[quote]Mufasa wrote:
If they can’t win in 2016; the GOP needs to do some real Soul Searching.
Mufasa[/quote]
Needs this even if they do win, and it’s sort of happening. Tea Party, Libertarians are at least pushing the establishment around.
Can you imagine how Cruz or Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary during a debate? LMAO
I mean, she has so much baggage they wouldn’t know where to start!
And if O’Mally get’s the nomination, can you imagine the fun they would have every time it rained? They could have a commercial that had dollar signs cha chiinging every time it rained! I mean, they don’t have anyone else… Elizabeth Warren? Not gonna happen this time around - she ain’t no dummy.
I will say that after talking to a lot of young people, they are all about Hillary. Even though logically, she’s practically unelectable. With the MEDIA on her side talking about how “historical” it will be to have a woman in the oval orifice, blah blah blah, the GOP nominee is pretty much going to have to HUMILIATE her to the point that the MEDIA simply cannot ignore it.
Rubio has charisma. The MEDIA thrives on charisma. They want someone they can turn into a rock star. Rubio has the best shot. Unless Scott Walker jazzes himself up a bit. But we need Florida more than we need Wisconsin… Sad but true.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I will say that after talking to a lot of young people, they are all about Hillary. [/quote]
I mean, you are in northern VA though…
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Rather than pick the best person for the job…”
And this is a line of thinking, CB, that I have always have felt was “pie-in-the-sky”.
Other than age and citizenship; there is no magic “list” that qualifies one as being more qualified than the other for the job.
NO one…and I mean NO ONE can be prepared ,by some list on a resume, for what is the most difficult job in the World. Of our modern Presidents; I would place H.W. Bush as the most knowledgeable going in…but even HE made some fundamental mistakes.
To Zeb’s point.
-
I don’t want Hillary to win. In fact, a) I had hoped she wouldn’t run and b) I wish we would elect someone President to the Right of Michelle Bachman…and that is not hyperbole. I wish it would happen.
-
The GOP is being handed a “gift” by her running. If they can’t win in 2016; the GOP needs to do some real Soul Searching.
Mufasa[/quote]
To the first part of your post, if I were to interview Obama the first question that I would ask him is this: “When did you first realize that you were in over your head”?
And if he were to answer truthfully he would reply “immediately!”
To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Rubio has charisma. The MEDIA thrives on charisma. They want someone they can turn into a rock star. Rubio has the best shot. Unless Scott Walker jazzes himself up a bit. But we need Florida more than we need Wisconsin… Sad but true.[/quote]
Well said my friend!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
lol[/quote]
Loved it.
“…To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused…”
To show that the problems of our Government and Country go MUCH deeper than Right/Left/Liberal/Conservative.
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate. Then let’s sit back and see what they accomplish.
Mufasa
An interesting nugget on Cruz.
He was named one of top 50 litigators by American Lawyer magazine.
He has argued at US Supreme Court.
And…
“While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year, as well as Team of the Year, with his debate partner, David Panton. Cruz was a semifinalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship, making him Princeton’s highest-ranked debater at the championship. Princeton’s debate team later named their annual novice championship after Cruz.”
I would like to see him in a debate with Hillary
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused…”
To show that the problems of our Government and Country go MUCH deeper than Right/Left/Liberal/Conservative.
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate. Then let’s sit back and see what they accomplish.
Mufasa [/quote]
From the tone of your post I am assuming that you don’t think that anything would change under those conditions. But, history tells us something different.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused…”
To show that the problems of our Government and Country go MUCH deeper than Right/Left/Liberal/Conservative.
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate. Then let’s sit back and see what they accomplish.
Mufasa [/quote]
From the tone of your post I am assuming that you don’t think that anything would change under those conditions. But, history tells us something different.
[/quote]
Oh…things would change for sure.
Mostly by firing up the base fighting, and spending a LOT of time on, “hot button” issues; and doing very little to either decrease the size of Government or help us get our fiscal House in order.
Mufasa
Just to be clear…
DEMS/Liberals do the exact same thing.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just to be clear…
DEMS/Liberals do the exact some thing.
Mufasa[/quote]
But history tells us that even without the benefit of Congress being republican Ronald Reagan rolled back the rate of government spending. What if he had both houses of congress republican?
And we know what Obama did when he had both houses democrat. Raised the debt, passed Obama care (the biggest government power grab in history)…and let’s see what else did that guy do? Let’s just say a number of under the radar spending that was never pointed out by the Obama friendly press. His policy of treating our friends like enemies and our enemies life friends has been nothing but astounding…but I digress.
One more thing, I’d sleep far better with a republican President and a republican congress…does that make a difference?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused…”
To show that the problems of our Government and Country go MUCH deeper than Right/Left/Liberal/Conservative.
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate. Then let’s sit back and see what they accomplish.
Mufasa [/quote]
I would be more than happy to detail what the exact opposite has accomplished on the state level.
I’ll say it again, guys:
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate.
So we agree!
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused…”
To show that the problems of our Government and Country go MUCH deeper than Right/Left/Liberal/Conservative.
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate. Then let’s sit back and see what they accomplish.
Mufasa [/quote]
I would be more than happy to detail what the exact opposite has accomplished on the state level.
[/quote]
Yes, there are plenty of good examples like Texas on the conservative side. And there are booming failures of democratic leadership in New York and California to prove that particular philosophy is a total failure on the other side.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…To the second part of your post, I am a conservative so naturally I would want a conservative to win the White House…now tell me why you want the same thing? I am just a tad confused…”
To show that the problems of our Government and Country go MUCH deeper than Right/Left/Liberal/Conservative.
I really want there to be a Conservative President, and a Conservative Majority in the House and Senate. Then let’s sit back and see what they accomplish.
Mufasa [/quote]
I would be more than happy to detail what the exact opposite has accomplished on the state level.
[/quote]
Yes, there are plenty of good examples like Texas on the conservative side. And there are booming failures of democratic leadership in New York and California to prove that particular philosophy is a total failure on the other side.[/quote]
There is some hope, a few House seats that are in play here.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just to be clear…
DEMS/Liberals do the exact some thing.
Mufasa[/quote]
But history tells us that even without the benefit of Congress being republican Ronald Reagan rolled back the rate of government spending. What if he had both houses of congress republican? [/quote]
I am a fan of Reagan, worked on his behalf and served proudly in the military during his terms; however…
In 1980, Jimmy Carter’s last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of “national income” (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of “national income.”
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%â??compared with Reagan’s 3%â??in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Rather than pick the best person for the job…”
And this is a line of thinking, CB, that I have always have felt was “pie-in-the-sky”.
Other than age and citizenship; there is no magic “list” that qualifies one as being more qualified than the other for the job.
NO one…and I mean NO ONE can be prepared ,by some list on a resume, for what is the most difficult job in the World. Of our modern Presidents; I would place H.W. Bush as the most knowledgeable going in…but even HE made some fundamental mistakes.
To Zeb’s point.
- I don’t want Hillary to win. In fact, a) I had hoped she wouldn’t run and b) I wish we would elect someone President to the Right of Michelle Bachman…and that is not hyperbole. I wish it would happen.[/quote]
I’m curious. Why?
They needed this in 2008. Then again even worse in 2012. Before the elections.
Didn’t happen either time and I’m not convinced it will happen this time either.