Will Rand Paul be the GOP nominee in 2016?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now you hurt his feelings. Ranch Dressing=all hat and not cattle

Mongo best shot ... gud Mongo.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

From EXNYR

You are certifiably insane. Do you have any proof of this professional statement? If not, then retract it.
PROOF? About 50% of your posts - and I'm being generous by not saying 75%.

Putting either of those dopes on a national ticket would result in a worse defeat for the GOP than Goldwater in 1964.

For the record, I believe Herman Cain did sexually harass at least some of those four women that accused him. He is also too old to be elected President. He will be 71 in 2016. No proof of harassment or witnesses were ever presented but you believe.
No proof? What about the statements of 4 different women who did not know each other and encountered him over a number of years and in different circumstances? That constitutes at least some proof. He said, she said is always sketchy proof, but why are you willing to believe Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers, but not Cain's four accusers? I believe Clinton harassed all those women. I also believe Cain did. Why don't you?

...Santa is not real either or do you think all black men want sex with white women?
You are a racist creep. When did I EVER say that? How did race come into this? Oh yeah, now I remember - because that is the way your mind works and you are projecting on to me. But you top it off with hypocrisy be PRETENDING to be defending black men from stereotypes while perpetuating them.

As I said above, I believe Clinton harassed women, too. And he is white.

Also, Hillary will 69 years old when the election occurs and she is not aging very well.
Yes, she will be. And she shouldn't be President either.

Lets also understand fully the original comment; Palin for president and Cain for VP. Lets try to keep it straight.
That's worse, not better, jackass. You are replacing age with stupidity.

And Sarah Palin does not possess a SINGLE qualification for either President or VP of the US. Lets see...she is a college graduate, she was a co-owner of a small business, she was the chief executive of a small town, she was a chief executive a large state, and lately she has been very effective in promoting the conservative moment and conservative candidates. Care to compare her to Obama's qualifications?

She is an unintelligent, anti-intellectual hack that somehow slipped out of the trailer park to become governor of a state that is disproportionately populated with blue-collar men with outstanding warrants in the other 49 states. What? You're attacking Alaska now??? You from New York? You have no room to talk. You gave this country Spitzer, Weiner, Cuomo. and Alec Baldwin. You should really apologize. Do you care to prove that Palin is anti-intellectual. Interesting term. ANTI and not UN. There should be proof of that.

No one - not even you - would know or care about her if John McCain had done even the most basic due diligence on her and never even thought of asking her to join his ticket. Palin was the best thing to happen to his ticket. So you want to believe what Schmidt said when it was his election to lose, and he did. Of course he is going to try to deflect blame but you don't have to believe the lies that have been revealed.

Okay, what are Hillary's qualifications based on what you said here. Where is her intellectual curiousity? Her ghost written book? Work she did years ago as an intern? She came out of a Chicago suburb (and that should be a disqualifier right there), had a good college career, married an absolute bounder who took every opportunity to embarass her and she took it. If she won't stand up for herself how can she stand up for the country?

Think with you brains, not your dick and you will realize what an idiot Palin is.

[IIFFOFRDB]

The canidate is going to be who the media picks out for us...NOT!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

From EXNYR
And Sarah Palin does not possess a SINGLE qualification for either President or VP of the US. Lets see...she is a college graduate, she was a co-owner of a small business, she was the chief executive of a small town, she was a chief executive a large state, and lately she has been very effective in promoting the conservative moment and conservative candidates. Care to compare her to Obama's qualifications?
College graduate? After graduating high school in 1982, she went to Univ. of Hawaii, then Hawaii Pacific Univ., then North Idaho College, then University of Idaho, then Matanusk-Susitna College in Alaska, then Univ. of Idaho again. She finally got a degree in communications with a journalism emphasis in May 1987 from Idaho.

And what did she do with her journalism emphasis? Worked as a TV sportscaster and fucked Glenn Rice. That's about it.

Co-owner of a small business? Translation - she helped her husband run HIS business.

"Chief executive" of a small town? Really? Doesn't "mayor" of Wasilla capture it a little more accurately? This country probably has 100,000 people who can claim to have been a mayor of some town or other during their life. And about a third of them are crooks.

Chief Executive of a large state? No, Alaska is a small state. Acreage doesn't vote. People do. It is 47th in population. And many of them are crooks and deadbeats looking to start over in life. They elected one of their own.

She is an unintelligent, anti-intellectual hack that somehow slipped out of the trailer park to become governor of a state that is disproportionately populated with blue-collar men with outstanding warrants in the other 49 states. What? You're attacking Alaska now??? You from New York? You have no room to talk. You gave this country Spitzer, Weiner, Cuomo. and Alec Baldwin.
I didn't give this country anything. New York voters did. And while Spitzer and Weiner are clowns, what is wrong with Cuomo? I don't agree with his politics, but how does he fit in with the others? And Alec Baldwin isn't even a politician, just an asshole. And there are plenty of them in every state.

And really, are you going to match the contributions of Alaska against NY? Does NY get credit for both Roosevelts? Jonas Salk? George Westinghouse? George Eastman? Melville? Whitman? Moynihan? John Jay? Learned Hand? Alexander Hamilton?

You should really apologize.
For what? Pointing out the obvious?

Do you care to prove that Palin is anti-intellectual. Interesting term. ANTI and not UN. There should be proof of that.
There is abundance of proof of that. Every time she opens her "mavericky" mouth. For someone who fancied herself a journalist, she is historically ignorant. What do you think was the last book she read? She has never shown any intellectual curiosity. Why do you think they kept her out of debates?

Do I need to remind you of the infamous Katie Couric interview, where she could not name a single newspaper she read? Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMhQBlAsLmI

No one - not even you - would know or care about her if John McCain had done even the most basic due diligence on her and never even thought of asking her to join his ticket. Palin was the best thing to happen to his ticket. So you want to believe what Schmidt said when it was his election to lose, and he did. Of course he is going to try to deflect blame but you don't have to believe the lies that have been revealed.
Palin was the worst think to happen. McCain got a very short lived bump from her because she was photogenic. Once people got a second look, it was lights out for McCain.

Okay, what are Hillary's qualifications based on what you said here. Where is her intellectual curiousity? Her ghost written book? Work she did years ago as an intern? She came out of a Chicago suburb (and that should be a disqualifier right there), had a good college career, married an absolute bounder who took every opportunity to embarrass her and she took it. If she won't stand up for herself how can she stand up for the country?

Hillary's qualifications? I can't believe I am about to defend that battle ax, but here goes.

Here is a brief summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

OK, let's see. She attend a prestigious University (Wellesley) as an undergrad and got a degree with honors in political science. Then she attended one of the best law schools in the country and was an editor of the law review.

At this point, you should be noticing some differences between the educational backgrounds of Palin and the Hildebeast.

She had to do a senior dissertation at Wellesley, She also wrote a scholarly article for the Harvard Educational Review.

She was a full partner at the Rose Law Firm. Here resume goes on and on. Read the Wiki article.

None of that means I like her politics or beliefs. A Yale degree is a good start with me, but being a Saul Alinsky fan can negate that easily. Smart people can still have bad political leanings

I'm not going to bother going over the rest of her impressive resume. Read it yourself. She has been a senator and Secretary of State. Her political career might have gotten a jump start from Bill, but she no doubt could have done it on her own.

I don't share her beliefs, but there is no denying she is a smart person. A bit crooked? Yeah. A bit of a lefty? That too. But still smart.

Clearly you won't be swayed by her resume. It has been well known for years, but apparently you ignored it because you still demanded proof that she was more qualified than Sarah Palin.

When you pretend she is not qualified or not smart (by lumping her in with Palin), you are no better than the lefties who belittle Ted Cruz in a similar manner. Ted Cruz is an extremely intelligent man, even if you don't agree with his politics. To pretend otherwise is fundamentally dishonest. That's the camp you are in.

There is not a single serious political mind in the country that thinks Palin would be a good leader. She only gets support from know-nothing Tea Party types or neocons who think they can use her to start yet another war with the ragheads.

[therock18]

It is an indisputable FACT that Sara Palin is more qualified than Barrack Hussein Obama when they were running for office. RINO's like John McCain and Mitt Romney are the problems. They need to stop winning primaries. Obama won a second term because Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. We need someone like Ted Cruz NOT Chris Christie.

[Yssup Rider]

You're a fucking idiot.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're a fucking idiot.

I don't think he voted for Obaminable.

[JD Barleycorn]

What is wrong with attending different universities in pursuit of a degree. It is my experience that it shows commitment. I, myself, attended four. So she has a degree in journalism. Not my favorite degree but she is on par with the talking heads that some of you revere so much.

As for Hillary's "impressive" resume'; she never practiced law despite her degree. She was a rain maker. She got the job because of who her husband was and not her abilities. This is normal but don't put that out there as a some great accomplishment. Same for her making partner. It coincided with Bill becoming governor.

How many secretarys of state can you name? If you can remember more than one or two then what did they do that was memorable? Kissinger, Rice, Rice, Christopher, Powell, Albright... Compare what they did, good or bad, to Hillary. Why is she memorable? Only because she was married to Bill.

The first time Hillary was put in charge of something was the healthcare debacle. We all know how that turned out. Cost Bill the House and Senate. The Hillary record is one of failure and getting there because of Bill.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Hillary record is one of failure and getting there because of Bill.

That just about sums it up. No wonder she's so angry all the time.

[sexaholic87]

Honestly, it doesn't really matter WHO the republicans nominate.

They are quickly becoming a regional party anyway.

Look at the last election:

1. Sitting president who wasn't overwhelming popular? Check.
2. Historic unemployment? Check.
3. Largely unified opposition? Check.
4. Established, well funded candidate? Check.
5. Multiple Senate seats also in play? Check.
6. Polarizing ballot issues? Check.
7. Obamacare? Check.

