Thread: 2016 Republican US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Our Ted has been attracting this kind of money because the folks out there realize he's got the right stuff!

What’s really upsetting y'all on the Left is Trump’s assertion that Mexican illegal aliens are committing a substantial amount of crime in America. That is absolutely true.

* “Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. has become a dumping ground for Third World rapists. Aliens convicted of violent crimes can’t be held for more than six months if their home country…doesn’t want to take them back. The ruling unleashed 134,000 aliens onto American streets in only three years.

Report: Released Illegal Aliens Rapists Not Tracked or Registered as Sex Offenders

Truth hurts and Trump is right.

Trump has no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Bush or Rubio will get it.

JEB BUSH, MITT ROMNEY JOIN MARCO RUBIO IN ATTACKING DONALD TRUMP OVER IMMIGRATION C

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked real estate mogul and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on Saturday, telling a CNN reporter he thinks Trump’s remarks on illegal immigrants were a “severe error.”

“Do you think Donald Trump’s comments on Mexicans have hurt the Republican Party?” a reporter asked Romney in video carried on CNN on Saturday.

“Yes, I think he made a severe error in saying what he did about Mexican-Americans,” Romney replied. “And it’s unfortunate.”

“Do you think the candidates should speak up about that?” the reporter followed up.

“I think a number of them have,” Romney replied.

Romney, who wasn’t able to get Republicans to turn out to vote for him in the 2012 election and therefore lost to incumbent President Barack Obama, hosted a slumber party this weekend for two 2016 GOP presidential candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)80% and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Rubio slammed Trump, too.

“Trump’s comments are not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive,” Rubio said. “Our next president needs to be someone who brings Americans together – not someone who continues to divide. Our broken immigration system is something that needs to be solved, and comments like this move us further from – not closer to – a solution. We need leaders who offer serious solutions to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system.”

Mitt Romney: Donald Trump's Comments About Mexican Illegal Aliens 'A Severe Error'

Originally Posted by misskit

“Trump’s comments are not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive,” Rubio said.

However, he didn't say they were an "inappropriate assessment." Nor has any other candidate in my recent memory.

Trump made a great error in judgement. He should have said something to the effect that the southern border of the USA is under attack and should be defended from the invasion by military means. Those who have passed through this war zone illegally under my Presidency will be prosecuted according to Federal and State law without exception.

He didn't say that, instead he said all the Mexicans in the world are criminals, rapists and low life scum.

Why not spin it Donald if you truly are interested in becoming POTUS? He's just stirring shit to disrupt the republican circus bringing about the election of Grandma.

The candidates should focus on the "Grandma," effect...the socialist other and the current impact the POTUS is and has had on shaping Americas political landscape. The illegal issue will take care of itself over time and change of regimes.

A month from now, 10 Republican presidential candidates will walk out onto a primetime debate stage in Cleveland and confront each other face to face for the first time. If the debate were held today, Donald Trump would be one of them. Two sitting governors, a U.S. senator, the runner-up for the 2012 GOP nomination, and the first female CEO of a Fortune 50 company would all be excluded.

That's an estimate based on qualifying criteria described by Fox News, which will host the GOP showdown in partnership with Facebook on Aug. 6 in Cleveland, using an average of five as-yet-unspecified national polls to determine the lineup. The network should be celebrating its coveted role of hosting the first debate of the Republican primary season, with the prestige and audience that it brings. But instead, the news organization may have stumbled into a political minefield.

In an unprecedentedly large field of 16 presidential contenders, at least half are statistically on the bubble of not qualifying for the debate stage, with only a month to differentiate themselves. The result is a campaign-within-a-campaign, with very different imperatives from the ones the primary process is designed to produce. Campaigns who are in danger of not making the cut may try everything possible to improve their chances over the next four weeks—taking extreme, news-making positions; dumping opposition research on opponents; inundating e-mail inboxes; and blitzing the Sunday television circuit, late-night talk shows, conservative radio airwaves, and cable news programs. Instead of spending resources on political operations in early-voting states, candidates may blow that cash on national TV ads to boost name recognition at the eleventh hour.

