was how Vietnam was fought and look what happened. If the same strategies had been applied in WW2, Europe would be speaking German, the Far East Japanese, and Russia would control still most of East Asia.

If the GOP had any scholonges, we would not be where we are now, and America could survive a Hillary presidency. But they have been emasculated on the alter of Political Correctness and fear of losing their power and influence that they have now.
45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 23, 2015, 12:20:01 PM

Hell yes we are angry and have had it with the party because the party only represents themselves and the elites. The GOPe has left the middle class behind to fend for themselves.

Why does anyone think that voting for the same old professional politicians would make any difference this time? Oh, Cruz and Rubio are different. Yeah right.

- First time Senators who decide to run for the Presidency after their first couple of years in office, just like O'Bummer did.

- Each are flip flopping on issues as needed to try and hide previous votes that the base would not support.

- Both are weak on immigration reform, and with Cruz, who the hell knows where he really stands.

- Both went for TPA which gave the Fast Track authority and also changed voting requirements that later allowed TPP to pass. (This also allowed for Cruz to claim that he was not for it later............after the damage was done and there could be no accountability.

- Each beholden to Super Pacs consisting of the elitists buying the candidates.

- Cruz whose wife is a permanent fixture with Goldman Sachs,, Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations.

And we are supposed to believe that this time it is different?

Just watch what happens if Trump is taken out of the race and Cruz becomes the front runner. He is going to be taken out by both the GOPe and the Dems, leading to Rubio who is Jeb lite.  He will melt and submit to his masters just like all the others.

This is a war for the soul of the party. Either way, whatever happens, the GOPe is finished as it currently is, and that will be a well deserved end.
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 22, 2015, 10:52:40 PM
Donald J. Trump Retweeted
Jeff Greenfield ‏@greenfield64 2h2 hours ago

On further review, Trump is right on this. “I got schlonged” is a commonplace NY way of saying: “I lost big time,” w/out genital reference.
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 22, 2015, 10:10:17 PM
So what is Trump supposed to say? (Hell, most people did not even know what schlonged meant until the press made a big deal of it.) 

So what if what he said is not supposed to be Presidential? Well, Presidential image ended with Clinton and his whoring ways. And it worsened with O'bummer, though one wonders how it could have gotten any worse? And now with Her Highness, it will get even worse. It's time to end this pc crap.

Guess what? His supporters love it when he talks like that. Why? Because he speaks like then and doesn't give a damn about what the elite thinks,

But since according to the elite on both sides we are nothing more than Vulgarians, racists, nazi's, uneducated rednecks, hicks, homophobes, exnophobes, slobs and whatever else you can think of, maybe we should just do like in corporations and sign proxies giving others the right to vote on our behalf since we are not smart enough to understand what the world is about.

Oh wait, we have been doing that for the last two decades and look what it has got us? Dole, McCain, Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Ryan and all the others.  Guess the elites are just as stupid as us.

48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 22, 2015, 06:28:32 PM
BTW, for the GOP group, only 4% valued gun ownership higher than climate change in the Q poll.  That by itself says there is a huge problem with the sample.
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 22, 2015, 06:26:23 PM
Here is the Q Internals regarding the sample.  Comments below in red:

 REGISTERED VOTERS....................................
                                                                                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                                      Tot         Rep       Dem        Ind            Men           Wom          Yes         No
Weighted Percentage        100%     30%      33%        28%          47%            53%        32%      68%
Unweighted                     1,140      374       360         334            610              530          587       553
MoE (+/-%)                      2.90     5.07       5.17        5.36           3.97             4.26        4.04       4.17

The sample of Registered Voters looks to be pretty good. Weighting appears to be fairly correct.
AGE IN YRS..............
                                       18-34      35-49      50-64      65+
Weighted Percentage           20%       26%        28%    21%
Unweighted                         117         191         364      423
MoE (+/-%)                       9.06        7.09         5.14     4.76

Here lies a major problem. Based upon other polls and past elections, the 50-64 and 65+ brackets are woefully low. Normally, these are several points higher and the younger brackets lower. This would reduce Trump numbers because he performs better among the older groups.

REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS.....................................
                                                  Tea        BrnAgn     CONSERVATIVE Mod/                                  COLLEGE DEG
                                    Tot         Party       Evang        Very        Smwht      Lib       Men     Wom      Yes       No

Weighted Percentage     100%       17%         31%         34%         35%       29%     54%     46%      31%    69%
Unweighted                   508            88           156          173           179        146      306      202       252      256
MoE (+/-%)                  4.35        10.45         7.85          7.45         7.32        8.11     5.60      6.90     6.17     6.13

What a mess this one is. 

Tea Party at 17%, too high. These would go to Cruz.

Born Again Evangelicals, way to high. This would reflect again in a push for Cruz.

Conservative/Moderate, probably about correct.

Men and women..probably about correct. Most forecasts are suggesting that Trump is going to bring out more men, so this would be consistent. 

College level, probably correct.

Bottom line, some of the demographics are out of normal range and would provide Cruz more support than with normal levels. Looks like this was a partial push poll.
50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 22, 2015, 05:04:04 PM
Just so DMG does not get too excited about the Q poll, here is Reuters 5 day rolling average.   evil

December 22, 2015


Donald Trump     36.7%

Ben Carson         11.3%

Ted Cruz            11.0%

Marco Rubio         8.3%

Jeb Bush               6.7%

Wouldn’t vote        6.3%

Chris Christie         4.3%

Mike Huckabee      4.2%

Carly Fiorina          3.6%

Rick Santorum       3.1%

Rand Paul             2.7%

John Kasich          1.4%

George Pataki        0.2%

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!