(Just helping Push out since his original thread took a turn into the surreal…!)
It really looks like Jeb Bush is making moves that would indicate a serious intent to run.
What do you goes know and think about him?
Could he make it through the GOP Primary?
Mufasa
I wouldn’t put money on Jeb making it to the primary solely because of his last name. I’m not sure the GOP is ready to back another Bush regardless of whether he’d be a good president or not.
SUPERPAC (s) are already being created to back him (that many feel “dooms” a run by either Rubio or Romney).
I am thinking that the “RINO” label could be as tough as his name…
But who knows.
This is becoming interesting, for sure.
Mufasa
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I wouldn’t put money on Jeb making it to the primary solely because of his last name. I’m not sure the GOP is ready to back another Bush regardless of whether he’d be a good president or not. [/quote]
X2
I don’t see Jeb making it out of the primaries. I don’t think the country is ready for another Bush. Just my “gut” feeling on it. Also I heard he has had a few “questionable” business deals. Not saying illegal, but you know the fucking MEDIA… They’ll twist it into something racist, anti-woman, anti-<<>>
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
SUPERPAC (s) are already being created to back him (that many feel “dooms” a run by either Rubio or Romney).
I am thinking that the “RINO” label could be as tough as his name…
But who knows.
This is becoming interesting, for sure.
Mufasa[/quote]
Jeb has been positioning himself to the left over the last couple of years to try to appeal to special interest groups on the left. He intervened in the immigration issue to back the left; saying illegal immigrants “come here for love” for example. This sort of stuff alienates him from the base and will ultimately fail to garner him any support from Hispanics or the left. This will ultimately destroy any chance for Jeb to win an election. Immigration is currently near the most important issue to voters after the economy. If a candidate runs on border security they could win. People are sick of the breakdown in border security and the waves of illegals flooding into the country.
Jeb, Christie = RINO
Give me Rand, Cruz, and Walker in a primary debate and we can go from there.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]
I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]
I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.[/quote]
If not now, when? If not Jesse Ventura, who?
He’s the only one who can save the republic from the globalists, xenoestrogens(the gay bomb) and fluoridated water(mind control). At least that’s what Jesse says. It would be interesting to see how many votes he would get if he actually ran.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]
I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.[/quote]
If not now, when? If not Jesse Ventura, who?
He’s the only one who can save the republic from the globalists, xenoestrogens(the gay bomb) and fluoridated water(mind control). At least that’s what Jesse says. It would be interesting to see how many votes he would get if he actually ran.[/quote]
It’ll be 1992 all over again. Ross Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote (yet carried no states), Bush got 37%, and Clinton got 43%.
If Perot wasn’t in there distracting things (although I felt he was a better candidate) the Republicans WOULD have won.
If Bush had won, he probably would have taken that shot at Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn’t have the balls to make and 9/11 could have been avoided.
There is NO ROOM for a “third party” as long as one of the three is Democrat. The third party would only serve to siphon votes from the Democratic opposition. In a few decades if the Democrats are defeated and people come to their senses, THEN there may be room for a third party, but not now.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]
I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.[/quote]
If not now, when? If not Jesse Ventura, who?
He’s the only one who can save the republic from the globalists, xenoestrogens(the gay bomb) and fluoridated water(mind control). At least that’s what Jesse says. It would be interesting to see how many votes he would get if he actually ran.[/quote]
It’ll be 1992 all over again. Ross Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote (yet carried no states), Bush got 37%, and Clinton got 43%.
If Perot wasn’t in there distracting things (although I felt he was a better candidate) the Republicans WOULD have won.
If Bush had won, he probably would have taken that shot at Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn’t have the balls to make and 9/11 could have been avoided.
There is NO ROOM for a “third party” as long as one of the three is Democrat. The third party would only serve to siphon votes from the Democratic opposition. In a few decades if the Democrats are defeated and people come to their senses, THEN there may be room for a third party, but not now.[/quote]
Yes, I agree entirely with this.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]
I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.[/quote]
No, I’m talking as a republican, not independent.
