Weird how just days later, they're now tied. First two polls were questionable.
Posted on 10/26/2015 3:12:44 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
What am I supposed to “rub one out”? That makes no sense and doesn’t allude to anything I have posted.
Been to a Catholic and SDA school as a child. Both were pretty good on education. Never joined either Faiths tho.
Trump needs to pull back on this one. SDA aren’t like muslims demanding convert or die. Stick to the important issues
“in the early 1960s.”
You cannot compare the 1960’s to today for hospitals.
At the bottom there is a link to our 28 fundamental beliefs. I’m on a cellphone, so I can’t cut and paste the particular passage for you.
Wow. You're right. The SDA's are even more anti-Catholic than I am . . . and that's practically impossible.
A few years back they mailed out a book to several people claiming that the current moral nihilism we suffer under is actually a Catholic plot to push people to a point of blow-back via a "national sunday worship bill." They believe sunday worship is "the mark of the beast."
The SDA church is also where the King James Only movement originated.
I never heard Dr. Carson say more that. He regularly gives all glory to God for all that he is and has.
What more could you ask of him?
Weird how just days later, they're now tied. First two polls were questionable.
They are blowing smoke about Sunday Law. Not only would it be utterly unenforceable, and have no-one advocating it, but our agnostics would raise particular H*ll. Nothing but a whine about Saturday being ignored.
I think the pollsters thought better of what they were doing...expecially after a lot of people read who they were!
They are just mad because Trump wouldn’t donate to them, and I’m glad he didn’t...
Contact Information
Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-955-5500
Fax: 202-955-9466
Website: http://www.clubforgrowth.org
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidates not named Donald Trump have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for their campaigns and allied groups. Yet none of that money is being targeted against the celebrity real estate mogul, the party’s front-runner through the summer.
Now the first well-funded anti-Trump volley is coming, though not from another candidate. It’s from the Club for Growth, a Washington-based tax-cutting advocacy group that just months ago asked Trump for a contribution.
The group said Tuesday it will spend $1 million assailing Trump on TV in the early caucus state of Iowa. Its 30-second commercials, which begin Thursday, call him “the worst kind of politician,” highlight some of his most liberal positions and say he’s playing voters “for chumps.”
Trump would seem a ripe target for any conservative organization: He’s said in the past that he identifies “more as a Democrat.”
For now, though, Club for Growth is going it alone.
Some of the largest pro-Republican political groups — including the Koch brothers-led Americans for Prosperity, GOP strategist Karl Rove’s Crossroads groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — say they have no immediate plans to swat at him.
Fred Malek, a longtime Republican presidential fundraiser who isn’t aligned with a specific candidate, said the approach of many has been to “let Trump beat Trump.”
“I’m not aware of any organized effort to attack Trump,” Malek said. “Rather, the best-informed Republicans feel the American people are smart enough to figure this out and won’t nominate Trump.”
Similarly, the candidates themselves, and the super PACs trying to help them win, haven’t put any money into a Trump-defeating effort on television. Instead, their strategy appears to be to wait for the star of the political summer to fade on his own.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who last week became the first candidate to leave the 2016 race, was one of the feistiest Trump combatants, but his super PACs never paid for any ads to amplify that message.
“Our plan, which I think is where a lot of folks are, was to wait as long as possible to do contrast ads or attacks on Trump,” said Austin Barbour, leader of a trio of super PACs that supported Perry. “There’s a feeling that his poll numbers are vastly inflated and will start coming down on their own, so no one wants to spend valuable resources doing what may just happen naturally.”
Club for Growth, which is paying for the ads through its super PAC, is no longer willing to wait.
The club’s resident, David McIntosh, said he at first assumed that Trump wasn’t a credible candidate but the candidate’s continued rise in the polls showed otherwise.
“We’ve realized we’ve got to take Donald Trump seriously and really show what his record is,” McIntosh said.
Club for Growth may not seem the perfect Trump-slayer; it unsuccessfully solicited a $1 million contribution from him in June. Indeed, Trump wrote Tuesday on Twitter that the club is “little respected” and, having been spurned by him, is “spending lobbyist and special interest money on ads” against him.
With the second GOP debate this week and voting in the earliest primary states less than five months away, the candidates and groups helping them are beginning to spend money on TV ads. Through the end of June, donors backing Trump’s Republican opponents had given about $300 million, Federal Election Commission reports show.
So far that money is helping the candidates define themselves rather than tear down Trump.
Right to Rise, a super PAC created to help former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, is on the air beginning $24 million worth of ads casting the former Florida governor as a “proven conservative” with “real results.” The ads are in Iowa and New Hampshire and spread South Carolina next week.
Trump’s meteoric rise has come not after a slew of pricey, well-crafted advertisements, but with the benefit of intense media coverage, which costs him nothing.
The Trump phenomenon “in a weird way is showing the diminishing importance of money in politics,” said John Jordan, a California winery owner and major Republican donor. “And because of that, I think the flow of money is slowing to a trickle.”
Through the end of June, Trump had mostly paid his own way, lending his campaign nearly all of the $1.9 million it reported raising.
The billionaire candidate has pledged to spend whatever it takes to win the GOP nomination, meaning that even the best-funded opponents or Republican groups could find themselves financially overmatched.
___
Associated Press writer Thomas Beaumont contributed to this report from Des Moines, Iowa.
I personally like Dr. Carson, but knowing about his religious beliefs really give me pause. I haven’t studied it extensively, but what is listed here and what I do know, leads me to believe that I just can’t.
Putting that together with some of his statements, I think I would probably surmise that he and I agree on a lot of things. And for the most part a good man. Just not for President. My first choice is Ted Cruz, but I will vote for Mr. Trump should he win the nomination. I think just needs to reign in his mouth on occasion
I will not vote for:
Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio
or anyone else I would define as a squishy moderate who accomplishes absolutely nothing but more of the same destruction we’ve witnessed these past years with Obama. They are horrible public servants.
I will not vote anymore, ever, for the “lesser of 2 evils” Evil is evil, no gradations. I hate to sound fatalistic or like a purist because I’m really not. Voting is a sacred honor and I am grateful that I live in America, even now.
But I sense a real dread about what’s happenin, what will happen.
God is in charge, always and forever, but we are in for some hard times.
This question should be posed to all candidates:
Is there anything in your religion that will prohibit you from fulfilling your Constitutional duties as CIC, be it “not” going to war, “not” saluting our flag, “not” imposing the Federal death penalty, “not” lighting our nation's National Christmas Tree, etc.” (That list could be as detailed and long as the questioneer wants).
I remember JFK's election and concern that the Pope might influence JFK's decisions or even control the White House from Rome!
In that same election, Nixon was a Quaker, but his religion didn't the same media attention.
My point is that up and until this Republic of ours nominates a practicing Muslim or an avowed atheist, the various sects of the candidates' Christian religions are not of all that much importance to me.
Nothing is unenforceable if people are desperate enough.
His religion is the least of his problem. Murky stands on the issues is the whole ball game.
I wasn’t aware of that.
Thanks Squirt.
Your right...I can only be on here a little while at a time, have so much work to do...lol...nothing we can really do until the nomination comes out, right?
I agree with you, except you forgot one thing.
Obama is a devout Muslim.
He was nominated.
He was elected.
I’m not giving you a hard time, but after watching his anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-Western actions, there’s just no denying it.
We know he had Muslim Brotherhood members as White House advisers.
He’s freaking playing for the other team. > IMO
Right and I agree, but he would not have won had he ran as a Muslim.
Yes, I agree with that.
I also want to clarify that I do not consider Islam to be a religion. There’s way too much vicious negativity in that group to be considered a real religion.
There’s some talk here about the SDAs being a cult.
Islam, it’s cult. Compare the two. The real cult will stand out.
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.