Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So, which of the back-runners for the GOP nomination will be next?

Which one thinks they could get a good book/talkshow circuit deal out of it?

We can lay odds on who will be the next Fox News star?

 agnosto wrote:

We can lay odds on who will be the next Fox News star?

I smell a reality show. Next Top Commentator?

 dogma wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

We can lay odds on who will be the next Fox News star?

I smell a reality show. Next Top Commentator?

Someone from here really needs to register that web domain.

 agnosto wrote:
So, which of the back-runners for the GOP nomination will be next?

I would guess Paul will likely get out soon as he still has a viable job in politics to go back to and the longer he runs without any success, the more tarnished he will be. I would also guess Santorum and Huckabee will get out immediately after Iowa if they don't catch fire there soon. I'm not really sure what Pataki is still doing in the race. He is still in, isn't he?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So, which of the back-runners for the GOP nomination will be next?

I would guess Paul will likely get out soon as he still has a viable job in politics to go back to and the longer he runs without any success, the more tarnished he will be. I would also guess Santorum and Huckabee will get out immediately after Iowa if they don't catch fire there soon. I'm not really sure what Pataki is still doing in the race. He is still in, isn't he?

Pataki's still in, for now. A few days ago he said that he'd stay until someone he believes would do a good job became the front-runner. I don't know why he's bothering either, or any of the other kid table candidates.

Well, he's one of the most experienced and qualified people running for the republican ticket, he just has absolutely no charisma, as is not very well known.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, he's one of the most experienced and qualified people running for the republican ticket, he just has absolutely no charisma, as is not very well known.

No more Gov from the North East please.

The Rubio vs Cruz fight is heating up.

:pass the popcorn folks!:

Just thought of something... many of you despise Cruz... right?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, he's one of the most experienced and qualified people running for the republican ticket, he just has absolutely no charisma, as is not very well known.

No more Gov from the North East please.

The Rubio vs Cruz fight is heating up.

:pass the popcorn folks!:

Just thought of something... many of you despise Cruz... right?

Better than Trump, Carson, Fiorina, ect. He's one of the people who actually makes sense to be running, instead of just running because they can. Now, even if the ones with no chance who are just running because they can, nutsjobs, ect weren't in (probably leaving us with maybe 4-5 candidates total) he's still most probably lose (because of the aforementioned lack of charisma, and also the fact that he is quite socially liberal, although still fiscally conservative, and willing to work with non-R's), and even he couldn't stand up to Hillary at this point (although well see how far these scandels go).

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, he's one of the most experienced and qualified people running for the republican ticket, he just has absolutely no charisma, as is not very well known.

No more Gov from the North East please.

The Rubio vs Cruz fight is heating up.

:pass the popcorn folks!:

Just thought of something... many of you despise Cruz... right?

I despise how he panders to the most base instincts of the far right. I don't think he actually believes most of it though because he is way too intelligent for that. Which I guess makes him even more despicable, because he is a demagogue when he doesn't really need to be.

Edit: then again, looking at the political realities of the race on the right right now, maybe he does need to be.

 whembly wrote:
Just thought of something... many of you despise Cruz... right?

And for good reasons. To quote myself from earlier:

 Peregrine wrote:
And yep, it's 2015 and we still have mainstream republican presidential candidates attending "the bible says we should execute people for being gay" conferences. Next time anyone says the two parties are equally horrible I'm pointing them back to this.

(Warning: the video of the conference included in the article is just horrifying. Watch at your own risk.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just thought of something... many of you despise Cruz... right?

And for good reasons. To quote myself from earlier:

 Peregrine wrote:
And yep, it's 2015 and we still have mainstream republican presidential candidates attending "the bible says we should execute people for being gay" conferences. Next time anyone says the two parties are equally horrible I'm pointing them back to this.

(Warning: the video of the conference included in the article is just horrifying. Watch at your own risk.)

Now you know how I feel about Obama!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, he's one of the most experienced and qualified people running for the republican ticket, he just has absolutely no charisma, as is not very well known.

No more Gov from the North East please.

The Rubio vs Cruz fight is heating up.

:pass the popcorn folks!:

Just thought of something... many of you despise Cruz... right?

I despise how he panders to the most base instincts of the far right. I don't think he actually believes most of it though because he is way too intelligent for that. Which I guess makes him even more despicable, because he is a demagogue when he doesn't really need to be.

Edit: then again, looking at the political realities of the race on the right right now, maybe he does need to be.

They all Pander™... Cruz is just a dick about it.

Man... at this point, I hope it's Rubio vs. Clinton.

If not, Clinton is 100% your next President.

 whembly wrote:
Now you know how I feel about Obama!

So, are you actually going to provide some evidence of Obama endorsing the execution of people for the "crime" of failing to obey his religion's rules? Or is this the exact "they're both the same" nonsense I was referring to?

Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Oh, I know they all pander. (Except maybe, Sanders, Grahm, and Huckabee--I think those three actually believe the stuff they say, good or bad) It's to the basest irrational instincts I have a problem with.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now you know how I feel about Obama!

So, are you actually going to provide some evidence of Obama endorsing the execution of people for the "crime" of failing to obey his religion's rules? Or is this the exact "they're both the same" nonsense I was referring to?

I'm guessing he is equating what Rev. Wright said to what this pastor said. False equivalency. As much as Wright was inflammatory, at least he never equated homosexuals to "p**sy sores". Not even close.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

C'mon, let's be realistic, at least a bit. Trump surged to 42% this past week and Rubio's way back at 10%. Unless something odd happens, we're looking at Trump or Carson....lord help us all.