For candidates on the bubble, the most frustrating thing about the process may be its uncertainty and near-randomness. An analysis by the Bloomberg Politics polling team of the entry criteria released by Fox News suggests that it will be virtually impossible to know which candidates will qualify for the first debate until just days before the event, regardless of what they do in the coming weeks. And because of the varying sample sizes, margins of error, and targeted respondents featured in different national polls, the winners and losers of this new debate primary season may have little relation to their prospects of becoming the eventual nominee. Methodologically, they might as well be drawing straws.

“A microscope has not yet been invented that enables us to determine the difference between the 10th-place person and the 11th-place person,” said Ken Goldstein, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a polling analyst for Bloomberg Politics. “That difference, literally, will be less than half of a percentage point. And maybe even less than that.”

Fox News will be averaging the five most recent national polls “conducted by major, nationally recognized organizations that use standard methodological techniques,” the network said in a statement in May. The polls must be published before 5 p.m. ET on Aug. 4. The 10 candidates with the highest averages will make it into the debate. That number could increase if candidates are tied.

“National polls are the traditional, time-tested yardstick by which presidential hopefuls have long been measured and remain the fairest, most objective and most straight-forward metric for gauging the viability of these candidates,” Michael Clemente, executive vice president of news for Fox, said in statement to Bloomberg. “We will use a range of quality polls that people are currently seeing out there and although all of them may not be identical, all will use methods that are accepted by the polling community. We have already made clear we won't use partisan and online polls.”

Fox promised to give non-qualifying candidates “additional coverage and air time” that day in Cleveland, which amounts to a 90-minute forum broadcasted on the network during the afternoon—essentially a kiddie-table consolation prize.

In defense of Fox, there is no easy way to host a substantive debate for more than a dozen candidates on one stage. The network points out that there have never been more than 10 candidates in a Republican debate. To be sure, missing the first debate doesn't necessarily spell death for a candidate's campaign, and there's a precedent for selecting debate participants in this way. Four years ago, the network used a similar approach to host a Republican presidential debate in South Carolina. The May 2011 debate featured only five presidential hopefuls after several others (including Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, and Trump) decided to skip. The network did not release which polls it used, but given the complexities of the 2016 field, and the attention this process is getting, Fox is more likely to disclose that information this year.

The Republican Party has maintained it has no problem with the process. “We support and respect the decision Fox has made which will match the greatest number of candidates we have ever had on a debate stage,” party chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

CNN, which hosts the second Republican debate in mid-September, announced its own plan to limit the debate stage to 10 candidates, averaging all national polls taken from July 16 through Sept. 10. Unlike Fox, CNN released a list of the polls that would meet its standards and requires candidates to have at least one paid campaign aide working in two of the four early voting states. CNN will also hold a second primetime debate for candidates that don't make it into the top 10. “CNN developed a format that will allow all of the Republican presidential candidates, who meet the eligibility criteria, an opportunity to discuss their visions for the future,” the network said in a statement.

For candidates at the front of the pack like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, none of this matters. But while lesser-known candidates like former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina have described the debate thresholds as a motivating goal, other presidential hopefuls have been quick to claim the process is unfair. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum immediately called the 10-candidate cutoff “arbitrary,” reminding everyone that at this point in 2011, he barely registered in national polls but went on to win the Iowa caucuses and 10 other states. Last week, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses were “headed for oblivion” if national polls became the debate criteria norm.

They have a point. Limiting the stage to 10 candidates doesn't reflect a natural cutoff point in the current Republican field. As it currently stands, there's probably a top tier of five or six candidates; from there, ranking the field gets far more difficult. “There's no difference between [Ohio Governor] John Kasich and Bobby Jindal except one's going to be in and one is going to be out,” said Doug Usher of Purple Strategies, which conducts polling for Bloomberg Politics. “Or maybe they're both going to be out.”

