Election 2016

Half of Republican Voters Now Support Trump or Carson

The Donald might turn out be the new Rick or Rudy, but we haven't seen this kind of sustained outsider enthusiasm in recent history

|

Fox has definitely been spreading the love. ||| Fox News
Fox News

As mentioned in the Morning Links today, Donald Trump today became the first GOP presidential candidate to shoot northward of 30 percent in national polling. Trump has been leading the field since mid-July, which feels like forever, but isn't even close to being the longest front-running stretch during this campaign: Marco Rubio holds that honor, with almost a half year in the top slot from late 2013 to year through May 2014.

In fairness, that Marcomentum encompassed only six consecutive polls, compared to Trump's 19, and his lead averaged five percentage points, while Trump has been above +10 for all but one national poll since August. But the point is, polls are really fun and weird to look at. Hell, Rand Paul held at least a share of the lead for two months straight as recently as last June.

Here, for your amusesment (and/or self-abuse) is a chronological list of GOP front-runners (excluding ties) this campaign since the first PPP poll way back in December 2013: Rubio, Christie, Paul, Christie, Cruz, Paul, Christie, Paul, Bush, Huckabee, Paul, Huckabee, Christie, Paul, Christie, Bush, Walker, Bush, Huckabee, Walker, Bush, Walker, Bush, Walker, Bush, Rubio, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Trump.

Where were we this time last cycle? Rick Perry was nearing the end of a six-week, 17-poll run in the top slot, during which time he averaged 29 percent support and a 10-point lead. In 2008, Rudolf Guiliani was in the middle of a four-and-a-half month stretch, encompassing 40 or so polls, in which he led in all but three. (Hizzoner dominated polling from October 2006 through mid-December 2007, then faltered.)

So there is precedent for the Trump balloon popping. What we haven't seen recently, however, is this much sustained polling success from a total political outsider. In fact, when you add Trump's support to Ben Carson's in this latest CNN poll, you get a stunning 51 percent. That's half of likely Republican voters pledging their affections to semi-recent Democrats who have never run for political office and who tend to say crazy things.

Here's the combined Trump-Carson number since May, averaged out by month. For a control group, I'll add up the "Establishment" troika of Jeb! Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker:

May: T/C 13%, E 35%

June: T/C 16%, E 35%

July: T/C 26%, E 32%

Aug.: T/C 33%, E 25%

Sept.: T/C 50%, E 17%

Those are staggering numbers. It's no wonder the political class looks a bit shell-shocked these days.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

267 responses to “Half of Republican Voters Now Support Trump or Carson

  1. So, it’s loudmouthed and crazy leading the pack?

    1. Referring to Trump and Carson, not to my post inexplicably being the first.

      1. Well, that works too.

      2. If the shoe fits…

      3. lol, loudmouthed and crazy seems to lead the pack in many areas of life…

    2. I guess people figure it must be better than the Boehner/McConnell establishment crew, which is what they got for supporting mainstream Republican candidates.

      1. This, all the way. The American people put all these republicans in congress for one reason and one reason only: to stop what Block Yomomma is doing to this country. And they have utterly abdicated their responsibilty to do that, if they even wanted to in the first place.

        This is the result of what happens when people aren’t represented in a representative government.

        1. “they have utterly abdicated their responsibilty”

          Are you sure? According to the Progressives the Republicans have blocked everything Obama has attempted–and only because he’s Black! Not sure how they explain the GOP support for Obama’s secret Trade Deal.

          1. “Even some GOP insiders understand how great this deal is.”

            1. Anything that Obama and Republicans agree on can’t be good for us. Until I know more details I’ll oppose for that reason alone.

        2. Or maybe it could be the simple answer that half of GOP voters are stupid and/or crazy.

          1. Which half, though? The ones who support the failed establishment, or the ones supporting those who oppose the failed establishment?

      2. So they’re supporting a guy the mostly backs Obama policies? That’s pretty retarded.

    3. There may be a silver lining in all this. If people are finally so distrustful of elected politicians that they prefer private sector buffoons, that could be a good thing.

    4. that’s no way to treat FoE

    5. You’re thinking of Harman Cain, from what I understand Ben Carson is not very loudmouthed.

      1. You know what they say about Black Republicans–They both look alike

  2. It’s a good thing the economy is booming and the world is a peace.

  3. Half of all GOP voters want Hillary to be President? What a twist!

    1. What difference at this point does it make?

    2. +1 M Night Shamalamadingdong

    3. Half of all GOP voters are terminally retarded? Not much of a surprise, really.

  4. Let’s remember that these aren’t voters choosing Trump or Carson, these are poll respondents. They may not be the same group of people. I have to believe they’re not accurately reflecting the state of the GOP voter right now. I have to. I HAVE TO.

    1. “Let’s remember that these aren’t voters choosing Trump or Carson, these are poll respondents.”

      Yes, yes, all just a misunderstanding, I’m quite sure.

      Seriously – WHAT. THE. FUCK?

        1. I understand this sentiment COMPLETELY.

          *gulps flask*

          1. You, uh, got any extra of that?

    2. There was no way Jesse “The Body” Ventura could ever get elected governor of Minnesota. No. Way.

      1. And in retrospect that decision by the voters of Minnesota has not aged well…

        1. Same can be said for those of us who foolishly voted for Schwarzenegger…

          1. Have you ever cast a vote for anyone that you didn’t later regret?

              1. Gary Johnson.

                It’s easy to never regret voting for someone who loses.
                My advice? Vote for losers, you’ll never regret it.

