Ok, it's gotten out of hand

[SNOT]

I would venture to say that any of the GOP candidates would be better than the current administration and also better than Hillary.. While I do not believe we need another Bush or Clinton in the White House I do think that if the GOP is going to win against the "First Woman" President he will have to appeal to a broad base of folks..

While not particularly fond of Jeb on some issues.. He is intelligent and is also married to a Mexican Woman and can speak fluent Spanish.

A Bush/Rubio ticket would really appeal to the Hispanics in the country not to mention would likely win the swing state of FL.

While I like what they have to say Cruz and Paul may not appeal to the broadest bunch of Folks.. And I personally would probably lean more to Cruz than Paul because Cruz is less isolationist and his Hispanic heritage would be helpful.. A Cruz/Carson or Carson/Cruz ticket might be a good option with a broad appeal both to the Hispanic/Black voting block.. Both are EXTREMELY intelligent and seem to have good business sense..

I don't think Trump has a shot.. While I agree on many things with him he is a little to brash, somewhat weak on 2A.. But he might make a good Secretary of State China: Your FIRED.

I really like Walker and Huckabee.. And think that Walker is going to be in it till the end.. A Walker/Huckabee ticket would be great


My prediction is going to be a Walker/Rubio ticket

I agree on Walker being the nominee. Walker and Rubio would be strong. I'm definitely in the group that thinks we need someone that has a record more than just being a senator (see Obama) - I want someone that has run a state and been successful doing it. I think Rubio, Paul and Cruz need more experience but they all have potential.

[fireplug]

Rubio, Bush, or Christie would be no different than having Clinton in the white house. They have very similar views and would only end up in another conflict / war that we don't need or want. Mark it down today --> If Any of those 4 people are POTUS we will be in another war or semi-war midway of their first term along with nothing getting done with the border or the debt we are getting into. Enough sending our kids off to fight battles that benefit no one but politician's wallets. End of rant.

[teul2]

What ever happened to a POTUS with a military back ground?
I think we need to revisit that.

[cwink]

Rubio, Bush, or Christie would be no different than having Clinton in the white house. They have very similar views and would only end up in another conflict / war that we don't need or want. Mark it down today --> If Any of those 4 people are POTUS we will be in another war or semi-war midway of their first term along with nothing getting done with the border or the debt we are getting into. Enough sending our kids off to fight battles that benefit no one but politician's wallets. End of rant.

We are still in a semi war with the biggest Anti War president ever.. We have 3,500 troops over there now.. I don't want our soldiers over there fighting for nothing. But, I don't think you can just ignore the situation in the middle east either.

The isolationist approach only works if we are able to rely solely on ourselves for all our food, energy, clothes, jobs, etc.. In order to do that your going to have to remove most of the environmental restraints, bureaucratic red tape and regulations and expect US consumers to still pay higher prices until we can reset our economy to be self reliant.. Then use all of the money we have been sending to foreign goverments to secure our border and pay down debt..

[teul2]

Rubio, Bush, or Christie would be no different than having Clinton in the white house. They have very similar views and would only end up in another conflict / war that we don't need or want. Mark it down today --> If Any of those 4 people are POTUS we will be in another war or semi-war midway of their first term along with nothing getting done with the border or the debt we are getting into. Enough sending our kids off to fight battles that benefit no one but politician's wallets. End of rant.

We are still in a semi war with the biggest Anti War president ever.. We have 3,500 troops over there now.. I don't want our soldiers over there fighting for nothing. But, I don't think you can just ignore the situation in the middle east either.

The isolationist approach only works if we are able to rely solely on ourselves for all our food, energy, clothes, jobs, etc.. In order to do that your going to have to remove most of the environmental restraints, bureaucratic red tape and regulations and expect US consumers to still pay higher prices until we can reset our economy to be self reliant.. Then use all of the money we have been sending to foreign goverments to secure our border and pay down debt..

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[edub20]

Rubio, Bush, or Christie would be no different than having Clinton in the white house. They have very similar views and would only end up in another conflict / war that we don't need or want. Mark it down today --> If Any of those 4 people are POTUS we will be in another war or semi-war midway of their first term along with nothing getting done with the border or the debt we are getting into. Enough sending our kids off to fight battles that benefit no one but politician's wallets. End of rant.

We are still in a semi war with the biggest Anti War president ever.. We have 3,500 troops over there now.. I don't want our soldiers over there fighting for nothing. But, I don't think you can just ignore the situation in the middle east either.

The isolationist approach only works if we are able to rely solely on ourselves for all our food, energy, clothes, jobs, etc.. In order to do that your going to have to remove most of the environmental restraints, bureaucratic red tape and regulations and expect US consumers to still pay higher prices until we can reset our economy to be self reliant.. Then use all of the money we have been sending to foreign goverments to secure our border and pay down debt..

Sounds like a good plan to me.

+1

[cwink]

Rubio, Bush, or Christie would be no different than having Clinton in the white house. They have very similar views and would only end up in another conflict / war that we don't need or want. Mark it down today --> If Any of those 4 people are POTUS we will be in another war or semi-war midway of their first term along with nothing getting done with the border or the debt we are getting into. Enough sending our kids off to fight battles that benefit no one but politician's wallets. End of rant.

We are still in a semi war with the biggest Anti War president ever.. We have 3,500 troops over there now.. I don't want our soldiers over there fighting for nothing. But, I don't think you can just ignore the situation in the middle east either.

The isolationist approach only works if we are able to rely solely on ourselves for all our food, energy, clothes, jobs, etc.. In order to do that your going to have to remove most of the environmental restraints, bureaucratic red tape and regulations and expect US consumers to still pay higher prices until we can reset our economy to be self reliant.. Then use all of the money we have been sending to foreign goverments to secure our border and pay down debt..

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Agree. But getting the rest of the US to buy into it is the hard part.

[teul2]

On topic, kinda.
Holy Hell, there are like 450 plus people running for president according to this site. Rosanne Barr (PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY) is even one of them.
http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

[TODO]

I'd almost bet the farm that Hillary takes it. For the republicans to have a shot you gotta let go of all these social issues, like gay marriage, etc and put the focus on policy, like spending, etc. I just don't see anybody in the field that will appeal to enough non-republicans to pull it off, but hope im wrong.

[Smoke68]

For the republicans to have a shot you gotta let go of all these social issues, like gay marriage, etc and put the focus on policy.

That's exactly what a lot of republicans do. They say "let the states decide on social issues". Then the democrats want to make a big spectacle of it. The democrats only want to appeal to the emotions using social issues to get elected.

2 problems:

1) The media encourages it for ratings

2) The public eats it up and votes accordingly. I'll say it again, the people are the problem.

[JDgator]

The walker/Rubio ticket would be pretty strong. Walker has leadership experience, has the right stance on illegal and legal immigration, 2A, and gets results.

Rubio would appeal to Hispanics, Warhawks, and pretty much everyone who meets him. He is an establishment republican but he is damned charming. Rubio is a foreign policy wonk, and could outgun pretty much anyone but Hillary.

So they complement each other nicely.

[adame]

How is rand an isolationist? http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am- ... lationist/

[adame]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl9VB-E8awc if the R's want to win the White House, then you need someone that will unite the libertarians and republicans. Rand is the only person the can do that in the republican field. Cruz is too extreme. Rubio is just like every other rhino. Grahmn is mccains best bud. Bush is another bush. Carson will never come close. Walker might have a shot.