Perhaps the biggest question mark, pointed out by presidential candidates and political experts, is that using national polls to determine strength in a primary election does not accurately reflect how the parties have traditionally chosen their presidential nominees: by a series of competitions over many months for convention delegates, chosen in caucuses and primaries. That is a fluid, dynamic process, one in which early contests in states like Iowa and New Hampshire can propel unknown candidates into the national limelight.

Clemente said a candidate’s performance in early states often gets reflected in national polls. But the first GOP contest is still six months away and not every state has the same primary rules. There are some that limit their primary contests to Republicans only. There are other states that permit independents or all voters to participate. In some states, only a couple thousand people take part. In others, millions. Simply put, using national polls as a prerequisite for debates will force candidates to compete in a single nationwide primary election, albeit one that does not actually exist. It changes the game.

“People have lumpy strategies in different states,” says Sasha Issenberg, a Bloomberg Politics contributor and author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. “Their election strategies are predicated on not having their support evenly distributed. You look at Chris Christie and John Kasich banking on doing well in New Hampshire. You have Rand Paul banking on doing well in Nevada.”

Issenberg added, “This could turn their whole election strategy on its head.”

But differing methodologies complicate that calculation even more. Not every poll targets the same types of voters. There are polls that include independents. There are polls with self-identified Republicans, polls with verified registered Republicans, and polls that take an additional screening step to find only respondents who are likely to participate in their states’ primary election or caucus. Each method produces a different result, with broader survey samples benefiting candidates who are perceived as moderate—and candidates who have high name recognition, but not necessarily strong support in key early states.

“They're using different definitions about who is relevant,” says J. Ann Selzer, president of Iowa-based Selzer & Co., which also conducts polls for Bloomberg Politics. “We're not dealing with a common denominator.”

In the end, the set of candidates who make it to the debate stage in August will likely hinge on less than a handful of randomly selected voters. Sample sizes for national polls are small; in one recent national poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, the GOP horserace numbers were calculated based on the preferences of 236 Republicans who said they would vote in the primary. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 6.38 percentage points.

In that poll, only the four candidates—Bush, Walker, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson—received more than 10 percent. The 10th-place candidate, Fiorina (2 percent), and other contenders like Graham and Kasich (1 percent each), were statistically tied. When you do the math, the difference comes down to no more than two or three respondents.

The system Fox has designed, with its distortions and uncertainties, is a new wild card in presidential politics. And for the network, the silver lining may be that all the drama—and Trump—may help attract viewers. But the effect on the process is more questionable. “To a statistician it looks like they're just bumbling around in the dark,” Selzer said. “They're just throwing ingredients together and hoping it makes a cake.”

She added, “There's a lot for candidates to complain about.”

Margaret Talev contributed reporting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ntial-politics

Here comes another clown!

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a preacher's son who withstood a recall election spawned by his fight with public employee unions, is joining the crowded Republican presidential race, aides said on Thursday.

Having spent the past several months traveling the country, speaking to conservatives, courting voters and scoring well in some early polls, Walker will officially enter the race with a campaign announcement in the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha on July 13, the aides said.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly discuss the campaign launch.

Walker started a countdown of sorts to his kickoff by posting a slice of his presidential campaign logo on Instagram, with eight more pieces to come in the days ahead. He also tweeted an image of himself waving next to an American flag with the message "It begins."

Do these clowns still get paid for their elected jobs?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Having spent the past several months traveling the country

I would be very pissed off if the clown I voted for - or even didn't but my taxes pay his salary - stopped working for 18 months . . . but still gets paid

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Poor old Jeb can't make his mind up what he thinks about his brothers phony war. And he thinks the world is safer without Saddam.

Does he not read the newspapers?

Scottsdale, Arizona (CNN)The war in Iraq -- the issue that defined George W. Bush's presidency and haunted candidates from both parties on the 2008 campaign trail -- is back.

And this time it's creating headaches for Jeb Bush.