                1. It’s easy to never regret voting for someone who loses.
                  My advice? Vote for losers, you’ll never regret it.

                  Not always true. I kind of regretted voting for Ross Perot.

            1. Obama in 2012. I knew he was going to win, so I did it to prove I’m not racist.

              1. Obama in 2012. I knew he was going to win, so I did it to prove I’m not racist.

                Well it didn’t work.

                1. “Well it didn’t work.”

                  I know. But now I identify as Black so it’s impossible for me to be racist.

              1. imgur is blocked at work, so I’m going to assume that’s a photo of the fat Elvis stamp.

                1. That’s a great guess, but let me paint a word picture:

                  – High school yearbook photo of “best hair” (female on left, male on right).
                  On the left? A young Flo from Progressive before her ass got fat. Blonde hair trussed up so high it looks like one of the star-bellied sneeches. (And the answer is, “of course you would.”)

                  On the right? A very young James Spader/David-Spade-as-Joe-Dirt cross with the requisite mid-80’s mullet.

                  You’re welcome.

              2. And I just spit coffee all over my desk. The other droogs here may be on to something re: you being the worst.

              3. You may be the worst, but that was perfect.

                1. You may be the worst, but that was perfect.

                  +1. Damn, Nicole, that was excellent!

              4. Hello Lindsay Bluth! How YOU doin’?

            2. No — But I’ve never voted for a winning candidate. True story.

              1. But I’ve never voted for a winning candidate.

                Ironically, I did once.

                Jesse Ventura.

              2. Mom accused me of being a “Republican” recently.

                “Mom, I haven’t voted for a Republican since Reagan in 1984.”

                “Well, you voted for him.”

                She also said she “really likes that Elizabeth Warren.”

                She’s lucky my brother has her health care POA…

              1. Do we vote with our conscience or for the lesser of two evils? If it’s the former, I guess it would be Gary Johnson but if it is the latter… and it comes down to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, what do you do?

          2. It could be argued that Arnie was a worse choice/ caused more damage than Jessie…

            1. Absolutely. Arnold ran on an anti-tax platform. But then he cozied up to the Democrats and spent like a drunken Nazi. And right before leaving office he signed into law the biggest tax increase in the state’s history. Plus he also enacted that idiotic Global Warming Final Solution law that has given California some of the most expensive gas in the country. I truly despise the guy for making things even worse here.

              1. You know what other Austrian spent like a drunken Nazi?

                1. Kaiser Wilhelm?

                  1. Franz Ferdinand?

                    1. Never get tired of ‘Take Me Out.’ Great song.

        2. And in retrospect that decision by the voters of Minnesota has not aged well…

          Its all relative, so I have to ask:

          Compared to what governor?

    3. these are poll respondents.

      This. It’s helpful to remember that these are people who, when the phone rings and it’s a number they don’t recognize they:

      1) Answer the phone and
      2) When the person calling says something like “I’m calling to conduct a public opinion poll regarding people’s preferences in the 2016 Republican Primary, do you have a few minutes to answer some questions?”

      they actually say “yes”.

      These are people with either nothing else going on in their pathetic lives, or people who are too stupid to realize that they can say no, hang up the phone, or just not answer the mystery phone call in the first place.

      1. I participated in one back in 08. I was about 5 vodkas deep when they called… I don’t think my parents have ever been polled since.

  5. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Mitt Romney emerge as the nominee in 2016.
    Who are the rest of you betting on?

    1. I’m betting on Weiner to emerge.

  6. Glenn Beck made a good point today about Trump: he said people support Trump for the same reasons people supported Obama. It’s all about emotions and hype.

    1. Hey!!!!! I said it first!!!!!!!!

    2. Trump is unusual in that he is unapologetic about being pro-American.

      That may seem like emotion and hype to us, but people are still sick of fighting what they see as Republican wars for the supposed benefit of foreigners–and they’re sick of the Democrats insisting that we eviscerate ourselves for being American and all the sins and blame that brings with it, too.

    3. What other reasons have people supported candidates? You think Washington got elected by laying out policy proposals?

      1. I don’t think anyone voted for this man because of emotions and hype:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puwTrLRhmw

      2. And Washington was the leader of a victorious army.

        1. Well his army was seldom victorious and not at all if you exclude some minor ill-advised skirmishes. The US won the Revolution thanks to Gates and Lafayette, and won despite George Washington.

          1. True, which is why I said Washington was the leader of the army, but not the one who won the war. Basically, he got lucky.

            Even so, few people were willing to do the job, so I give him credit for taking the responsibility.

            1. I give him some credit too. Especially where it concerns his political competence. There is a strong case to be made that Washington was actually the guy who, as colonel in the colonial militia, triggered the terribly expensive French and Indian War with an unsanctioned ambush of French settlers and confederates on the far-side of the Applachias (where by treaty the British colonists were bound not to settle).

              A War which indirectly caused new taxes to be levied on the colonies and led ultimately to the Revolution. If I apply enough cynicism about the myth surrounding Geroge Washington, that action seems more like successful political maneuvering than blunder on his part. Or at least he capitalized on that blunder quite well.

        2. Exactly. Personality, character, image that people bought into.

      3. “What other reasons have people supported candidates? You think Washington got elected by laying out policy proposals?”

        No. It was by going round the country plying the voters with hogsheads full of bumboos.

      4. Hookers. And Blackjack. Oh, forget about the Blackjack.

  7. “We haven’t seen this kind of sustained outsider enthusiasm in recent history”

    Isn’t it the same thing in both parties, with Sanders creeping up on Hillary, too?

