• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 800 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:


The Repubs have outgrown their clown car. Time for a clown bus update. The short bus had to be extended to hold the Donald's ego. Official count now at 13 - they can start their own coven!

Definites -
Cruz
Paul
Rubio
Carson
Fiorina
Huckabee
Santorum
Pataki
Graham
Perry
Bush
The Donald!
Jindal

Probables -
Kasich

Maybes -
Christie
Walker
Kind of hoping Fiorina makes it to the debates.

I think Webb may have DQd himself yesterday. Who would have thought you guys would be forced to choose between Bernie and Hillary. The state of the modern D party is, em, weak? To the Rs credit it isn't just rich whites running.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Kind of hoping Fiorina makes it to the debates.

I think Webb may have DQd himself yesterday. Who would have thought you guys would be forced to choose between Bernie and Hillary. The state of the modern D party is, em, weak? To the Rs credit it isn't just rich whites running.
They will need to hold some kind of 'elimination' pre-debates, since they can't hold any kind of meaningful debate with 13, or even with 10. Has anyone stated a maximum number for the debates?

Bernie is a breath of fresh air, who of course stands no chance of the nomination. The first potential candidate in living memory who really is as honest as the day is long, and who is not beholden to any special interest groups.
 
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Re: Re:

Echoes said:
I'm sorry to say. It took me a while to understand it. So now that I understand I suspend my pro-South support on this thread and I wish I hadn't started. :)
You could have just left it at this.

Although I do detest xenophobes, I have never thought of myself as a 'xenophile', which is a modern, coined term. I respond to people, whoever they are, as I find them. I suspect that I probably interact more with Muslim immigrants on a daily basis than anyone else here. The ones I interact with are friendly, warm, and thoroughly integrated as Dutch Moroccans or Dutch Turks. Yes, I understand that I cannot generalize from my own anecdotal evidence, and I certainly accept that not all Muslim immigrants are as well socialized and integrated as the ones I interact with, or as would be ideal. But, baby steps. The demographics of Western Europe are changing, just like US demographics are. This trend will continue regardless of what we as individuals think about it. We either accept, and all adapt to, changing circumstances, or we risk becoming a continent of ever increasing xenophobes, suspicious and resentful of all Muslim immigrants. That's not how I choose to live.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Scott SoCal said:
Kind of hoping Fiorina makes it to the debates.

I think Webb may have DQd himself yesterday. Who would have thought you guys would be forced to choose between Bernie and Hillary. The state of the modern D party is, em, weak? To the Rs credit it isn't just rich whites running.
They will need to hold some kind of 'elimination' pre-debates, since they can't hold any kind of meaningful debate with 13, or even with 10. Has anyone stated a maximum number for the debates?

Bernie is a breath of fresh air, who of course stands no chance of the nomination. The first potential candidate in living memory who really is as honest as the day is long, and who is not beholden to any special interest groups.
Yep. And that's become a controversy in New Hampshire.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/nh-republicans-ask-fox-rnc-to-change-debate-criteria-208568.html

Now there is a proposed alternate forum in NH, and then Fox changed its original rules to include a 2nd forum for those outside the top 10, etc.

The other debates have set limits too. It's still rather messy.
 
"The first potential candidate in living memory who really is as honest as the day is long, and who is not beholden to any special interest groups."

No chance of winning then.

EDIT: and if he did win congress would neutralize him.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Re:

jmdirt said:
"The first potential candidate in living memory who really is as honest as the day is long, and who is not beholden to any special interest groups."

No chance of winning then.

EDIT: and if he did win congress would neutralize him.
I'm fully aware of that, tragically. But as long as Bernie's in the race, he's my guy. I support him enthusiastically, and with my heart. Once Hillary wins the nomination, I will absolutely support her, though only intellectually, and without the enthusiasm that I might have felt if she had been the candidate back in 08.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Amsterhammer said:


The Repubs have outgrown their clown car. Time for a clown bus update. The short bus had to be extended to hold the Donald's ego. Official count now at 13 - they can start their own coven!

Definites -
Cruz
Paul
Rubio
Carson
Fiorina
Huckabee
Santorum
Pataki
Graham
Perry
Bush
The Donald!
Jindal

Probables -
Kasich

Maybes -
Christie
Walker
after looking at that list, the republican field doesn't seem as bad as i thought.

