ADVERTISEMENT

Seriously, GOP'ers? 2016 candidates so far.. Uggh.

CommieGator

Gator Great
Jan 6, 2006
4,461
49
48
Ben freaking Carson? Ted "The Canuck" Crizzy? iCarly? The 'huckster'? Marco "I'm parched" Rubio? Randy 'Police State' Paul.. And today the kicker- Rickey "I belong in a Sanitarium" Santorum?

I really just have to ask- Are you guys trying to lose? Honest question. Jeebus- At this point all we need it that flat-earth-society hipster Rick Perry to round out an official laughing stock of a field.

If you're waiting for Jeb to come in, I'd wager the electorate is so worn out by Bush/Clinton dynasties, that they'd go for the one who's *allegedly* a shady liar over the Connecticut Yankee with decades of silver-spoons on his dinner place-settings...

It's really time to realize that times are a-changin' and let go of social issues, and just come up with someone that wants reasonable fiscal policy, but cares not if 'Adam and Steve' want to get married, or we toke up on some kind bud, or who gets an abortion.. Oh- And isn't batch!t crazy.

When Rand Paul is the best candidate in the field, it's not looking good.

I so dislike Hillary, I'd be willing to go for the Grand Old Party- But seriously??? I'm going to have to go third party again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: APK Nole
Hard to argue with any of this. The only person I would vote for that I'm currently aware of is Jeb. Maybe he can't win, but at least he's a competent executive.
 
Bush 3 can win if he can successfully portray himself as a leader with his own ideas. The moderate majority is desperately looking for someone like that.

Decent moderates hate weaselly Clinton....they just need an option that doesn't simply appear to be the mouthpiece of the wealthy and powerful.

A moderate 3rd party would be great long term but would probably cost Republicans early on.
 
The GOP list of candidates isn't particularly endearing but, then again, neither is Hillary Clinton. There are probably plenty of voters who view her as just as bad or worse.
 
Ben freaking Carson? Ted "The Canuck" Crizzy? iCarly? The 'huckster'? Marco "I'm parched" Rubio? Randy 'Police State' Paul.. And today the kicker- Rickey "I belong in a Sanitarium" Santorum?

I really just have to ask- Are you guys trying to lose? Honest question. Jeebus- At this point all we need it that flat-earth-society hipster Rick Perry to round out an official laughing stock of a field.

If you're waiting for Jeb to come in, I'd wager the electorate is so worn out by Bush/Clinton dynasties, that they'd go for the one who's *allegedly* a shady liar over the Connecticut Yankee with decades of silver-spoons on his dinner place-settings...

It's really time to realize that times are a-changin' and let go of social issues, and just come up with someone that wants reasonable fiscal policy, but cares not if 'Adam and Steve' want to get married, or we toke up on some kind bud, or who gets an abortion.. Oh- And isn't batch!t crazy.

When Rand Paul is the best candidate in the field, it's not looking good.

I so dislike Hillary, I'd be willing to go for the Grand Old Party- But seriously??? I'm going to have to go third party again!

It is sad. Hillary is a disgrace without an honorable bone in her body (because we know Bill's only gone there once to procreate...), but my guess is she will win.
 
Ok, so today, Pataki comes in- Don't know much about the guy other than he's from NY, so I'm guessing he's got to socially progressive. Step in the right direction if so.

Who else? I've heard Bush of course, Trump, Perry, then perhaps Graham, Christie and Jindal- although the last three might try to pick a better spot if Jeb announces before they make it official. None of them any good, and sadly I'm seeing articles in the press today with ABSURD titles like "Is Jeb Bush too Liberal to Win the Republican Nomination?" Holy Crap!!

Sad when Trump may actually be the best candidate on the slate.

Maybe the Dems can come up with a good challenge to Hillary, the Bush/Clinton fatigue has got to be of epic proportion by now- A good outsider might be able to come in and beat her, but the problem is going to be the Koch $ that will surely go to Bush, and the Hollywood/limousine liberal $ going to Ms. Rodham is going to be a mountain to climb.

Maybe Ross Perot and Ralph Nader should give it another shot?!?!
 
As petty as it is, I just can't vote for another Bush. Two Bushes is enough.

If he agreed to legally change his last name, maybe I would change my mind.
 
I'm hoping for a decent third choice. The Clintons seem increasingly bizarre to me.

Among other things, I find it surreal that Hilary is still a front-runner when, less than six months ago, her husband was revealed to have been flying to and from Pedobear Isle on a regular basis with a guy who is apparently not much better than Jerry Sandusky.