In his clearest declaration yet on his feelings about his brother's invasion of Iraq, the former Florida governor said Thursday that "knowing what we know now, ...I would not have engaged."

"I would not have gone into Iraq," he said.

The comments marked the fifth time this week that Bush sought to explain his position on Iraq -- a controversy that began Monday with a muddied expression of support for the war. Bush later tried to clean up the mess by calling the query -- one many believe he should have anticipated -- a "hypothetical," and by Wednesday, he acknowledged he would have done things differently in Iraq.

On Thursday, Bush argued that the invasion -- though perhaps inspired by faulty intelligence -- had been beneficial, saying the world was "significantly safer" without Saddam Hussein in power.

Jeb Bush: 'I would not have gone into Iraq' - CNNPolitics.com

Oh fuck him How is it I and about 5 million others knew then what he knows now. Saddam was no threat, and it can be argue he kept the region stable and even secular. It was all about Shrub getting retribution for some snub against daddy. Now the entire region is at critical mass- was that the plan all along ?

^ Jeb Bush is bouncing all over the place.

Trying to ride both horses.

It's not working, Jeb.

Donald Trump continues to wreck the Republican Party. His most recent move was to post a tweet claiming that because of his wife, Jeb Bush likes “illegal Mexicans.” The Wrap captured Trump’s tweet where he quoted another user who said Bush likes illegal Mexicans because of his wife:

Trump deleted the tweet, but as almost everyone already knows, nothing is really ever deleted from the Internet. Jeb Bush’s wife is Mexican, but she is not illegal. The problem for Republicans remains that Trump’s racism is very popular within their party.

A new Quinnipiac University poll of Iowa caucus-goers found that 46% of them think that illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the country. Only 34% of those polled supported a path to citizenship.
The Republican Party tried to take precautions to keep the crazy out of their 2016 primary, but instead they got themselves a crazy racist who has a big pile of money. Trump is the Republican Party’s worst nightmare because he appeals to everything that Republican candidates work so hard to hide.
Every single Republican candidate that appeared on the Sunday shows yesterday was asked about Donald Trump and immigration. To a person, each of those candidates struggled to come up with an answer.
Donald Trump is wrecking the Republican Party while doing voters a favor by exposing what Republicans really believe in and stand for. The Republican Party is already falling apart.
Democrats didn’t even have to push the big red immigration button to trigger the Republican meltdown.
Donald Trump did it for them.






Republicans Meltdown As Donald Trump Calls Jeb Bush's Wife An "Illegal Mexican"

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

but 'ol 'Ted does have the right stuff.

An American birth certificate?

Woooohooo! This is fun to watch.



He's not done anything positive for his party.

Trump is polarizing the party. While your average Fox News viewer wants the illegals booted from the country, Big Business does not. Businesses are benefitting from these immigrants who drive the wages down.

The Republicans have already planned to reform immigration. Boehner says so in Ireland. John Boehner pledge: Immigration reform top of agenda

In the end, Big business Republicans with their lobbiest will get their way.

I wish some of those Mexicans would move to Thailand and open real Mexican food restaurants instead of those micro-wave fakes we currently have...illegals seem to fare well in Thailand.

More reliable labor than the Burmese as well and cheaper...

Mexican Elites Secretly Agree With Donald Trump

They’re all hating on him now, but the fact is, when they’re just among themselves, Mexico’s elites roundly agree with The Donald on Mexican immigrants.



What do you bet it's not just Mexican elites either? The Donald didn't exactly choose the right terms when he slammed those rapists & drug merncahts but he's basically correct.

"Of the many different reactions to Donald Trump’s inaccurate and insulting comments about how Mexican migrants to the United States come from the bottom of the barrel, one of the most interesting has been that of wealthy and powerful Mexican elites who are suddenly long on indignation and outrage but short on memory and self-awareness.

That’s because Trump’s dismissive comments about how the United States has become a “dumping ground” for castaways from Mexico sound like something you’d hear bandied about at a Guadalajara country club or a fancy banquet in Mexico City.