Paul won’t progress unless he is willing to sell out to the corporate machine. What do they say you need like $150 million to run for president?
That means you have a lot of people to pay back once you make it in to office 
I have always liked Old Man Paul, even though I didn’t agree with everything he said, I just liked his genuine nature. Someone who would say what he believes in even knowing the whole room will boo him. Everyone else in politics is just there for a career.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.
Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]
I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.[/quote]
No, I’m talking as a republican, not independent. [/quote]
While I would welcome it, I don’t think the establishment Republicans would let it fly.
[quote]phatso wrote:
Paul won’t progress unless he is willing to sell out to the corporate machine. What do they say you need like $150 million to run for president?
That means you have a lot of people to pay back once you make it in to office
I have always liked Old Man Paul, even though I didn’t agree with everything he said, I just liked his genuine nature. Someone who would say what he believes in even knowing the whole room will boo him. Everyone else in politics is just there for a career. [/quote]
Yeah, unfortunately you are probably right.
What really is needed is to remove all money from politics. All national elections should be financed solely by public funds. I will gladly fork over an extra $30/year to keep all private, and especially corporate, funds out of it. Remove that and watch these whores we have in Washington now run to the private sector. We might then get some representatives who actually give a shit about their constituents.
[quote]phatso wrote:
Paul won’t progress unless he is willing to sell out to the corporate machine.
[/quote]
Can you be specific. Who would he be “selling out” to? How would this “selling out” manifest itself? I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re talking about.
[quote]
What do they say you need like $150 million to run for president?
That means you have a lot of people to pay back once you make it in to office
I have always liked Old Man Paul, even though I didn’t agree with everything he said, I just liked his genuine nature. Someone who would say what he believes in even knowing the whole room will boo him. Everyone else in politics is just there for a career. [/quote]
Kind of important what they say though. Ron Paul says crazy stuff all the time and he’s so anti-American he’s become a celebrity in parts of the world where hating America is national past time. He regularly appears on Iranian state TV(PressTV) and denounces America’s “war crimes” and “illegal wars”. And the Russians love him too. He’s on RTV all the time airing his latest conspiracy theories about how the evil US government is provoking the Russians. Yes, Ron Paul certainly is a favourite with the Death to America crowd. Not sure he’d make a very good American politician though. Actually, I’m certain he’d be a disaster. Fortunately, people can see what a kook he is.
Corporate pockets are always deeper.
They often represent the coherent efforts of multi-billion dollar conglomerates.
What’s gonna have more impact? A handful of elite lobbyists who play golf with the president or your 100 bucks?
Even if all your friends and political buddies chip in and amass more money - and herein lies the beauty of the system- it’s still for naught.
A concentrated blow will knock someone the fuck out, a thousand weak rubbings might only jerk someone off.
I’d put Jeb on the moderate to possibly even left side of the GOP spectrum, without sitting here and debating the minutia, but I agree that I don’t see the party (and the country) willing to accept another Bush at this point. Hence, I’d wager that he won’t survive the primary if he does run, and if he somehow does get the nomination via whatever miracle presents itself, then I do think his name will be a major, major liability in the general election.
As for Rand, I don’t foresee him making it through the primary either. I just don’t see a Tea Party candidate getting the nomination given where 2016 is going to present itself on some of the social and economic issues. I’d think the party is going to prefer a candidate that can appeal to swing voters, moderates, and even perhaps some ‘blue dog’ liberals.
I’ll reiterate my comment in the previous thread from Pt. I of this thread. If a Republican is to get elected president, that candidate will need to run on a far more moderate to liberal social platform. Immigration, women’s rights (including reproductive issues) and gay rights are defining issues that are shaping elections at the national level. The last few elections should have demonstrably shown this, and the cascading effect of social issues will continue to be exacerbated by the political clout of Generation Y (and later Generation Z) voters, who will be participating in greater numbers in the 2016 and 2020 elections and beyond, combined with the shifting attitudes of the late 20s - baby boomer populations on some of these issues too.