southsider2k5 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 What does it say for the political parties when the guy leading the early primaries for the Republicans, isn't really a Republican, and the guy leading the early primaries for the Democrats, isn't really a Democrat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day" that Carson, who was the first surgeon to separate conjoined twins joined at the head, was just an "OK doctor" and said "you look at his faith and I think you're not going to find so much." Trump also called Carson's views on abortion "horrendous." Carson is staunchly opposed to abortion now, but was an abortion-rights supporter when he was younger and performed medical research on aborted fetuses in 1992. "If you look at his past, which I've done, he wasn't a big man of faith. All of a sudden he's becoming this man of faith and he was heavy into the world of abortion," Trump said. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics...ben-carson-cnn/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 03:21 PM) http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics...ben-carson-cnn/ Certainly Trump knows he has no chance of beating Hillary because of the woman vote. Hillary is going to win probably 95 percent of the woman vote before this is over. Donald is against abortion and women totally are in favor of abortion rights. Donald is calling women ugly and women aren't going to vote for a guy perceived as a pig over the first woman president. I don't really understand our electorate though. Hillary is even duller than hubert Humphrey and she's going to win in a landslide? I mean this woman is NOT a leader, that is truly obvious. Donald is definitely a leader but kind of a scary, maniacal, egocentric, male chauvinistic leader and that's not gonna translate to votes when all is said and done. Gimme the surgeon, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Greg I will bet you $5000 that Hillary does not win 95% of women voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 02:53 PM) Greg I will bet you $5000 that Hillary does not win 95% of women voters. BET THE HOUSE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Greg I will bet you $5000 that Hillary does not win 95% of women voters. I mean if it's Hillary vs. Donald. I guess there are still some older women who just will vote Republican. I forgot Kansans elected Brownback for gawdsakes just cause he's Republican. Maybe I'm a little high. Would u agree that if Donald gets the Republican nomination he'll get the least amount of the woman vote in modern history? That is a lock. Hillary will bury him that's why I think there's still a chance his pride will have him ultimately drop out of the race. How could he stand losing to such a weak candidate in Hillary? He'll forever be known as the first to lose to a woman as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 02:59 PM) I mean if it's Hillary vs. Donald. I guess there are still some older women who just will vote Republican. I forgot Kansans elected Brownback for gawdsakes just cause he's Republican. Maybe I'm a little high. Would u agree that if Donald gets the Republican nomination he'll get the least amount of the woman vote in modern history? That is a lock. Hillary will bury him that's why I think there's still a chance his pride will have him ultimately drop out of the race. How could he stand losing to such a weak candidate in Hillary? He'll forever be known as the first to lose to a woman as well. You assume Hillary is not in jail or doesn't drop out from any/all of her scandals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 And I will bet you $5k that Hillary isn't in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Greg I will bet you $5000 that Hillary does not win 95% of women voters. If it's Hilly vs. Trump do you agree she'll get more votes from women (percentage) than any candidate in history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 If it's Hilly vs. Trump do you agree she'll get more votes from women (percentage) than any candidate in history? Hillary will get the largest percentage of female vote of any candidate ever regardless of the Republican opponent, but nowhere near 95%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Some women are self-hating misogynists who really believe they should have no rights and should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. You can't make this stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 11, 2015 -> 10:43 AM) Hillary will get the largest percentage of female vote of any candidate ever regardless of the Republican opponent, but nowhere near 95%. Maybe. It'd be hard to top the huge splits from '64 (62-38) or '84 (64-36) that came from those landslide victories, though if anyone could drive that sort of result it'd be Trump IMO. This is going back to April, plus it's September 2015 so polls aren't necessarily worthwhile anyway, but Hillary was falling just short of the '64 margin against several GOP then-frontrunners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Maybe. It'd be hard to top the huge splits from '64 (62-38) or '84 (64-36) that came from those landslide victories, though if anyone could drive that sort of result it'd be Trump IMO. This is going back to April, plus it's September 2015 so polls aren't necessarily worthwhile anyway, but Hillary was falling just short of the '64 margin against several GOP then-frontrunners. OK, I guess I meant relative to the overall popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I see what you mean. '64 and '84 were almost the same split as the overall vote. Going back the last several elections: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-...w-groups-voted/ 2012 Overall: 51-47 Women: 55-44 2008 Overall: 53-45 Women: 56-43 2004 Overall: 51-48 Women: 48-51 2000 Overall: 48-48 Women: 54-44 (Gore) 1996 Overall: 49-41-9 Women: 55-38-7 1992 Overall: 43-37-19 Women: 45-38-17 1988 Overall: 53-46 Women: 51-49 1984 Overall: 59-41 Women: 58-42 I think it'd be tough to beet 1996 or 2000's differentials but there's a whole lot to consider between then and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Rick Perry is leaving the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'd imagine more are going to start falling off soon. Trump's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and none of the lower-polling candidates can get any traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2015 -> 05:47 PM) I'd imagine more are going to start falling off soon. Trump's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and none of the lower-polling candidates can get any traction. He was the only one with extremely well publicized money issues though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2015 -> 10:47 PM) I'd imagine more are going to start falling off soon. Trump's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and none of the lower-polling candidates can get any traction. Will be interesting if the Republican candidates who have experience in government will quickly follow suit and drop out or weather the storm until the three frontrunners (all with no experience), Donnie, Surgeon and CEO failure Florina, lose their mo-jo. Edited September 12, 2015 by greg775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2015 -> 04:47 PM) I'd imagine more are going to start falling off soon. Trump's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and none of the lower-polling candidates can get any traction. The more, the better. The quicker the Republicans can narrow down to the best 'not trump' candidate, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2015 -> 05:12 PM) He was the only one with extremely well publicized money issues though. How much of a campaign staff do some of these other guys (graham etc) even have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I'm falling for Dr. Ben. He needs to be our next president, folks. He is not a politician and simply cares about what's best for our country. At some point we have to let the lifetime politicians know (Hillary, Bush, et. all) that we don't care for do-nothing rhetoric. We want the successful surgeon. Or should want the successful surgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 What policy positions of his do you support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 13, 2015 -> 07:51 PM) I'm falling for Dr. Ben. He needs to be our next president, folks. He is not a politician and simply cares about what's best for our country. At some point we have to let the lifetime politicians know (Hillary, Bush, et. all) that we don't care for do-nothing rhetoric. We want the successful surgeon. Or should want the successful surgeon. He isn't a politician? I beg to differ. Here is why. 1. He is a world renouned brain surgeon. He is a master about everything regarding the brain. If that's the case, why does he hold completely archaic views on marijuana? He thinks marijuana has a detrimental effect on the brain if you use it in your mid 20's or earlier. He thinks it decreases your IQ. Those claims have been proven to be false for a long time now. That is stuff you'd see in 1960's American anti-weed propaganda. Marijuana has been proven to be beneficial to the brain in many situations. Being an expert on the brain, he should know of the numerous benefits marijuana can have on the brain. There is no way he actually believes that. He is lying for the lobbyists and for the votes on that issues. 2. He is a creationist. There is absolutely no excuse for being a creationist if you are as educated as him. Plain and simple. You don't get my vote if you a creationist. Maybe he actually believes this. His history shows he always had this view, so maybe he isn't putting on a facade for the votes. I still struggle to believe that any of these politicians are actually creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2015 -> 02:41 AM) What policy positions of his do you support Flat tax, baby!!! No IRS!! http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ben-ca...ands-10-issues/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 QUOTE (ron883 @ Sep 13, 2015 -> 09:34 PM) He isn't a politician? I beg to differ. Here is why. 1. He is a world renouned brain surgeon. He is a master about everything regarding the brain. If that's the case, why does he hold completely archaic views on marijuana? He thinks marijuana has a detrimental effect on the brain if you use it in your mid 20's or earlier. He thinks it decreases your IQ. Those claims have been proven to be false for a long time now. That is stuff you'd see in 1960's American anti-weed propaganda. Marijuana has been proven to be beneficial to the brain in many situations. Being an expert on the brain, he should know of the numerous benefits marijuana can have on the brain. There is no way he actually believes that. He is lying for the lobbyists and for the votes on that issues. 2. He is a creationist. There is absolutely no excuse for being a creationist if you are as educated as him. Plain and simple. You don't get my vote if you a creationist. Maybe he actually believes this. His history shows he always had this view, so maybe he isn't putting on a facade for the votes. I still struggle to believe that any of these politicians are actually creationists. I agree with this. It doesn't make sense that such a smart person would feel this way about either issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts