Pages:
Author

Topic: Slappy Statist Candidates for US President 2016 - page 13. (Read 17936 times)

legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Walker, eyeing 2016 White House bid, says he's open to sending US troops to fight ISIS

Quote
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday he is open to sending U.S. troops to the Middle East to defeat Islamic State fighters -- a bold foreign policy statement in contrast with the Obama administration’s position.

Walker told ABC’s “This Week” that he wouldn’t rule out sending troops, as Islamic State appears to grow and strengthen despite U.S.-led efforts to destroy the radical Islamic group.

“You can’t rule out anything,” Walker said. “Lives are at stake.”

More...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/01/walker-on-roll-for-potential-2016-wh-bid-says-open-to-sending-us-troops-to/

I'm not really surprised by this but this guy's main claim to fame outside of being a republican governor of a purple state is that he battled the unions in his state and came out on top. He's on pretty good terms w/ my guy and I was hoping that he'd make a decent running mate should the situation arise. He starting to talk a little too hawkish tho.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Peter King’s path to the GOP nomination: Be the last man standing

Quote
King is working on something of a rope-a-dope strategy, letting the others tire themselves out in the hopes that he can be there in the end.

“My ideal situation is to be part of the debate and if I see that there is support building and others drop out, and there is a real opening and people who share my views come forward with funding,” he said.

King continued, “I go back to 2012 when you saw Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann. They all had a chance to get to the top without much money, and they were leading in the polls. If I get into their position I am not going to make the mistakes they did.”

This is a key part of King’s argument. He carries the brawling bearing of his father, a New York City police officer, but it may surprise people who have actually seen him that he has a polish some of his fellow Republican contenders do not.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/31/in-gop-presidential-contest-peter-king-s-race-for-second-place.html

This bozo is very hawkish and very pro police state surveillance and I've never noted him to have any fiscal restraint roots at all. Plus, he's been known to sympathize with Irish terrorists in the past. He's merely a Congressman and his main purpose is to troll an excessive foreign policy as the lynchpin of his campaign. Completely useless from our standpoint.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001

This is very optimistic. No president slashes spending. Ever. To believe they would is fantasy, imo. And as presidents don't really have the power to create jobs (short of big government programs that directly employ people) and have never been particularly successful at fostering economic environments that do with any certainty, expecting Paul to magically succeed where no one before him has reliably been able to do so is expecting a lot of magic from one man. (The failure of trickle down economics to deliver on the promises made for it is pretty convincing at this point.)

I've seen this level of hype before, and I've seen how disastrously that man delivered on his promises. I have no reason to expect Paul is different from every other politician. After all, he belongs to one of the two parties that run this country. These guys may have slightly different flavors here and there, but at the root, they're all the same.
The difference here is there is no comparison between Obama and Paul. There's two diametrically opposed ideologies where one is to fundamentally change America and this is what we've come to see in terms of the expansion and powers of government and the other is a true to form libertarian populist mentality of paring back govt to reasonable levels at minimum. I agree that most republicans haven't been trustworthy in terms of being true fiscal conservatives but that's the difference between run of the mill republicans and those of the libertarian brand which we've come to see more of in different parts of the country and Reps like Amash and Massie. Over and above the fact that Rand is a Paul, his voting record pretty much speaks for itself in libertarian terms. I'm just trying to help him get the nomination and then let the people decide between their choices and then so be it. If he's the head of the party by being at the top of the ticket, all other republicans running will have to push for and defend the way Rand positions himself and the rest of the party, for that matter, on the issues. Note how Obama had his majority leader line up the votes to pass things he wanted when he had the chance. Anyways, I shot my own self in the foot for getting into Rand Paul in this thread when I already showcase him in my other thread.

This thread is reserved for candidates that are running (or might run) in the two major parties for the upcoming primaries on either side and I get to deem who fits here and who doesn't. Not trying to be a jerk but Rand Paul would be showcased in this thread if he didn't have the dynamics as a person that he has including his voting record and the issues he champions, all or most of which are pro-liberty.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

This is essentially why I'm not excited by the prospect of Rand Paul winning, as many people are in this forum. Because nothing will change, and he'll do all the things necessary to get re-elected and keep his party in power, not any of the things he's talking about right now.
Under a Paul admin, he'd be much more reserved in how the troops would be committed overseas and would actually have Congress declare war and make the people be united behind it rather than just the military industrial complex interests.

