Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

I am familiar with that line of case law and with RFRA. The Court carving out exemption from generally applicable statutes and regulations for religious beliefs is not remotely the same thing as a county clerk creating an exemption for herself from a Supreme Court decision that includes no such exemptions. All due respect my friend, but you're way way off the mark here.

From Sept. 8th. Seems like Volokh says that if she limits her claim, she should or might be granted the exemption under Kentucky's RFRA. Make of this what you will. I don't practice.

But if Davis sues in state court, seeking a declaration that she can issue licenses and certificates without her name — as a Kentucky RFRA-based exemption from the Kentucky statutory requirements for what must go on her license — I think she’d have a good case. The federal district court rejected her Kentucky RFRA argument on the grounds that the requirement doesn’t much burden her beliefs...But though I agree that her religious convictions can’t excuse her from issuing marriage licenses altogether, I think the judge erred in the rest of the analysis in this paragraph. If Davis believes that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky RFRA. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA. (The federal district court’s conclusion about the inapplicability of the Kentucky RFRA won’t be binding on state courts, because that conclusion came in a preliminary injunction hearing; such conclusions on preliminary injunction generally lack so-called “collateral estoppel” effect on future hearings.) - Eugene Volokh

This is all well and good, but that's not really what Davis was doing or what Huckabee had previously said. She just flat out refused to grant them marriage certificates and made no effort to accommodate them, and he supported that. She didn't offer to have someone else sign the marriage certificate, and she didn't ask whoever runs the county to make such accommodations. Some gay guys showed up at the clerk's office to get married and she told them to beat it (no pun intended). That is putting her religious beliefs above the highest law of the land.

 

[The General]

Who is taking Carson seriously? Some rambling about building 2 walls when he was asked a direct question about why Trumps plan to kick everyone out was not realistic, tithes replacing the tax system, prison turns people gay.

I have not heard him say anything that makes sense. Only seen parts of the debates so I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

I get the Fiorrina lady getting traction, she at least put together some red meat talking points and looked the part.

Somewhere between 10 and 15% of all likely Republican voters, and a lot more in states dominated by the evangelical vote, such as Iowa.

Saw some poll that had him listed as the candidate most likely to get the nomination.

 

[The Commish]

Amazing how fast Carson is rising.

I think there's a few things going on here: first, evangelicals in Iowa are always strong. Huckabee won in 2008 and Santorum in 2012. Evangelicals love Carson and they have been supporting him for a couple of years. I think some moderate Republicans also like Carson because they don't know anything about some of his more extreme social views, but they like that his tone and persona is moderate, quiet, and intelligent, as opposed to so much bombast from a lot of the others. Like Trump and Fiorina, he has never held public office, and apparently that is considered a plus right now by almost ALL Republicans across the board.

Finally, Carson is black. Very few black men have run for President on the Republican side, and I believe conservatives are sick to death of being called racist simply for opposing liberal solutions to racial problems. The vast majority of conservatives are not racist, so they are excited by a black candidate who shares their POV.

I'm not sure where this ranks in your list of stupid statements, but it's up there.

Racist by Tim standards which is kinda funny.

 

[rockaction]

I am familiar with that line of case law and with RFRA. The Court carving out exemption from generally applicable statutes and regulations for religious beliefs is not remotely the same thing as a county clerk creating an exemption for herself from a Supreme Court decision that includes no such exemptions. All due respect my friend, but you're way way off the mark here.

From Sept. 8th. Seems like Volokh says that if she limits her claim, she should or might be granted the exemption under Kentucky's RFRA. Make of this what you will. I don't practice.

But if Davis sues in state court, seeking a declaration that she can issue licenses and certificates without her name — as a Kentucky RFRA-based exemption from the Kentucky statutory requirements for what must go on her license — I think she’d have a good case. The federal district court rejected her Kentucky RFRA argument on the grounds that the requirement doesn’t much burden her beliefs...But though I agree that her religious convictions can’t excuse her from issuing marriage licenses altogether, I think the judge erred in the rest of the analysis in this paragraph. If Davis believes that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky RFRA. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA. (The federal district court’s conclusion about the inapplicability of the Kentucky RFRA won’t be binding on state courts, because that conclusion came in a preliminary injunction hearing; such conclusions on preliminary injunction generally lack so-called “collateral estoppel” effect on future hearings.) - Eugene Volokh

This is all well and good, but that's not really what Davis was doing or what Huckabee had previously said. She just flat out refused to grant them marriage certificates and made no effort to accommodate them, and he supported that. She didn't offer to have someone else sign the marriage certificate, and she didn't ask whoever runs the county to make such accommodations. Some gay guys showed up at the clerk's office to get married and she told them to beat it (no pun intended). That is putting her religious beliefs above the highest law of the land.

That's why I've been careful on how to word it. It clearly sounds, from the media and from Volokh's treatment of it, that she has adjusted her claim to distance herself as far as she can from gay marriage license issuance without personally condoning it. I'm not aware of the case and its twists and turns and what Huckabee said about issuing the licenses back when she refused, but it certainly sounds per one of the top First Amendment scholars in the country that she has a case, albeit in a limited way.

Do I support it or her or religious exemptions and accommodations in general? I don't know, really. My majoritarian impulses temper my sympathies regarding individualism.

It would be nice if we were reasonably consistent in determining what was ripe for accommodation and what wasn't and that the byzantine structure of these RFRAs and where they apply weren't so federalist in nature, but such is the rub.

 

[rockaction]

1. True, but socialism (he's actually a social democrat) is an economic principle, not a state of sanity.

I've seen a lot of comments here about this. Can someone explain to me what the difference is? Serious question.

There are varying degrees of socialism, but socialists set prices, wages, and production of goods within the domestic economy by central planning. Social democrats believe, generally, in hybrid market and planned solutions to social problems, including high tax rates, nationalized health care, high minimum wages, etc. It's really the amount of government interference in regard to the economy, with social democrats favoring market corrections rather than setting market functions. It's a large difference.

W/r/t Bernie Sanders, he has on numerous occasions called himself a democratic socialist, which says, to me (considering Sanders knows of which he speaks) that he's more socialist than social democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Or, you could, you know, read the very detailed policy positions he has on his webpage and make an informed decision rather than looking at the order of two words and gleaning the answer you really want from there.

No, I don't really think I would. I've had this debate before on this board. He knows what the order of the two words means. It's quite a specific philosophical term. For somebody who calls himself a socialist and writes for socialist journals and knows about owning the means of production, per his own darn words, it's quite a mistake for him to do so. Especially as the former mayor of Burlington, VT, where one ought know damn well what it means.

Or he's a politician.

Or he's a liar.

Or you could assume, just like people made the same mistake in the other thread, that I know who Bernie was before this, know what social democracy is, and know what democratic socialism means.

And that social democracy, incrementally, could possibly pave the way for dem. socialism.

But nah, I'd rather you just snark on a message board and lament the loss of your Republican party status. Hwarf.

 

[rockaction]

I find that it begs credulity he doesn't know what the ordering of the words means.

"Born in Brooklyn, New York, Sanders is a graduate of the University of Chicago. While a student, he was a member of the Young People's Socialist League"

So he likely knows what the ordering means. He's also said so on many occasions.

"Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[6][7][8][9] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe"

There is nothing mutually exclusive about being a democratic socialist and arguing for positions that are better suited for social democracies within the constraints of one's own political situation. As William F. Buckley, Jr. used to point out, "there is what we ought to do, and what we can." It was his maxim about statesmanship and political compromise.

 

[rockaction]

Indeed, when Sanders argues and promotes policy encouraging a federal-level Dept. of Labor to provide loans to establish worker's cooperatives, we can be pretty sure this is rooted in socialist, rather than capitalist thought. His first words of his first proposal about economics in America?

"We need to develop new economic models..."

Salon seems to think it is a step along the way toward socialism given other reforms, much like I pointed out in the post above.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/the_radical_bernie_sanders_idea_that_could_reclaim_america_for_the_99_percent/

Others hail it as as fundamentally socialist and incremental in its steps towards a socialist model. This is the article worth reviewing for technical distinctions about socialism, Marxism, and the cornerstone of Sanders's economic modeling program

http://monthlyreview.org/2015/02/01/cooperatives-on-the-path-to-socialism/

And a publicly-edited Wiki entry seems to think it has its philosophical roots in socialism, anarchism, and participatory democracy and participatory economics (the latter of which is what I think Sanders is, like my old economics advisor in college was)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

 

[Rohn Jambo]

1. True, but socialism (he's actually a social democrat) is an economic principle, not a state of sanity.

I've seen a lot of comments here about this. Can someone explain to me what the difference is? Serious question.

There are varying degrees of socialism, but socialists set prices, wages, and production of goods within the domestic economy by central planning. Social democrats believe, generally, in hybrid market and planned solutions to social problems, including high tax rates, nationalized health care, high minimum wages, etc. It's really the amount of government interference in regard to the economy, with social democrats favoring market corrections rather than setting market functions. It's a large difference.

W/r/t Bernie Sanders, he has on numerous occasions called himself a democratic socialist, which says, to me (considering Sanders knows of which he speaks) that he's more socialist than social democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Or, you could, you know, read the very detailed policy positions he has on his webpage and make an informed decision rather than looking at the order of two words and gleaning the answer you really want from there.

I think of the difference as Russia (socialist) vs. Scandinavia (democratic socialist). Benie likes the Nordic model which combines welfare state with free market economy.

 

[rockaction]

1. True, but socialism (he's actually a social democrat) is an economic principle, not a state of sanity.

I've seen a lot of comments here about this. Can someone explain to me what the difference is? Serious question.

There are varying degrees of socialism, but socialists set prices, wages, and production of goods within the domestic economy by central planning. Social democrats believe, generally, in hybrid market and planned solutions to social problems, including high tax rates, nationalized health care, high minimum wages, etc. It's really the amount of government interference in regard to the economy, with social democrats favoring market corrections rather than setting market functions. It's a large difference.

W/r/t Bernie Sanders, he has on numerous occasions called himself a democratic socialist, which says, to me (considering Sanders knows of which he speaks) that he's more socialist than social democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Or, you could, you know, read the very detailed policy positions he has on his webpage and make an informed decision rather than looking at the order of two words and gleaning the answer you really want from there.

I think of the difference as Russia (socialist) vs. Scandinavia (democratic socialist). Benie likes the Nordic model which combines welfare state with free market economy.

I do not think this is accurate. Scandinavia is largely considered socially democratic. Russia was Marxist/Engels-esque. It was communist.

Democratic socialism would be best described by the models and structures and philosophies I've linked to above. It differs from bureaucratic, state-planned setting of prices, wages, and production by a central board, but it is still largely considered to fall under the rubric of the ownership of the means of production by workers and society rather than by capitalists who hold the means of production and merely rent labor at a given wage in exchange for labor's productivity and time.

 

[joffer]

We really need a rockaction forum

 

[HellToupee]

We really need a rockaction forum

Don't try to Schochet rockction

 

[rockaction]

We really need a rockaction forum

Don't try to Schochet rockction

I took it as a mix of awe and admiration regarding my stunning clarity and ability to clearly and concisely explain the issues.

Nah, pardon my fumbling, but this requires a historian, and the history of all of the different branches of socialism and its dialectic is really technical and abstruse unless one is well-versed it, which I'm not perfect at for sure. I'm certainly not as well-versed and as conscious of the importance of all these distinctions as...say...Bernie Sanders would be.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Mostly curious if WD Neslon posted an update in here.

 

[Rove!]

You can tell from his username that he's a man primarily concerned with action and only secondarily with rocks. Were his username actionrock, it would signify something entirely different and he'd probably be a liberal, gay, planned parenthood employee.

And from your user name, I'm guessing you injure yourself watching pr0n...

 

[timschochet]

We really need a rockaction forum

Don't try to Schochet rockction

I took it as a mix of awe and admiration regarding my stunning clarity and ability to clearly and concisely explain the issues.

Nah, pardon my fumbling, but this requires a historian, and the history of all of the different branches of socialism and its dialectic is really technical and abstruse unless one is well-versed it, which I'm not perfect at for sure. I'm certainly not as well-versed and as conscious of the importance of all these distinctions as...say...Bernie Sanders would be.

I feel like I'm watching that horrible Warren Beatty movie, Reds.

 

[rockaction]

You can tell from his username that he's a man primarily concerned with action and only secondarily with rocks. Were his username actionrock, it would signify something entirely different and he'd probably be a liberal, gay, planned parenthood employee.

This is funny, but if I'm calling myself rockaction, chances are that I know certain things an average layperson doesn't about the name and have a distinct set of values and concerns regarding that particular name or moniker. Indeed, I get your point about the arbitrariness of ordering something so silly, but if you look deeper, nothing about the order of my name is silly, nor arbitrary. Chances are that I know...

• The proto-punk origin of the name, whereby Iggy Pop called his drummer Scott Asheton (not guitarist brother Ron, which would make more sense) "Rock Action" as a nickname, which stuck. The origins of the nickname, according to obits, is that Scott Asheton had "Rock Action" tattooed on his arm with a lightning bolt. Legend -- and interviews have it -- that Iggy Pop named him spontaneously, which subsequently led to the tattoo. Chances are also...
• I'm familiar with punk, the definitions and ever-changing meaning of punk; the distinctness and history of punk ethics and philosophy, even (not coincidentally) down to its politics and its economics; and also its history and current ethical and philosophic/economic construct, including its current take on production and distribution. Chances are also...
• I'm familiar with the dialectic of punk and punk ethos that led to the moniker being used by post-rockers and instrumental band Mogwai, why they used the moniker, and what their own ethos and economics are. Chances are also...
• I'm familiar with the Rock Action record label that Mogwai puts out. Chances are also...
• I'm familiar with the politics of Mogwai and the band's history with Europe, the U.S., and the politics that flow therefrom (they're notoriously Euro-centric, more so than many other bands). Chances are also...
• I'm also familiar with common usages within Mogwai's work regarding the repetitive use of burying the words "Rock Action" through vocoders, sequencers, and buried synthesized vocals throughout their instrumentals. See, e.g., "Sine Wave," "Folk Death '95," etc. Chances are also...
• That there are reasons why I revel in so-called "rockism," from The Stooges's first need to emblazon it on their arms (hint: it has to do with hippies, jamming, and folk movements as contra and antithetical to real "rock") to the latter-day irony of its usage, especially by moody post-rockers such as Mogwai who revel in the term as an answer to the softness and fluff of both modern dance and modern punk.

Therefore, chances are that I wouldn't just willy-nilly screw up the order of the words in the name I'm giving myself because I generally, and to a good degree, know what the heck I'm identifying with, know the ins and outs of a subculture 99.7% more than the general public, and know the historical impetus and dialectic that got me there. Calling myself "actionrock" when I really meant "rockaction" would indeed either be stupid, arbitrary, or undercut every reason why I've given myself the other ordered alter ego on a message board.

With that said, I certainly wouldn't let anybody (especially casual journalists or commenters who haven't studied the issues or are unaware of the dynamics) dissuade me or students of said usage from my own self-identification and any critical analysis that would follow. Because that would be strange. I do not care how many media members insist Sanders isn't a socialist, nor how many fool Republicans toss the word around without knowing the meaning of it; they need to take a class or two in economic theory and Marxist theory, especially. Not those who know what the heck it means.

Sanders is a democratic socialist. He has spent his life in academia within socialist groups. He hangs out with radical UVM professors, one of whom encouraged him to seek office. Everything in his history suggests he gets the damn distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy, and yet he still self-identifies as a "democratic socialist." This is distinct from the Scandinavian model of social democracy, though he adopts elements of the Scandinavian model because they overlap and they achieve his larger ends. How he gets there is part of a convoluted and historical dialectic most people can't understand. But his first and most important mode of economic organization in his eyes, worker cooperatives, is widely considered an economic model that is socialist in spirit and practice. It takes hardcore Marxists to disavow it, and even when they do, they merely say that it's not transformative enough and will be co-opted by capitalism, not that its roots don't lie in socialist and anti-capitalist thought.

Good day, proninja.

 

[Hilts]

 

[rockaction]

He walks like a duck, talks like a duck, calls himself a duck, refuses to sleep and live with geese, but he's a goose, apparently.

That less long-winded?

 

[Ghost Rider]

This is all well and good, but that's not really what Davis was doing or what Huckabee had previously said. She just flat out refused to grant them marriage certificates and made no effort to accommodate them, and he supported that. She didn't offer to have someone else sign the marriage certificate, and she didn't ask whoever runs the county to make such accommodations. Some gay guys showed up at the clerk's office to get married and she told them to beat it (no pun intended). That is putting her religious beliefs above the highest law of the land.

Serious question: do you have a similar stance towards sanctuary cities that ignore federal law?

Full disclosure: I agree with your stance on Kim Davis.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Sorry was away from this GOP thread for a little while. Just wondering when Sanders switched which primary he is running in

-QG

 

[tommyGunZ]

And here I go by tommygunz simply because a league member called me that at our initial draft in '98.

 

[rockaction]

^That's funny.

It is ridiculous and veering wildly over the cliffs of self-seriousness on my end, but if my point (and implied analogy) is even somewhat reasonably taken and considered by those reading then it's all good.

Okay, I won't hijack this with Sanders any longer. I was stewed from the other thread I brought this up in, and the Sanders thread doesn't seem like the place for a conservative to call him a socialist in a genuine way and subsequently get a fair hearing about why one is using the term. People will probably take it as nothing more than an ignorant epithet, and then it's all uphill in the explanation.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I always read these rockaction rants hearing the voice of Vizzini from Princess Bride

 

[rockaction]

I always read these rockaction rants hearing the voice of Vizzini from Princess Bride

At least I'm not heaving and screaming. That's a start. I figured I'd come off more like a bleating wildebeest or something.

 

[Hilts]

I always read these rockaction rants hearing the voice of Vizzini from Princess Bride

While rockaction is chatting I've been fapping.

 

[jamny]

I need a new user name.

 

[Fennis]

Some heroin OD'd punk rocker is spinning is his grave that on some message board a self proclaimed punk rock expert is a hard core GOPer.

 

[Fennis]

I need a new user name.

I'll trade you.

 

[Rove!]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5A4-HpPA6I

 

[rockaction]

Some heroin OD'd punk rocker is spinning is his grave that on some message board a self proclaimed punk rock expert is a hard core GOPer.

Heh. I am not an expert. There are people on the board that know way more than I do about punk rock. They generally do not comment extensively nor toot their own horn about it. My claims are limited and simply an analogy to Sanders, self-identification, and knowledge of esoterica in one form or another. I'd say I'm safe with a 997 out of 1000 person claim, though. Really safe.

Also, I'll be most likely voting for Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, both of whom are (or were) on the very outskirts of the GOP, if they're even there at all. I wouldn't call myself a hardcore GOP'er. I'm as likely to support a constitutionalist Democrat who has classical liberal tendencies as I am a Ben Carson, Trump, Fiorina, etc. No lie. You can even come into the voting booth if you'd like!

 

[matuski]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

That high huh?

 

[Fennis]

You can even come into the voting booth if you'd like!

 

[dschuler]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

That high huh?

Jeb has been way higher than that before

 

[rockaction]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

That was actually pretty funny. I think he's taking on the media as much as the GOP.

Borowitz, as stuffy as the New Yorker is, penned this gem. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/patriots-never-bothered-to-steal-jets-playbook

 

[Rove!]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

That high huh?

Clearly satire

At CNN, the debate moderator, Jake Tapper, said he was proud of the role he played in keeping the evening’s fact content to a minimum.

“Whenever I felt the candidates were straying into the issues, I tried to goad them into insulting each other,” he said. “I didn’t succeed every time, but all in all I feel good about the night.”

 

[rockaction]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

That high huh?

Clearly satire

At CNN, the debate moderator, Jake Tapper, said he was proud of the role he played in keeping the evening’s fact content to a minimum.

“Whenever I felt the candidates were straying into the issues, I tried to goad them into insulting each other,” he said. “I didn’t succeed every time, but all in all I feel good about the night.”

Yeah, it says "satire" right at the bottom, but I assumed matuski knew that.

 

[Rove!]

Fact Checking Reveals G.O.P. Debate Was Four Per Cent Fact

That high huh?

