Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 11, 2013, 10:22:15 AM
-
Great, now Mr "safety first at all costs" wants to make a Presidential bid. And he has the nerve to say Rand Paul is hurting the party. The Republican party is officially clueless.
I've "on paper" remained a Republican while in real life I have pretty much become a libertarian. I think this cycle I'm going to become Libertarian on paper, and if Paul runs Republican, will still vote for him (whether he makes it on the ticket or not).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/11/republican-rep-king-says-serious-about-2016-presidential-bid/
-
GOP base: there's no way they can nominate a worse candidate than Romney in 2016!
GOP: challenge accepted!
-
I'm not sure how this is the fault of the GOP. Any loon can announce they're running for president.
See, I'm running for president. For serious.
-
I'm not sure how this is the fault of the GOP. Any loon can announce they're running for president.
See, I'm running for president. For serious.
VOTE FOR FISTFUL!
(It's his fault anyway, so the buck may as well stop at his desk.)
-
:facepalm: This country is so DONE.
-
:facepalm: This country is so DONE.
Has been for a while and we have just been refusing to admit it =(
-
What is wrong with you people?
-
What is wrong with you people?
We lost our sanity after you announced your presidential run.
-
King has zero chance of winning. Nothing to get excited about. The Democratic candidate has already been chosen. And King is a Democrat regardless of what letter he wears on his name. His only chance of winning would for Democrats to vote for him and it ain't happening.
-
King has zero chance of winning. Nothing to get excited about. The Democratic candidate has already been chosen. And King is a Democrat regardless of what letter he wears on his name. His only chance of winning would for Democrats to vote for him and it ain't happening.
Yeah, I would agree he has little chance. Christie (sadly) has a much better chance. The fact though, that both those guys think they have a chance, and I haven't heard anything from the RNC saying, "nope, not going in that direction" is a bit disheartening. But then they pushed Romney, and much worse, McCain on us. I guarantee the RNC will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why (Rand) Paul and Cruz would be "not the right choice" immediately after either of the makes a concrete statement on a presidential run.
-
Hillary is going to be the next president. I think Paul should work on building up the conservative movement without running for president. I suppose he might get some good experience or practice from campaigning but he should be careful not to do anything damaging to his conservative reputation because he will have to do it all over again.
I hope he can manage to sit on his hands for 10 more years or does Hillary do so completely bad as president that she could be successfully challenged in 4 years.
2016 is not Rand Paul's time. Perhaps 2024 is. Will he still be a true conservative or will he have capitulated by then?
-
GOP base: there's no way they can nominate a worse candidate than Romney in 2016!
GOP: challenge accepted!
Describe this GOP base?
-
Hillary is going to be the next president.
Ha, she won't even get the Dem's nomination.
I wish the GOP would put up someone like West.
-
Describe this GOP base?
The "base" of the GOP refers to those voters that reliably vote Republican, and are generally "conservative" in terms of social and fiscal policy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/four-moral-issues-sharply-divide-americans.aspx
-
The "base" of the GOP refers to those voters that reliably vote Republican, and are generally "conservative" in terms of social and fiscal policy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/four-moral-issues-sharply-divide-americans.aspx
If that truly is the true base then how did Mitt Romney get on the ticket in 2012 and McCain in 2008?
Just going to Iowa State GOP convention the base is really fractured, you have fiscal/social conservatives in one camp, fiscal conservative/social moderates in another, Ron Paul crowd, fiscal conservative/liberal social, Christian right and few others. None of them really is a super majority a few make more noise then others.
-
Because the nomination process is incredibly disfunctional, and easily swayed by what the establishment ie R's that are thoroughly corrupted by DC want. So we get people who support policies like gun control or Obamacare that are widely unpopular among the folks who reliably vote and donate time and money to the R's.
-
Ha, she won't even get the Dem's nomination.
I wish the GOP would put up someone like West.
On what basis do you think she won't get the nomination? Who do you think is going to run against her in the primaries and why do you think whoever that is will win?
And why do you think Allan West would make a good president? What in his background, other than Fox News rhetoric, makes you think he will defend the Constitution and end IRS, NSA, and other intrusions into liberty? I'm not saying he won't but I'd like to hear what makes people think he will end these abuses.
If that truly is the true base then how did Mitt Romney get on the ticket in 2012 and McCain in 2008?
Just going to Iowa State GOP convention the base is really fractured, you have fiscal/social conservatives in one camp, fiscal conservative/social moderates in another, Ron Paul crowd, fiscal conservative/liberal social, Christian right and few others. None of them really is a super majority a few make more noise then others.
