• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

Wrangor said:
Christie and rand don't fit either of your preconceived definitions of hillarys opponent. What will you do if it is one of them?
Click to expand...

Huh? I've said I'd consider Paul earlier on the thread. I'm not a libertarian, but he adds a lot to the political debate and is interesting (although I'd prefer a Gary Johnson or Huntsman over Paul). But Christie? Other than possibly immigration, he fits the Pub bill on the other issues, at least in his current political stances. Though I do give him some credit for accepting medicaid expansion. But Christie is trustworthy?!?!? I grant that the law firm he appointed to investigate bridgegate, ala Roger Goodell, did exonerate him, but his fingerprints were all over that. Good god man. Plus he has zero chance at the nomination. Bridgegate hurt him, and the Christian Right and tea baggers despise him.

Oh yes, and I love abortions. I try to perform several each day.
 
cville deac said:
Huh? I've said I'd consider Paul earlier on the thread. I'm not a libertarian, but he adds a lot to the political debate and is interesting (although I'd prefer a Gary Johnson or Huntsman over Paul). But Christie? Other than possibly immigration, he fits the Pub bill on the other issues, at least in his current political stances. Though I do give him some credit for accepting medicaid expansion. But Christie is trustworthy?!?!? I grant that the law firm he appointed to investigate bridgegate, ala Roger Goodell, did exonerate him, but his fingerprints were all over that. Good god man. Plus he has zero chance at the nomination. Bridgegate hurt him, and the Christian Right and tea baggers despise him.

Oh yes, and I love abortions. I try to perform several each day.
Click to expand...

Interesting question, particularly with additional punctuation for added emphasis, to be posed by a confirmed Hillary voter.
 
Shorty said:
Interesting question, particularly with additional punctuation for added emphasis, to be posed by a confirmed Hillary voter.
Click to expand...

I never said Hillary or Bill were trustworthy. Trustworthiness isn't the only thing I look at when voting. Wramgpr, OTOH, seems to place it much higher on his list of attributes when voting, yet he has a man crush on Christie, who is the least trustworthy Pub running outside of Trump. That was my point.

And you're really misrepresenting what I've been saying here in calling me a "confirmed Hillary voter". I've said all along I'd much rather have Bloomberg or Gillibrand in the race and that I'm voting for Webb or Chafee over Hillary in the primary. I've also said I'd strongly consider voting for Paul or Kasich if either were to get the Pub nomination, and I'd likely vote for Johnson or Huntsman if either were running on the Pub ticket. But if Hillary gets the nomination and is running against Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Perry, Trump, Fiorina, Walker..., then yeah, I'm voting for Hillary. But give it time. I still think there's a chance she implodes and another Dem gets in to replace her.
 
Shorty said:
I assume there are notable policy differences that cause you to prefer Webb, or Chaffee over Hillary.
Click to expand...

Webb voted against the Iraq war.

Hilary voted for the Iraq war.

That's just the most obvious and glaring difference.


So, yes, there are differences. Thanks for asking!
 
Wrangor said:
Cville and dv7: Y'all do you. I try to find someone to vote for that hasn't proved they are intentionally untrustworthy. The "what politician isn't untrustworthy" is a pretty poor excuse. If that makes me a 4 letter word so be it.

And a liberal using a female body part as a directed character attack is sad. But because you like abortions I guess that makes you a women's right kind of person. Happy 4th to your hypocrisy sir.
Click to expand...

Yep! I love abortions as much as I love your holier than thou nonsense that you spew on here on a weekly basis.

Edited because Jesus told me to.
 
Last edited:
Next time refrain from using a slur against women to criticize someone. Act like a grown up instead of an adolescent.
 
Calling you a cunt has nothing to do with women. Stop being a whiny twat.


I read books.
I read the newspaper yesterday.


Same letters. Different words. Different definitions based on context.
Calling somebody a cunt has nothing to do with a woman's vagina.


Just because you like denying a woman the choice of how she deals with her own body doesn't mean you get to get faux upset about a random 4 letter word and pretend it offends you. That just makes you a twat.
 
Last edited:
I'm being a prick to you right now. (which you deserve, by the way)


Is that a slur against men in your mind?
 
19deac92 said:
You have the maturity of a toddler. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Toddler's can't type so your premise is broken. Good day, Will Farrel fan.

I wake up in the morning and laugh at people that think Talledega Nights was a funny movie. WE HAVE SO MUCH IN COMMON.
 
19deac92 said:
You have the maturity of a toddler. Grow up.
Click to expand...

But seriously, if you didn't get the under-toned message of the post you quoted and the previous post of mine then your intelligence is very low.


Oh, and for cereal... don't tell people on a MESSAGE BOARD to grow up. That's just stupid and pointless. Might as well tell trolls on the PS network to "grow up" when they troll you after a FIFA match.
 
deacvision7 said:
Calling you a cunt has nothing to do with women. Stop being a whiny twat.


I read books.
I read the newspaper yesterday.


Same letters. Different words. Different definitions based on context.
Calling somebody a cunt has nothing to do with a woman's vagina.