There was every reason to expect this from Obama too. These were his main criticisms against Bush, and the area he spoke most forcefully as a senator and candidate. The parallels to Paul are uncanny. I have no confidence Paul would be any more true to his word than Obama was. Promises give way to political considerations once elected. His word will be meaningless, what will matter is keeping power; the same concessions Obama made, with his integrity the victim. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice... you get the picture.

Domestically, he would slash govt spending across the board for starters, assuming his party still controlled both chambers of Congress. One of his other big things are economic freedom zones which would jumpstart local economies, provide lasting jobs that are worthwhile and the showcase this success and drive a stake in the heart of big govt/progressivism for the next hundred years. There's plenty that will go in a better direction with him at the helm. W/o him, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will continue to break down in every category that matters and its imprint on the world won't change.

This is very optimistic. No president slashes spending. Ever. To believe they would is fantasy, imo. And as presidents don't really have the power to create jobs (short of big government programs that directly employ people) and have never been particularly successful at fostering economic environments that do with any certainty, expecting Paul to magically succeed where no one before him has reliably been able to do so is expecting a lot of magic from one man. (The failure of trickle down economics to deliver on the promises made for it is pretty convincing at this point.)

I've seen this level of hype before, and I've seen how disastrously that man delivered on his promises. I have no reason to expect Paul is different from every other politician. After all, he belongs to one of the two parties that run this country. These guys may have slightly different flavors here and there, but at the root, they're all the same.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
There actually were a couple of US presidents who were keen on change.


I'm pretty sure if anyone like Ron Paul ever got into the oval office they'd just show him this clip and say, "You don't want to end up like this, do you?"

I also like to think Ron would tell them to stick it, but then I'm also pretty sure he'd end up just like JFK.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

This is essentially why I'm not excited by the prospect of Rand Paul winning, as many people are in this forum. Because nothing will change, and he'll do all the things necessary to get re-elected and keep his party in power, not any of the things he's talking about right now.
As things stand, we're looking at a Clinton or a Bush as the default likelihoods of the next president of the USA. From a foreign policy perspective, how positive is that for certain areas of the world? Under a Paul admin, he'd be much more reserved in how the troops would be committed overseas and would actually have Congress declare war and make the people be united behind it rather than just the military industrial complex interests. Domestically, he would slash govt spending across the board for starters, assuming his party still controlled both chambers of Congress. One of his other big things are economic freedom zones which would jumpstart local economies, provide lasting jobs that are worthwhile and the showcase this success and drive a stake in the heart of big govt/progressivism for the next hundred years. There's plenty that will go in a better direction with him at the helm. W/o him, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will continue to break down in every category that matters and its imprint on the world won't change.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

This is essentially why I'm not excited by the prospect of Rand Paul winning, as many people are in this forum. Because nothing will change, and he'll do all the things necessary to get re-elected and keep his party in power, not any of the things he's talking about right now.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
They're going to do to Rand Paul the same thing they did to Ron Paul, it's that simple, I hope someone like Rand Paul does get elected but I've given up on the idea, if someone like Ron Paul came along regardless of his personal views on some things I'd vote for him for sure.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
Thanks Chef, this is a nice summation of the candidates. God help us all. lol
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Marco Rubio wants to permanently Extend NSA Mass Surveillance

Quote
Sen. Marco Rubio wants Congress to permanently extend the authorities governing several of the National Security Agency's controversial spying programs, including its mass surveillance of domestic phone records.

The Florida Republican and likely 2016 presidential hopeful penned an op-ed on Tuesday condemning President Obama's counterterrorism policies and warning that the U.S. has not learned the "fundamental lessons of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

Rubio called on Congress to permanently reauthorize core provisions of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, which are due to sunset on June 1 of this year and provide the intelligence community with much of its surveillance power.

"This year, a new Republican majority in both houses of Congress will have to extend current authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and I urge my colleagues to consider a permanent extension of the counterterrorism tools our intelligence community relies on to keep the American people safe," Rubio wrote in a Fox News op-ed.

Rubio for years has positioned himself as a vocal defense hawk in Congress, and he has repeatedly defended the NSA's spy programs revealed to the public by former agency contractor Edward Snowden.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/marco-rubio-wants-to-permanently-extend-nsa-mass-surveillance-20150127?AID=7236

Definitely seems to me that some of these guys running have a major purpose in trending the GOP back into a full blown fascistic party rather than let it slip into the hands of pro-freedom Rand Paul. It's like they plan on ganging up on the guy in the debates saying he's outside the party's mainstream when the mainstream of the country is on his side.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Mitt Romney announces that he is NOT running in 2016

Quote
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney said Friday that he would not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016.

Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, shared his decision on a conference call with a small group of advisers.

In a second call to a larger group of supporters, Mr. Romney said, “After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.”

By not pursuing a third White House bid, Mr. Romney frees up scores of donors and operatives who had been awaiting his decision, and creates space for other potential center-right candidates such as Jeb Bush.

Mr. Romney, 67, had expressed renewed interest in another presidential run to a group of donors earlier this month, roiling the nascent Republican race. Many of his loyal contributors, staff members and supporters had been reluctant to come out for one of his potential rivals until they knew Mr. Romney’s plans.

More...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html?_r=0
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted on two felony charges

Quote
A grand jury has indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, saying he abused his power by trying to pressure a district attorney to resign.

The two felony counts against Perry, a Republican, stem from his threat to veto funding for a statewide public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she stepped down, the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum, said.

Perry attorney David L. Botsford called the indictment a "political abuse of the court system." He said the action "violated the separation of powers" and "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor."

CNN affiliate KVUE reported that Perry will have to report to the Travis County Jail in the capital of Austin to be booked, fingerprinted and have his photo made for a mugshot.

Perry can continue to serve as governor while under indictment, KVUE reported. His attorneys could seek to have the charges thrown out, a motion that would delay the case, at the very least.

The grand jury in Travis County indicted the governor on charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity.

The charges have serious political implications, both in Texas and beyond. Perry is entering his final few months in office after a historic 14-year run in Austin.

The Republican running to replace Perry is state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who will have to answer questions about the legal drama. Abbott is facing off against Democratic star Wendy Davis, whose campaign is already making hay of Friday's news.

Perry's presidential prospects could be damaged. It's an open secret he's laying groundwork for a second presidential campaign after his disastrous 2012 effort.

More...http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/politics/rick-perry-indictment/index.html
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
The big question here is will the next president continue to start wars abroad. Perhaps its time to focus on problems at home?
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
I'm glad to see that some of you are properly realising that voting for Republicans isn't likely to make a difference, there were a lot of loyalists here awhile back don't be fooled into the two party system.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
As Romney Weighs '16 Bid, His Past Donors Commit to Jeb Bush

Quote
Closing in on a decision about whether to again run for president, Mitt Romney is finding that several past major fundraisers and donors in key states have defected to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The donors, in interviews with The Associated Press, said they see in Bush what they liked about Romney in 2012, namely what they believe it takes to serve successfully as president, but also something Romney could not muster in his two previous campaigns: what it takes, both in personality as a candidate and in a supporting staff, to win the White House for the GOP.

Also, the donors said, they took the former Massachusetts governor at his word when he said he would not run for president a third time.

"I've got great respect for Gov. Romney, and I busted my buns for him," said Chicago investor Craig Duchossois, whose wife contributed $250,000 to a pro-Romney super PAC while he collected tens of thousands more for Romney's last campaign. "But I have turned the page."

And beyond donors, Romney lost one of his most trusted political advisers on Thursday when veteran Iowa operative David Kochel formally joined Bush's team.

Having backed both of Romney's previous campaigns, Kochel is in line to play a senior role in Bush's 2016 campaign should he run, said Bush spokesman Kristy Campbell, who described Kochel as "one of the most respected political strategists in the country."

The defections to Bush do not, as of yet, appear so definitive as to keep Romney from the race.

There are many free agents among the major GOP donors, each with the ability to contribute personally and collect from others the hundreds of millions needed to run a modern presidential campaign. They include Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets; Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate; and hedge fund investors Paul Singer and Robert Mercer.

More...http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/romney-weighs-16-bid-past-donors-commit-jeb-28579699
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
David Kochel, Romney’s Iowa Strategist, Jumps to Bush

Quote
David Kochel, a Republican strategist based in Iowa who worked on both of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, is joining Jeb Bush’s political action committee as a senior strategist and is in line to serve as Mr. Bush’s national campaign manager.

“David is one of the most talented state-based operatives in the nation and brings a different focus and different set of priorities to our effort to communicate Governor Bush’s focus on economic and social mobility,” said Sally Bradshaw, Mr. Bush’s longtime strategist.

The move to tap Mr. Kochel, who advised Mr. Romney for over six years, represents a shot across the bow of the 2012 Republican nominee, who is now considering a third bid for the White House.