After all, Mexico—like the rest of Latin America—is not exactly a model of social equality. There is prejudice and discrimination, pecking orders to which one must adhere. And those who leave the country are often ignored and forgotten.

So it is interesting that Trump has became so unpopular with the Mexican elites, who are usually content to watch from a safe distance the divisive immigration debate in the United States. If you’re a doctor or lawyer or businessman in Mexico City, and you shop at Louis Vuitton and spend your summer vacations in Europe, the plight of poor and uneducated Mexican migrants in the United States must seem like someone else’s problem.

Mexico is a country divided—by political parties, generations, skin color, geography, urban vs. rural. You name it. But the deepest division has to be based on class lines.

The elites are so busy feeling superior to most of their countrymen that few of them take the time to think about how their country benefits from those who migrate to the north.

In fact, that’s one thing that Americans and Mexicans have in common: Both groups are too proud to admit how dependent they are on Mexican migrants who work in the United States, and acknowledge how much those migrants contribute.

About 12 years ago, when I was part of the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News, my colleagues and I had a meeting with the governor of one of the states in Mexico. Not only did he not acknowledge the contributions of immigrants to his state via remittances, but when I brought up the point, he actually fought me on it. That money, he said, went into private hands and not public coffers. Thus, he insisted, while helpful to individual families, it had no impact on his state’s economy.

I pushed back. I pointed out that, while those dollars might have started off in private hands, they don't usually stay there. They get spent—at supermarkets, on utilities, in restaurants, etc. They become public dollars soon enough. And, in the process, the Mexican economy benefits.

Mexico gets the better end of the immigration deal since millions of people who probably couldn’t be absorbed by a fragile Mexican economy instead work in the United States and send home about $25 billion a year in remittances. That’s all gravy, with the only costs being whatever minimal amount the Mexican government spends to maintain a few dozen consulates in the United States.

Incredibly, the Mexican elites are so proud that they actually think they’re the ones keeping the country afloat. But that’s not so. Without the $20 billion a year in remittances sent home by lowly Mexican immigrants toiling in the United States, Mexico would be as financially insolvent as Greece.

As for Trump, let’s remember how the ruckus started. The real estate mogul got into hot water with individuals, media, and corporations on both sides on the border because, in announcing his presidential bid, he glibly characterized Mexican migrants as “people that have lots of problems,” folks who are “bringing drugs” and “bringing crime” and are often “rapists.”

If Trump was seeking attention, it worked. Along the way, he also picked up some support from Republican primary voters.

A new CNN/ORC poll finds him in second place behind Jeb Bush atop a crowded GOP presidential field. Bush is the choice of 19 percent of Republicans, and Trump is preferred by 12 percent.

In the United States, Univision, NBC-Universal, Macy’s and other companies have cut ties with Trump over the comments. Ora TV—a production company launched by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and former CNN anchor Larry King—also ended its business relationship with Trump. In Mexico, where Trump recently insisted he is loved by the masses, vendors are doing a swift business hocking piñatas created in the Donald’s likeness because nothing says “love” like a firm swat with a broken broom handle. And, more recently, Mexico pulled its contestant out of the Miss Universe Pageant.

Interestingly, one of the first bursts of Mexican outrage occurred on U.S. soil. On June 18, a few days after Trump’s remarks, Fher Olvera, the lead singer of the popular Mexican rock group Mana, zeroed in on the real estate mogul during a concert in Los Angeles.

“He said we were trash,” Olvera told the sold-out crowd at Staples Center. “He said that the people who came from Latin America and Mexico are rapists, thugs, and drug dealers. Those were his words. We feel pity for this incompetent man. I have never heard a speech as violent, or as filled with hatred—not since Hitler.”

Olvera then tried to offer a more optimistic view of the contributions of immigrants.

“Latinos and Mexicans came to this country to build it from the ground up,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what one cabrón said—just remember that he insulted our fathers, our mothers; he insulted everyone. And that is inadmissible. When you go out to vote, which is soon, you know what you have to do.”