Romney and McCain got on the ballot because they were the least bad of all the candidates.
-
Because the nomination process is incredibly disfunctional, and easily swayed by what the establishment ie R's that are thoroughly corrupted by DC want. So we get people who support policies like gun control or Obamacare that are widely unpopular among the folks who reliably vote and donate time and money to the R's.
Why do you says it is dysfunctional? Voting GOP people get to select their candidate by all the various primaries and caucuses before the national convention. The "base" decides who wins that process not a bunch of men in smoke filled rooms.
-
Why do you says it is dysfunctional? Voting GOP people get to select their candidate by all the various primaries and caucuses before the national convention. The "base" decides who wins that process not a bunch of men in smoke filled rooms.
REALLY??? You really think that don't you. Look at the choices we had last go around. The base didn't pick them. They were picked to make it look as if Romney had to work for it and in the end, it was placed back in obama's lap.
-
REALLY??? You really think that don't you. Look at the choices we had last go around. The base didn't pick them. They were picked to make it look as if Romney had to work for it and in the end, it was placed back in obama's lap.
Seriously? Could it be that other potential candidates stayed out because the odds of Obama being reelected was pretty high and not worth the expense or effort of a campaign?
Maybe the GOP is that fractured that all we will get is mediocre choices until the GOP can operate collectively again.
-
Romney and McCain got on the ballot because they were the least bad of all the candidates.
Hahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahhahhahahhahahahahaha
-
Romney and McCain got on the ballot because they were the least bad of all the candidates.
I was going to offer my reaction to that one, but Fitz took care of it already.
What makes any of you think that any candidate who threatens the security-state status quo will get anywhere close to the White House? With every form of communications being catalogued and available to government agencies(who are now known, to cooperate and share information), I submit to you that a public call for the abolition of TSA/NSA/IRS/etc will mark the end of a presidential campaign(a credible campaign, anyway. Rand Paul or another pseudo-libertarian like him will never get the RNC nod anyway, so he can say whatever he likes, as he'll never have power over the executive). Everyone in a position of power has something to hide.
It sounds all kinds of tinfoil-hat, but think about it. Government agencies do not like talk of budget cuts, to say nothing of complete closure. Hoover's FBI had TONS of power over DC... and that was before the information age.
Just thinking out loud :)
-
I was going to offer my reaction to that one, but Fitz took care of it already.
What makes any of you think that any candidate who threatens the security-state status quo will get anywhere close to the White House? With every form of communications being catalogued and available to government agencies(who are now known, to cooperate and share information), I submit to you that a public call for the abolition of TSA/NSA/IRS/etc will mark the end of a presidential campaign(a credible campaign, anyway. Rand Paul or another pseudo-libertarian like him will never get the RNC nod anyway, so he can say whatever he likes, as he'll never have power over the executive). Everyone in a position of power has something to hide.
It sounds all kinds of tinfoil-hat, but think about it. Government agencies do not like talk of budget cuts, to say nothing of complete closure. Hoover's FBI had TONS of power over DC... and that was before the information age.
Just thinking out loud :)
I didn't like either of them. I despise McCain and just didn't think Romney should be president in any way, shape, or form. He's a great family man but we need more than that in a President and Romney was not it.
They weren't good candidates, either of them. But who was better? And why? Ok, on one hand I'll have to say that everyone in America wa better than McCain but I mean just who, of those who were on the ballet, were better presidential candidates?
-
I didn't like either of them. I despise McCain and just didn't think Romney should be president in any way, shape, or form. He's a great family man but we need more than that in a President and Romney was not it.
They weren't good candidates, either of them. But who was better? And why? Ok, on one hand I'll have to say that everyone in America wa better than McCain but I mean just who, of those who were on the ballet, were better presidential candidates?
With you for most of that. I'd love to have Romney for a neighbor, but he'd have made a terrible President(although with a Republican, even a RINO, in the office, the MSM would again start paying attention to government excesses and abuses)... and McCain is a clueless tool.
Who was better? Ron Paul. People love to trot out the "I agree with 90% of what he says but...", but how much did you agree with McCain? With Romney?
-
With you for most of that. I'd love to have Romney for a neighbor, but he'd have made a terrible President(although with a Republican, even a RINO, in the office, the MSM would again start paying attention to government excesses and abuses)... and McCain is a clueless tool.
Who was better? Ron Paul. People love to trot out the "I agree with 90% of what he says but...", but how much did you agree with McCain? With Romney?
Ron Paul is, as far as I could ever tell, perfect in his beliefs but he's a wimp. Okay, not a wimp but too polite and nice. Being president requires a much stronger personality than Ron Paul could deliver. I had hopes for his son but Rand's support for McConnell makes me think he's been assimilated.
-
Oh, great. We haven't had a knock-down, drag-out debate on the merits or liabilities of Ron Paul yet, this year.
[popcorn] Sigh.
-
LOL. And he's retiring. But we do have to consider the merits of his son... Well, I suppose we don't have to consider Rand, we could talk about our favorite beer or favorite venison recipe.
Edit: you won't see a heated debate from me. I don't know that much about Ron. What I've seen I agreed with but from the start I knew he wasn't presidential material so I have never dug deeply. I don't feel strongly about him one way or another.
-
Is anyone sure that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz will run? Cruz is very new to the scene.
I figure Rick Perry wants to run again, but I think Cruz is more popular than he is at least down here. Perry isn't perfect, but he likely is more small govt conservative than 90% of the other choices.
Would Jim DeMint run?
-
Is anyone sure that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz will run? Cruz is very new to the scene.
I figure Rick Perry wants to run again, but I think Cruz is more popular than he is at least down here. Perry isn't perfect, but he likely is more small govt conservative than 90% of the other choices.
Would Jim DeMint run?
If Perry runs can I donate to his campaign so he can buy some f***ing No-Doze to take before debates?
-
Rand Paul is running, he just hasn't announced yet. He's going to all the right states and is going on a quite a few talk/News shows to 1) Get his name out there and 2) present his views on various topics/policy issues.
He's in.
-
Not to mention the verbal sparring with that useless sack of donuts Christie.
-
If Perry runs can I donate to his campaign so he can buy some f***ing No-Doze to take before debates?
I think the best thing Perry and Rand can do is tell the RNC to shove it with the 20 or 30 Primary debates. That is overkill. Do about 3 and stop there. I don't want to elect a clever debater, I want a better President.
-
Describe this GOP base?
Social conservative, fiscal liberal. Or that's whom they keep electing.
GOP tends to spend money worse than drunken sailors. Drunken sailors stop when they run out of money. GOP just borrows or prints more as the need arises, which it always does.
-
I think the best thing Perry and Rand can do is tell the RNC to shove it with the 20 or 30 Primary debates. That is overkill. Do about 3 and stop there. I don't want to elect a clever debater, I want a better President.
Yes. Whoever shows up in the Obama mask has my vote.
-
This:
(https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1173874_604194409623519_721276023_n.png)
-
Yes. Whoever shows up in the Obama mask has my vote.
You are voting for that rodeo clown from the State Fair????????????? :laugh:
I have to admit, he just might be a better pres than what we have had over the last decade or two! (we need a "clap my hand over my mouth" emoticon. Did I really just say that?)
-
You are voting for that rodeo clown from the State Fair????????????? :laugh:
I have to admit, he just might be a better pres than what we have had over the last decade or two! (we need a "clap my hand over my mouth" emoticon. Did I really just say that?)
You see my point.
-
You are voting for that rodeo clown from the State Fair????????????? :laugh:
I have to admit, he just might be a better pres than what we have had over the last decade or two! (we need a "clap my hand over my mouth" emoticon. Did I really just say that?)
You could randomly pick someone out of the phone book and likely find someone to be President who would be better than the current one.
-
You could randomly pick someone out of the phone book and likely find someone to be President who would be better than the current one.
For one thing, you would automatically eliminate professional office-seekers who most likely have unlisted numbers =D
-
To go off on a tangent yet still address the Hillary posts, I saw the below story this morning. I have to mostly agree with the quoted Democrats. This general "early attack" plan* makes the Republicans look weak, and if anything, will rally undecided Democrats and some Independents around her. Between this and the "first woman president" crowd, they could be helping lock it up for her well before the elections, and in that case I would have to agree with Levant that even a good candidate like Rand Paul could not only have trouble getting votes, but end up looking like a has-been the next time around.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/early-attacks-on-clinton-part-new-republican-playbook-democrats-say-plan-is/?test=latestnews
* I don't include attacks of her re: Benghazi to be political, and as I have mentioned before, do not consider Benghazi a scandal, but rather a crime.
-
I think the best thing Perry and Rand can do is tell the RNC to shove it with the 20 or 30 Primary debates. That is overkill. Do about 3 and stop there. I don't want to elect a clever debater, I want a better President.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't care about debate skills but I want to hear what they think about various policies and government functions.
The more the better.
-
I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't care about debate skills but I want to hear what they think about various policies and government functions.
The more the better.
What do candidates say in debates that can't be found on their web sites, their voting records, etc? I tend to think the debates are just theater, usually not very good theater. It seems like there are easier ways to research the candidates.