Replies

Which one? We don’t know. From past history, it will be one of these.

Which past history? The only open primaries we have had since Reagan were in 2000, 2008, and 2012. In 2000 there was only one significant RINO, Bush.

Bush, McCain, Romney... Does this translate to something that looks like a Conservative would likely win the nomination now?

GWB made a horrible mistake in selecting Cheney as VP, not in terms of ideology, but in terms of physical vigor. In the latter two cycles, there were too many conservatives, particularly considering those that fell for the Fred Thompson Fan Dance. We are in that same situation now.

Perhaps you could win me over on Cheney, but I don't think he hurt Bush. I consider Bush to be a real light-weight. Cheney was the voice of experience. I'm not saying Bush was a puppet, but I do think Cheney's advice was crucial.

Early on I tried to get folks to listen to the idea we should support only a very few candidates this year. Instead of supporting that, I got a number of responses that expressed the impression the more the better. "We have such a great field of candidates." Ug. I agree with you here, but I don't see how it helps ultimately. You still face the Democrats and the Moderate Republicans both of a mind that Tea Party members are terrorists.

So it really is up to us as to around whom conservatives choose to coalesce. As of now, we should be ignoring completely any candidate with less than 5% Republican support. That would narrow things fast.

Yes, I agree. My thoughts along these lines would be, pick the top two or three you like. Support them. The rest are just a distraction.

Hence, your running scared to a former Democrat with a long history of contrary "positions," while possibly appropriate later on, looks sort of OCD to me at this point.

When I assess someone, I try to do it based on a number of factors. I try to consider what various times in my life were like. I went through a few decades where I was busy supporting a family, and didn't tune into politics to the degree I should have. But then again, am I spending too much time on it now? You know, these are real considerations. Yes I understand the issues and the political dynamics more today. I'm glad of that. On the other hand, things that others miss loom large to me. I write people off based on some things that perhaps I shouldn't. I'm not saying that in relation to Trump, as if to shield him. I'm actually saying it based on how things have already caused me to lose respect for Cruz and Walker.

Going back to him, did Trump go through a business period that lasted a considerable length of time, and only grasp politics superficially? What was his driving force? Politics? Business? I think it was business.

You mentioned his thoughts on the Canadian Healthcare System. You talked about it being a few years back. It was 1999. A book was written and published in January of 2000. That's fifteen years ago. Have we as a nation been dragged through a health care process, Obamacare being seen for what it is? Had we seen the negatives accociated with it by 1999? The one thing I would grant you is that government provided health care is wrong. We have done it. We are still doing it. We are going to be doing it. Trump now has it a lot more right than he used to. He advocates for a robust private sector solution to it. He wants insurance companies to become more competitive, resulting in lower premiums and diversified policies. Whether you believe him or not, that is what he is pushing, so that is what the public is being educated to support, or at least consider.

This is what I have been trying to explain to folks. Some folks are focusing on the supposed lying, the supposed fooling of us. They fail to grasp that Trump is educating people to think in terms of private sector solutions, a stronger military, a return to sanity on immigration, supprot for our veterans... and on and on it goes. And still the guy is getting trashed by the people who say they want the nation to return to these types of policies. It's my take that Trumps deserves some serious apologies. He'll never get it. People are too focused on what he did fifteen years ago, because that proves who he is. What he advocates for on our behalf today? Not so much

At the end of the day, Trump will have sold people on our ideals. If something happens and he doesn't get the nomination, people who revere those ideals will rejoice. Very strange.

We have plenty of time to assess, test, and select from among a far more competent set of choices than we have had in recent election cycles, albeit none is perfect.

Agreed.

Trump's negatives are so strong he's very unlikely to win the general election. So in that respect, I think you are throwing your vote away.

Trump is now polling above Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure what you're basing this thought on. A guy with very high negatives isn't going to pull down 35% in a field of 17. He's not going to outpoll one of the opposition's top contenders.

Bush, McCain, Romney... Does this translate to something that looks like a Conservative would likely win the nomination now?

Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon, Ford... Does this translate to something that looks like a Conservative would likely win the nomination in 1980?

Sheesh.

Perhaps you could win me over on Cheney, but I don't think he hurt Bush.

That wasn't the point. It was that Bush's selection of Cheney did not leave us with a conservative to carry forward, quite the contrary.

Early on I tried to get folks to listen to the idea we should support only a very few candidates this year.

Earth to Doughty: It's still "early on."

You mentioned his thoughts on the Canadian Healthcare System. You talked about it being a few years back.

You are discounting the quote I offered of Trump praising Xero's team back in 2008, czars and all.

Trump is now polling above Hillary Clinton.

That is NOT a majority. With his negatives, IMO, nor will it be.