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

C'mon, let's be realistic, at least a bit. Trump surged to 42% this past week and Rubio's way back at 10%. Unless something odd happens, we're looking at Trump or Carson....lord help us all.

If we want realism, is the internet the place to find it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now you know how I feel about Obama!

So, are you actually going to provide some evidence of Obama endorsing the execution of people for the "crime" of failing to obey his religion's rules? Or is this the exact "they're both the same" nonsense I was referring to?

Bill fething Ayers.

I'm willing to bet significant money that the Republicans candidates are/were unaware of that paster's past, as it's fething reprehensible and I wouldn't want to associate my campaign to that crap.

Obama launched his political career in the living room of an admitted terrorist. You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

But really, my disdain for Obama are his policies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Oh... I don't know about that... I think it'd be close... but, HRC wins a squeaker.

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

C'mon, let's be realistic, at least a bit. Trump surged to 42% this past week and Rubio's way back at 10%. Unless something odd happens, we're looking at Trump or Carson....lord help us all.

I still think that if it looks like Trump or Carson will be the nominee, the GOP will change the rules to somehow exclude them. They know it would be the death of the party.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Oh, I know they all pander. (Except maybe, Sanders, Grahm, and Huckabee--I think those three actually believe the stuff they say, good or bad) It's to the basest irrational instincts I have a problem with.

Those three panders just as bad...

Sanders wants to repeal Citizen United and neuter 1st amendment rights... and yet, he's recieved donations from corporations and unions.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

C'mon, let's be realistic, at least a bit. Trump surged to 42% this past week and Rubio's way back at 10%. Unless something odd happens, we're looking at Trump or Carson....lord help us all.

Michelle Bachman / Hermain Cain were leading about this time in 2010.

The time to get concerned is by next spring...

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

C'mon, let's be realistic, at least a bit. Trump surged to 42% this past week and Rubio's way back at 10%. Unless something odd happens, we're looking at Trump or Carson....lord help us all.

I still think that if it looks like Trump or Carson will be the nominee, the GOP will change the rules to somehow exclude them. They know it would be the death of the party.

The party exerts a lot of control over the primary process for a reason. Plus the "blue state" delegates to the Republican convention actually outnumber the "red state" delegates so unless Trump or Carson are really popular in places like the west coast and northeast I don't think they'll win the nomination.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-primary-rules-might-doom-carson-and-cruz/

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Oh... I don't know about that... I think it'd be close... but, HRC wins a squeaker.

Really? I just don't see Rubio bringing people to the polls. Hell, Hillary getting the nomination will probably bring more R's out to vote than Rubio.

So wait, you don't think Sanders is a pinko?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Oh... I don't know about that... I think it'd be close... but, HRC wins a squeaker.

Really? I just don't see Rubio bringing people to the polls. Hell, Hillary getting the nomination will probably bring more R's out to vote than Rubio.

Yeup... check out the trend for Rubio and Cruz.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

The flavor of the months in Trump/Carson will not be that high post Iowa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So wait, you don't think Sanders is a pinko?

pinko=socialsit? Yeah, he's admitted that.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, Rubio will get devoured. He doesn't have the political and governmental experience to stand against Clinton. She would crush him like an ant.

Yeah, a young, relatively inexperienced Senator, especially a non white minority, could never win running against an elderly white politician with decades of political experience and a history of hawkish foreign policy.

Oh wait....

C'mon, let's be realistic, at least a bit. Trump surged to 42% this past week and Rubio's way back at 10%. Unless something odd happens, we're looking at Trump or Carson....lord help us all.

I still think that if it looks like Trump or Carson will be the nominee, the GOP will change the rules to somehow exclude them. They know it would be the death of the party.

The party exerts a lot of control over the primary process for a reason. Plus the "blue state" delegates to the Republican convention actually outnumber the "red state" delegates so unless Trump or Carson are really popular in places like the west coast and northeast I don't think they'll win the nomination.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-primary-rules-might-doom-carson-and-cruz/

Oh, I agree, I highly doubt either one will actually win delegate wise. But if the stars align, and they somehow do, look to the party to instigate a "no nominee with the last name Trump or Carson" rule at the convention. Of course that would damn the party too.

 whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

?? Does it matter how long ago it was? Shoot man, the Weather Underground group admitted to at least 20+ bombing across the US.

If memory serves me right, the one the blew up in their faces (taking his GF) was intended for some dance hall frequented by the military.

But, let's chalk that up as a youthful exuberance in an anti-war climate...

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

?? Does it matter how long ago it was?

It does when you claim that you can't rehabilitate after doing something like that.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

?? Does it matter how long ago it was? Shoot man, the Weather Underground group admitted to at least 20+ bombing across the US.

If memory serves me right, the one the blew up in their faces (taking his GF) was intended for some dance hall frequented by the military.

But, let's chalk that up as a youthful exuberance in an anti-war climate...

Okay, let's say Ayers was a gigantic influence on Obama. What policies has he advocated that would suit Ayers's needs or desires or political goals? Has the Weather Underground made some sort of insurgance that I haven't seen in the last eight, or twenty five years? No? What policies were the underground pushing towards that Obama has advanced? I guess I don't know, and considering myself, as you do, as politically informed, I think that should say something.