IC: When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?
JM: It’s gonna be a tough choice [laughs].
Not quite sure there was any difference in the two main candidates in 2008...Ops, already said that many times over.
Anyone want to put money on Romney feeling the same way? We will keep getting candidates like McCain until people stop voting "R" because the other guy is sooooo much worse. If they know you will vote for them regardless, why not run a RINO?
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
Why in the heck can't the GOP put up a good candidate, one we can all rally behind? I'll tell you what I think - because we can't find anyone with a strong, coherent set of convictions that they're willing to stand on. They're always worried about pleasing all the outliers, so they capitulate and "maybe" themselves to death. The result is that no one gets a good feeling about a candidate who is all over the map. At this point the strongest one I see is Rand Paul, but I expect he will weaken as 16 draws nearer. I'm tired.
Progressives/Liberals - Promoting tyranny and a defenseless people since 1913.
Serously don't say the B**** queen is running because I don't feel like going to prison because I will not have her as potus.
I'd vote for a kick in the eggs before I'd vote for her!
'Some may question your right to destroy ten billion people. Those who understand realise that you have no right to let them live!'
-In Exterminatus Extremis
Swampman wrote:Why in the heck can't the GOP put up a good candidate, one we can all rally behind? I'll tell you what I think - because we can't find anyone with a strong, coherent set of convictions that they're willing to stand on.
I volunteer. I'm not born here, but that little detail does not apply anymore.
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung
Swampman wrote:Why in the heck can't the GOP put up a good candidate, one we can all rally behind? I'll tell you what I think - because we can't find anyone with a strong, coherent set of convictions that they're willing to stand on. They're always worried about pleasing all the outliers, so they capitulate and "maybe" themselves to death. The result is that no one gets a good feeling about a candidate who is all over the map. At this point the strongest one I see is Rand Paul, but I expect he will weaken as 16 draws nearer. I'm tired.
I know, really. We need someone that wants to stop aid to countries where there have been military coups and people burn our flag. Someone who stands up for all of our rights, whether it's bearing arms, privacy concerns from sweeping government surveillance, or not targeting Americans with drones without due process all while still maintaining a strong military. Someone who believes in parental control via school choice. Someone who is willing to travel to places like California and Howard University (a historically black college) and speak the message of conservatism and how those locations shouldn't be written off as Democrat strongholds in elections.
Wait, we do have someone with those conservative convictions. It's Rand Paul. What are the odds that he actually becomes the nominee? I hear all the time that the Tea Party has taken the Republican party hostage, but maybe it's the RINOs that have been holding it hostage....
OakRidgeStars wrote:John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul or maybe Chris Christie? All wacko birds of the same feather.
I hear that Chuck Norris is going to vote for Ron Paul again 2016. So we have that to look forward to.
Can you explain why you would include Rand Paul in the group of wacko's? I'm not saying that he's not wacko - I just think he's an entirely different breed of wacko than the other three that you mentioned.
Please consider a DONATION to VGOF to help cover our operating costs
Sorry, All. Rand Paul is the only one with his brain and testicles still attached. I can't find fault with much of what I've heard from him yet, except on abortion which I see as an issue for the States.
OK, so Hillary technically wears Bill's nuts on a little chain...
I have a confession to make. I briefly considered voting for Obummer in 2008, but I was not eleigible to vote as I had just moved into a new apartment and district in Texas. And besides, I had already come to my senses before election day anyway, so I wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready.
I know so many 'enlightened' born agains that voted for Obama, merely because Romney "isn't really a Christian".
That just makes my blood boil. Considering the history of our President in the same light, I don't know how these same people could consider him to be one.
OakRidgeStars wrote:John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul or maybe Chris Christie? All wacko birds of the same feather.
I hear that Chuck Norris is going to vote for Ron Paul again 2016. So we have that to look forward to.
Can you explain why you would include Rand Paul in the group of wacko's? I'm not saying that he's not wacko - I just think he's an entirely different breed of wacko than the other three that you mentioned.
Those are the likely GOP candidates for 2016 based on who the mainstream media is fawning over. I should have included Marco Rubio as well, not sure why I didn't.
A good measure of which candidate will sell out conservatives is to watch who the GOP establishment likes. Only progressive candidates will have the support of the GOP.
HotD wrote:I know so many 'enlightened' born agains that voted for Obama, merely because Romney "isn't really a Christian".
That just makes my blood boil. Considering the history of our President in the same light, I don't know how these same people could consider him to be one.
Thats puzzling, while its correct Mormons are not Christians, Obama's record on issues traditionally of importance to evangelical Christians would drive them away in droves.
Edit: More on topic I'm hoping the GOP is smart enough to not even field a candidate against Hillary, they'd be much wiser to focus cash on races they can win, like at the state and Congressional level.
In order to win or at least put up a fighting chance, the Red Team is going to have to look for a few things in a candidate. There is a difference between running and running with a chance of winning. Romney was in bad shape the entire race. On election day, the Red Team really got it taken to them. It was pretty much an electoral beat down.
-He or She is going to have to be young, relatively speaking.No more relics running for office, they don't appeal to young voters, who are generally your swing voters and undecideds. In other words, that's how you win Florida and Virginia. If you're 60 years old you're not going to change the way you vote anytime soon. Unless something really shakes you at the core.
-He or She is going to come more towards the center than further to the right. Not drastically but the so called time proven platform for the Republican Party basically has fallen out from under it. They need to rebrand, like yesterday. That is why so many are suddenly talking about immigration reform and coming around about marriage equality. Because the old way of doing business/winning votes doesn't work, the Romney Campaign showed that.
In light of that, someone like Rubio would seem like a ideal choice, however, he's still young and a bit inexperienced. Palin and Bachmann are both goons who need to fade away they're not good for the Republican Party. I don't think Hillary Clinton wants any more public office. Just like Colin Powell after Iraq, he could have had more but he had enough. Clinton's exit isn't too far different. Time will tell when the field starts shaping up. You may see the return of John Kerry, he seems to want to keep going. You may even see David Petraeus. I think you may even see Jim Webb again in some capacity.
Kreutz wrote:
Edit: More on topic I'm hoping the GOP is smart enough to not even field a candidate against Hillary, they'd be much wiser to focus cash on races they can win, like at the state and Congressional level.
Yet somehow this election will be too important to vote 3rd party. I'll vote 3rd party next election.
At least that's what I keep hearing after every election.
And we wonder why we get the same old tired players with the same old tired ideas.
Kreutz wrote:Thats puzzling, while its correct Mormons are not Christians, Obama's record on issues traditionally of importance to evangelical Christians would drive them away in droves.
Edit: More on topic I'm hoping the GOP is smart enough to not even field a candidate against Hillary, they'd be much wiser to focus cash on races they can win, like at the state and Congressional level.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" isn't Christian?
Its not my intent to argue religion, but the argument with the born-again groups against LDS, is a matter of traditional Christian dogma that was originally conceived and instituted by the Roman Catholic Church. This is something that they refuse to fully acknowledge.
Strange, though. Considering that the Protestants originated from the RC Church with Martin Luther circa 1520, I find the hypocrisy disturbing.
Yeah, I find the "not Christian enough" debates about as appealing as the "not white/black enough" ones.
These distinctions are not even possible without some man's bias and selective interpretation of books written long ago in languages all but completely lost.
We don't trust kings to lead us, but we'll blindly follow and squabble over the specific words they carefully commissioned as an instrument of that rule.