I just checked, and couldn't help but notice that there is no mention of Jeffrey Epstein on Clinton's Wikipedia page. It also seems to have largely disappeared from the news cycle. Were these allegations found to be untrue, or did the Clintons pull some strings to get this stuff buried? It reminds me of those old Soviet pictures where they would airbrush people into thin air after they fell from grace.

I know it's a cliche to want an "outsider" candidate, but that's really what we need. Both the Bush and Clinton families have been in power for too long, have too many powerful people who owe them favors and need to flushed out.

Unfortunately, the new forum doesn't have those old smiley guys being flushed down the toilet emojis...
 
I think that went down the memory hole.

On the other hand, wasn't Obama supposed to be an "outsider"....."post-partisan"...."post-racial"......

He's far from the only one, but I love it when politicians talk about how "Washington is broken." Like, in Obama's case, he hasn't been there for 10+ years.
 
eff that.
Stats on abortions clearly show an ongoing disparate impact on minorities....at least comparing white to hispanic to black (white rate < hispanic rate < black rate). And disparate impact has been cited as evidence of systemic bias/racism, particularly with regard to the criminal justice system and incarceration rates. Ergo, applying that same premise then abortion is racist. How can Democrats possibly support something inherently racist?????
 
I would vote for Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz over the big phony Hilary and be glad whoever won over her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CT Gator
Stats on abortions clearly show an ongoing disparate impact on minorities....at least comparing white to hispanic to black (white rate < hispanic rate < black rate). And disparate impact has been cited as evidence of systemic bias/racism, particularly with regard to the criminal justice system and incarceration rates. Ergo, applying that same premise then abortion is racist. How can Democrats possibly support something inherently racist?????


I suppose if you and Pass want to hold onto that and feel good about being true to some abiding principle, while consistently losing elections is up to you. The Operation Rescue boat has sailed, guys.. It has, really and absolutely- and the sooner you just chalk it up as an "L" the happier you'll be.

Same deal with Rick P's flat-earth society/forcing the creation myth into textbook garbage stuff.

Our financial future is WAY more important at this juncture. I'm saying that a socially progressive Republican stands the best chance if those $'s are on point.. Sadly there are now close to a dozen of you guys now on the ticket and officially polluting the fiscal message with the social BS that will turn off the majority of voters- Or the voters that count in NY, CA, TX and FL.
 
My point Commie is that if folks are going to cite disparate impact in some aspects of our society and culture as evidence of systemic racism, then they should be intellectually honest enough to say the same in others....even when that may not fit the narrative or would otherwise be uncomfortable.

My biggest problems are with abortion advocates who want me to pay via tax contributions for someone else's procedure, those who advocate for my minor daughters to be able to get an abortion without my knowledge or consent (please name any other non-emergency, invasive medical procedure my daughters could receive without my knowledge or consent) and/or those who advocate that ending a life just because the body has yet to pass through the birth canal is just hunky doory.

All that being said, I place more emphasis on fiscal and foreign policy matters. The social issues pale in comparison to $18 trillion and counting in debt.
 
If it means voting against my principles and what I know is contrary to God's Word then I don't GAS if nary another candidate I vote for never wins another election, ever. I cast my vote and hope for the best and put the rest in God's hands. I am promised the abundant life through Jesus no matter who is elected where. I put my faith and trust in Jesus and not in any politician, republican or not, conservative or not.

Luckily for you Commie, the person I vote for is usually most assuredly fiscally conservative too. But if I can't have my cake and eat it too, so be it.

I'm not implying fiscal matters aren't important, or aren't important to me. They very much are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BayAreaGator
If it means voting against my principles and what I know is contrary to God's Word then I don't GAS if nary another candidate I vote for never wins another election, ever. I cast my vote and hope for the best and put the rest in God's hands. I am promised the abundant life through Jesus no matter who is elected where. I put my faith and trust in Jesus and not in any politician, republican or not, conservative or not.

Luckily for you Commie, the person I vote for is usually most assuredly fiscally conservative too. But if I can't have my cake and eat it too, so be it.

I'm not implying fiscal matters aren't important, or aren't important to me. They very much are.

Everybody and anybody seems to be running on the Pub ticket. But for the life of me, why ANYONE would vote for the skank Hildebeast is beyond me. She is a proven liar (going back to being fired during the Watergate investigation) to Bengazi to being a possible murderer during Bill's presidency. It defies logic.
 
Because "she cares about people like me" or some such nonsense.
 