Just because you like denying a woman the choice of how she deals with her own body doesn't mean you get to get faux upset about a random 4 letter word and pretend it offends you. That just makes you a twat.
Click to expand...

lol. Ok man. You are really making your case for adulthood. I am not upset at all. You are displaying a keen lack of maturity. I am just calling it for what it is. If you can't disagree with someone without using slurs and the word you used is offensive to pretty much anyone with a ounce of sense, then you need to step back from the keyboard and have a beer.

I am simply making political observations as I see them. You clearly disagree. It doesn't take a personal attack to conclude a conversation. Great post though. You make my case so much better than I ever could.

Back to the issue at hand. Hoping to see some headlines this week from Christie. He needs to make some noise.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
They risk angering their base. Trump vaulted to #2 in the polls. Now you can argue that was despite his comments about Mexicans or because of his comments about Mexicans. Republicans also don't want to risk pissing off a "$9 billion" potential donor.
Click to expand...

Looks like long shots Cruz and Santorum are embracing this approach. Jeb and Rubio have chastised Trump in muted tones, but Cruz and Santorum are tacitly backing Trump in theory, but not in tone. Risky general election play, but useful in a crowded primary.
 
FMR - I just don't think that will play. I think Jeb, Paul, Christie, and Rubio all come after Trump at some point and those are the 4 major player in my opinion. Trump is a sideshow. There will always be a portion of a base that likes a show.
 
The Christian coalition loves a sideshow because that's mostly what they are. The base tacitly gives a nod to them for their vote, but never really does anything for them.
 
Wrangor said:
FMR - I just don't think that will play. I think Jeb, Paul, Christie, and Rubio all come after Trump at some point and those are the 4 major player in my opinion. Trump is a sideshow. There will always be a portion of a base that likes a show.
Click to expand...

Generally agree although I'd put Walker and maybe Kasich in the mix ahead of Christie (sorry!). GOP gets routed if the nominee isn't one of those guys. Did see an interview with Christie yesterday and he did come down hard on Trump. Was on Fox and Christie was lobbed a ton of softballs. Does seem oddly subdued. Christie must think there's no way anything from Bridgegate can be conclusively tied to him otherwise he wouldn't be running. He's in a world of pain if there are direct ties.

In an odd way, Christie, HRC, and Trump are sort of in the same boat, although Trump's not a serious candidate. Christie has Bridgegate, who knows how many potential landmines Hillary has, and Trump has floated a huge $9B figure with zero documentation. Like Edwards' love child or Herman Cain, it's amazing that people can run when they know disaster which they're consciously aware of can destroy them.
 
I look at Kasich the same way I looked at Huntsman but with better credentials. I just don't fee any momentum with him though. Any chance at all he could snag the nomination?
 
Of all the possible 'Pubs, Kasich would be my first choice, but GOP base doesn't think like I do. Rand's intriguing, but he's too erratic and makes too many unforced errors.

Forgot to add earlier that Jeb seems way too cautious and clumsy. Given that his wife is Mexican, he should have gone at Trump immediately and unmercifully. Looks like a wimp and he's been out of the game way too long. His heart's not in it.

Can't stand Trump and he's not going to be the nominee, but he's all in all the time and refuses to give an inch. He'll eventually crash and burn and it won't be pretty.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Generally agree although I'd put Walker and maybe Kasich in the mix ahead of Christie (sorry!). GOP gets routed if the nominee isn't one of those guys. Did see an interview with Christie yesterday and he did come down hard on Trump. Was on Fox and Christie was lobbed a ton of softballs. Does seem oddly subdued. Christie must think there's no way anything from Bridgegate can be conclusively tied to him otherwise he wouldn't be running. He's in a world of pain if there are direct ties.

In an odd way, Christie, HRC, and Trump are sort of in the same boat, although Trump's not a serious candidate. Christie has Bridgegate, who knows how many potential landmines Hillary has, and Trump has floated a huge $9B figure with zero documentation. Like Edwards' love child or Herman Cain, it's amazing that people can run when they know disaster which they're consciously aware of can destroy them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely on Walker. Wishful and clouded thinking by Wrangor. I still think Walker has as good a shot at the nomination as anyone. The Christian Right hates Bush and Christie. There will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth if either get the nomination. Paul has the libertarian wing of the party and some younger Pubs, but I just don't think an isolationist like him can get the nomination when most of the party still embraces neocons. Tea baggers and fiscal conservatives like Walker's union wars, and he's been kissing up to the Christian Right with some of his creationism statements. After the cray crays like Trump, Huck and Cruz are cast aside, the tea baggers and Christian Right will be forced to coalesce around either Walker or Rubio as the alternative to Bush. Ultimately, I'd guess Walker or Rubio gets it.
 
DeacWatcher said:
I look at Kasich the same way I looked at Huntsman but with better credentials. I just don't fee any momentum with him though. Any chance at all he could snag the nomination?
Click to expand...

Huntsman is an apt comparison because I think Kasich is a bit too moderate and reasonable to get the nomination. And like Huntsman last time, he isn't getting traction in any of the polls I've seen. The truly sad thing is that Trump seems to have achieved a bit of an up-tick in recent polling (I'd assume because of his comments), and I'm afraid that will only serve to encourage him to continue to be outrageous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top