GOP Presidential Nominees

[Symmetry]

Not who I would like it to be but who my information says it will be.Rick Santorum.

OOOOOOOOOOGE! once you pop you can't stop

welcome back mate

whats up Phats...here is the thing I want to hear people say how nuts I am for saying Santorum.But when I explain my reasons it will seem so obvious.

I assume it's some kind of combination of "nuts", a "pop", and then some "ooooooooodge". Santorum!

no but I know were your going with that..a couple more responses and I will reveal it.

Said the actress to the bishop.

Santorum!

[ooge]

Not who I would like it to be but who my information says it will be.Rick Santorum.

OOOOOOOOOOGE! once you pop you can't stop

welcome back mate

whats up Phats...here is the thing I want to hear people say how nuts I am for saying Santorum.But when I explain my reasons it will seem so obvious.

There is a saying.Democrats want to fall in love with their presidential candidate and republicans want to fall in line with theirs. 1976 Reagan challenged Ford and lost.In 1980 Reagan won the nomination G H W Bush was second.In 1988 G H W Bush Won and Bob dole was second.1996 Bob Dole was the nominee Pat Buchanan was second.Now this is were the scenario does not play out as Buchanan should have been the nominee in 2000 but wasn't.In 2000 G W Bush was the nominee and McCain was second.In 2008 McCain was the nominee and Willard Mitt Romney was second. 2012 Romney was the Nominee with Santorum Second.So That is why I think it will be Santorum.

To play this out further Santorum will be the Nominee with Rand Paul finishing Second.Santorum loses to whoever the democratic nominee is and 4 years later there will be a real possibility that Rand Paul defeats the incumbent Democratic President.

[thegreekdog]

Wow, that theory actually kind of makes sense, but I still can't see Santorum as a serious presidential candidate.

[Phatscotty]

Not who I would like it to be but who my information says it will be.Rick Santorum.

OOOOOOOOOOGE! once you pop you can't stop

welcome back mate

whats up Phats...here is the thing I want to hear people say how nuts I am for saying Santorum.But when I explain my reasons it will seem so obvious.

There is a saying.Democrats want to fall in love with their presidential candidate and republicans want to fall in line with theirs. 1976 Reagan challenged Ford and lost.In 1980 Reagan won the nomination G H W Bush was second.In 1988 G H W Bush Won and Bob dole was second.1996 Bob Dole was the nominee Pat Buchanan was second.Now this is were the scenario does not play out as Buchanan should have been the nominee in 2000 but wasn't.In 2000 G W Bush was the nominee and McCain was second.In 2008 McCain was the nominee and Willard Mitt Romney was second. 2012 Romney was the Nominee with Santorum Second.So That is why I think it will be Santorum.

To play this out further Santorum will be the Nominee with Rand Paul finishing Second.Santorum loses to whoever the democratic nominee is and 4 years later there will be a real possibility that Rand Paul defeats the incumbent Democratic President.

It does actually seem to rhyme out nicely, except for it's missing one small ingredient that, when added, changes EVERYTHING!

And that, my dear sweet mate, is the Tea Party. It's grassroots, so it started in the House of Representatives, not with a presidential candidacy per say. Which really brings out the Ron Paul, who has laid a lot of groundwork his son can and will utilize, and not only from 2012, but from 2008 as well.

[ooge]

Not who I would like it to be but who my information says it will be.Rick Santorum.

OOOOOOOOOOGE! once you pop you can't stop

welcome back mate

whats up Phats...here is the thing I want to hear people say how nuts I am for saying Santorum.But when I explain my reasons it will seem so obvious.

There is a saying.Democrats want to fall in love with their presidential candidate and republicans want to fall in line with theirs. 1976 Reagan challenged Ford and lost.In 1980 Reagan won the nomination G H W Bush was second.In 1988 G H W Bush Won and Bob dole was second.1996 Bob Dole was the nominee Pat Buchanan was second.Now this is were the scenario does not play out as Buchanan should have been the nominee in 2000 but wasn't.In 2000 G W Bush was the nominee and McCain was second.In 2008 McCain was the nominee and Willard Mitt Romney was second. 2012 Romney was the Nominee with Santorum Second.So That is why I think it will be Santorum.

