Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: 2016 Presidential Candidates
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Quote:Interesting answer to the question.  I appreciate your response.  What I find interesting is that you left out Marco Rubio (my publicly stated favorite candidate).  Do you have a problem with what he says or what his vision is?  Is he "far right"?  If so, specifically how?
First off, I'm not going to sit around and dig up specific policies that each far-right candidate has pushed which get them into that category. Too many beers to drink and fingers to blow off this evening.

 

I think that Rubio falls more into the "pandering to the far right" category than actually belonging in it. Take his views on immigration, for one. He was an advocate for a more "friendly" approach to it until he threw his hat into the 2016 ring, at which point he started spouting the party line. He's strongly anti-Obamacare, but unlike many of the far-right crowd that simply shouts about how awful it is without presenting an alternative, Rubio and Scott Walker actually drew one up. Socially, he is definitely far right, but his economic views aren't the extreme "don't tax the rich, do tax the poor, increase military spending, stop all social programs" platform that some on the far right tend towards.

 

Rubio wouldn't be my first pick (or my second...or even my third...maybe not even my fourth), but given that he'll be working with much the same Supreme Court that Obama has, the odds of him getting a decision to overturn the same-sex marriage ruling are slim, at best, and a Constitutional amendment to define marriage is just not going to happen. Abortion is effectively settled law at this point, with a future Court unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade. Socially, he's harmless. If there's any one likely nominee out there that I feel would moderate after taking office as opposed to digging in their heels, Rubio is probably the guy.

 

And since this will be your next question, if the election happened today, my vote would go to Rand Paul. I'm not a fan of the right-wing stance he's taken lately on social issues, but again, look at what he was saying before throwing his hat in the ring, and look what he's saying now. I don't consider him a likely nominee at this point because he is going up against players who are much better known with much larger followings, but he is the candidate who would, I believe, moderate right back to his original views pretty quickly upon taking office.

 

That's a common theme for me--what were these guys saying before they wanted the White House? In the case of someone like Ted Cruz, who has bordered on clinically insane for years (I mean exactly what I said: the guy is bat-crap crazy, and no, I won't provide examples), I want no part of him. If someone was fairly moderate before saying/doing whatever they had to to get the nomination, they may well moderate again once they take office. This applies at levels of government below the Presidency. Had McCain been elected in 2008, I believe he would have been a great President, as he too would likely have moderated rather than stayed with the newfound right-wing platform that got him the nomination.
Quote:Which is why I hope the Republicans will come to their senses, flush all the pretenders out of the clown car, and come up with a serious candidate who is not a right-wing extremist or flame thrower.   What a lot of people call RINOs are actually the type of candidate I tend to support.  
 

So you're a fan of cronyism? The RINOs are all big supporters of corporate interests.

Quote:So you're a fan of cronyism? The RINOs are all big supporters of corporate interests.
 

Don't fool yourself. When they want money to fuel their political campaigns, all politicians with a realistic shot at winning the presidency are big supporters of corporate interests.
Quote:Don't fool yourself. When they want money to fuel their political campaigns, all politicians with a realistic shot at winning the presidency are big supporters of corporate interests.
 

Perhaps, but at least some of the 'right wing extremists' have voted against corporate interests in the past. That's not true about the RINOs. I'm not familiar with the Dem candidates other than Hillary who has been a big corporatist. How do the others divide on voting for corporate interests?

If Hilary Clinton becomes our next President I refuse to vote again, because it would surely have to either be rigged or our Nation is filled with idiots.

Quote:If Hilary Clinton becomes our next President I refuse to vote again, because it would surely have to either be rigged or our Nation is filled with idiots.
 

I can give you a few sites where bunkers can be purchased at a decent price.................
Quote:If Hilary Clinton becomes our next President I refuse to vote again, because it would surely have to either be rigged or our Nation is filled with idiots.
 

Don't worry. It won't be Hillary. Obama will win a third term with Michelle running as his proxy.

Quote:Don't worry. It won't be Hillary. Obama will win a third term with Michelle running as his proxy.
I think you are joking, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a poll with a huge portion of conservatives believing this. 
Quote:I think you are joking, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a poll with a huge portion of conservatives believing this. 
 

Why do you think that way.  Is it because conservatives (in your mind) are dumb or stupid?
Quote:Why do you think that way.  Is it because conservatives (in your mind) are dumb or stupid?
They are more inclined to believe nutty things about who they see as the devil.
Quote:I think you are joking, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a poll with a huge portion of conservatives believing this.


Obama is tainted the globalist need a new puppet this time he will probably be a republican.
Quote:I think you are joking, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a poll with a huge portion of conservatives believing this. 
 

It's logical. Obama won because he rallied the black vote. None of the current Dem candidates will be able to do that, and there are no charismatic black Dem candidates waiting in the wings. Running a proxy for Obama would be a smart move by the Dems, by far their best chance to win in 2016.

 

Quote:<div>
It's logical. Obama won because he rallied the black vote. None of the current Dem candidates will be able to do that, and there are no charismatic black Dem candidates waiting in the wings. Running a proxy for Obama would be a smart move by the Dems, by far their best chance to win in 2016.
oh..... I see......

 

</div>
Quote:Why do you think that way.  Is it because conservatives (in your mind) are dumb or stupid?
 Welp...... Ask the source I guess not me, I thought it was a joke but it's not. 

Quote:It's logical. Obama won because he rallied the black vote. None of the current Dem candidates will be able to do that, and there are no charismatic black Dem candidates waiting in the wings. Running a proxy for Obama would be a smart move by the Dems, by far their best chance to win in 2016.
They seem to think that Hilary will do that for the woman vote.

 

I don't understand why Hilary isn't in prison for actions.
Quote:They seem to think that Hilary will do that for the woman vote.


I don't understand why Hilary isn't in prison for actions.


See your first statement for the answer to your second.
Quote:They seem to think that Hilary will do that for the woman vote.

 

I don't understand why Hilary isn't in prison for actions.
As the " other side" asks the same question regarding W and Dick.

 

The cycle will never end
Quote:They seem to think that Hilary will do that for the woman vote.

 

I don't understand why Hilary isn't in prison for actions.
 

1. I doubt they think that. The Dem operatives are very smart, much smarter than the Pubs. Blacks have historically had a low turnout. Obama roughly doubled the number of black voters. Even a charismatic female wouldn't spur that much difference among female voters.


 

2. It's pretty obvious that she was selling US policy to foreign governments based on the money flow and policy decisions, but that's only statistical. There's no hard evidence.

Quote:1. I doubt they think that. The Dem operatives are very smart, much smarter than the Pubs. Blacks have historically had a low turnout. Obama roughly doubled the number of black voters. Even a charismatic female wouldn't spur that much difference among female voters.


 

2. It's pretty obvious that she was selling US policy to foreign governments based on the money flow and policy decisions, but that's only statistical. There's no hard evidence.
 

Very true.  I read a book by Peter Schweizer titled Clinton Cash that talks about this very thing.  Very interesting and informative read.
Updated list.  Added Scott Walker.

I think this election is going to come down to the Hispanic vote which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bush/Rubio ticket in some form or fashion.


Still want Rand Paul more than anyone though.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24