For 2016: Most of You Republican Voters Are Wrong
Before you all get your panties in a bundle, I could just as easily make a thread called, "ALL You Democrat Voters Are Wrong." But that would be too easy/obvious/pointless to put any effort into it.
I'll get right to the point. This is a travesty:
17.0% Bush
11.2% Christie
10.0% Ryan
8.6% Paul
8.0% Huckabee
8.0% Carson
8.0% Walker
5.5% Cruz
4.5% Rubio
4.3% Perry
2.8% Jindal
2.5% Kasich
www.realclearpolitics.com/epol…
And that's before they inevitably include Mitt Romney. By my calculations, at least 36% of you are just openly evil, and a full majority of you are lost, confused, and scared. Allow me to try to show you the light of common sense
Romney
Third time's the charm, right? Because if he couldn't beat Jimmy Carter Jr. with the full financial backing of the party, and that resume, and that hair, clearly he must be really electable and Reagan-like on the 3rd try, right?
If you believe in the Mr. "electable" story, you are a fool. We warned you in 2012 that it was all a lie, and if you make him your standard-bearer again, I and millions of others will happily watch your banner go up in flames as we pull the lever for the Libertarian Party.
Bush
You're kidding, right? The Bush name has become so toxic, and has sunk the Republican Party so far for the last few decades, that it only makes sense to tie us all even tighter to that anchor, right?
If you plan on voting for Jeb Bush, I can only believe that you are a double agent, working with the Democrats to try to destroy the Republican Party from within.
Huckabee/Santorum
Is it really so important for you to force your religion on the rest of us that you will make a show of it in the primaries just to get smited by the general electorate? If the Republican Party presidential candidate goes up there and demands bans on contraception and abortion, it will be Christmas for the Democrats. Zombie Jesus Santa will just open his bag of toys and hand them the keys to the country on the spot. Keep your goddamned religion to your goddamned self, or we will all be in Hell.
Ryan
He's not even running! Even if he were, he lost a debate because he was too polite to tell Joe Biden to shut his fat, dumb face. He's a good technician, not a warrior or salesman.
Christie
Okay, he's not too polite for...pretty much anything. That means he isn't too polite to bring New Jersey big government policies nationwide, and flip you off when you complain about lost liberty. You might win with him, but you will do it without people like me, and will likely regret the results.
Walker/Carson/Cruz/Perry
So is the best qualification for president that you pissed off a bunch of Democrats once or twice and survived by the skin of your teeth? What better way to bring together a new majority than to alienate as many people as you possibly can, right? These guys are doing great things right where they are, but for the love of America, DON'T put them on a higher podium, or the media will shape them into cranky old men, ranting about hip, fun-loving grandma Hillary who just wants us all to get along. Remember what happened to Goldwater.
Rubio/Jindal/Kasich/etc..
"Who?" ...is what every single low-information voter will say about these generally good, yet uninspiring guys before they pull the lever for Hillary.
Rand Paul
This is the guy you want. He has broad appeal, a cunning political instinct, and will breathe new life into the Republican Party by reintroducing the philosophy of liberty to a nation that has forgotten its founding principles. He simultaneously manages to contrast himself with both Obama and Hillary in a way that will appeal to the young and build a future for the Republican Party. Rand Paul will set the Democrats back on their heels, scrambling to fortify a shrinking piece of land, before they eventually are forced to reinvent themselves to survive. He has shown time and time again that he can suck the air out from under the wings of both the Obama and Clinton Democrats. Rand Paul is the only candidate in the current crop that has managed to sell small-government policies to Democrats. Paul is the one candidate who has any chance of having the impact that Reagan did, because he's the only major candidate that's pushing a solid, clear message of liberty that resonates with current events and appeals across all demographics (especially the growing ones). But we need far more than 8.6% of the party supporting him to make it happen.
So Republicans, you have a choice. You can nominate Rand Paul and turn the Democrats' "demographic destiny" on its head with young libertarian support; OR you can face off against Hillary Clinton and the Libertarian Party in a 3-way election full of angry voters who don't care anymore about whether they "spoil" the chances of the dying RINO party. Those are your 2 options, and you must decide.