To play this out further Santorum will be the Nominee with Rand Paul finishing Second.Santorum loses to whoever the democratic nominee is and 4 years later there will be a real possibility that Rand Paul defeats the incumbent Democratic President.

It does actually seem to rhyme out nicely, except for it's missing one small ingredient that, when added, changes EVERYTHING!

And that, my dear sweet mate, is the Tea Party. It's grassroots, so it started in the House of Representatives, not with a presidential candidacy per say. Which really brings out the Ron Paul, who has laid a lot of groundwork his son can and will utilize, and not only from 2012, but from 2008 as well.

my most diplomatic response is, we shall see. Are you concerned at all that Rand Paul seems to be moving from the "Tea"? Supporting Mitch McConnell,Lecturing the "Tea" that they need to be more inclusive.

[Phatscotty]

Not who I would like it to be but who my information says it will be.Rick Santorum.

OOOOOOOOOOGE! once you pop you can't stop

welcome back mate

whats up Phats...here is the thing I want to hear people say how nuts I am for saying Santorum.But when I explain my reasons it will seem so obvious.

There is a saying.Democrats want to fall in love with their presidential candidate and republicans want to fall in line with theirs. 1976 Reagan challenged Ford and lost.In 1980 Reagan won the nomination G H W Bush was second.In 1988 G H W Bush Won and Bob dole was second.1996 Bob Dole was the nominee Pat Buchanan was second.Now this is were the scenario does not play out as Buchanan should have been the nominee in 2000 but wasn't.In 2000 G W Bush was the nominee and McCain was second.In 2008 McCain was the nominee and Willard Mitt Romney was second. 2012 Romney was the Nominee with Santorum Second.So That is why I think it will be Santorum.

To play this out further Santorum will be the Nominee with Rand Paul finishing Second.Santorum loses to whoever the democratic nominee is and 4 years later there will be a real possibility that Rand Paul defeats the incumbent Democratic President.

It does actually seem to rhyme out nicely, except for it's missing one small ingredient that, when added, changes EVERYTHING!

And that, my dear sweet mate, is the Tea Party. It's grassroots, so it started in the House of Representatives, not with a presidential candidacy per say. Which really brings out the Ron Paul, who has laid a lot of groundwork his son can and will utilize, and not only from 2012, but from 2008 as well.

my most diplomatic response is, we shall see. Are you concerned at all that Rand Paul seems to be moving from the "Tea"? Supporting Mitch McConnell,Lecturing the "Tea" that they need to be more inclusive.

Somewhat, but he's also addressing that issue from the other side of the coin. Conservatives and Independents and Libertarians coming together, yes, even along with the Republicans and even registered Democrats are in play when it comes to Rand. I've never been one of those snobby political types who dismisses something the moment they discover an agreement, or the moment they work with a Democrat on an issue, or the moment they agree with an establishment Republican.

We gotta work together, not only as a party, but as a country.

[patches70]

PS might not like this, but I'll just mention it anyway because I prefer people to be at least informed a bit.

Last Thursday through Sunday, in Las Vegas, four Republican Presidential hopefuls attended the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
The four were Christie, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and John Kasich.

They went to audition in front of Sheldon Adelson. To cast people's memories via the way way back machine, Adelson is the 8th richest man on the Earth and he pumped $15 million into Newt Gingrich's campaign (to run attack ads against Romney) and after Newt fell away Adelson then pumped $30 million into Romney's campaign. All told Adelson dumped $92 million into the last Presidential campaign.

Anyway, back to the audition. Christie made a nice blunder himself at the gathering, telling the audience there-
"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories” <and came> “to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.”

A nice attempt to connect with the audience, except it backfired pretty badly. Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America demanded that Christie explain what he meant by "occupied territory". As you may or may not know, the US officially considers the West Bank "occupied territory" but Israel doesn't see it that way at all. So Christie stepped into a big pile rather badly as one could imagine.