    People are sick of establishment everything.

    1. I wouldn’t exactly consider Sanders anti-establishment.

      1. Yeah, I’m not sure I would either, but I think that’s the way a lot of other Americans see it.

        They see Hillary put forth by the establishment as the inevitable nominee, and in that sense, she represents the establishment to them.

        I read comments over at NPR sometimes, and over the past week or so, some progressive site has been sending people over there by the boatload to lambaste NPR in comments for ignoring Sanders–I’m gonna cancel my membership!

        Bush is the establishment candidate on the Republican side, that way. I’ve been saying for a long time, if Bush was leading the pack with 30% of the vote, he should be scared–because he’s the establishment candidate. 30% preferring Bush means that 70% know exactly who he is, and they want somebody else.

      2. He is nominally an Independent.

        1. Relative to Hillary, he’s the alternative to the establishment in the minds of primary voters.

      3. He’s anti-Democratic establishment. Despite the legions of burnt-strawmen in H&R, there’s really not much difference between the typical Democrat and the typical Republican. Democrats may lean egalitarian when it comes to social institutions, but the majority are not Socialists.

        1. “there’s really not much difference between the typical Democrat and the typical Republican. ”

          Sure, but many people really care about those differences that do occur.

  8. OT: Islamic State Selling Norwegian, Chinese Captives on Black Market

    Hmm… the Norwegian looks like he could do some hard work, but the Chinese could probably do the books better. Which one to buy? Why not both?

    1. You might get a volume discount.

    2. THE CHINAMAN IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE!

      1. That is not the preferred nomenclature.

        1. THE CHINAMAN IS NOT THE TOPIC HERE!

    3. At one time, this alone would have been grounds for a declaration of war from their home nations.

      1. Contrary to what one would conclude from America’s wars on various ideas, a declaration of war must be against a sovereign nation, and ISIS is not yet recognized as such (even though it’s getting increasingly harder to ignore).

        1. No it doesn’t. You can declare war against a group like AQ it’s absurd to restrict war to nations.

          1. Yes, it does. War is the state of armed hostilities between sovereigns. Its definitional. Google “legal definition of war”, and learn something.

        2. Barbary Coast Pirates say hi.

          1. We went to war with the governments of various North African kingdoms, not just a bunch of random pirates.

            1. “We went to war with the governments of various North African kingdoms, not just a bunch of random pirates”

              Well, yes, but the US didn’t go to “war” with Pirates during that period. If we caught them we sunk their ship and any that were captured were hung.

              1. “The turning point in the war was the Battle of Derna (April?May 1805). Ex-consul William Eaton, a former army captain who used the title of “general”, and US Marine Corps first lieutenant, Presley O’Bannon, led a force of eight U.S. Marines,[33] and five hundred mercenaries?Greeks from Crete, Arabs, and Berbers?on a march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt, to assault and to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. The action is memorialized in a line of the Marines’ Hymn?”the shores of Tripoli”.

                William Eaton’s invasion says ‘hi’.

              2. That was the legally accepted way of dealing with pirates back in the day. No war needed; they were “enemies of mankind”.

            2. In the pre-UN days, a sovereign nation was a unified group that occupied ground and could hold it. ISIS counts.

              Those North African kingdoms didn’t have a set of official “I’m a legit nation” papers.

              1. The Barbary nations were much more accepted as sovereign countries than ISIS is today. Not even close.

        3. What about the war on sol?cism?

        4. and ISIS is not yet recognized as such

          Recognized by who? In practice, ISIS is more “sovereign” than many EU members.

    4. I love that ISIS is bringing back the slave trade. It utterly discredits them in the minds of huge swaths of the globes population, including many Muslims.
      There’s no way that a bunch of slave-traders are ever the “good guys”. In fact they seem bent on purposely trying to appear as evil as possible.

      1. That’s why SJWs don’t talk about ISIS. They are more concerned with the modern-day American slave trade of employing people at a KKKerperashun to make teh evul profits.

      2. The ransoming of prisoners has a long history in Islam and is thoroughly justified by Sunni sophistry.

  9. Huh…

    Iran’s supreme leader says Israel won’t exist in 25 years
    Originally published September 9, 2015 at 7:58 pm Updated September 10, 2015 at 1:04 am

    Iran’s supreme leader predicted Israel will not exist in 25 years and ruled out any new negotiations with the “Satan,” the United States, beyond the recently completed nuclear accord.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/na…..-25-years/

    1. So Iran is toning down their rhetoric because of the treaty?

      Thats’ nice.

      I’m not being sarcastic. They’re rhetoric is usually a lot worse than that.

      And they’re trying to keep Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Army, and other affiliates motivated and inspired to fight ISIS in Syria, too.

      1. So Iran is toning down their rhetoric because of the treaty?

        *in Arnold Schwartenegger voice*

        IT’S NOT A TREATY!

        Because as you’ll note, no one passes treaties any more!

      2. Well, it’s a good thing there’s an arms embargo on Iran, amirite?

  10. It’s one thing to send the RNC a “message” by telling some bozo on the phone, “I’m voting for Trump.”
    Actually entering the voting booth and pulling the lever for him smacks of suicidal nihilism.
    NTTAWWT

    1. Actually entering the voting booth and pulling the lever for him smacks of suicidal nihilism.
      NTTAWWT

      Majorities voted for Obama. Twice.

      1. Right, but against the likes of McCain and Romney. Not exactly bright lights of Republican branding, either of them. When it comes down to voters choosing between Trump and a more serious, conventional candidate, I doubt the spirit of Trumpapalooza will win over en mass.