I'll get right to the point. This is a travesty:
17.0% Bush
11.2% Christie
10.0% Ryan
8.6% Paul
8.0% Huckabee
8.0% Carson
8.0% Walker
5.5% Cruz
4.5% Rubio
4.3% Perry
2.8% Jindal
2.5% Kasich
www.realclearpolitics.com/epol…
And that's before they inevitably include Mitt Romney. By my calculations, at least 36% of you are just openly evil, and a full majority of you are lost, confused, and scared. Allow me to try to show you the light of common sense
Romney
Third time's the charm, right? Because if he couldn't beat Jimmy Carter Jr. with the full financial backing of the party, and that resume, and that hair, clearly he must be really electable and Reagan-like on the 3rd try, right?
If you believe in the Mr. "electable" story, you are a fool. We warned you in 2012 that it was all a lie, and if you make him your standard-bearer again, I and millions of others will happily watch your banner go up in flames as we pull the lever for the Libertarian Party.
Bush
You're kidding, right? The Bush name has become so toxic, and has sunk the Republican Party so far for the last few decades, that it only makes sense to tie us all even tighter to that anchor, right?
If you plan on voting for Jeb Bush, I can only believe that you are a double agent, working with the Democrats to try to destroy the Republican Party from within.
Huckabee/Santorum
Is it really so important for you to force your religion on the rest of us that you will make a show of it in the primaries just to get smited by the general electorate? If the Republican Party presidential candidate goes up there and demands bans on contraception and abortion, it will be Christmas for the Democrats. Zombie Jesus Santa will just open his bag of toys and hand them the keys to the country on the spot. Keep your goddamned religion to your goddamned self, or we will all be in Hell.
Ryan
He's not even running! Even if he were, he lost a debate because he was too polite to tell Joe Biden to shut his fat, dumb face. He's a good technician, not a warrior or salesman.
Christie
Okay, he's not too polite for...pretty much anything. That means he isn't too polite to bring New Jersey big government policies nationwide, and flip you off when you complain about lost liberty. You might win with him, but you will do it without people like me, and will likely regret the results.
Walker/Carson/Cruz/Perry
So is the best qualification for president that you pissed off a bunch of Democrats once or twice and survived by the skin of your teeth? What better way to bring together a new majority than to alienate as many people as you possibly can, right? These guys are doing great things right where they are, but for the love of America, DON'T put them on a higher podium, or the media will shape them into cranky old men, ranting about hip, fun-loving grandma Hillary who just wants us all to get along. Remember what happened to Goldwater.
Rubio/Jindal/Kasich/etc..
"Who?" ...is what every single low-information voter will say about these generally good, yet uninspiring guys before they pull the lever for Hillary.
Rand Paul
This is the guy you want. He has broad appeal, a cunning political instinct, and will breathe new life into the Republican Party by reintroducing the philosophy of liberty to a nation that has forgotten its founding principles. He simultaneously manages to contrast himself with both Obama and Hillary in a way that will appeal to the young and build a future for the Republican Party. Rand Paul will set the Democrats back on their heels, scrambling to fortify a shrinking piece of land, before they eventually are forced to reinvent themselves to survive. He has shown time and time again that he can suck the air out from under the wings of both the Obama and Clinton Democrats. Rand Paul is the only candidate in the current crop that has managed to sell small-government policies to Democrats. Paul is the one candidate who has any chance of having the impact that Reagan did, because he's the only major candidate that's pushing a solid, clear message of liberty that resonates with current events and appeals across all demographics (especially the growing ones). But we need far more than 8.6% of the party supporting him to make it happen.
So Republicans, you have a choice. You can nominate Rand Paul and turn the Democrats' "demographic destiny" on its head with young libertarian support; OR you can face off against Hillary Clinton and the Libertarian Party in a 3-way election full of angry voters who don't care anymore about whether they "spoil" the chances of the dying RINO party. Those are your 2 options, and you must decide.