Clearly satire

At CNN, the debate moderator, Jake Tapper, said he was proud of the role he played in keeping the evening’s fact content to a minimum.

“Whenever I felt the candidates were straying into the issues, I tried to goad them into insulting each other,” he said. “I didn’t succeed every time, but all in all I feel good about the night.”

Yeah, it says "satire" right at the bottom, but I assumed matuski knew that.

I didn't and still don't....

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'll admit that at least 10% of what they say is true.

 

[timschochet]

Marco Rubio has risen to 11% in the latest national CNN poll behind Trump, Fiorina and Carson.

Everybody's talking about Carly's rise and Trump's drop (he's lost 8 points since the debate) but Rubio is IMO the important figure here. He's the only "establishment" candidate to reach double digits since Trump entered the race. He's an alternative to Bush. Walker, whom I thought would be the nominee has faded badly. Rubio, despite his immigration stance which many in the base don't like, would actually be the most conservative nominee ever in the history of the GOP, more than Reagan, more than Goldwater.

I now think he's likely to end up being the guy.

 

[Johnnymac]

Marco Rubio has risen to 11% in the latest national CNN poll behind Trump, Fiorina and Carson.

Everybody's talking about Carly's rise and Trump's drop (he's lost 8 points since the debate) but Rubio is IMO the important figure here. He's the only "establishment" candidate to reach double digits since Trump entered the race. He's an alternative to Bush. Walker, whom I thought would be the nominee has faded badly. Rubio, despite his immigration stance which many in the base don't like, would actually be the most conservative nominee ever in the history of the GOP, more than Reagan, more than Goldwater.

I now think he's likely to end up being the guy.

I think you may be right. Not a bad thing either, at least he's sane.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Marco Rubio has risen to 11% in the latest national CNN poll behind Trump, Fiorina and Carson.

Everybody's talking about Carly's rise and Trump's drop (he's lost 8 points since the debate) but Rubio is IMO the important figure here. He's the only "establishment" candidate to reach double digits since Trump entered the race. He's an alternative to Bush. Walker, whom I thought would be the nominee has faded badly. Rubio, despite his immigration stance which many in the base don't like, would actually be the most conservative nominee ever in the history of the GOP, more than Reagan, more than Goldwater.

I now think he's likely to end up being the guy.

I do like Rubio so this is good news.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Trump and Carson sound insane on meet the press and Kasich sounds like a President

 

[rockaction]

Trump and Carson sound insane on meet the press and Kasich sounds like a President

Kasich is certainly a good candidate. Trump and Carson are terrible ones. I hope they get exposed, and soon.

Love to see Kasich, Rubio, Paul, Walker, Bush, and Fiorina (for a bit of fire) come to the fore.

 

[Abraham]

It's still very early. I think Kasich just needs to find a way to survive and he will start to get some momentum.

 

[The General]

Trump and Carson sound insane on meet the press and Kasich sounds like a President

That's what happens when they talk.

 

[dschuler]

It's still very early. I think Kasich just needs to find a way to survive and he will start to get some momentum.

He was my favorite early on although I was disappointed in his second debate. I'll still hold by my statement that if he pairs up with Bush / Rubio Republicans will win. I really wish they could get these debate numbers down a little but I guess it's better than the Democrats which is just to not debate at all.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Having this many people in the debates is one of the big problems. They need 5-7 people max. Trump, Carson, Bush, Rubio, Carly, Kasich and that's still too many.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The scary thing is that needs whittled down to like 3 and I don't see anybody dropping out.

 

[RBM]

Marco Rubio has risen to 11% in the latest national CNN poll behind Trump, Fiorina and Carson.

Everybody's talking about Carly's rise and Trump's drop (he's lost 8 points since the debate) but Rubio is IMO the important figure here. He's the only "establishment" candidate to reach double digits since Trump entered the race. He's an alternative to Bush. Walker, whom I thought would be the nominee has faded badly. Rubio, despite his immigration stance which many in the base don't like, would actually be the most conservative nominee ever in the history of the GOP, more than Reagan, more than Goldwater.

I now think he's likely to end up being the guy.

Can't stess enough how this is the guy the Republicans need. Rubio/Kasich is the perfect ticket for this party in this election.