Certainly, it’s a tense time for Latinos—especially those in the American Southwest. Trump’s remarks touched a nerve not just with Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States, but also with Colombians, Cubans, Puerto Ricans. Because we know the truth.

Because we can say with certainty to Trump or anyone else who cares to listen that our immigrant parents and grandparents were not criminals, rapists or drug dealers but hard-working, law-abiding laborers who loved and appreciated this country and contributed to it.

After Olvera concluded his remarks, he launched into the band’s rendition of “Somos Mas Americanos”—a pro-immigrant anthem penned by the legendary norteno band Los Tigres del Norte that talks about “America” not as one country but as a pair of continents. The defiant message to Trump, and his supporters: It’s not just that we’re as American as you. Actually, we’re more American than you. And don’t forget it.

But with outrage should come introspection. It’s easy for Mexicans to make Trump a target. But he simply said out loud what many Mexicans who stay behind have long believed about those who fled to the north—that they’re the undesirables who were out of options, didn't make it, and couldn’t hack it.

Which raises the question: Are Mexican elites upset at Trump for insulting their countrymen, or for stealing their lines?"

Mexican Elites Secretly Agree With Donald Trump - The Daily Beast

Originally Posted by bsnub

The Republican Party tried to take precautions to keep the crazy out of their 2016 primary

With basically the same line-up (+10) as last time . . .

Donald Trump continues to wreck the Republican Party. His most recent move was to post a tweet claiming that because of his wife, Jeb Bush likes “illegal Mexicans.” The Wrap captured Trump’s tweet where he quoted another user who said Bush likes illegal Mexicans because of his wife:

Trump deleted the tweet, but as almost everyone already knows, nothing is really ever deleted from the Internet. Jeb Bush’s wife is Mexican, but she is not illegal. The problem for Republicans remains that Trump’s racism is very popular within their party.

A new Quinnipiac University poll of Iowa caucus-goers found that 46% of them think that illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the country. Only 34% of those polled supported a path to citizenship.
The Republican Party tried to take precautions to keep the crazy out of their 2016 primary, but instead they got themselves a crazy racist who has a big pile of money. Trump is the Republican Party’s worst nightmare because he appeals to everything that Republican candidates work so hard to hide.
Every single Republican candidate that appeared on the Sunday shows yesterday was asked about Donald Trump and immigration. To a person, each of those candidates struggled to come up with an answer.
Donald Trump is wrecking the Republican Party while doing voters a favor by exposing what Republicans really believe in and stand for. The Republican Party is already falling apart.
Democrats didn’t even have to push the big red immigration button to trigger the Republican meltdown.
Donald Trump did it for them.






Republicans Meltdown As Donald Trump Calls Jeb Bush's Wife An "Illegal Mexican"

Surely this is a joke?

His speeches are just nationalistic hate speeches; well, I suppose whatever resonates with the voting public...

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Surely this is a joke?

His speeches are just nationalistic hate speeches; well, I suppose whatever resonates with the voting public...

Not at all.

Trump is saying stuff the milk toast PC brigade has been loathe to mention. Like the fuckin' border being wide open and criminal illegal aliens swarming the streets of America.

Well, BM, I don't know much about trump. To add a variety to this discourse I came across this video:

Growing up some of my best friends were from families that were "illegal." Still have contact with one of em.

It seems Hannity is the go-to show for the clown car, and Trump has had more appearances and more air time than any of them.

Fucking great, he's going to be in the debates!

WASHINGTON — Worried about "Republican on Republican violence," top party donors are taking action, with one firing off a letter calling for more civility and another seeking to block businessman Donald Trump from the debate stage altogether.

Foster Friess, a Wyoming-based investor and one of the party's top 20 donors in the last presidential contest, issued a letter to 16 White House prospects and the Republican National Committee late last week calling for candidates to stay on the "civility reservation."

