Magox

It's baffling to you because you don't understand the correlation of having a strong military and the influence throughout the world that it gives us. It's one thing to be have a foreign policy that first looks to diplomacy but keeps a military option on the table, to one who doesn't even consider the military option at almost any occasion. Aside from the vote to engage in military action against Al Qaeda and Kosovo in 1999, those are the only two authorizations for engagement he's voted on since he was a politician, which I believe dates back to 1990 or so. He would drastically cut back the defense budget, I know to some of you that sounds like a good move. I think we are already beginning to see the drawbacks of a foreign policy that has swung from too interventionist to not being engaged enough. The world is filled with lots of bad characters out there that seize weakness throughout the world. It sounds nice, cool, zen like and all that jazz to just disengage from the world, concentrate on our economy and voila, Problem solved! Doesn't work that way. A country like the US which is so intertwined with our interests woven throughout the world, we can't afford to always neglect the conflicts that occur in regions that matter to us. We have an obligation to protect our direct interests because they impact our lives in one form or another. I'm not an interventionist, but I'm not an pacifist isolationist like Bernie happens to be. Bernie's foreign policy is not made for the U.S and either are his economic policies. Sure, everyone wants free **** and it's even more popular when you say Wall Street is going to pay for it. That's not a serious proposal and anyone who understands the economy and isn't a prisoner of this form of ideology knows that this isn't grounded in reality for a country of 350 million people. Like I said, Bernie's ideas make sense for Denmark, but not for a country like the U.S

Mr angry old white liberal white dude, is one nasty little !@#$er

Irregardless of whose fault it is, any able country should help out in a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude. They are literally being hunted down, starved and displaced from their homes. Where are they suppose to go? Send them back to their eventual deaths or at best life of extreme famine back to their homes? It is the responsibility of the nations that are able to do what they can to provide refuge until things stabilize back in their homes. That's not to say have them become citizens of that particular country, just help out. And if you notice, the only country that is stopping them with militant force is Hungary. Why does that matter? Because Hungary is to my knowledge the only country out there run by a far-right nationalistic government. And look who supports that, not surprisingly it's Ozy, the Trump supporter.

That's ironic, because anyone with a "working brain" couldn't possibly support his foreign policy and economic policy prescriptions. They are fitting for a country like Denmark, not a super power like the U.S I'm just glad that people with your radical views are still seen as fringe.

When you go to retire for the evening, do you check underneath your bed for any boogie men? I hear they can be pretty scary.

Maybe one day the GOP can aspire to be just like the Jobbik Party.

Pheww! Thought it was gonna be N.E.

It's a tough one, if you are looking for the best immediate #2 choice, I wouldn't be surprised that the Bills believe that they can rely on Cassell more so than E.J. But, on the other hand, E.J is beginning to show some glimpses of why they drafted him as high as they did and it would be foolish to let him go without completely confirming if he is who they thought he was. I'd say go with those three, whoever they choose as the immediate backup I'd be fine with either one, but if they do actually believe that E.J is ahead of Cassell as the immediate choice, then you may as well cut Cassell and save that money for Re signing Dareus.

Just admit that you are a partisan putz who isn't able to formulate an original coherent thought.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-evolution-life-evolve-non-life-incredible-fairy-tales I think some conservatives like him because, well.....He's likable. He's also obviously extremely intelligent, he's not your ordinary doctor, he was the first doctor to successfully separate Siamese twins (I think). He was the first doctor to do surgery on a fetus inside the mother's womb. So obviously he's a smart dude. The way he talks he's very thoughtful, which I happen to like. He's a man of faith and I know many in the GOP like that. I don't believe he will go far, I could be wrong, but for right now, he's a very appealing anti establishment candidate. Why would Ben Carson want to be the VP of someone who thinks Nancy Pelosi is "the greatest"?

That may be true, but let's not forget that you are enamored with a 73 year old socialist who has no shot in winning in this country, which makes you the even larger outlier.

Taken together, these polls shows the GOP establishment has two real problems. First, nearly two thirds of the base (and I am using Iowa GOP caucus goers as a proxy for the GOP base) have had it with anyone associated with the GOP establishment or leadership. Second, at least in Iowa, Trump is not fading. The more people see him the more favorable their opinion. Even if Trump does fade, his voters are not going to Jeb Bush or John Kasich. The same applies to Carson and Fiorina and Cruz voters. And if any of the latter three fall out before Trump, the odds of him winning the nomination grow exponentially. Before Trump really declared, he was somewhere around the 2% area. When he made his xenophobic opening salvo, his support went up to around the 12% area. From there he went into a nationalistic tone about China, Mexico, Japan all stealing our jobs etc. That bumped him up some more and then his general non pc approach and taking on the establishment has gotten him a little higher. So, I'd say about 30% of his supporters are nativists which is the base of his support, another 30% are drawn to his no BS/ celibrity approach and the rest are what I believe is the anti establishment crowd.

You sound like a very angry, bitter old white dude.

Simms could go on the practic squad roster. Does that count?

Clay, Mulligan and Gray. O'Leary to PS

Give it some time, Trump will soon be questioning Cruz's place of birth. In all seriousness, if there is one politician where Trump would get some backlash for personally attacking, Cruz would probably be the one. Although it will be interesting to see how Trump handles Ben Carson catching up to him in the Iowa polls.

Well, not surprisingly Bird dog's characterization of this is akin to the FB-meme-like chart's that he like's to post, meaning that it's devoid of reality. Did Scott Walker "propose" the idea to build a wall on the northern border? No. However, this is just YET another moment for Scott Walker when he goes off script, he shows that he isn't ready for prime time. The idea that we would have to "look at it" because it's a "legitimate issue" is absurd. I had Scott Walker as one of my top choices a couple months ago, but he has continuously flubbed, backtracked and waffled on a number of issues. Don't get me wrong, his stand on the public sector unions won all sorts of kudos from me but all off too often, he's showing that he just isn't up to the task. I'm not going to completely write him off, but he isn't one of my top tier choices anymore. I view this whole thing as a horse race and Bush and Walker have now fallen off from the top of the pack. For the type of candidate that I am looking for, Rubio and Kasich are at the top with Fiorina making a strong push from the back.

I'm going by all the daily reporting from the on beat reporters, tweets and things that I've read from the guys who attended some of the practices that post here. EJ from what I read was the most inconsistent throughout the camps/preseason. And the time period that I was referring to was the beginning of this particular QB competition, in regards to the consistency matter. And I really don't see how anyone who has been keeping track of the daily events that have been reported can call EJ's play as consistent throughout the camps and preseason. Don't get me wrong we just recently are beginning to see some nice improvement, which is great, but he hasn't been consistent throughout the QB competition.

They will probably keep all three.

I remember a couple people in particular that were pretty invested in that guy.

I'm not emotionally invested with any of the quarterbacks, apparently you are. My conclusion is based on the consistency of the QBs, T.T in my view has shown a continuous and consistent progession of what he can do. And although EJ has been showing some improvement, he has not been consistent. Don't take it personal, it's just my opinion.

I sincerely doubt the coaches and decision makers are going to put nearly as much stock in a few preseason downs as much as many here believe. They will most likely look at the entirety of the body of work that they have seen from these players, see who has progressed during that time period but more importantly see who has been the most consistent. My guess is as of a few weeks ago they were leaning towards Cassel and that it probably has switched on over to T.T In my view the other main thing that they are looking at is do they want to go with two or three QBs. If they go with two, my hunch tells me they go with the perceived more consistent option, which probably would be Cassel.

Your motivations are morally bankrupt. And I will leave it at that.

It's not inclusive of everyone, his rhetoric and policy proposals prove that. You can pretend that what he says only affects the minds of illegal immigrants, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Latino voters find him to be repulsive and rightfully so. And even though Trump would be able to draw from some segments of the population that typical GOP candidates could not draw from, it's actually very shallow. The numbers bare that out, in every single poll, there are many more people who dislike him than like him. And to your second point. Your reasoning for is all !@#$ed up. You are coming to the conclusion that there shouldn't be any more legal immigration because Republicans lose votes. What kind of backwards ass thinking is that? The reason why we want a good thriving immigration system is because any successful civilization depends on fresh human capital. Human capital that has the desire to be a productive force in our society. The vast majority don't come here so that they can aspire to be on welfare. I know that's the caricature that some of you would like to believe, but that's not the case. They largely come here to work, and just like many legal immigrants or native folks, they struggle to get by and if they are in California they use the welfare system provided to them by the state. If there is an issue with that, blame it on the state. You don't have to pander to Latinos to win 35% + (even though in this climate not sure 35% is possible) just have to convey the message that they can be part of the GOP, communicate to them that economic conservative principles will benefit their lives and employment prospects and that socially speaking they are lockstep on many of their issues. Bottom line, be inclusive in rhetoric and policy.

I believe that the findings of that poll have some merit to it based on the consistent polling data out there and the anecdotal evidence I've seen. If I had to take a guess, if Trumps support fell off, much of it would go to Rubio and Cruz with some going to Fiorina and Carson. The problem is Trump ain't going anywhere soon. I personally like Bush, but he is proving to be a bad candidate. Trump has been successful at painting Bush as a "low energy" guy and to be honest I think that line of attack on him has been devastating. Plus, Jeb has done some goofy things lately, like the Asian anchor baby deal, making gaffes about the PP deal and most recently having Eric Cantor endorse him. That's just political malpractice. The base just doesn't like him and even if he were to win the nomination, which I don't think he will, he wouldn't get these guys to turn out to vote for him, much like Romney. Even though I don't wish bad outcomes on good people, I kinda wish he'd just implode. Because I think a lot of his support would go to Rubio and Kasich. The data lines up well for Rubio but I'm afraid he's being squeezed by both sides. Trump now has captivated the "base" and Jeb/Christie/Kasich are all vying for the establishment. As strong as Trump is right now, there is only room for two candidates to challenge him. And with Jeb's enormous money advantage and support from the establishment, you gotta believe he will be there throughout most of the process.