        1. (assuming that candidate isn’t feckin’ JB)

            1. ahem, ?JEB!

    2. Do people actually try to game polls? There seems to be a common assumption that people lie to pollsters because they are embarrassed by their true opinions or want to send a message, but is that based on anything besides “I don’t like the result of this poll and want to find some way to dismiss it”?

      1. Do people actually try to game polls?

        I do, always.

  11. Hell, Rand Paul held at least a share of the lead for two months straight as recently as last June.

    Who?!

  12. Not a huge Trump fan, but one of the things I like about him is that he’s not a religious nut–unlike most of the current GOP candidates. Plus, he’s been able to get these numbers without pandering to the SoCons.

      1. Hmmm… But that’s pretty minor compared to what the other candidates have done.

        1. LOL. That is the essence of Trump’s supporters – a willingness to overlook principles for the sake of the personality.

          But why? That is the question some ask. And the answer is: Because you are all fucking poseurs.

    1. You would think the other candidates could figure that out. You would think.

      Pandering makes you look weak. Trump may be a buffoon but he doesn’t look weak. After 6+ years of watching an effeminate twink bow and scrape and apologize to the rest of the world, watching him getting punked over and over by Putin and now by Iran to our great detriment, a guy who projects strength is going to have a lot of appeal.

      1. But you gotta appease the base. If not, they might skip the election and indirectly hand victory to your opponent. Not sure if that really happens, but lots of people insist that it does.

      2. My perceptual mechanism must be misaligned, because nothing looks weaker to me than a vain thin-skinned windbag who goes around insulting people that call him on his childish platitudes.

        1. But puffery plays well to the doofuses who enjoy the false bravado, and you’re not one of those people.

        2. We talking about Trump or Hillary, here?

          1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

        3. Understood. I guess it’s refreshing in these PC times to see someone speak their mind and not back down when criticized. And I’ll take that over a religious kook or extreme SoCon.

          1. When he’s criticized, he starts insulting the other person’s looks and makes up lies about him about himself. How is that a show of strength? It just makes him look like a ridiculous child.

            1. But I get that. What I don’t get is the desire of some people to impose their idiotic, made-up beliefs onto the rest of us in the hope of securing a prominent spot in the ‘afterlife.’ If it’s a choice between petty and childish or totally delusional and irrational, I’ll go for petty and childish. Not a perfect choice, but definitely the lesser of two evils.

            2. “It just makes him look like a ridiculous child.”

              Or, a political genius.

              Now, if he could get back the ebullient glibness and aplomb he exposed just a few years ago, he’d easily slip himself in the genius slot.

      3. I don’t think what Trump is projecting is “strength”.,

      4. Trump’s entire campaign has consisted of nothing besides pandering to people who don’t realize they’re being pandered to. These people are tired of political candidates pandering to other groups, they have no problem with someone pandering to them.

    2. “Religious nut” is a pretty ridiculous term to use for most of the GOP candidates, unless you define it as “not an atheist.”

      1. I dislike and distrust people who wear their religion on their sleeve. Believe whatever you want, just don’t shove it in my face. And it seems like those who proclaim their beliefs loudest always turn out to be the worst people of all.

        1. Ron Paul turned out that bad?

          I’d love to see a statistical analysis on who is a “religious nut” by your definition and the people who are the “worst”. I would bet it would show a lot of confirmation bias on your part…

          1. Anyone who prays, believes in an afterlife, and thinks the Bible (or any other religious book) is anything more than a collection of fictionalized stories is a “religious nut.” Not all religious zealots are exposed for their hypocrisy, but it’s stunning how often so-called Men of God engage in the very behavior (and worse) they publicly condemn.

            1. So, by your definition, the majority of Americans (probably humans) are “religious nuts”. Using ridicule is quite Alinsky of you, no?

              Not all religious zealots are exposed for their hypocrisy…

              So… how am I a hypocrite again?

              1. Why do you care what I think? If believing in fairy tales makes you feel better about yourself, then good for you! I understand that religious people are happier than the non-religious, and I would love to go along for that reason alone but it’s just too stupid to swallow. Just make sure you picked the ‘correct’ religion because only one can possibly be true. And if you choose the wrong one then you’ll be tortured for eternity!

                1. Why do you care what I think?

                  Because you’re insulting me and the majority of people on the planet for believing differently than you do. Does it really affect me? No, but it does speak volumes about you. I was trying to get you to think more about your position…

                  Just make sure you picked the ‘correct’ religion because only one can possibly be true. And if you choose the wrong one then you’ll be tortured for eternity!

                  If you deny the one who gives you life, he will be a gentleman and not force it on you. Interestingly enough, existing without life is torturous, but you’ve made your decision and have to deal with the consequences. This is called “hell”. You’ve chosen it.

                  1. God made me a skeptic, so He shouldn’t be surprised that I don’t buy into stories written by people who no one alive today has ever met. I don’t doubt the existence of a “god,” but I have serious doubts about those who claim to speak on His behalf. Most people also believe in ghosts, psychics, and UFOs. Just because a majority believes something doesn’t make it real.

                    1. God made me a skeptic, so He shouldn’t be surprised that I don’t buy into stories written by people who no one alive today has ever met.

                      God made you free. You can choose him or something other than him.

                      Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

                      I have serious doubts about those who claim to speak on His behalf.

                      So do I. That’s why I wait for some form of verification, such as prophecy or truth that only an inventor would know.

                      Just because a majority believes something doesn’t make it real.