Comments102
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Doesn't matter which Repub it is. Or which Dem it is. It'll be one of those two. And when they do get elected they're just gonna get massive amounts of discrimination from the other side and backlash from the people stupid enough to pay attention to elections expecting politicians to do what they said they would. I'd bet money on it.
Cash wins elections. Whichever one of the candidates the banks like most. That's who'll win.
Cash wins elections. Whichever one of the candidates the banks like most. That's who'll win.
Rand Paul is a plagiarist, has little to no experience with real foreign policy, is an economic disaster waiting to happen, and what's more, a giant hypocrite in many ways.
lol, the "plagiarist" claim is laughable. That's a sure sign you're just trying to smear him, rather than actually considering your options rationally.
They are so hopeless....
I'm a foreigner, so I just wanna know; which of these candidates are most likely to push the button or make another example of Iraq?
I think Rand Paul is the only one of them who has expressed interest in showing restraint about invading other countries.
If she runs, Hillary is probably going to win - against anyone. The general public's appetite for 'firsts' (such as with Obama being the first black president) and the positive nature of the Clinton name (everyone seems to LOVE her husband now) almost assures her of victory. In fact, many people will vote for her just to be able to say that they voted the first female president into office. To many, it would be a momentous political occasion and an epic 'party event' to say the least. Add in the fact that women outnumber men in the US and that most women (if they're being honest) think that a woman would do a better job as president than any man, and Hillary would have to do something truly devastating in order to lose.
Also, it's very likely that Democrats will win back one or more houses of Congress in 2016 - if only because Republicans are sure to completely mess up the next two years and then they'll have to actually OWN their mess-ups. Anything to do with outlawing abortions, gay marriage, Obama-care, and continuing their crusades of endless investigations into Benghazi, IRS, etc. while not accomplishing anything that actually helps the majority of the electorate, is sure to sink Republicans in the next election. Especially when Hillary can point to the Republican's perceived anti-women stance and say "Elect me and we women will finally get equality." With such a message, you'd likely be hard pressed to find a woman who wouldn't vote for her. And of course, any man who doesn't also vote for her could be labelled a sexist pig who wants to keep their wife/daughter/mother/etc. from achieving equality.
So yeah, 2016 is Hillary's if she wants it.
Now as for 2020, ...I'm hoping that the machines rise up and take over before then.
Vote for me humans, or you'll be terminated!
Ok. Sure. Will do. No problemo!
Also, it's very likely that Democrats will win back one or more houses of Congress in 2016 - if only because Republicans are sure to completely mess up the next two years and then they'll have to actually OWN their mess-ups. Anything to do with outlawing abortions, gay marriage, Obama-care, and continuing their crusades of endless investigations into Benghazi, IRS, etc. while not accomplishing anything that actually helps the majority of the electorate, is sure to sink Republicans in the next election. Especially when Hillary can point to the Republican's perceived anti-women stance and say "Elect me and we women will finally get equality." With such a message, you'd likely be hard pressed to find a woman who wouldn't vote for her. And of course, any man who doesn't also vote for her could be labelled a sexist pig who wants to keep their wife/daughter/mother/etc. from achieving equality.
So yeah, 2016 is Hillary's if she wants it.
Now as for 2020, ...I'm hoping that the machines rise up and take over before then.
Vote for me humans, or you'll be terminated!
Ok. Sure. Will do. No problemo!
Just to put a spanner in the works, it looks like Sen Bernie Sanders (I -VT) is going to rejoin the Democratic Party and run in 2016. Which means that - for dems - Hillary needn't be the Only One.
As much as I love the idea of pushing the boundaries of representation and NOT endlessly electing a rich old white guy as POTUS, I'd be hard pushed to make a decision between Ms Clinton and Sen Sanders. I like them both, but Sen Sanders is much more representative of my politics than Clinton is, as much as I'd like a woman POTUS for a change.
As for the GOP - I'm fascinated by how the right-wing funding is going to go down, and who will get which backing. With so many GOP guys throwing their hats into the ring this early on, its going to be very interesting to see who wins this one for the right. I'll predict that its going to a very very expensive race, whoever gets the nomination.
As much as I love the idea of pushing the boundaries of representation and NOT endlessly electing a rich old white guy as POTUS, I'd be hard pushed to make a decision between Ms Clinton and Sen Sanders. I like them both, but Sen Sanders is much more representative of my politics than Clinton is, as much as I'd like a woman POTUS for a change.
As for the GOP - I'm fascinated by how the right-wing funding is going to go down, and who will get which backing. With so many GOP guys throwing their hats into the ring this early on, its going to be very interesting to see who wins this one for the right. I'll predict that its going to a very very expensive race, whoever gets the nomination.
This is a joke...
!_!.... A cruel but hilarious joke....
A lot of Democrats don't even like Hillary. Christie would make the most sense... Let his fat ass go out and represent America. Depending on the crap he spews he'd actually split the democratic vote.
No one likes Hillary but you're betting on Paul...
--> Inserts manic laughter
!_!.... A cruel but hilarious joke....
A lot of Democrats don't even like Hillary. Christie would make the most sense... Let his fat ass go out and represent America. Depending on the crap he spews he'd actually split the democratic vote.
No one likes Hillary but you're betting on Paul...
--> Inserts manic laughter
How is Christie better than the other choices? He might not even be that different than Hillary. The reason Democrats like him is because he's an all-around moderate, and he's happy to use government power to favor his friends. The reason some Democrats like Rand Paul is because he's far better than most Republican and Democrats at promoting liberty.
Pretty sure Hillary is going to coast this. However, it would be hilarious if she ran against Jeb Bush.. All in the Family...
Promoting 'Liberty'....
Promoting 'Liberty'....
Santorum is still in politics??
I don't think I've ever seen any news about the man that wasn't making raucously loud fun of him.
I don't think I've ever seen any news about the man that wasn't making raucously loud fun of him.
For me it is all about; if you are going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.
Either way, with how politicians are now, the country is going to shit no matter what.
Peace will never happen. Sexism will never be solved (this goes for equal pay, and general women's rights, especially with health - abortion, etc). Racism will be rampant. Gay rights, despite their amazing feats, will be set back.
Peace, love, understanding, equality, and being HUMAN BEINGS, will never happen...at least not in this lifetime.
The world makes me so sad...
Peace will never happen. Sexism will never be solved (this goes for equal pay, and general women's rights, especially with health - abortion, etc). Racism will be rampant. Gay rights, despite their amazing feats, will be set back.
Peace, love, understanding, equality, and being HUMAN BEINGS, will never happen...at least not in this lifetime.
The world makes me so sad...
Why do libertarians support the war-mongering, possibly racist, anti-pot, anti-immigration, crony capitalist republicans in the first place? You guys should just focus on the libertarian party and try to pull small government conservatives into your fold. You might even attract a few democrats who are more focused on social issues.
The Libertarian Party doesn't have a winning coalition. We can't build a winning coalition from an island. We need to bring the Republican Party closer to the Libertarian Party so that more intermixing can occur. Then, the size of that coalition will depend more on how libertarian the party is, and if the RINOs continue to dictate their terms, Republicans will be far more willing to jump ship to the Libertarian Party.
Basically, when the Republicans move towards liberty, we reward them with a larger coalition. When they move away from it, we jump ship, taking more former Republicans with us each time. This strategy forces the Republican Party to eventually either turn libertarian, or die to the Libertarian Party.
Basically, when the Republicans move towards liberty, we reward them with a larger coalition. When they move away from it, we jump ship, taking more former Republicans with us each time. This strategy forces the Republican Party to eventually either turn libertarian, or die to the Libertarian Party.
I don't support these type but sadly, I have to go out of the party to find a good candidate.
Yeah I've heard this before, I'm personally hoping Mike Pence enters the race, not to seem biased since he is my governor, but having watched him for a number of years now and seeing how he can work with folks, he's a man I would vote for over anyone else in this list.
Tell me more about this Mike Pence.
Governor of Indiana, former Congressman from (believe it or not) my very home district. Yes he is a Republican, yes he is more conservative than Jeb and Romney, yes he helped found the Tea Party Caucus, but incredibly, our Democrats in the State like him because he understands that even their arguments with education (that's just one example) are not without merit. So he can work with others, but he is DECISIVE and that is super crucial to leadership. I am a tad concerned that he has ties to the Koch brothers (meaning a part of the establishment), but I have yet to see a shred of initiative on his part to abandon those who elected him for money. He did demonstrate many times that he doesn't agree with his party on everything, and he isn't like those dogs now in Congress who just sits by and lets the Democrats get away with more and more like Boehner does.
He once said in a speech that if he knew he had twelve years to live, he would go to serve ANOTHER twelve years in congress because they were the longest years of his life. So he also has a sense of humor.
A charismatic leader is another thing we lack now. Good leaders can speak eloquently and with fluid movement and precision, with this lug head in the White House I hear a lot of "uhh..." in between words. Speech is one thing I understand, but I really would like to see a President in my lifetime that can speak eloquently like Reagan or Kennedy did.
He once said in a speech that if he knew he had twelve years to live, he would go to serve ANOTHER twelve years in congress because they were the longest years of his life. So he also has a sense of humor.
A charismatic leader is another thing we lack now. Good leaders can speak eloquently and with fluid movement and precision, with this lug head in the White House I hear a lot of "uhh..." in between words. Speech is one thing I understand, but I really would like to see a President in my lifetime that can speak eloquently like Reagan or Kennedy did.
As much as I hate Republicans, I might vote for the guy. What's his agenda?
Well frankly his agenda is whatever the State currently asks of him. I know that sounds general, but on the national debate he is all for limiting government agency overreach, and most of the usual conservative things but he wants to go at it in a more archaic approach. Instead of simply arguing his case, I notice that he doesn't simply hardline but actually entices would-be naysayers to see the bright side of his agenda. Most Democrats in our State didn't think his plans for education and the local public/charter schools would go over well at all but whaddya know, he talked them into it and so far it only remains controversial to few and still promising to most.
I do hear occasional support from him over giving back power to the States to run their budgets, their commerce, their whatever in the manner they choose. He once stated that he supports an Article V process at a town hall I went to a few years ago, don't know if he has changed on that. Naturally as a Republican he tends to be in favor of tax cuts, did so here and eliminated the "death tax" in the state. Wants budget surpluses and both years he has been in office we have had a budget surplus for the fiscal years and he believes that a surplus should go back to the population because that surplus does not ALWAYS mean that it has to be spent.
He's also been opposed to the ACA, but took a different route in opposing it. He didn't get as outspoken as a lot of others, instead opted not to adopt an exchange through the federal program. And of course, he is for oil but at the same time he has explored alternative energy for the state.
So what it gets down to is, he is a conservative pretty much through in and out, but he thinks like an innovator. Take his spin on energy, he may be all for the oil and coal industry, but he understands that later down the road things will change so he has invested heavily in wind energy, although that itself is only debatable in its practical application for now.
I would vote for the man in a heart beat, but I have a BAD, BAD feeling that Jeb will be nominated. I can feel it.
I do hear occasional support from him over giving back power to the States to run their budgets, their commerce, their whatever in the manner they choose. He once stated that he supports an Article V process at a town hall I went to a few years ago, don't know if he has changed on that. Naturally as a Republican he tends to be in favor of tax cuts, did so here and eliminated the "death tax" in the state. Wants budget surpluses and both years he has been in office we have had a budget surplus for the fiscal years and he believes that a surplus should go back to the population because that surplus does not ALWAYS mean that it has to be spent.
He's also been opposed to the ACA, but took a different route in opposing it. He didn't get as outspoken as a lot of others, instead opted not to adopt an exchange through the federal program. And of course, he is for oil but at the same time he has explored alternative energy for the state.
So what it gets down to is, he is a conservative pretty much through in and out, but he thinks like an innovator. Take his spin on energy, he may be all for the oil and coal industry, but he understands that later down the road things will change so he has invested heavily in wind energy, although that itself is only debatable in its practical application for now.
I would vote for the man in a heart beat, but I have a BAD, BAD feeling that Jeb will be nominated. I can feel it.
Comment Flagged as Spam
View all replies