Everybody and anybody seems to be running on the Pub ticket. But for the life of me, why ANYONE would vote for the skank Hildebeast is beyond me. She is a proven liar (going back to being fired during the Watergate investigation) to Bengazi to being a possible murderer during Bill's presidency. It defies logic.

Only The Naïve Whites and The Mentally Challenged Minority will vote for her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
.....But for the life of me, why ANYONE would vote for the skank Hildebeast is beyond me. ..... It defies logic.

Unfortunately, for a huge sector of the electorate, it's about like discussing National League vs American League.... They pull the lever for their "team".... Doesn't have anything to do with logic or ideas
 
Everybody and anybody seems to be running on the Pub ticket. But for the life of me, why ANYONE would vote for the skank Hildebeast is beyond me. She is a proven liar (going back to being fired during the Watergate investigation) to Bengazi to being a possible murderer during Bill's presidency. It defies logic.

It's not like traditional liberal groups are going to vote republican if the democrat has flaws (and vice versa, of course).
 
And who are the Dem candidates at this point? Hillary....Sanders....Chafee....Biden(?)....others?

Basically, old rich white people.

The GOP candidates have been referred to as the "clown car" despite possessing substantially more visible diversity. But, because they are GOP candidates it's OK for someone like Chris Matthews to refer to them as the clown car. Let someone like Limbaugh or O'Reilly make a similar comment about a group of Dem candidates and they would be labeled racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic.......(not that they wouldn't be or haven't already been labeled that way).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BayAreaGator
@Rushie- That's made me laugh to no end because lots of people refer to Barry as a "Socialist" when in point of fact he's a Bourgeois millionaire. I'm sure that same kind of red-baiting will be brought out against the other Dem candidates, likewise Bourgeois millionaires.
 
Last edited:
@Rushie- That's made me laugh to no end because lots of people refer to Barry as a "Socialist" when in point of fact he's a Bourgeois millionaire. I'm sure that same kind of red-baiting will be brought out against the other Dem candidates, likewise Bourgeois millionaires.

Have you ever read about socialist and communist regimes? Those in power always live like princes.... The rules don't apply to those in power. So why wouldn't a rich politician be a socialist even if he's rich? It doesn't attest to him, as socialist rules wont touch bother the politicos....
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Have you ever read about socialist and communist regimes? Those in power always live like princes.... The rules don't apply to those in power. So why wouldn't a rich politician be a socialist even if he's rich? It doesn't attest to him, as socialist rules wont touch bother the politicos....
Exactly. Doubt there was any noticeable difference between a Tsarist royal family member and a high-ranking Bolshevik to your average poor Soviet farmer. Pretty much a meet the new boss....same as the old boss arrangement.
 
Exactly. Doubt there was any noticeable difference between a Tsarist royal family member and a high-ranking Bolshevik to your average poor Soviet farmer. Pretty much a meet the new boss....same as the old boss arrangement.

Well of course those regimes are no more "Socialist" than Barry- No Doy. Orwell wrote Animal Farm with the whole "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" line as a lament. He was an anti-Stalinist Socialist.

Same holds true for those on my side of the aisle that called W a fascist. A plutocrat maybe, but W a fascist? Hardly. It's dumb. Those folks might be well served to likewise take a look at the biography of Mr. Orwell who was shot in the neck fighting a bona fide fascist in Franco.

Barry's a Bourgeois Millionaire, with a staff filled with former Robber barons. I like to think I'm open minded, but when I hear that line, or if I meet someone that says "Barack Hussein Obama" my eyes roll. It's just rhetoric meant to inflame without basis in reality.
 
Aren't socialism and communism just differing degrees of "from each according to ability to each according to need?" Sure, in communism the state owns the means of production as opposed to socialism where the state maybe only exerts an element of control. Although store owners and other business types in Venezuela who have been jailed in recent months may consider that a distinction without a difference. What was that line Barry made about building a new coal plant but going bankrupt in the process?

Western Europe's brand of socialism may look a lot different than the South American brand, but western Europe had the U.S. military largely standing guard post WWII.
 
Aren't socialism and communism just differing degrees of "from each according to ability to each according to need?" Sure, in communism the state owns the means of production as opposed to socialism where the state maybe only exerts an element of control. Although store owners and other business types in Venezuela who have been jailed in recent months may consider that a distinction without a difference. What was that line Barry made about building a new coal plant but going bankrupt in the process?


Western Europe's brand of socialism may look a lot different than the South American brand, but western Europe had the U.S. military largely standing guard post WWII.


