Jeb Bush suspends his campaign

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/20/politics/jeb-bush-drops-out-2016/index.html

CNN/By Ashley Killough, CNN Updated 9:22 PM ET, Sat February 20, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

"CNN)—Jeb Bush is suspending his campaign for the Republican nomination, he announced Saturday night.

Bush struggled for months to make inroads against Donald Trump, who constantly mocked the former Florida governor's "low energy" and for spending tens of millions of dollars on his campaign."

He wasn't my first choice (or my second, or...) for President, but it was a classy concession speech. 

he had to fight the family dynasty thing. Come on, out of what 300 million or so people you  need to keep using the same family , give someone else a chance it's supposed to be a democracy. The Clintons were married , but they don't have the same genes. what is good for evolution is a varied gene pool not a stagnant one,

He never had a chance.  The overriding theme for Republicans right now is to tear the government down and start over.

For that matter, that's the overriding theme for Sanders' supporters too.  (Like me)

We don't agree on much but we agree that what we have now is not serving our interests anymore.


Sapere Aude

Good. Every candidate that drops out helps unify more Republicans against Trump. Once Kasich and Carson drop out, Trump is doomed. (Rubio and Cruz are very unlikely to drop out, but if either of them drops out, Trump has zero chance of winning the nomination.)

Quote from: Deborah on February 21, 2016, 10:57:14 AM
He never had a chance.  The overriding theme for Republicans right now is to tear the government down and start over.

I disagree with the second part. Republican rhetoric suggests anarchy is their nirvana. Why intelligent voters would support those who would destroy government is beyond my understanding.

Quote from: diane 2606 on February 21, 2016, 07:21:47 PM
I disagree with the second part. Republican rhetoric suggests anarchy is their nirvana. Why intelligent voters would support those who would destroy government is beyond my understanding.

There is a belief in some, particularly in the U.S., that the "invisible hand" is better at allocating resources than more centralized planning.  The argument that "That government governs best which governs least" is not to be confused with pure anarchy and governing not at all.  A free market does have some success stories--TVs just keep getting better and cheaper without government intervention--and many of the government oversight agencies simply duplicate effort put forth by Consumer Reports, Angie's List, or the ancient Kosher approvals.  They point to charity agencies offering aid to those who have slipped through the cracks of bureaucratic agencies.  Generally, this group still relies on the government to provide national defense, public services like fire and police, maintaining a level legal playing field, and so forth, but they really do like a limited government...which we undeniably don't have anymore. 

Now, I admit I find it difficult to reconcile a "limited government" POV with "I want the government policing other people's morals" and I also find myself increasingly interested in a stronger government the more I ponder social implications of automation, and at this point I'm probably going to be voting for Bernie Sanders shortly, but there are honest, intelligent reasons for a limited government position.  I disagree with them more and more as time goes on, but it's an intellectually defensible and legitimate position.     

It is going to be interesting to see what happens.   This could end up being decided by the House of Representatives if nobody gets a majority of the electoral voltes. 

Quote from: Colleen M on February 21, 2016, 07:55:49 PM
A free market does have some success stories--TVs just keep getting better and cheaper without government intervention

Those TVs are built in South Korea by South Korean companies.

The free marketeers want laissez-faire, but some things are best done by regulated enterprise—banks, transportation of any kind, and essential public utilities come immediately to mind.

Plutocrats have convinced too much of the population that low taxes and few laws benefit the middle and lower classes. Nothing could be further from the truth. An economy that rewards innovation, but keeps a check on corporate excesses sounds like a good deal to me. A congress responsible to constituents rather than corporations would be in a position to define excesses. Regulatory agencies staffed and funded would be able to fulfill their responsibilities.

As much as I'd like to vote for Bernie, I can't because he won't win in November. Jeb would have been ineffective, and hopefully not gotten us into more illegal, unjustified wars. The remaining Repubs are terrifying. "Making America Great Again" is a slogan, not a strategy one can believe in.

  Well, that is one dynasty put away that I will not vote for! One more to go!

Joelene

 
Considering some already bashing the republican party. Thread locked. Please Remember TOS 10.