Such a big pile that Christie personally apologized to Adelson for his misstatement.

Now, I can understand and somewhat sympathize with potential candidates need for campaign money. After all, that's why they went to the annual conference. The problem is Adelson (IMO) who is nutty as a Snicker's bar.

I say nutty because the guy is trying to buy a President. And what is it that someone like Adelson would want?

You see, Adelson was at on stage at Yeshiva University last fall and was asked by a one Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on whether he supports U.S. negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. This was Adelson's response-


"No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ … You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’

“So, there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.

“And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

“‘You want to be peaceful. Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.’”

This was all recorded and filmed BTW. The audience cheered at Adelson proposing a nuclear strike on Iran and on the stage with him (along with others) was Bret Stephens, a Wall Street Journal columnist. Not a person on stage including Stephens muttered even a word of dissent to Adelson's comments.


You see, Adelson is portrayed as a concerned American citizen who doesn't want "a crazy extremist to be the nominee". It seems to me Adelson has enough crazy on himself.
But this is the guy who Republican candidates must appeased if they don't want to get hit attacks ads.

Anyway, I know of four potential Republican that won't have a chance of getting my vote (as it my vote matters anyway). I especially don't like how US Middle East policy is up for sale either.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of Iran. I'm all for the US going in and kicking the shit out of Iran if she ever truly becomes a threat to the US and Congress declares war. In that case, beat them down, but dropping nukes on them isn't a bright idea at all and the fear mongering about Iran developing nukes is nuts.
Here is a quote about that, from The House Republican Research Committee-

"There is a 98% certainty that Iran already has all the components required for two or three operational nuclear weapons".

That's a scary quote, right? Except the problem is that this quote is from 1992, some 22 years ago.
We've been hearing this bullshit line and it's all bullshit, from everything that we can tell. I'm not saying Iran isn't trying to build the Bomb, only that there is no evidence that they actually are.
To this very day the CIA still maintains that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons nor are they trying to obtain them. That' may change, maybe Iran has somehow hidden these supposed attempts, and believe me, we've been looking, but there just isn't any reason to get so worked up about Iran, at all.


Every scarp, every ounce of Plutonium and other such material is accounted for and it ain't in bombs. Maybe they've gotten some off the books, but if they did no one has been able to locate it.

So I would think, before we go dropping bombs that will certainly kill civilians, before we go turning yet another nation into a ruined hole in the ground, before we go nuking anyone, shouldn't we at least be absolutely sure that that it's necessary?
I think so, but one Sheldon Adelson apparently doesn't.

And that, my friends, is why the Republicans are idiots. Because they hitch their horses to fellows like Adelson.

Just my thoughts on the matter. There are plenty of other potential candidates who aren't kissing Adelson's boots for a chance at the throne, so maybe there is still some hope.

Although, I will say this, I think I'd have been highly amused if I got the chance to see Christie groveling and begging for forgiveness at Adelson's feet. I can picture the scene now, Christie on all fours, Adelson with a viscous grin on his face bellowing "Squeal like a pig, boy! Squeal like a pig!" at Christie. Oh man, that would be priceless.

[saxitoxin]

I'm glad @patches70 mentioned the Adelson thing. Adelson is the right-wing answer to George Soros, except he has twice the money and is arguably twice as crazy (which is a pretty big accomplishment since Soros is a nutjob). It made me want to puke that Christie went crawling into a backroom to grovel in front of Ginger the Hutt. Adelson is The Worst Person in the World.

[Nola_Lifer]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

[Phatscotty]

I'm glad @patches70 mentioned the Adelson thing. Adelson is the right-wing answer to George Soros, except he has twice the money and is arguably twice as crazy (which is a pretty big accomplishment since Soros is a nutjob). It made me want to puke that Christie went crawling into a backroom to grovel in front of Ginger the Hutt. Adelson is The Worst Person in the World.

Yeah I know about him. I don't like Christie enough to have a problem or dislike what anyone has said on this matter.