In a purely theoretical sense (thank you Dr. Hernán Vera- one of the best professors I ever had at UF), I always think of Socialism as a transitional stage to Communism, with the former being an economic theory that emphasizes the "from each" part, and the latter a utopian sociopolitical state in which the collective consciousness is fully engaged, more of the "to each" part if you will.

I mean, we live in a society that often allows for the privatization of profits as in the case of GM or Countrywide Mortgage, AIG, etc but socializes the liabilities, like all of the bailouts of troubled private-sector assets. Would Socialism level the playing field and allow us to share in the reward as we're currently sharing in the risk? Meh, maybe if someone's ever able to pull it off in its pure sense.

You rightly point out the case of Venezuela as an example of what most people consider 'Socialism' (I guess) with the nationalization of key industry, but I don't think Chavez got the execution just right, nor do I believe that European style socialism means the red menace is lurking around the corner.

In terms of ever reaching the utopian panacea, I doubt it would ever happen, since humans are primates and no matter how much reason we think we have, still subject to Maslow's good old hierarchy of needs and are instinctively a selfish necessarily to ensure self-preservation.

All good points, Rushie. As I've grown older, I've become more interested in Mutualism as although unlikely to gain traction, a far more feasible an economic system in light of human nature but I'm still educating myself on the theory when I have the time.

Still no better candidates in the GOP, but there are a ton for sure- When are Jeb and Trump supposed to announce?
 
Still no better candidates in the GOP, but there are a ton for sure- When are Jeb and Trump supposed to announce?

Now it's a (Grand 'Ole) party. Or officially a circus depending on your view.

Jeebus, Hillary is going to win. I'm telling you guys- The recipe is full on liberal social policy, but good financial sense and a bit of pedigree. At least two thirds of the GOP ticket so far is nuttier than a fruitcake socially!

My advice? Find the best-qualified "Log-Cabin" Republican within your nationwide ranks and push that guy/gal like no other- Total win, and easy.
 
Again, the GOP's problem is that they did nominate some "moderates" the last two rounds and they both lost. Romney losing, particularly with a shaky economy should be the "throw the arms up" trigger for the party.
 
The GOP's problem is that they pander to demographics that are getting smaller with every election cycle. Appealing to evangelicals with social conservatism and promising to lower taxes worked well for a generation, but not so much anymore. They're trying to broaden their appeal to latinos, but I don't think latinos are buying it.

At this point, their best bet is probably to appeal to their base and get the vote out, instead of playing to moderates.

My assumption is that at some point, the moderate wing of the Republicans will split from the right-wing evangelicals and maybe siphon-off some moderate Democrats to form a new party. Then you'll have three parties: Religious, Moderate & Socialist. This is similar to many countries in Europe.
 
Again, the GOP's problem is that they did nominate some "moderates" the last two rounds and they both lost. Romney losing, particularly with a shaky economy should be the "throw the arms up" trigger for the party.

Romney was a rich boy who only plan was to let business have their way with us. No way he was going to win.
 
Ironic that Theo calls Romney a rich boy when Billary, Inc. has almost the same net worth. And Hillary is already owned by "business", so you're fooling yourself.

Unless each of you is classified as a HNWI - and if you are then you know what those initials mean and no explanation is needed - we are all fodder. Soylent Green, folks.
 
Ironic that Theo calls Romney a rich boy when Billary, Inc. has almost the same net worth. And Hillary is already owned by "business", so you're fooling yourself.

Unless each of you is classified as a HNWI - and if you are then you know what those initials mean and no explanation is needed - we are all fodder. Soylent Green, folks.

So we're back to rich folks and their shared sources of income squaring off against one another over minor nuance in respective platforms. It's the privileged against the likewise privileged battling over the dominion of the rest of us.

Plutocrat vs. Plutocrat. What an exceptional choice for the rest of us it will be when it boils down to Hillary and whomever the GOP candidate turns out to be.

As a value addition to this conversation- I'm convinced Trump is trolling the GOP with comments about his hair, etc. Trump will probably be the most entertaining thing to come of this charade.
 
I know the Clintons are wealthy now, but they are from relatively modest backgrounds. I think Bill was raised in a lower-middle class/working class household. That's rare for presidents.
 
Can't wait to see those Billary commercials and campaign stops calling for "the rich" to "pay their fair share" and bemoaning how much more the average CEO makes vs. the average worker after hauling $250-$500K per speaking engagement.
 
ADVERTISEMENT