Possible Presidential Candidates for 2016
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Let's see you become Vice President. :tongue:
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I would be happy with you just growing more than a single brain cell, Asshat.
This is the future, man! The future!
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Typical liberal.
Dan Quayle and his son are better than you. :tongue:
How can a liberal live in Texas?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
2. Better at being insufferable douche-bags.
1 & 3. You have no idea what a "typical" liberal is, particularly in Texas.
yada yada yada!!! Said absolutely nothing. Come with real info or stick to one word BS.
Ah yeah Texas...... hmmmmm....... Have you seen the the people that govern Texas??? Carpetbaggers and Freakshows????
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Yeah, but within any group you can find some who do good things... or who will claim that their hearts (if not their heads) are in the right place. Even though I poke a LOT of fun at Evangelicals, I don't think they're all close-minded bigots... but more than a few of them are - especially here in the south. And I would say the same thing about many on the far left too. Many of these feminist and gay rights groups treat their movements sort of like a religion too. In many cases they're (IMO) the other side of the same bigoted coin as the tighty-righties.
The problem I have with "conservatives" now is that in order not to be considered a RINO, you have to correctly answer a questionnaire and agree to take a pledge to a guy who has (as far as I know) never held political office (Grover Norquist). When pragmatic people, like Jack Kemp, were at the head of the GOP, it was a much better, more reasonable party, IMO. Now it seems to be under the control of hoople heads, rubes, hayseeds and flakes. For better or worse, though I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, the Democrat party does seem to accept a good deal more diversity of thought than the Republican party these days. At the very least, there is no litmus test required to be a Democrat. But I don't believe in parties. I believe that George Washington was 100% correct in his beliefs of what partisanship and devotion to party (versus devotion to the Republic) would do to this nation. It's coming to bear right now.
Whether he ran as a Democrat, Republican or Independent (which is a non-starter in the U.S. right now
), I'd like to see Erskine Bowles run in 2016. He's not an ideologue or an extremist. And he would be more of a technocrat, but I think that's what the U.S. needs right now. If the bribe taking rats in Congress would support him, and if enough of the American people would be smart enough to follow what he's saying (which is doubtful), we could get this ship turned around in 6-8 years.Sure can. I think my points i that they do A LOT more good than any atheist, liberal, or any other "group" I've come in contact with in my area, and I've come in contact with more than a few. That's probably too anecdotal though so we'll just leave it at that, can we?Yeah, but within any group you can find some who do good things... or who will claim that their hearts (if not their heads) are in the right place. Even though I poke a LOT of fun at Evangelicals, I don't think they're all close-minded bigots... but more than a few of them are - especially here in the south. And I would say the same thing about many on the far left too. Many of these feminist and gay rights groups treat their movements sort of like a religion too. In many cases they're (IMO) the other side of the same bigoted coin as the tighty-righties.
The problem I have with "conservatives" now is that in order not to be considered a RINO, you have to correctly answer a questionnaire and agree to take a pledge to a guy who has (as far as I know) never held political office (Grover Norquist). When pragmatic people, like Jack Kemp, were at the head of the GOP, it was a much better, more reasonable party, IMO. Now it seems to be under the control of hoople heads, rubes, hayseeds and flakes. For better or worse, though I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, the Democrat party does seem to accept a good deal more diversity of thought than the Republican party these days. At the very least, there is no litmus test required to be a Democrat. But I don't believe in parties. I believe that George Washington was 100% correct in his beliefs of what partisanship and devotion to party (versus devotion to the Republic) would do to this nation. It's coming to bear right now.
Whether he ran as a Democrat, Republican or Independent (which is a non-starter in the U.S. right now
Thanks.
Now about '16, mark it down: Rubio is going to run. And he is a RINO on the immigration issue alone, which is enough for my stomach to turn whenever I see/hear his pretty rhetoric on the tube. I'm going to vote Indie this year and Indie in '16 (just like the last two presidential elections). I've seen enough damage by the talking head fruits of both parties to have turned me off for quite a bit of time. Personally I hope there is a Rand presidency some time in my life, but who knows...
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Scott, could you or someone else here give me a good definition of what a RINO is? I keep hearing the term and I know what it stands for, but what defines being a RINO? It seems to me that suggests (actually confirms) that there is indeed a litmus test for being a "real" Republican. I mean, I've never heard Sar@h Palin described as a RINO. Yet, even an average private citizen such as myself could probably totally rip her to pieces if we had a debate on most business and economic topics - including supply side economics. But I guess she's a "real" Republican, but Rubio and those who don't fill out "the questionnaire" correctly are RINO's, huh? :dunno:
I mean I understand your point (sort of ), as if Rubio should be this that or the other - as if there is a cut-and-dried definition for what a "conservative" or republican is. I guess that term (Republican In Name Only) is subjective; if that's your point, I agree.
Maybe Arlen Specter would be the best poster boy for the term, at the end of the day. Someone who uses the "Republican" (or even a "Democrat") label but isn't consistent about voting along party lines.
Here is a "Top 10" list from a site on the net for "RINOs." It does a good job of explaining some of the points (I think) people believe the term refers to (Romney comes in at #8 on the list): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547711/posts
Similar threads