[Phatscotty]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

Guess it's just a matter if someone is actually going to stand up to them this time, or if we are going to just sit back and let them get away with it, as usual.

If Rand Paul gets the nomination, it's the real deal.

This country will unite

[Nola_Lifer]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

Guess it's just a matter if someone is actually going to stand up to them this time, or if we are going to just sit back and let them get away with it, as usual.

If Rand Paul gets the nomination, it's the real deal.

This country will unite

Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the back as his father did last election.

[Phatscotty]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

Guess it's just a matter if someone is actually going to stand up to them this time, or if we are going to just sit back and let them get away with it, as usual.

If Rand Paul gets the nomination, it's the real deal.

This country will unite

Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the back as his father did last election.

I think there are also a lot of people on the other side of that who could never get behind Ron Paul but are much more comfortable with Rand. And if you've been following this thread, then yes Rand has also been winning in northeastern places where the Romney's and the Chrisitie's dominate, and he's been getting some support from Liberals and Democrats as well.

Looking at this, Rand seems to have already found the oval office

show

[warmonger1981]

Is Andy Stern, head of SEIU, still in charge of voting booths? If he is I say Bush or Clinton win presidency. The globalist have come to far to world conquest to let a Tea Party or Rand Paul type to win and screw up their mission on Global domination.

[Gillipig]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

Guess it's just a matter if someone is actually going to stand up to them this time, or if we are going to just sit back and let them get away with it, as usual.

If Rand Paul gets the nomination, it's the real deal.

This country will unite

Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the back as his father did last election.

I think there are also a lot of people on the other side of that who could never get behind Ron Paul but are much more comfortable with Rand. And if you've been following this thread, then yes Rand has also been winning in northeastern places where the Romney's and the Chrisitie's dominate, and he's been getting some support from Liberals and Democrats as well.

Looking at this, Rand seems to have already found the oval office

show

If Rand Paul becomes the Republican's candidate will foxnews support him in the presidental election? If Rand Paul is who says he is and really is looking to change things, then logically all pro establishment and pro status quo media channels should be against him, and since foxnews is one of those they would find themselves in a difficult situation. On one hand their audience support Rand Paul, but on the other hand the big corrupt businesses that they serve does not support him because he wants to change things. So who would they side with?

[Phatscotty]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

Guess it's just a matter if someone is actually going to stand up to them this time, or if we are going to just sit back and let them get away with it, as usual.

If Rand Paul gets the nomination, it's the real deal.

This country will unite

Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the back as his father did last election.

I think there are also a lot of people on the other side of that who could never get behind Ron Paul but are much more comfortable with Rand. And if you've been following this thread, then yes Rand has also been winning in northeastern places where the Romney's and the Chrisitie's dominate, and he's been getting some support from Liberals and Democrats as well.

Looking at this, Rand seems to have already found the oval office

show

If Rand Paul becomes the Republican's candidate will foxnews support him in the presidental election? If Rand Paul is who says he is and really is looking to change things, then logically all pro establishment and pro status quo media channels should be against him, and since foxnews is one of those they would find themselves in a difficult situation. On one hand their audience support Rand Paul, but on the other hand the big corrupt businesses that they serve does not support him because he wants to change things. So who would they side with?

I don't blame you for asking, given the way FOX has mistreated Ron Paul. But your question is so much bigger than just Rand Paul. Meaning, whoever the GOP pick is, I don't expect FOX to support Democrat candidates or anything like that; I'm sure FOX and people who watch FOX in general will support whoever the GOP pick is, and maybe that will have an adverse effect back to FOX given they may sense a bigger audience and expand programming like Stossel. But I don't watch enough of FOX to know what the climate is like over there right now. I'm sure Huckabee and Orielly are taking shots, while Stossel and Dobbs are probably showing support.

But I've seen Rand get snickered at on all the networks, particularly Den Lemon, Erin Burnett, Morning Joe. We'll see when the primaries get started.

[Metsfanmax]

fixed:

I support Herman Cain.

reported for trolling

I'm quite serious. In general, I support the Republican presidential candidate that is most likely to lose.
Democrat good, Republican bad!

Yes, I agree that Republican bad is synonymous with Democrat good.

[ooge]

Doesn't really matter, all these polls. As we saw in the last election the heads of the GOP will rig it so that whomever they want in, regardless of who the people vote will, win the nomination.

Guess it's just a matter if someone is actually going to stand up to them this time, or if we are going to just sit back and let them get away with it, as usual.

If Rand Paul gets the nomination, it's the real deal.

This country will unite

Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the back as his father did last election.

I think there are also a lot of people on the other side of that who could never get behind Ron Paul but are much more comfortable with Rand. And if you've been following this thread, then yes Rand has also been winning in northeastern places where the Romney's and the Chrisitie's dominate, and he's been getting some support from Liberals and Democrats as well.

Looking at this, Rand seems to have already found the oval office

show

If Rand Paul becomes the Republican's candidate will foxnews support him in the presidental election? If Rand Paul is who says he is and really is looking to change things, then logically all pro establishment and pro status quo media channels should be against him, and since foxnews is one of those they would find themselves in a difficult situation. On one hand their audience support Rand Paul, but on the other hand the big corrupt businesses that they serve does not support him because he wants to change things. So who would they side with?

I don't blame you for asking, given the way FOX has mistreated Ron Paul. But your question is so much bigger than just Rand Paul. Meaning, whoever the GOP pick is, I don't expect FOX to support Democrat candidates or anything like that; I'm sure FOX and people who watch FOX in general will support whoever the GOP pick is, and maybe that will have an adverse effect back to FOX given they may sense a bigger audience and expand programming like Stossel. But I don't watch enough of FOX to know what the climate is like over there right now. I'm sure Huckabee and Orielly are taking shots, while Stossel and Dobbs are probably showing support.

But I've seen Rand get snickered at on all the networks, particularly Den Lemon, Erin Burnett, Morning Joe. We'll see when the primaries get started.

MSNBC has done the most talking about Rand Paul being the Nominee.Chris Mathews A while back picked him.Their comments have been like this Ted Cruz is looking crazy and this is making Rand Paul look good. As for Fox they are still in Obama Bashing mode.I doubt that will change until after the midtrems.

[Phatscotty]

That's what I mean...Rand Paul get support from both end of the spectrum. I really think he can rise above the partisan politics, as he already has many times not only in speech but in action as well. He can unite this country. We can close down the DEA, we can release all non-violent drug offenders, we can manage money like we are sane.

[ooge]

That's what I mean...Rand Paul get support from both end of the spectrum. I really think he can rise above the partisan politics, as he already has many times not only in speech but in action as well. He can unite this country. We can close down the DEA, we can release all non-violent drug offenders, we can manage money like we are sane.

As someone else has already pointed out.I believe The powers that be will be working against him.Emptying the jails of non-violent drug offenders? I still have hopes that The president will do that in his last year in office.

[Symmetry]

That's what I mean...Rand Paul get support from both end of the spectrum.

Fascists and Communists? I'm not sure that's a strong base, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[ooge]

That's what I mean...Rand Paul get support from both end of the spectrum.

Fascists and Communists? I'm not sure that's a strong base, but perhaps I'm wrong.

You forgot to include Ayn Randians

[Gillipig]

That's what I mean...Rand Paul get support from both end of the spectrum.

Fascists and Communists? I'm not sure that's a strong base, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What a stupid comment. Communists are not in the least interested in Libertarian policies and facists are pro an aggressive military. The two groups you mentioned are among the groups least likely to support his policies. You're as stupid and misinformed as the people calling Obama a communist, shame on you.

[Symmetry]

That's what I mean...Rand Paul get support from both end of the spectrum.

Fascists and Communists? I'm not sure that's a strong base, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What a stupid comment. Communists are not in the least interested in Libertarian policies and facists are pro an aggressive military. The two groups you mentioned are among the groups least likely to support his policies. You're as stupid and misinformed as the people calling Obama a communist, shame on you.

Hey, Scotty was the one claiming Paul's support came from both ends of the spectrum...