TGHusker Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-30-10-54-39 No Romney for 2016 (yea) So we can stop He will most likely throw his support behind Chris Christi - as he took a job at Jeb in the article. Link to comment
Dr. Mantis Toboggan Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 I am still hoping for a Palin/Bachmann ticket. God, I need this Link to comment
Street Novelist Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 This will be one of the most boring elections in history. We already know who is going to win, or, at least, who the media wants to win: Hillary. Unless a strong candidate emerges from the Republican party, the outcome is already determined. Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 If Mitt Romney runs you can pencil in any candidate on the Democratic side and they'll win. Unfortunately that probably means Hillary and I would like that about as much as having red hot skewers shoved under my fingernails, so here's hoping Mitt doesn't run. But seriously. Look at that dog's breakfast of candidates. Jeb Bush/Bush 3.0 - NOPE. Scott Walker - NOPE. Muck Hikabee - NOPE. Rand Paul - NOPE. Ted Cruz - NOPE. Paul Ryan - NOPE. Marco Rubio - NOPE. I'd vote for Christie over anyone on that list. I want to flay alive the next person who brings up that damned bridge crap again. But that doesn't mean I think Christie would be a good president. Here's hoping there's some brilliant new unheralded person, preferably an Independent, that comes sweeping in and saves us from the parade of stuffed suits we're going to get from the Republicans & Democrats next year. With Mitt Romney out there isn't an viable candidate on that list. The only two with a chance is Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Neither of them have a chance against even a decent Democratic candidate. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I am still hoping for a Palin/Bachmann ticket. God, I need this Jon Stewart? Is that you? Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 With the exception of Mr. Reagan we have not had a decent President since LBJ. We have also had a long list of poor candidates running against the eventual winners. I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future. I think a lot of the problem is the primary system that starts too early and allows under-qualified candidates to gain momentum and steal the nomination. The Presidency is also a major headache and pain in the ass for who ever has it. I would support, work for and vote for Warren Buffett (unfortunately far too old), Bill Gates or even Mark Cuban, in a heart beat but these people are far too smart to want this job. T_O_B Link to comment
strigori Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Can we get past this Reagan crap? Please? He might have made people feel good, but his actions started us on the highway to the income inequality we have now. And GOP worship of him really makes no sense as he did all kinds of things that they are vehemently opposed to doing right now. And the last thing we need is another business focused person in any office. What's good for businesses is often horrible for the people. Look at things right now. Stock market is at an all time high, CEO pay, exec pay, and corporate profits are all at record highs. Wages, benefits and perks are have all been falling, all the while working more hours. The income gap is growing exponentially. And the only thing business men focus on is what's good for the people who already have it great. If we don't get things fixed for the vast majority of our population we are in a world of trouble. 7 Link to comment
ColoNoCoHusker Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Reagan did some good things in some sprecific areas, horrible things in the majority of others. Reagan's handling of the cold war seems to trump everything else in a lot people's minds. Using that type of standard, both Carter & Nixon were good to great President's as well... Strigori - I only regret that I have but 1 "+1" to give to your post... Link to comment
NUance Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Reagan did some good things in some sprecific areas, horrible things in the majority of others. Reagan's handling of the cold war seems to trump everything else in a lot people's minds. Using that type of standard, both Carter & Nixon were good to great President's as well... Strigori - I only regret that I have but 1 "+1" to give to your post... Yeah, Reagan did a good job of handling some things. Like the air traffic controllers strike. He handled that quite well. But he got lucky. If there had been a major aircraft crash he would've been crucified. Reagan also *talked* a good game about smaller gov't. Even though he rang up the national debt like a kid in a candy store. As for the cold war, Reagan again got lucky by being the guy who happened to be in office at the time. The USSR was going to collapse no matter what. That talking point about increasing our defense spending to cause their collapse is the biggest pile of horse sh#t ever foisted upon American taxpayers. We should have foreseen the Soviet collapse and been spending *less*. Instead the CIA kept quiet on the status of the Soviets and Reagan spent the American economy into an irreversible debt spiral. (Yeah, that's a pun on "death spiral". LOL) 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Walker & Hillary lead in Iowa now. No surprise wt Hillary of course. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-31/walker-surging-in-bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-as-bush-struggles Washington Post goes after Rand Paul http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-rand-paul-tried-to-lead-an-eye-doctors-rebellion/2015/02/01/010994da-9cd6-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Warren ahead of Hil in Iowa and NH per this poll http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-warren-leads-clinton-in-iowa-n.h./article/2560098 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Some dems and supporters now wondering if the coronation of Hil should be reconsidered. Should Warren be practicing her nomination acceptance speech yet? http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/maybe-hillary-clinton-should-retire-her-white-house-dreams-20150303 Another more interesting article hereby Stanley Kurtz which follows the Boehner article on this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414728/boehner-pass-clean-dhs-bill-today-joel-gehrke Other than for sheer power (a word that is synonymous with the Clintons), I don't understand why Clinton would go through with the run for president. For some people, it is all about power and nothing more - that may be her motivation. But we all know all of the 1990s junk, her SOS issues (not the least being Benghazi), Bill's travels wt the pedophile friend, Clinton Foundation foreign fund raising 'scandal', and now email gate and who knows what else is lurking in the shadows - wt this couple there is always something more . She's wealthy, she can do great works via the Foundation and she has a grandchild - which is hard to enjoy at her age running around the nation and world campaigning. I don't write this to bash Clinton as I think she had the potential to have been a better pres than the current one but goodness isn't it time to just hang it up. I think the Rebs and the Dems need to find new blood and not reach back to the old - Bush or Clinton. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2015/0303/Martin-O-Malley-sticks-with-Plan-A-try-to-upend-Hillary-Clinton O'Malley who?? Former gov of Maryland considering a run at it. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8559c84e-d896-11e4-ba53-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WY7ng5J5 I agree - something very disturbing about the continuation of the Bush/Clinton presidential dynasty Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Some dems and supporters now wondering if the coronation of Hil should be reconsidered. Should Warren be practicing her nomination acceptance speech yet? http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/maybe-hillary-clinton-should-retire-her-white-house-dreams-20150303 Another more interesting article hereby Stanley Kurtz which follows the Boehner article on this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414728/boehner-pass-clean-dhs-bill-today-joel-gehrke Other than for sheer power (a word that is synonymous with the Clintons), I don't understand why Clinton would go through with the run for president. For some people, it is all about power and nothing more - that may be her motivation. But we all know all of the 1990s junk, her SOS issues (not the least being Benghazi), Bill's travels wt the pedophile friend, Clinton Foundation foreign fund raising 'scandal', and now email gate and who knows what else is lurking in the shadows - wt this couple there is always something more . She's wealthy, she can do great works via the Foundation and she has a grandchild - which is hard to enjoy at her age running around the nation and world campaigning. I don't write this to bash Clinton as I think she had the potential to have been a better pres than the current one but goodness isn't it time to just hang it up. I think the Rebs and the Dems need to find new blood and not reach back to the old - Bush or Clinton. Everyone's telling her she'll win it. Kinda hard to say no to being the 1st female president. Link to comment
Recommended Posts