Mr. Kochel offered only praise for Mr. Romney, while also promoting Mr. Bush’s strengths.

“I really believe Governor Bush is the right person for the right time,” he said. “He has a successful conservative record in Florida, and I’d put that record up against anybody else.”

More...http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/01/29/romneys-iowa-strategist-jumps-to-bush/?_r=0
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Sources: Jeb Bush raising money in the mid- to high six figures — every day

Quote
According to some Republicans, the Bush committees together are raking in daily sums in the mid-to-high six figures, an intake that should guarantee an impressive showing once the first fundraising quarter concludes in March.

“Other candidates aren’t doing that,” said one unaffiliated Republican in Washington who had been recently briefed on the fundraising.

Still, Bush backers vigorously deny a report from earlier this month that they are planning to haul in $100 million in the first quarter, a near impossible goal.

Much of the news about Bush’s financial activities is emerging from supportive donors leaking tidbits to reporters. On the staff side, it’s no-comment, all the time.

“It’s the Jeb Bush culture,” said one Florida Republican who knows the likely candidate. “It’s consistent with how he ran previous campaigns. Consistent with how he governed. Focus is execution, getting things done and lack of turmoil. That’s the goal anyway. You always fall short from time to time.”

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/01/28/sources-jeb-bush-raising-money-in-the-mid-to-high-six-figures-every-day/
full member
Activity: 308
Merit: 100
I'm nothing without GOD
I hate Rubio the most out all these.

I don't know what to make of Rubio.  He seems pretty smart but I'll never forget that time he looked like a total blundering idiot on CNN.   I think it was right after the POTUS State of the Union address about a year or so ago and Rubio got picked to give the Republican response.  He was constantly nervously grabbing for this water bottle and made absolutely no sense.  It was like he just walked 10 miles in the desert and was then told to give an impromptu rebuttal to the President's speech.

I'm willing to listen to what he may say but for now he has a lot to prove.  He just doesn't seem like a POTUS.

He comes off to me just as very untrustworthy.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
Hillary Clinton ‘100%’ in for 2016, will launch bid in April: report

Quote
Even Hillary is finally ready for Hillary, it seems.

Hillary Clinton will “100%” run for President in 2016 and has already approved a budget for the campaign and moved ahead with key hires, according to a new report.

Clinton, who has been at the center of campaign speculation since she left the State Department in 2013, has filled most of the top spots for her imminent campaign and is likely to announce her 2016 bid in April, Politico reported Monday.

An April launch, according to Politico, which cited multiple people in close contact with Clinton’s team, would place the campaign’s start right after the end of the year’s first quarter, allowing her first fundraising report to be “a blockbuster.”

Clinton has hired people for all major positions, with one exception — communications director. Her team is still considering candidates for the job, Politico reported.

In addition, the imminent campaign has already begun to closely involve former President Bill Clinton, who was able to solicit a “heads-up” from President George H.W. Bush regarding former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s announcement last month that he would “actively explore” running for President himself.

Bill Clinton, who has come to be friends with George H.W. Bush through the relief work they’ve done together since both leaving office, reportedly considers Jeb Bush a serious threat to his wife’s prospective candidacy.


And while the team is looking to avoid the sense of inevitability that haunted Clinton’s 2008 failed bid, some inside her camp are already floating potential vice presidential candidates.

People close to her advisers told Politico that Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, as well as Julian Castro, the current Housing and Urban Development Secretary, are all netting serious consideration as running mates, even at this early stage.

The report comes almost eight years to the day from Clinton’s January 2007 announcement that she would run for President in 2008.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-100-2016-launch-bid-april-article-1.2091806

Bill Clinton is who Bush senior refers to as another son of sorts and that's part of the reason that Jeb Bush is being postured as someone that could cause problems for Hillary when that would be anything but the case and also why Bill was given the heads up. Anyone but a Bush will be a theme in the republican primary as most of them don't want another Clinton v. Bush dynasty election. Then after the primary, should Jeb win, the messaging will change that all republicans need to support Bush or they're voting for Hillary by default. At this point, we would've come full circle from the early nineties and it'll show what a one party system looks like. Only the likes of Rand Paul can defeat Hillary cause only he can dig into parts of her base and swing them over by his sincere stances on foreign policy, civil liberties and the drug war. If it does come down to Clinton v. Bush again, it will be about voting against the person certain people hate most but no matter who gets in, nothing will change in terms of foreign policy, bankers running the show and taking from the middle class, an even deteriorating job market, you name it.
Pages:
Jump to: