Posted on 09/06/2015 11:55:43 AM PDT by springwater13
Meanwhile, in the Republican presidential race, Donald Trump now holds a seven-point lead in Iowa and a 16-point one in New Hampshire.
In the Hawkeye State, Trump gets the support from 29 percent of potential GOP caucus-goers, while Ben Carson receives 22 percent. There's a steep drop off after that: Jeb Bush gets 6 percent; Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul and Scott Walker get 5 percent; and Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are at 4 percent.
In July, Walker was ahead of the Iowa Republican field at 19 percent, Trump was second at 17 percent and Bush was third at 12 percent.
In the Granite State, Trump is at 28 percent — followed by John Kasich at 12 percent, Carson at 11 percent, Bush at 8 percent and Fiorina at 6 percent; Walker is down to 4 percent.
Back in July, the top three in New Hampshire were Trump (21 percent), Bush (14 percent) and Walker (12 percent). View the full Iowa poll here.
It looks like a lot of Bush supporters have switched and are now supporting Trump!
Between Trump and Carson they have 51%
As I’ve been saying.....and praying; Cruz’s %s are where they are because God is getting him ready to say Yes when Trump offers him the Veep gig.
Yes, we’re all pleased that you lesser states get to decide the primary.
I’d disenfranchise your sorry butts if I were King.
I’ll Amen that!
It’s embarrassing that a guy that doesn’t understand the lawlessness of the courts or thinks his pro-abortion sister would make a “Phenomenal” SCOTUS justice polls so high. And most of his supporters know he’s weak on so many issues that all they do is continually point to a scoreboard because they can’t defend any of his stances.
Low-Information voters exist on both sides of the party.
There are people here who don’t see anything wrong with Trump stealing the RINO/GOPe argument that the “law of the land” forces Kim Davis to violate her religious conscience.
Ok, just remember that when Congress tries to tackle anything regarding deportation of illegals and birthright citzenship, and the first thing those anchor-babies do is lawyer up from the losers at the ACLU and get a Federal Judge to issue a stay on any deportations until the 4 liberal justices on the SCOTUS and Anthony Kennedy decide that somehow, someway, the 14th Amendment applies citizenship rights to the children of illegals and that it would be “cruel” to deport their parents, effectively granting amnesty to all illegals in the country?
And when that happens, what’s Trump going to do? Is he going to say, “well it’s the law of the land?” Then brush the whole illegal immigration issue aside?
The price of liberty and freedom is not free. If Trump can’t identify the out of control Courts now for what they are, he is not qualified to serve as POTUS. If he can’t understand the basic principles of the Constitution that he would need to grasp, in order to implement some of the policies he would like to implement, then he will never achieve the things that the voters might actually agree with him on (illegal immigration). And this is a fact.
Not standing up for Kim Davis, throwing a temper tantrum over the fact the eminent domain case didn’t go far enough, caving to the leftist groups on the confederate flag, not realizing the complete diabolical and evil nature of Planned Parenhood, advocating liberal-type policies when it comes to healthcare (single-payer) and taxes (still progressive, promoting a wealth tax), soft on guns. This guy is one of the biggest charlatans ever to hit the scene.
Fortunately, there’s still several debates and a few months to go before the first votes are cast. Maybe one of the actual conservative candidates in this rate might point out the obvious above.
You think you are going to win people over to your cause by taking that approach?
Good luck with that!
No,
I just know where I stand on the issues and do my homework regarding candidates and study where they stand on issues as well, including studying the reasoning behind why they do or do not support something. You know, like logic and facts.
If you don’t like the fact that the argument I made is true, then refute it with facts. Resorting to leftist tactics of attacking the messenger is weak.
Oh, like the research you did on Cruz. Did you find that he voted for TPA and the corker bill. Is that logic or fact, I keep getting them confused.
Another leftist tactic is to distort the argument and turn it into something it wasn’t. Nice try.
I didn’t call out Low Information Voters because they disagreed with me. I called them out for their hypocrisy. I laid out the words/statements/recent history of Trump’s record which does not jive with conservatism.
Most disturbing is his inability to understand the Constitution and the role of government defined in it. The Courts have specific powers which it has greatly exceeded, especially in the Kim Davis case. Trump’s response was to yawn and roll over, just like he did on the Confederate Flag issue (it belongs in a mueseum only). These actions and statements show Trump is dramatically weak when it comes to states and individual rights. If he can’t figure it out now, then all that immigration stuff he talks about has no chance in seeing the light of day because he will bow to any pressure from the courts because anything they rule, he thinks is “the law of the land”.
Someday, maybe you’ll have facts and logic to back Trump up rather than attacking the messenger or trying to distort the argument into something it wasn’t.
The only question I have for you, is will you vote for Trump in the General Election?
I'll let Trump make the case for me. Still plenty of time. My primary isn't held until April and I can always vote for somebody else if I decide Trump is not the one.
But your insertion of "low information voters" is very obviously an attempt on your part to "shame" those who might be considering Trump. To do that on a forum where most people here live and breathe politics is shameless.
Anyone who claims to support Cruz but wants Trump out is either lying or is a political novice.
Trump is Godzilla and gives Cruz 24 hours of protective cover. If Trump was gone, Cruz would be nuked and taken out in one weekend.
Trump and Cruz are a team, in case you haven’t noticed.
And your answer is Ted Cruz?
Ted Cruz is in the back pocket of the Club for Growth that wants cheap labor and open borders. He’s in favor of a dramatic increase in H1B visas.
He’s also in favor of letting in Syrian refugees that are overrunning Europe. He wants the huddled masses of the world to enter the United States. Check out the youtube video yourself. Cruz speaks at 0:58.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nLXGoSjpg
Yes I did.
TPA (as it’s been pointed out many times over and over again) is a GOOD thing provided it doesn’t have the crap back-room deals that Boehner/McConnell added to it which cause Cruz to drop support for it. For the people that keep bringing this up, it will never satisfy them because they’re hiding their true beliefs of trade protection/isolationism behind opposition. The main issue with conservatives opposing TPA at this time was because it gave Obama the authority to negotiate out TPP, something that’s never come up for a vote and for which Cruz never took a position. That was the main argument people like Levin were driving. Cruz’s reason was that Obama had 17 months left and were a Republican to get in office in 2017, the Democrats backed by the Union thugs would never allow a TPA to be passed which is why he supported it now. He also thought because it dealt with Commerce, the House should naturally have a say in any trade deal as well as the Senate making the threshhold 268 votes combined rather than just the 2/3 in the Senate.
But people like you that have a problem with this won’t be satisfied because you hide behind your real opposition to TPA which is that trade deals and free trade are bad, whereas high tariffs and trade-isolation protect American jobs, something that has been rejected over and over again. Levin even pointed out the difference he had over Jeff Sessions regarding the disagreement, who people that want tariffs and protectionism always cite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4O9az6qr78
In Levin’s archives on Thursday or Friday of this week, he pointed out the folly that some people say there aren’t enough tariffs set up to “protect” US Trade. Look it up in his archive section. It was the monologue from Thursday or Friday’s show.
As for the Corker Bill, the truth is that the GOPe wasn’t going to hold Obama to declaring that the Iran Deal was a Treaty. Obama was planning on bypassing the Congress and taking it to the UN. That of course is just another impeachable offense, but we know Boehner and McConnell wern’t going to do anything because they like a spine. That means that without the Corker Bill, right now, the sanctions could have been lifted immediately after UN approval.
The Corker Bill sucks because it cedes power Congress should have never been ceding in the first, but it put in writing that Obama was obliged to submit the deal to Congress, which if he hadn’t, they could then use that as an impeachable offense because it’s in writing. As Cruz mentioned, he voted against cloture, but when cloture passed anyway, voted for final passage because the Corker Bill would “perhaps slightly” delay the implementation of the disastrous Iran Deal which would buy time to rally enough support against the deal, which if you’ve seen recently there is a rally this week taking place where Cruz and Levin will both speak. Whereas if the Bill didn’t exist and Obama had bypassed Congress, the “Deal” would already be in place. This was all made possible by the GOPe who have refused to decare this a treaty.
Now since the Corker Bill obviously had enough votes to pass, you can argue Cruz should have joined Cotton in declaring the Deal subject to the rules of a Treaty, but his concern was on stopping the deal from being implemented altogether and he made the decision based on the lack of the GOPe to hold Obama accountable for potentially violating the Constitution again.
In both cases you cite, there’s no issue on where Cruz stands. He still supports a clean TPA which is a good thing when it doesn’t have the backroom deals attached, and is vehemently opposed to the Iran Deal.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/241355-senate-votes-to-approve-Iran-review-bill
No, my days of voting for liberals are over.
I will write in Ted Cruz if I have to, but I refuse to vote for another GOPe/RINO or pseduo-conservative that turn out no different from the leftists.
Bottom Line: I want to vote for a Conservative for President in 2016 and I’m going to vote for a Conservative in 2016.
Good because all the rest besides Trump and Cruz are open border traitors
Ugh, just awful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.