Cruz - nuts
Paul - credible
Rubio - credible
Carson - nuts
Fiorina - not nuts, but not credible
Huckabee - was credible, now nuts
Santorum - nuts
Pataki - credible
Graham - credible (barely)
Perry - nuts
Bush - credible
The Donald! - nuts, nuts, nuts
Jindal - could have been credible, but probably nuts
Kasich - credible
Christie - credible
Walker - nuts

*the only criterion was whether or not reality plays any part in the candidate's views.

on the democratic side previously i would have said only hillary was a credible candidate, but bernie's stumping is starting to make him look credible. he's not quite there yet, but who knows.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
BREAKING: Supreme Court Will Not Take Away Health Care From Millions Of Americans

By 6-3!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

Suck up some green eggs and ham, Rafael. :D
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
djpbaltimore said:
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
Bush's interference in the Terri Schiavo case is an absolute dealbreaker for me.
Paul is OK. Better than Hillary, in some ways.

I'd like to see Paul and Bernie debate the issues. Would be good for the country instead of what we are likely to get from the groomed candidates and their spin machines.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
gregod said:
Amsterhammer said:


The Repubs have outgrown their clown car. Time for a clown bus update. The short bus had to be extended to hold the Donald's ego. Official count now at 13 - they can start their own coven!

Definites -
Cruz
Paul
Rubio
Carson
Fiorina
Huckabee
Santorum
Pataki
Graham
Perry
Bush
The Donald!
Jindal

Probables -
Kasich

Maybes -
Christie
Walker
after looking at that list, the republican field doesn't seem as bad as i thought.

Cruz - nuts
Paul - credible
Rubio - credible
Carson - nuts
Fiorina - not nuts, but not credible
Huckabee - was credible, now nuts
Santorum - nuts
Pataki - credible
Graham - credible (barely)
Perry - nuts
Bush - credible
The Donald! - nuts, nuts, nuts
Jindal - could have been credible, but probably nuts
Kasich - credible
Christie - credible
Walker - nuts

*the only criterion was whether or not reality plays any part in the candidate's views.

on the democratic side previously i would have said only hillary was a credible candidate, but bernie's stumping is starting to make him look credible. he's not quite there yet, but who knows.
The Huckster never should've allied himself so strongly with those Duggars and the ATI cult.
Christie is just a corrupt mafioso whose schtick has gotten old.
 
Re: Re:

Amsterhammer said:
jmdirt said:
"The first potential candidate in living memory who really is as honest as the day is long, and who is not beholden to any special interest groups."

No chance of winning then.

EDIT: and if he did win congress would neutralize him.
I'm fully aware of that, tragically. But as long as Bernie's in the race, he's my guy. I support him enthusiastically, and with my heart. Once Hillary wins the nomination, I will absolutely support her, though only intellectually, and without the enthusiasm that I might have felt if she had been the candidate back in 08.
I should have said: Sadly, he has no chance of winning then because its too bad that you need to be tied to special interests, and have a disingenuous past.
 
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
Disagree. Bush would be if he had a different last name. Rubio has a great personal story, but the more he talks the more people will realize that he is a tea-partier at heart. I think he will run far to the right of Bush to secure the nomination, killing his general election chances. Paul will have his rabid following, but which swing states will he actually be competitive in?
 
Creditble is a relative term with politicians. :(

Cruz - nuts
Paul - sorta credible, but nuts
Rubio - slightly credible, but nuts
Carson - nuts
Fiorina - not nuts, not credible
Huckabee - was credible, now nuts
Santorum - nuts
Pataki - credible
Graham - credible (barely), nuts
Perry - nuts
Bush - not credible
The Donald! - nuts, nuts, nuts
Jindal - could have been credible, but probably nuts
Kasich - credible
Christie - not credible
Walker - nuts
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
djpbaltimore said:
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
Not in the general. Paul only appeals to the fringe right/libertarian folks and his nutso past will come back to haunt him - the comments he made about Civil Rights and his hypocrisy on reproductive rights (odd how libertarianism abruptly ends at the uterus) will be enough to sink him with minorities and women, and the GOP can't win without increasing their appeal to both groups. Rubio's a lightweight who has never said or done anything of substance, he'll be this year's Rick Perry, and even if he did make it through the primaries Hillary would chew him up and spit him out. Even Rand Paul has some charisma and charm. Of the three Jeb's the only one who would be a strong general candidate.

I think the guy to watch is Kasich. Appeals to conservatives but without coming across as bats**t crazy to everyone else and doesn't have much baggage. Could be an out-of-right-field-Bill-Clinton-type sleeper.

Don't understand why conservatives aren't rallying around Trump, though, after insisting that the country should be run like a business and thus needs a businessman in charge. Who better than Trump? Although I have to admit that I'd almost like to see a President Trump for the sheer entertainment value. Course, it's always fun until someone starts a nuclear armageddon.
 
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Not in the general. Paul only appeals to the fringe right/libertarian folks and his nutso past will come back to haunt him - the comments he made about Civil Rights and his hypocrisy on reproductive rights (odd how libertarianism abruptly ends at the uterus) will be enough to sink him with minorities and women, and the GOP can't win without increasing their appeal to both groups. Rubio's a lightweight who has never said or done anything of substance, he'll be this year's Rick Perry, and even if he did make it through the primaries Hillary would chew him up and spit him out. Even Rand Paul has some charisma and charm. Of the three Jeb's the only one who would be a strong general candidate.

