Not sure about Carson though time will tell.

I also agree, obviously, that people can change their minds. I sure did!

Neo – “Both Walker and Cruz are certainly male, and again, I’m sure their wives think they’re hot stuff, but handsome? Not on your life. Not even particularly attractive. ”

I happen to think they’re both cute, but we all have different tastes in men. I ADORE Cruz ‘cuz I like the way he thinks – the same way I feel about Sarah. Will I vote for Rubio if he’s the nominee? Of course. I can’t vote for a dem!

I have 2 single issues (yeah – that doesn’t make strict sense, but it works for me), and he meets both criteria. Is illegal immigration important? Yes, but it’s second tier, as is the economy. If everything is important, nothing is important, so one has to make decisions about what to focus on.

“Rubio reaffirms opposition to rape and incest exceptions: He backs abortion ban “irrespective of the circumstances”.”

“Although Rubio now boasts an “A” rating from the NRA, the Florida senator’s record on gun laws is inconsistent at best.”

And RickZ — are you gonna go out and pick vegetables for me? Because I like my vegetables and there ain’t no other Americans who will pick ’em. Not the poorest of the poor, not the unemployed, not those on welfare. It’s been tried. It doesn’t happen. You want to kick all illegals out? Fine. But you’re going to have to let a lot of them back in as braceros.

Most primitive tribes have a unique religion to go with themselves.

What makes a religion die is an event that occurs that totally impeaches the core of the creed.

For Shintoists (Imperial Japan) defeat was religiously deemed impossible — and occupation doubly impossible.

America pricked the bubble of belief. Shintoism died — while the Japanese endured the best years of their culture: 1946 to present.

Islam is perfectly capable of dying. When is dead, the ex-Muslims can recover their aspirations and get their forehead off the floor.

Nuking Mecca would not violate any core faith essential to Muslims.

Jewish occupation would.

Mohammed hated Jews — violently so. He has laced the Koran and his legacy with this hatred.

Muslims take the sanctity of Mecca — and the Ka’aba literally.

Jewish occupation would be the Muslim equivalent of “Allah is dead.”

It could not be explained around.

It’s a show stopper because of its emotional power.

And as a triumphalist creed, Islam would be flipped onto its back if it suffered such a shaming.

A simultaneous ejection of Muslims from the Second Temple and the Hagi Sophia by Jews and Christians, respectively, would be the hat trick.

Both occupations are triumphalist desecrations.

If Bush had taken this path, the entire jihad would be over — world wide.

As the record shows, when Muslim despots lose huge battles, the fall back is astounding.

When these centers are lost, the Muslims will free fall into reality.

Occupying all of these super shrines to barbarity is a doable thing — and wouldn’t even leave radioactivity.

If you revisit this old thread, Wretchard can be found here.

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/

The article I was referring to this morning was this:

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/10/01/what-do-we-do-now/

Sorry, I can’t do w/o my daily Neo and Wretchard fixes, so I can forget not everyone has the same favorites in their browser. 🙂

I think you are yet missing my point.

If somehow “money” uniquely informs and corrupts Trump (who has much of it, and probably doesn’t need more), wouldn’t that same “money” inform and corrupt to an even greater degree the career political class member (who has comparitive-to-Trump little of it, and – at the very least for purpose of their campaign – a corresponding need to have [much] more of it, let alone their self-interested desire for more)?

Where is the in-equivalency here coming from?

In our culture, aren’t we all influenced by money in a fashion?

It is one thing to disparagingly note that Trump has attempted to influence [in any way permissible] an “artificial” burden placed upon his business endeavors by a political class who have created a politically motivated bureaucracy to enforce those laws …and yet somehow not equally recognize nor acknowledge nor weight that in a capitalist society an attempt to influence those laws is somehow not an expected attribute at the rarified levels of business that Trump operates within.

It seems worse to me to suggest that bald-faced acknowledgement by Trump is somehow less moral (or less enlightened, or whatever) than the politician who wrote those restrictive and/or specifically punitive laws in the first place …a politician whom presumably did so for some misbegotten untenable and unworkable idealistic sophomoric Utopianism or – more likely – to line his own pockets through the machinations of whatever Donor class member was seeking to strengthen his business over Trump’s in the identical way (but which that District’s electorate might not have approved of had they known the actual and true reasons for).

This is the unfortunate reality of the corrupt crony-ism of the political and donor classes that cripples capitalism and individual freedom that the political class will never admit to, but are obviously immersed within (what elected “public servant” hasn’t left their tenure immeasurably and improbably enriched from their years playing this game I ask …they’re all bloody millionaires when they leave Washington).

In business, you play the hand you’re dealt. You may not like it, but it is your responsibility as a businessman to do business as it is, and not as you wish it was.

In Trump’s case, we can see and judge his motivations.

He has money. Good for him.

But the professional politician denies even the possibility that he may be in debt (and under obligation) to the Donor class? And this is “better” somehow?

I thoroughly understand why intelligent people don’t care for Trump (on lots of levels …however “charming” and refreshing I find his transparency to be: and I admit the more I think about it along these lines, the more forgiving I become of his conservative transgressions).

But an anti-Trump argument that includes forgiving the outright bold-faced lies of a politician of some or other past political transgression (re: Rubio and immigration) would seem to at least give a nod to considering it an obligation to forgive the same transgression in the guy out there hustling for his business interests.

I actually do recall a bit of relevant history on the odd occasion LOL. Kind of you to notice.

I also think it’s counter-intuitive to think that the monetary motivation of professional politicians might be somehow less relevant than their stated and historical record of policies that are for sell (by and large) to the highest bidder.

Bidders and bidding that is largely invisible to the electorate.

Inasmuch as I can’t – ever – seem to forget that career politicians are probably motivated as much by their self-interest as too many of the rest of us, I admit I find Trump’s transparency rather refreshing (and in such a blatantly self-indulgent and huckster-ish way that I’m surprised to find it charming, especially by contrast to what I’ve come to expect as the norm).

With the election of Obama, politics has been so (forgive me) transparently clownish …that I’m finding discussions based upon adherence to some-or-other political technocratic ideals, umm …tedious. Maybe five decades have finally left me jaded?

Frankly, I don’t believe any of ’em. Politicians, I mean.

I have also and relatively recently developed a deep distrust that the Donor class has any motivation or understanding at all of the importance and uniqueness of the American experiment, and the necessity of their insuring the strength and well-being of a healthy middle class (of which I’m on one of – and sinking fast – the lower rungs of membership thereof).

I also have a fairly good understanding of the importance of insuring the continued ascendancy of Western Civilization …and a distressing and increasing realization that the corollary of a failure of Western Civilization will be a true Dark Ages that may last a water monopoly-ish period of time.

…I’d prefer not to foist that upon our descendants.

I don’t think most of the current actors have any of that in mind.

I conjecture that Trump just might.

And with a better deliverables probability than any of the professional political class candidates.

At any rate, he seems less likely Lucy-ish than the usual suspects, and might resist the temptation to pull the damn football away at the last moment (with apologies to to Chas Schulz).

And at the very least, I like his campaign slogan.

That conversation occurred in the comments section some time ago.

I don’t have time to find it now, but the gist of it for me was that Trump’s money has been used to influence people to give him favors; he himself has said so. So he is “beholden” in that sense—government regulations control the rules of business these days, and create a certain business climate.

Also, his politics are influenced by his wealth and what would affect it. For example, Trump is a HUGE supporter of eminent domain laws broadening and broadening; he loves Kelo. If he were conservative in his principles he would never think that way, but his money compromises him.

Also, of course, having money doesn’t mean a person is honest. And it doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make even more money, or to keep what he has. Nor does it mean there isn’t plenty of secrecy around him, as well as falsehood.

Again, I don’t have time to find it now, but Forbes keeps writing how Trump, although very rich (several billions) is not nearly as rich (or as liquid, I seem to recall) as he says he is. We don’t know what we don’t know, but I’m not inclined to assume he’s transparent in his dealings with people (or with the public) because he’s rich.

So the common idea put forth by the left and hammred by feminists and marxists is that the wealthy cant be trusted (to make a communist state), so dont trust them.

but one only needs to know the founders worth and even presidents later on…

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1801-1809) Estimated net worth: $212 million.

George Washington’s estate was worth more than half a billion in today’s dollars

James Madison Net worth: $101 million

and after the founders

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: Net worth: $1 billion (never inherited his father’s fortune)

William Jefferson Clinton Net Worth: $55 million (and made more than 100 million after he left)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Net worth: $60 million

Herbert Clark Hoover Net worth: $75 million

so if money was a real issue, none of these should have made it to office… eh? but would the left tell you that the richest were their own people whose poliices made them vastly wealthier and who all had and have joined at the hip relationships with the heads of banking families… (hnot just banks)