- May 29, 2012
- 41,108
- 24,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Was anything I said inaccurate?Go back in history if you wish. The last time was in 1992.
Upvote
0
Was anything I said inaccurate?Go back in history if you wish. The last time was in 1992.
Was anything I said inaccurate?
Which implies greater probability because of using the "either-or" criteria of party.This is not a debating sub-board. The implication was that Iowa caucuses don't pick the presidential winner, so we needn't pay attention. I merely point out that Iowa has picked every president since 1996. I understand that there was lots of primary history before that.
According to one Newsmax analyst (and I believe he is right) it is not Cruz that defeated Trump, but Trump defeated himself by failing to support Carson. He should never have attacked Carson (or even Cruz), and had Carson attracted a lot of evangelical votes, Cruz would have remained second. IMHO, Trump and Carson should have teamed up from the get-go, and I believe the results would have been quite different.Ted Cruz - 28%
Trump - 24%
Rubio - 23%
Evangelicals do control the Iowa caucuses.I would say it still shows Evangelicals still control GOP Caucasus in Iowa nothing more and really Iowa means nothing but that Cruz will lose
Carson must have had a concussion or twelve because he was getting goofier by the day. He should do the GOP a favor and stay home. Trump insulted everybody and a segment of evangelicals ate it up. If he beats Cruz, evangelicals will fill up Trump's offering plate.According to one Newsmax analyst (and I believe he is right) it is not Cruz that defeated Trump, but Trump defeated himself by failing to support Carson. He should never have attacked Carson (or even Cruz), and had Carson attracted a lot of evangelical votes, Cruz would have remained second. IMHO, Trump and Carson should have teamed up from the get-go, and I believe the results would have been quite different.
From where I sit, here in Iowa and who caucused last night, Trump did himself in.
That is no longer your judgement to make. You gave Trump as many delegates as Rubio, and 1 or 2 fewer than Cruz. Trump spent almost no time or money in Iowa. I wouldn't call this result as "doing him in".
Of course, I could hope that this was the case. We'll know a bit more by the end of the month. We'll see what message we send Trump when our state votes in a couple of weeks.
Not a "Democrat" but a Marxist.if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I will plug my nose as I vote for a Democrat.
I'm always confused when I read a person who says they support a third party insist that they'll vote for one of the major party candidates if a certain person becomes the nominee of the other major party. Is there any logic in that which I'm missing?I am by no means a Cruz supporter, but I am glad to hear that he won Iowa. That said, there is only one scenario that I can envision that will convince me to vote for a major party candidate in November: if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I will plug my nose as I vote for a Democrat.
While Trump went on the attack against several of the other candidates, perhaps Bush and Cruz the most actively, I believe that it was Democrats and the media who did the most to cut Carson's legs out from under him.According to one Newsmax analyst (and I believe he is right) it is not Cruz that defeated Trump, but Trump defeated himself by failing to support Carson. He should never have attacked Carson (or even Cruz), and had Carson attracted a lot of evangelical votes, Cruz would have remained second. IMHO, Trump and Carson should have teamed up from the get-go, and I believe the results would have been quite different.
Normally, I'd agree with you. For the most part, I don't see enough difference between any of the candidates on either side to support any of them over others. But, while I disagree with all of them, Trump is the only one who legitimately makes me feel that he would willfully disregard the Constitution to acheieve his political ends. I'd love to have a libertarian president, but I know that there won't be a viable option this year. But, if I truly don't care which major party candidate wins (as would be in any race that doesn't include Trump), I'd rather use my vote to help to eventually make a third party more viable.I'm always confused when I read a person who says they support a third party insist that they'll vote for one of the major party candidates if a certain person becomes the nominee of the other major party. Is there any logic in that which I'm missing?
Yes, I do hear that a lot, but I always think that the third party needs to have its people committed to their party first of all--if it's ever to succeed. I suppose there are two ways of looking at that, though.I'd love to have a libertarian president, but I know that there won't be a viable option this year. But, if I truly don't care which major party candidate wins (as would be in any race that doesn't include Trump), I'd rather use my vote to help to eventually make a third party more viable.
I'm not a big fan of Gary Johnson, and I think the LP could do much better. But, until we become a more viable party, we'll always have trouble attracting viable candidates. So, my vote would be more for the party than for the man.Gary Johnson will be sorry to hear that.
Once again, I'd normally agree, but I think Trump is so dangerous that in this case, I'd place loyalty to my country over loyalty my party, even if it meant putting a socialist (like Sanders) in office. Incidentally, of everyone running, I think Sanders is probably the most decent and ethical person; I just disagree with his social policiea.Yes, I do hear that a lot, but I always think that the third party needs to have its people committed to their party first of all--if it's ever to succeed. I suppose there are two ways of looking at that, though.