Is there a Republican you would *like* to run for president in 2016?

[thraashman]

Agree. When the whole drone issue was going on it was Rand Paul who took a stand and he went against many in his own party especially since he was still new. He could have paid a political price for what he did but he knew it was the right thing to and he put the people over politics.

Could you imagine obama or hillary doing the same thing? NO.

Rand Paul would seem to disagree with you about what Rand Paul believes about drones.

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash,” he said, “I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

 

[OGOC]

You mean like obama? Who will pander to his cronies for political points. STFU you scumbag.

To be fair, Obama isn't really for the Democratic Party as much as he is for himself.

I'm surprised so many are anti-Christie in this thread. Last I had noticed in the news, his approval ratings were over 70% in his own state.

I don't know if that's cause for Republican celebration when the state is lefty NJ. You're not even allowed to pump your own gas in NJ.

Basically, Christie is what northeast liberals think a small-government conservative is. In other areas of the country, Christie is what small-government people think a moderate liberal is.

I disagree with the notion that repubs need to nominate a moderate (RINO). It hasnt worked out for them the past two presidential election cycles, so lets go for broke with a real conservative and see what happens.

Republicans should nominate an actual small-government, constitutional person. They've tried everything else except nominating someone who stands for what the Republican Party pretends to stand for.

I am pretty heavily against the use of drones, against the NSA broad wiretapping, and against the subpoenaing of AP phone records.

Why don't you like Ted Cruz then? He's against all that stuff more than Obama and similar are.

 

[thraashman]

You're praising his actions, yet condemning the gap between lower and upper class that has grown in the last 6 years alone?

You say this yet every time the President makes any attempts to address the issue with income gap the entirety of the right assails him as being socialist and blocks all attempts at the policies.

 

[OGOC]

Rand Paul would seem to disagree with you about what Rand Paul believes about drones.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones/

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

 

[thraashman]

Why don't you like Ted Cruz then? He's against all that stuff more than Obama and similar are.

Because Cruz is against women's rights, equal marriage rights, the environment, the right of people to have reasonable access to healthcare, intelligent gun control, and he supports the terrible economic policies of trickle down and austerity. I could probably go on, but there's a ton of things about Cruz I do not like.

 

[Incorruptible]

Rand Paul would seem to disagree with you about what Rand Paul believes about drones.

He didn't change the values though. He was talking about innocent Americans being droned.

 

[zinfamous]

Why don't you like Ted Cruz then? He's against all that stuff more than Obama and similar are.

First of all, Ted Cruz can't even run for president, can he?

Second of all, Obama was against all of that stuff, too.....before he became president.

The real concern is that nothing will ever really change, but you know this.

 

[nextJin]

Rand Paul is too much of a christian conservative for me.

And his flip-flop on drones was pathetic.

I'm pretty sure the drone flip flop was debunked shortly after a post here from one of our local Paul is a racist posters.

I also don't see the Christian conservative statement. There are hundreds of more retarded conservatives on that front. All being lead by a moron in Rick Santorum.

 

[DeadFred]

Of course you think our country is being flushed down the toilet, you've stated that you're part of the fringe right. What is the point of discussing it with you? US economic performance has been superior to most developed nations in most areas since the crisis, despite having one of the larger downturns. This is particularly notable considering the constant predictions of disaster from the right.

If we have things my way this is just a warm up, by the way. Especially if we can continue through Obama's administration and then get eight years of Hillary, that holds a lot of promise.

And its obvious you are on the other end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean we cant have a civil discussion even if neither of us will sway the other.

So you are saying even in our stale, flat economic doldrums we are still better off than Europe. I wont argue with that, but thats not saying a whole lot for Obama's policies. I wouldnt even call what we are experiencing a recovery, its more like being stuck in the ICU and in critical but stable condition. How long it will remain stable is the question.

Thankfully we have gridlock in congress or we would flatlining. The less regulation and legislation coming from this administration the better. Hopefully we can retake the senate and really put O on his heels for the last half of his term. On the other hand and lucky for you, we have a crybaby pansy leading the House.

Eight years of Hillary..../shudders

Only the bright side I can think of should that happen, is all the comedic relief Bill could bring. :biggrin:

 

[DucatiMonster696]

George Zimmerman ....

He's a registered Democrat.

 

[werepossum]

I dont want one to run. We dont need more social conservatives in politics. Socially liberal, fiscal conservative and im in. Libertarian all the way.

I too. Gary Johnson for the win. Although the Libertarian Party seems to be heading toward corporate freedom rather than individual liberty.

There is little chance my candidate will become the nominee. Ironically I was a Mitt supporter twice, but this last time it kept me from voting for the best candidate since Reagan - perhaps of my lifetime.

Other than than, I wouldn't mind seeing Huntsman or Christie that much.

 

[werepossum]

I think the most well publicized occasion was his handling of the aftermath of Sandy. There was quite a bit of clash between him and the rest of the Republican party. He said that he put his state and constituents before political parties, and earned the respect of a lot of people for that.

I'm surprised so many are anti-Christie in this thread. Last I had noticed in the news, his approval ratings were over 70% in his own state. Compare that to Romney's approval rating when he was governor of Mass. at just 35%.

And people are mentioning Jindal? The people in his own state don't even approve of him. I personally think it's a bigger uphill battle to get people to like you when the people of your own state don't even approve of how you're doing.

This might be pertinent to the thread: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/popular-governors-and-prospects-for-2016/

Over 70% in a very blue state. Still, while Christie's gun control views would prevent me from voting for him in the primary, I could hold my nose and vote for him in the general - unless Johnson is running for the Libertarians again. I generally admire Christie, and while gun rights are very important to me, there is no chance of getting any President with whom I completely agree.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Neither McCain or Romney were moderates. They were whatever they believed the people they were talking to wanted them to be.

?? As though McCain didn't have a 20 year history in Congress to tell you who he was?
He had to pander to the far right in the primaries, and after failing the election he had to go full-on spout-the-Fox-News-party-line to save his Senate seat, but Senate job security and representing the crazies in his state is not the same as a maximum two-term job whose duty is to represent the country.

 

[Zebo]

Clint Eastwood is 100 years old.

Rand Paul but the neocons right and left wont let that happen. So much money to made off warring and security surveillance state..

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/21/why-they-hate-rand-paul/

 

[Anarchist420]

Two problems I have with Rand Paul are that he's not really that fiscally conservative (see the weak BBA proposal he drafted, when he could've just voted to decentralize the national debt and national land) and he's too much of a militarist as he only proposed cutting the military budget by about 10%.

I can't really support anyone in the Republican Party on their own merits; I can only support Rand Paul against the Democrats and Christie, Huntsman, RINOs, et al.

 

[buckshot24]

He's a registered Democrat.

That must be some kind of mistake, he's a racist he has to be a tea party member.

 

[DominionSeraph]

That must be some kind of mistake, he's a racist he has to be a tea party member.

Affirming the consequent, are we?

 

[DrPizza]

Over 70% in a very blue state. Still, while Christie's gun control views would prevent me from voting for him in the primary, I could hold my nose and vote for him in the general - unless Johnson is running for the Libertarians again. I generally admire Christie, and while gun rights are very important to me, there is no chance of getting any President with whom I completely agree.

That's the problem the Republicans are facing. In order to win the primaries, you have to appeal to too many different factions in the party. As a result, well, look at the early front runners during the last election. Most of them realistically had zero chance of winning the general election. While a few of them appealed to factions in the Republican party, a majority of Americans thought they were batshit insane. Unfortunately, Republicans who many Democrats might vote for (e.g., Christie in a highly Dem state) end up in the shadows within their own party in the primaries. At this time, I think Christie is the only person who could beat a reasonable Democrat running for President. At this time (2013), Obamacare seems to be a liability; ditto the drones. But as to how much those two topics might hinder a Democrat being elected a few years from now is up to complete speculation.

 

[OGOC]

Two problems I have with Rand Paul are that he's not really that fiscally conservative (see the weak BBA proposal he drafted, when he could've just voted to decentralize the national debt and national land) and he's too much of a militarist as he only proposed cutting the military budget by about 10%.

Rand Paul's budget would balance in five years. That's 25 years earlier than VP-nominee Paul Ryan's last budget. He wants to cut at least two federal departments. And cutting 10% from the military is 10% more than most people in Congress want to cut.

Look at the things I just listed. Those would be huge cuts compared to the non-cuts that have happened for the last 70 years. If Rand goes in guns blazing like his dad, he will lose the support of the fine-liners who may want to cut something but not everything. Some people need to have their hand held back on the path to finding The Constitution and small government, and that's what Rand is doing.

Look at how much praise Rand gets from the same people who talk trash about Ron. Rand has a very similar voting record as Ron, his talk and ideas are similar for the most part, yet half of the neocons love him.

So Rand says he wants to cut 10% of the military instead of 20 or more %. Rand says he wants to eliminate two or three federal departments instead of five. Rand says he wants to audit The Fed not end it. These are baby steps to constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives, but they are huge steps overall.

Rand isn't as "pure" as his dad, but he's a much better politician. Who else has a better small-government voting record in Congress than Rand Paul? Not many, if any.

 

[khon]

Agree. When the whole drone issue was going on it was Rand Paul who took a stand and he went against many in his own party especially since he was still new. He could have paid a political price for what he did but he knew it was the right thing to and he put the people over politics.

Could you imagine obama or hillary doing the same thing? NO.

He did take a stand on the drone issue, but then he flip-flopped shortly afterwards.

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him"

And while I really liked the original filibuster, the flip-flop cancels it out in my opinion.

 

[Incorruptible]

He did take a stand on the drone issue, but then he flip-flopped shortly afterwards.



And while I really liked the original filibuster, the flip-flop cancels it out in my opinion.

He still had the same beliefs before and after though.

 

[Indus]

maybe Rudy Giulliani

 

[justoh]

Michelle Bachmann. She would be entertaining, and increasingly many people are becoming convinced that it it really doesn't matter who's doing the job anyway. What's the worst that could happen? Think of how funny that would be, and thrilling. She's only 5'2, you know.

Her or Ben Afleck, just because i think ben afleck is so versatile and could play anything.

 

[OGOC]

He did take a stand on the drone issue, but then he flip-flopped shortly afterwards.

And while I really liked the original filibuster, the flip-flop cancels it out in my opinion.

What flip-flop? This flip-flop?

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Quote: “Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

 

[ericlp]

OK, I'll start... NO...

Voting for a republican is a wasted vote. Vote third party next. Tho I doubt that too will make a difference. One could hope!