Obama should have been beaten by a landslide. That is a fact. Instead, he won the popular vote by 5% and the electoral college by well over 100. I would say that if you have any 3 of those issues on your side, you have a good chance of winning a presidential election. But all seven? It shouldn't have been close.

Even John Kerry was closer... and he ran a horrible campaign (if everyone can remember). Not that Romney ran an excellent campaign, because he didn't. But given all of the issues above... he didn't need to.

Unless they change their positions on a few things and become a bigger tent, it won't matter who the republicans nominate. Even Cruz. He might get some of the Hispanic vote, but I don't think he will get enough.

30 years ago, I would have been a conservative. Not even close. But where are the sensible republicans at? Huntsman is one, but he's not even in the consideration.

America runs best when there are two credible (and real) choices. Republicans are the majority party only in their minds, as the last few elections have shown. Many are quick to point out that most people are idiots who voted for Obama. Fair enough. But those idiots largely outnumber your own, which is the main problem isn't it?

So yeah, at this point, it really doesn't matter.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Honestly, it doesn't really matter WHO the republicans nominate.

They are quickly becoming a regional party anyway.

Look at the last election:

1. Sitting president who wasn't overwhelming popular? Check.
2. Historic unemployment? Check.
3. Largely unified opposition? Check.
4. Established, well funded candidate? Check.
5. Multiple Senate seats also in play? Check.
6. Polarizing ballot issues? Check.
7. Obamacare? Check.

Obama should have been beaten by a landslide. That is a fact. Instead, he won the popular vote by 5% and the electoral college by well over 100. I would say that if you have any 3 of those issues on your side, you have a good chance of winning a presidential election. But all seven? It shouldn't have been close.

Even John Kerry was closer... and he ran a horrible campaign (if everyone can remember). Not that Romney ran an excellent campaign, because he didn't. But given all of the issues above... he didn't need to.

Unless they change their positions on a few things and become a bigger tent, it won't matter who the republicans nominate. Even Cruz. He might get some of the Hispanic vote, but I don't think he will get enough.

30 years ago, I would have been a conservative. Not even close. But where are the sensible republicans at? Huntsman is one, but he's not even in the consideration.

America runs best when there are two credible (and real) choices. Republicans are the majority party only in their minds, as the last few elections have shown. Many are quick to point out that most people are idiots who voted for Obama. Fair enough. But those idiots largely outnumber your own, which is the main problem isn't it?

So yeah, at this point, it really doesn't matter.

You're wholly ignoring the role of the lib-retard MSM in selecting candidates. Candidates like Huntsman received little attention from the MSM, and all of Odumbo's failures were glossed over, misrepresented as successes or ignored.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Honestly, it doesn't really matter WHO the republicans nominate.

They are quickly becoming a regional party anyway.

Look at the last election:

1. Sitting president who wasn't overwhelming popular? Check.
2. Historic unemployment? Check.
3. Largely unified opposition? Check.
4. Established, well funded candidate? Check.
5. Multiple Senate seats also in play? Check.
6. Polarizing ballot issues? Check.
7. Obamacare? Check.

Obama should have been beaten by a landslide. That is a fact. Instead, he won the popular vote by 5% and the electoral college by well over 100. I would say that if you have any 3 of those issues on your side, you have a good chance of winning a presidential election. But all seven? It shouldn't have been close.

Even John Kerry was closer... and he ran a horrible campaign (if everyone can remember). Not that Romney ran an excellent campaign, because he didn't. But given all of the issues above... he didn't need to.

Unless they change their positions on a few things and become a bigger tent, it won't matter who the republicans nominate. Even Cruz. He might get some of the Hispanic vote, but I don't think he will get enough.

30 years ago, I would have been a conservative. Not even close. But where are the sensible republicans at? Huntsman is one, but he's not even in the consideration.

America runs best when there are two credible (and real) choices. Republicans are the majority party only in their minds, as the last few elections have shown. Many are quick to point out that most people are idiots who voted for Obama. Fair enough. But those idiots largely outnumber your own, which is the main problem isn't it?

So yeah, at this point, it really doesn't matter.

I agree 100%. We are working on this problem. You know what they say. Hitting the bottom either kills you or you come back.

[therock18]

The other point that MrGoodBar is leaving out is that both John McCain and Mitt Romney DID NOT want to attach Obama and that is what they should have done. Instead their words were - oh Obama is a nice guy and a good guy instead of telling the truth.

Obama is a Communist/Socialist
Obama wants to destroy America
Obama enacts slavery by putting more people on Welfare and making them dependent
Obama is a racist etc etc etc etc....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by therock18

The other point that MrGoodBar is leaving out is that both John McCain and Mitt Romney DID NOT want to attach Obama and that is what they should have done. Instead their words were - oh Obama is a nice guy and a good guy instead of telling the truth.

Obama is a Communist/Socialist
Obama wants to destroy America
Obama enacts slavery by putting more people on Welfare and making them dependent
Obama is a racist etc etc etc etc....

That's because the lib-retard MSM would rant and rave that such attacks were purely racists attacks.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're a fucking idiot.

I see you stepped your game up, Elpmis Rider...LOL