                      True, but calling them “nuts” for believing differently than you (and the majority not harming you in any way) seems unnecessary. What is your definition of “nut”?

                    2. Seriously, why do you care what I believe? Is your faith so fragile that it can be shaken by some jerk with a keyboard? I’m attacked all the time for my beliefs as they are clearly in the minority, but it only strengthens my resolve. I just have a very hard time believing in anything that I can’t touch, examine, and confirm is true. I have a standing invitation for God to come to my home and tell me what He would like me to do. So far, He hasn’t come by so I assume I must be doing what I’m supposed to.

                    3. Seriously, why do you care what I believe?

                      This is hard to believe, but I actually care about you. Understand it or not, you are immortal and I care where you spend eternity.

                      I’m attacked all the time for my beliefs as they are clearly in the minority, but it only strengthens my resolve.

                      There is something to be said for sticking to your guns. Ignoring reason to do it, however…

                      I just have a very hard time believing in anything that I can’t touch, examine, and confirm is true.

                      We confirm there is a table by sight and touch. We confirm there are subatomic particles by experiments. We confirm other things by testing if what they predict will come true. You believe smarter people because what they predict happens. I believe a smarter thing because he said happens.

                      I have a standing invitation for God to come to my home and tell me what He would like me to do.

                      He did. He just didn’t “confirm” himself in the way you prefer. If God is the man, then we are the dog. The dog doesn’t tell the human how to confirm that he is a human, the human does it for the dog.

                    4. “This is hard to believe, but I actually care about you.”

                      Yes, I do find that hard to believe. It’s more likely you’re compelled to act this way to increase your chances of getting into Heaven. At least that’s been my experience when dealing with people who are attempting to ‘save’ me.

                      BTW, I’m NOT an Athiest. I know that the universe, the Earth, and all life is the result of an intelligence, and couldn’t have “just happened.” I just can’t swallow any religion because they all read like they were written by superstitious, petty, little men. And ever since 9/11 I don’t have any tolerance for people’s religions. Believe whatever you want, just don’t throw it in my face or condemn my way of life. Like most people, my girlfriend is deeply religious (she prays all the time and can’t eat a meal without saying grace) but I never criticize her for it, and she never criticizes me for not believing all the things that she does.

                    5. It’s more likely you’re compelled to act this way to increase your chances of getting into Heaven.

                      Not sure you can increase your chances above “metaphysical certitude”… I actually do care. Yes, the one who give life showed me how to care first, but I myself care.

                      I just can’t swallow any religion because they all read like they were written by superstitious, petty, little men.

                      Blessed are the meek,
                      for they will inherit the earth.
                      Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
                      for they will be filled.
                      Blessed are the merciful,
                      for they will be shown mercy.
                      Blessed are the pure in heart,
                      for they will see God.
                      Blessed are the peacemakers,
                      for they will be called children of God.
                      Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
                      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

                      Believe whatever you want, just don’t throw it in my face or condemn my way of life.

                      I don’t condemn you. I condemn me. 1 Timothy 1:15

                  2. “Why do you care what I think?”

                    Is there a worse, or more dishonest rhetorical device than that?

                    If you are the sort to ask that question, then why even bother offering your opinion at all?

                  3. If you deny the one who gives you life, he will be a gentleman and not force it on you.

                    At issue is not whether there is a God, at issue is whether the Bible and Christian churches are representative and accurate. The “God” they portray would be a major jerk and utterly immoral. I choose to believe that the man-made religions are wrong, not that the universe is ruled by an evil omnipotent being, as you choose to.

                    This is called “hell”. You’ve chosen it.

                    Hell is what you choose if you believe the lies and deceptions most major organized religions tell you.

                    1. The “God” they portray would be a major jerk and utterly immoral.

                      He doesn’t force you to accept life. He made you free, free even to reject him, to reject life. If you choose to reject life, don’t be surprised when it’s not pleasant.

                      I choose to believe that the man-made religions are wrong…

                      Hell is what you choose if you believe the lies and deceptions most major organized religions tell you.

                      I agree. The ant cannot come to an understanding of the man by its own devices. In the same way, God had to explain himself to man, not the other way around.

                      not that the universe is ruled by an evil omnipotent being

                      False dilemma.

            2. So pretty much what I said in my original post, “not an atheist.”

      2. No. As they aren’t simply religious but sophisticatedly fanatical about certain political points which have been allied to soi-disant xtianity. “Religious nut” seem apt.

        1. Examples, please.

    3. Trump’s religion is America First.

      1. Sounds good to me. Every leader in the world should put their country first. And with the exception of Obama, most do.

        1. You don’t know much about the rest of the world, do you?

          1. Are you suggesting most leaders put other nations before their own? I find that very hard to believe…

            1. There are other options, such as “principles first” or “NAP first”.

            2. Go live in just about any place in South America (or Africa) and then tell me about how bad Obama is.

              Hell even Russia, China and the other quasi-dictatorships make our corruption and incompetence look minor league in comparison.

              1. Incompetence and corruption are a totally different topic, and I realize that most countries in the world are even worse than the US in that respect. But most elected leaders are chosen partly for how they’ll advance their nation and people. I’m not aware of any leaders (other than a puppet regime) who put other nations and other people before their own–Obama being the exception, of course.

                1. “Obama being the exception, of course.”

                  It’s a lazy and partisan narrative to pedal that Obama is actively working against U.S. interests. His positions are different than yours, and it’s typical to view different as dangerous.

                  I think he is doing what he thinks is best for the country. I would even argue that certain positions his administration has taken run counter to your narrative…The fact that he is no longer allowing Israeli concerns to solely dictate our ME policy would be one place in which he is absolutely placing American interests above foreign interests. In fact, if he weren’t a Democrat, I could see many old guard Conservatives applauding much of his foreign policy.

                  1. You make some good logical points here. Without question, Obama does try and he does care about the country.

                    I still think he sucks, but you are correct in what you’re saying.

              2. Obama didn’t build that. The U.S. is superior in spite of Obama, not because of him. Obama put in charge of Venezuela would probably be virtually indistinguishable from Chavez.

      2. No, Trump’s religion is WINNING.

        1. What do you want, a loser for president? Laying aside all the awfulness that would emerge if a loser was elected president, you’ve the fact that a loser never wins, and so will never be elected anyway. Don’t throw your vote away!

      3. Trump’s religion is Trump. And he’s its prophet.

        Pretty much boilerplate narcissism.

        1. Touche.

          If Trump get’s elected, he’ll probably try to declare himself Emperor.

          1. Supreme Leader Trump

      4. I owuld have serious doubts about Trump placing country over self.

        1. Would,as well as owuld…

      5. Hitler’s religion was Germany First, and look where that got him or the Germans.

  13. GO VEGAN!

    More sickened in deadly salmonella cucumber outbreak

    At least 10 people from Washington state have been sickened in a deadly salmonella outbreak tied to imported cucumbers from Mexico, health officials said Wednesday.

    The case count has jumped to 341 in 30 states, including the deaths of two people in California and Texas, with at least 70 hospitalized, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

    Makes one wonder just where those cucumbers have been?

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..-outbreak/

    1. Non-vegans occasionally eat cucumbers too.

      Makes one wonder just where those cucumbers have been?

      In David St. Hubbins’s pants?

      1. Non-vegans occasionally eat cucumbers too.

        You’d make a good… air traffic controller. You take everything so seriously! Are you my sister?

        In David St. Hubbins’s pants?

        That’s more the attitude I was hoping for.

        1. I have a bad habit of taking the wrong things seriously and unseriously.

          1. BTW I’m not sure if the ATC would be the right career choice, it was just the only thing I could think of in the moment where offhand comments might be taken at face value.

            I’m open to suggestions.

              1. Maybe a lawyer drawing up a will?

                1. Maybe Preet Bharara’s replacement.

                  1. Maybe Preet Bharara’s replacement.

                    Now that’s just mean.

            1. where offhand comments might be taken at face value

              I prefer to see it as having high standards for jokes.

              1. I prefer to see it as having high standards for jokes.

                Look, the jokes don’t come with a roadmap!

          2. I have a bad habit of taking the wrong things seriously and unseriously.

            Probably due to an undiagnosed autism spectrum disorder. You are posting on a libertarian website, afterall. I’m pretty sure we’re all a bunch of autistic jerks, some more functional than others. /sarc

            1. More like undiagnosed asshole spectrum disorder

      2. Derek Smalls’ pants. Not St. Hubbins’s

    2. cucumber outbreak

      Marginal band name.

    3. deadly salmonella cucumber outbreak

      Best band name ever.

      1. I’d say first album title.

        1. The ” cucumber ” breaks up the flow of the words. Not sure about that. But deadly salmonella outbreak sounds common.

      2. DSCO? No, I’m sticking with cybernetic pimp hand.

  14. Is this the libertarian moment? /asking for a friend

    1. Depends how you define “libertarian”. And “moment”. And “the”.

      1. If “illiberal,” “not now,” or “anything but,” then yes. Pick one.

  15. 30% being for Trump is a lot. But it could also mean that 70% would never consider voting for him.

    1. Some other poll actually found that’s not the case. His overall favorability numbers are going up faster than his “would you vote for him” numbers.

    2. Of course 2 months ago we were saying “20% is a lot, but it still shows 80% wouldn’t vote for him.” Evidently, more and more people are becoming convinced.

      1. True. A month ago I thought if he gets above 30%, his bandwagon would be likely unstoppable. It’s still very early in the election cycle, but prominent & influential “names” will be (already are) starting to commit support, not wanting to be left as a late glommer-on. Those people will not want to recant later. Early $ will dry up for other candidates.

        Soon people will want to know who is “the” anti-Trump, & it’ll narrow down to a 2-way race. (Either that, or no principal opponent will emerge, & Trump will get so many 2nd- & 3rd-choice votes, he’ll walk to the nomination.) Who “the” anti-Trump will be may still take some time to emerge, but we might be seeing it already in Carson. The extremely white guy vs. the black guy seems like a good media dynamic.

    3. I think he’s actually one of the most popular second choice candidates.

  16. Never underestimate the popularity of economic ignorance.

  17. I seem to be at odds with both parties. I don’t want a blowhard buffoon or a lying ‘free shit’ giver. I want someone who holds the founding ideals in high regard and lets the private sector take care of all the things that the voters seem to want the government to do, which it simply can’t.

    I guess I will go to my grave unsatisfied but hopefully before I have to see these idiots crash the country, and they will crash it.

    1. No kidding. I try to temper my frustration by thinking of politics as performance art.

      1. politics as performance art

        I like it. In the next “debate”, have every candidate dress up like a butterfly and stand on its head while reciting the alphabet backwards.

        1. Some forms of performance art are more subtle. Trump is hovering somewhere between self-parody and spoof trolling.

        2. I remember, I don’t remember what school it was, but it was more than onced, I had English tests in which I was required to write a five pgraph essay defending a statement from a list of acceptable statements. Things like “I like dogs” and so forth. In each case, there was not a single statement that I could honestly defend, so I just picked one and adopted the most fantastical blowhard voice I could in my composition. They always did well. At any rate, they could do something similar for presidential candidates.

    2. Figure out a way to wrap Trumps showmanship around that and you’ll get it.

  18. For decades, Republicans have been pounding “God, guns and gays” to win elections, with some nativist rhetoric that’s rarely followed through on. A person who is (at most) religiously agnostic, has not said a word on the 2nd Amendment and is probably 100% okay with teh geys is currently crushing it. Maybe people who voted Republican only ever cared about brown people?

    1. It took me one term to abandon the GOP. I guess I should thank W for forcing me to seek out a third party.

    2. ‘For decades, Republicans have been pounding “God, guns and gays” to win elections’

      Well, they the three things everyone got to have

    3. A person who is (at most) religiously agnostic, has not said a word on the 2nd Amendment and is probably 100% okay with teh geys

      Meanwhile, our Pesident went to Jeremiah Wright’s church, never said a word about guns, and was anti-gay until after 2012 got elected twice

      1. He’s still anti-guy but Biden told him to stfu and play along with the party.

        First time he fooled me into thinking he was a centrist with an enlightened foreign policy ideology. I always hated his health care idea, but I still voted for him over McCain. I’ve regretted it ever since.

  19. I still think Trump’s support maxes out around the 30% mark, and that most Republicans just haven’t decided which mainstream candidate to coalesce around.

    I highly doubt there is anyone out there torn between Trump and any other candidate (with the possible exception of Cruz). “Well, I really like Perry’s economic agenda….but on the other hand, I want a wall around Mexico and would like to get bored with winning.”

    1. No, actually I think there are a lot of people like that. Some of them have been waiting to see whether to take Trump seriously as among their choices, but with his approx. 1/3 in the polls, they surely are taking him seriously now.

    2. Which would be the long and short of it if most states had closed Republican primaries.

      They do not.

  20. Half of Republican Voters Now Support Trump or Carson

    “Half of Republican Voters Utter Fucking Idiots”

    FIFY.

    1. Hey, they at least get partial credit for not being in favor of Bernie or Hillary.

    1. Taking a break to show us a little Maddow on Trump action, eh?

      1. Yeah! Shouldn’t you be stealing a cow for your friend to “make with”?

      2. Hmmm…I’m getting an idea for a story.

        [begins typing furiously]

    2. Maddow loves Trump

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jCqYWo_t8

      I get the feeling that a lot of news anchors are people who want to be comedians but aren’t funny.

      1. “I get the feeling that a lot of news anchors are people who want to be comedians but aren’t funny.”

        They would be actors, but they lack the sincerity.

      2. More evidence of the Trump-is-a-Hillary-plant theory. Maddow has his marching orders.

  21. Trump has already done, and embraced, a lot of the things that derail other candidates, like making inflammatory statements. So it’s hard to see him waning in the polls unless someone makes some big proactive moves.

    Which means he’ll probably lead until the actual primaries start. If he doesn’t actually perform well when rubber meets the road then you’ll see his momentum slow down. If he does do well early on, though, then he could actually win the nomination.

  22. In fact, when you add Trump’s support to Ben Carson’s in this latest CNN poll, you get a stunning 51 percent.

    I’d like to know how much overlap there is between this 51% and people who think Obama sucks specifically because he didn’t have enough experience when he became President.

    1. Narrowing down Barry’s sucktitude to a single factor is tremendously difficult. I’d go with ego, ideology, childish petulance, and inability to negotiate (i.e., everyone either agrees with him or isn’t arguing in good faith/is probably just a racist) before inexperience.

      1. Good thing Trump doesn’t have an oversized ego or act childish and petulant!

        1. Thank you for your insightful comment. Clearly my criticism of Obama was my secret way of saying “Vote Trump! He’s AWESOME!”

    2. Although Trump has a hell of a lot more executive experience than Obama ever had.

      1. And how many times has his company declared bankruptcy? You don’t get to do that as POTUS.

        1. Sure you do. It’s called sovereign default, and frankly, given the way the U.S. economy is going, you might just need someone in the WH who knows the ropes…

  23. Among chimps, the dominant male is often not the biggest or the strongest, but the one who can make the most ostentatious displays of anger. One alpha male became so because he found an empty jerry can and would bang it around to frighten rivals.

    1. You can learn a lot about human nature by studying apes. We’re not as different as most people assume.

        1. apes is not a race

        2. And heck the whole point of the race thing is to bring the monkey people to the boiling point till they go off on everything.

        3. Homey don’t play that game.

  24. I wonder how much of Carson’s support is a reaction *against* Trump and his supporters
    Like a bunch of people who going “Ok, if you’re going to back a racist blowhard, fuck you, I’m going to vote for the BLACK GUY. “

    1. I think that’s exactly how it could become a 2-man race between them for the nomination.

    2. Yep, Carson spent the last two years going all around the country giving speeches because he just knew Trump was going to jump and go all race-baity.

      Or, maybe he just knew Trump was going to jump in, and was counting on the media to reliably declare him all race baity.

      Either way, brilliance and foresight.

  25. Can someone explain Carson’s surge? Like Trump, I get in that he’s been saying things that have been getting attention and grabbing headlines. What has Carson been doing to get this much support?

    1. Just like the Democrats, Republicans will always embrace a Black candidate who espouses their views in a desperate attempt to prove they’re not racist. It was the same with Herman Cain, and Colin Powell before that. Until the media digs up some dirt on Carson, he’ll continue to do well.

      1. Was Powell ever a contender for president?

        That might be it, but it wouldn’t explain why he’s surging all of the sudden. Cain and Carson also both have the “non-politician outsider” appeal which as we can all see Republicans love and Carson also has the “man of God” thing going. But regardless, none of that explains why he’s been surging despite the fact that he hasn’t really done anything newsworthy.

        1. “he hasn’t really done anything newsworthy.”

          How is that any different from the fanatical support Obama had before the 2008 primaries? Many Republicans support Carson because he says what they want to hear and hasn’t done anything stupid (yet). In this respect, the GOP is every bit as racist as the Dems since they both have low expectations of Blacks and celebrate them simply for not screwing up.

          1. “How is that any different from the fanatical support Obama had before the 2008 primaries?”

            Obama’s campaign gained steam as it went along, he didn’t start out as the frontrunner. His speech at the 2004 DNC convention made him a prominent name in the party, and the 2008 race was pretty much him, Hillary, and John Edwards from the get go. His “hope and change” rhetoric might not have been substantive but it resonated with people. It was newsworthy and he did get attention. In contrast, Carson hasn’t really been grabbing headlines at any point in the campaign. His blackness was also well-known months ago when his support was much lower. Considering that Republicans are supporting in even greater numbers another candidate who has no qualifications, I don’t think you can simply jump to race as the explanation without further evidence.

            1. “I don’t think you can simply jump to race as the explanation without further evidence.”

              That’s not the only factor. Ben Carson is clearly intelligent, is a self-made man who rose from humble beginnings, and he’s extremely religious. These factors appeal to most GOP voters, but the fact that he’s also Black is just icing on the cake. A white guy with his same accomplishments and persona would not fare as well. Just my opinion, so there’s no evidence to back it up.

              1. Being black is such an advantage in this country.

                1. Just ask Rachel Dolezal.

                2. Being a capable, educated, and intelligent black person IS an advantage. It’s in our nature to root for an underdog and Obama and Carson’s blackness/success help them to stand out in the crowd.

                  1. Both of them are likeable, too, and are genuinely decent family men.

                    I think that Carson makes more sense, though, even if I don’t totally agree with all of his positions. He at least gives me something to think about.

                    If I had to choose between him and Trump, there would be no question.

        2. Plus, Carson is a specialty surgeon w a surname that could be a 1st name. How many of those are running for prez, huh?

    2. I wondered that, too. The closest I can come to an explanation is, he’s the candidate for people who are fed up with all politicians, but think Trump is a jerk. I don’t know much about Carson, but he seems like a nice guy, at least superficially, which is how voters view candidates. And being a doctor doesn’t hurt.

      1. This might be it. It makes more sense than anything else I can think of. I suppose there were people undecided who then rejected Trump in favor of the other major non-politician anti-establishment person in the race.

      2. I like and respect Carson for all he’s accomplished. But his silly religious views are a deal-breaker for me. Wouldn’t mind seeing him as VP, though.

        1. Surgeon general, maybe? Head of NIH? I don’t understand how you can say someone is not fit to be president but are just fine with his selection as VP.

          1. If Biden can handle the duties of VP (whatever they are) then anyone can. Carson wouldn’t be my first choice for VP, but I could live with it.

        2. VP would seem to make more sense, for someone with little or no leadership/managerial experience (not that that stopped Obama, of course). But I’m not sure who would be the presidential nominee in that scenario. Carson seems too mild-mannered and decent to serve in a Trump Administration.

        3. Yeah, I can’t deal with that level of bible beating.

        4. Are there any mainstream, widely shared religious views that you do not deem silly?

          1. If saying “I believe in the Lord and it’s a big part of my life” makes someone a bible beater, then I guess I am one too lol

    3. He largely appeals to rural, small community-minded voters. These are people who live in environments where the local churches act as social-binding centers, so religious identity is an important aspect of maintaining the high-trust relationships required to sustain the community. Carson speaks their language, he has the prestige of his medical career, and given the attention being paid to Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s not really a surprise that he’s experienced a surge.

    4. i think it is three things:

      no major mistakes yet to give people something to hate
      people know it would take the wind out of the sails for many dems that like to play the race card (and knowing they are just waiting to with Trump)
      he really is an outsider, and non-politician…. and people are sick of politicians. my favorite bit of the the whole debate was his line about how he was the only one who hadn’t said anything that he was the only one to do.

      i, personally need to see more from him, but these seem like enough to keep him on the list.

    5. If you honestly don’t know what Carson has been doing for the last couple years then you clearly need to expand your political information sources.

  26. Is “political outsider” is code for sexist nativist racist xenophobe restrictionist who influences and is influenced by affirmative action in India anus mouth?

    Note: Xenophobe in my honest opinion is perhaps the last great arcade game. It would be Super Mario Bros but that pretty much existed in identical form both in the arcade and on the Nintendo console at the same time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjcZ4S2m3v4

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  28. Dude I never thoguht about it like that.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  29. So… Is Agorism looking like a better way of life now ???

  30. This looks a lot like an ABx vote. Anyone But the usual crop of candidates completely beholden to Campaign money. Of course, it’s also the lot that admitted even in anonymous polls to liking the likes of Cain, Bachmann, and Giuliani. They’re clueless about politics and proud of it. And it shows.

  31. This looks a lot like an ABx vote. Anyone But the usual crop of candidates completely beholden to Campaign money. Of course, it’s also the lot that admitted even in anonymous polls to liking the likes of Cain, Bachmann, and Giuliani. They’re clueless about politics and proud of it. And it shows.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.