"Our candidates will benefit if they all submit to Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, 'Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican,'" Friess wrote in a copy of the letter sent to Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus and obtained by The Associated Press.

Recommended: Naked Cowboy for president: Top celebrities (past and present) who aimed for the White House
In the dispatch, Friess cites the backing of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and Chicago Cubs co-owner Todd Ricketts. "Would you join the effort to inspire a more civil way of making their points?" Friess wrote. "If they drift off the 'civility reservation,' let's all immediately communicate that to them."

The call for calm comes as the sprawling Republican field shows signs it could tip into a bare-knuckles struggle for the nomination — a scenario that the party's elite donors see as a distressing echo of four years ago.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Monday charged that Republicans don't need Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's "lectures." Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repeatedly dismisses Republicans in Congress as doing little. And Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul regularly jabs his Republican opponents by name.

Yet no candidate has injected more provocation into the 2016 Republican presidential primary than Trump.

While few party officials see the reality television star as a credible candidate, he has lashed out at a growing number of Republican critics who have condemned his recent description of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists. Trump over the weekend posted a message from another user on his Twitter account charging that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush "has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife," Columba, who was born in Mexico.

Campaigning in New Hampshire over the weekend, Bush said he "absolutely" took the remark personally. Trump has not apologized, but spokeswoman Hope Hicks on Monday said "this was a retweet from somebody else" about a news story.

But Trump stood firm on his comments about immigrants Monday, saying "the Mexican government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States," and "criminals, drug dealers, rapists" are among them. He said "many fabulous people" come from Mexico and the U.S. is better for them, but this country is "a dumping ground for Mexico."

Republican donor John Jordan said Monday that GOP leaders should take steps to block Trump's access to the first presidential debate in early August.

Organizers at Fox News, backed by the Republican National Committee, have released guidelines allowing the top 10 candidates in national polling to participate. Trump would qualify under the current terms, while contenders such as Ohio's two-term Gov. John Kasich would not.

"Someone in the party ought to start some sort of petition saying, 'If Trump's going to be on the stage, I'm not going to be on there with him,'" Jordan told AP on Monday. "I'm toying with the idea of it."

"It's something I feel strongly about as somebody who not only cares about the Republican Party, but also Latinos," Jordan said.

Even as the other candidates say they're trying to avoid intraparty backbiting, however, they can't seem to avoid it.

In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cruz refused to condemn Trump's comments, saying he's not going to perpetrate "Republican-on-Republican violence." Christie, who entered the presidential race last week, wasn't having it.

"I find it ironic, right, that Ted Cruz is giving lectures on Republican-on-Republican violence," Christie said on Fox News, accusing the Texan of sponsoring hardball ads against Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander in 2014 primaries. "I mean, all due respect, I don't need to be lectured by Ted Cruz."

The Republican National Committee has dramatically reduced the number of primary debates before the 2016 contest largely to avoid the kind of attacks that bloodied their 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

As the last GOP nomination heated up in January 2012, Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got particularly nasty. Gingrich joined Obama supporters in attacking Romney's business background, calling him a "vulture capitalist."

Donors remember those exchanges well and fear a repeat of primary vitriol would lead to another general election loss. "Ninety-nine percent of leading donors saw the candidates carve each other up in the 2012 primaries and come out weaker for it and are determined not to let that happen again," said Fred Malek, who has helped raise money for GOP presidential candidates for four decades.

Responding to Friess' letter, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee wrote he plans on "becoming the nominee by playing a better game."

"I hope that we don't commit fratricide again as a party," Huckabee wrote, according to a copy of his response obtained by AP.

Republican infighting grows, and donors call for calm - CSMonitor.com

Originally Posted by panama hat

working

likely it will be better when they are not interfering in things they know nothing about

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

qualifying criteria

wonder how many of them could identify greece on a world map

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by panama hat

working

likely it will be better when they are not interfering in things they know nothing about

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

qualifying criteria

wonder how many of them could identify greece on a world map

Some of them would struggle to find the US.