I think the guy to watch is Kasich. Appeals to conservatives but without coming across as bats**t crazy to everyone else and doesn't have much baggage. Could be an out-of-right-field-Bill-Clinton-type sleeper.

Don't understand why conservatives aren't rallying around Trump, though, after insisting that the country should be run like a business and thus needs a businessman in charge. Who better than Trump? Although I have to admit that I'd almost like to see a President Trump for the sheer entertainment value. Course, it's always fun until someone starts a nuclear armageddon.
This I agree with. I don't understand why he has gotten so little traction. Maybe he will end up being the Tim Pawlenty candidate of 2016. Ohio is obviously so important in electoral politics. If the GOP don't make meaningful inroads at broadening the electorate, it will have to win Ohio to take the WH.
 
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
djpbaltimore said:
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
Not in the general. Paul only appeals to the fringe right/libertarian folks and his nutso past will come back to haunt him - the comments he made about Civil Rights and his hypocrisy on reproductive rights (odd how libertarianism abruptly ends at the uterus) will be enough to sink him with minorities and women, and the GOP can't win without increasing their appeal to both groups. Rubio's a lightweight who has never said or done anything of substance, he'll be this year's Rick Perry, and even if he did make it through the primaries Hillary would chew him up and spit him out. Even Rand Paul has some charisma and charm. Of the three Jeb's the only one who would be a strong general candidate.

I think the guy to watch is Kasich. Appeals to conservatives but without coming across as bats**t crazy to everyone else and doesn't have much baggage. Could be an out-of-right-field-Bill-Clinton-type sleeper.

Don't understand why conservatives aren't rallying around Trump, though, after insisting that the country should be run like a business and thus needs a businessman in charge. Who better than Trump? Although I have to admit that I'd almost like to see a President Trump for the sheer entertainment value. Course, it's always fun until someone starts a nuclear armageddon.
I have not paid much attention to Trump.

Anyhow this election is going to be a laugh.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Ted Cruz "a bit" nuts?

- Ted Cruz launched his filibuster against Obamacare by claiming that failing to fight the implementation of Obamacare was akin to appeasing Adolf Hitler, and anyone who didn’t support his plans to stop health care reform were like Neville Chamberlain.

- Cruz once told a group of conservatives, “You no longer have a president,” because Barack Obama had implemented health care reform in a “lawless” way.

- Cruz claimed that court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage are “a real threat to our liberty.”

- Cruz claimed that Houston pastors may soon be “hauled off to jail for a hate crime,” due to the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.

- Cruz claimed that legislation to protect access to abortion services is “a manifestation of the war on women.”

- Cruz said the Democrats seeking to amend the constitution to give Congress the power to regulate campaign financing were really out to “expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.”

- Cruz also derided “Farenheit 451 Democrats,” claiming that a proposed campaign finance amendment shows that liberals wanted to ban and burn books.

- Cruz claimed the amendment to get money out of politics would “censor” Saturday Night Live, and “Lorne Michaels (of Saturday Night Live) could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician.”

- Cruz also claimed that the amendment to repeal Citizens United would “muzzle” pastors.

- Cruz called the standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and supporters of scofflaw and racist rancher Cliven Bundy, the “unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government upon.”

- Cruz claimed that the United Nations/George Soros “Agenda 21” would “abolish ‘unsustainable’ environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads.”

Full on nuts. I fear for all of us if the above is "a bit nuts".
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Alp and others, by 'credible' do you guys mean "legitimate candidate, and/or persuasive", or "believable"? I'm assuming legitimate or persuasive because Bush is not believable. He has been part of some of the least honest sh*t in recent political history, plus he is tied to all of his family's dishonesty (same dirty money).

Look at Fiorina's business background, and you'll find that she will do anything for her bank account even if it kills her company. If she does that as Prez, the US is the company that she will kill.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
...nahhh, youse all so wrong...given who he is and where he is running Trump is darn near picture perfect....and I mean that in the good sense...

Cheers
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
" and The Donald...is in a class all by himself."

....my point exactly!...

....though to be completely honest about it there are some naysayers who just hates all things GOP( usually dastardly communistical librrraallls types ) out theres that ain't seen the light, but note that even this particularly evil one doesn't anything bad to say about The Donald......smite them all say I...oh, before proceeding to the linked article please move all spillables a safe distance from keyboards and all other sensitive electronic equipment as there is a chance that, uhhh, accidents may happen eh....and for those that have guns, keep them handy, because like, you never know, you just never ever know...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31222-i-just-can-t-even-the-16-gop-field

Cheers
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS