No, Jeb is NOT a good choice for the GOP in 2016...

I don't think I was talking to you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I made the 2nd post on this thread, so by ORDER, yes you were talking to me.


try and keep up dumbass

If you had read the article, you would have seen at least one person - George Will - speaking up for ole Jeb. Not to mention the other people and groups he discussed in the article.

My posts aren't addressed only to those who post in this forum. They are addressed to any one who reads this forum - even if they don't speak up.

Not everything is about you or addressed to you. Don't be so solipsistic. Originally Posted by ExNYer

G Will likes to pretend he fell out of Goldwaters ass

How about judging each candidate by his or her accomplishments rather than obsessing over the magic of their name? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

NO.

Keeping power in the same family is an evil in its own right.

Even if a particular family member happens to be a good leader.

The harm outweighs the good.

It is a slippery slope. You are disregarding the obvious dangers of nepotism because you think one particular family member may be worth the risk.

That's horse shit.

We have over 300 million people. No matter HOW good a politician is, he or she is only a teensy-tiny bit better than the second best choice.

So pick the second best choice (assuming he is not part of a dynasty) and avoid all the fucking dangers of nepotism.

It really isn't that hard.

NO.

Keeping power in the same family is an evil in its own right.

Even if a particular family member happens to be a good leader.

The harm outweighs the good.

It si a slipper slope. You are disregarding the obvious dangers of nepotism because you think one particular family member may be worth the risk.

That's horse shit.

We have over 300 million people. No matter HOW good a politician is, he or she is only a teensy-tiny bit better than the second best choice.

So pick the second best choice (assuming he is not part of a dynasty) and avoid all the fucking dangers of nepotism.

It really isn't that hard. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I can think of several on this board who find removing their lips from nepotistic ass extremely hard

I can think of several on this board who find removing their lips from nepotistic ass extremely hard Originally Posted by CJ7

True.

I can think of several on this board who find removing their lips from nepotistic ass extremely hard Originally Posted by CJ7

CBJ7, it looks like you and BigKoTex are the one's with a lip-lock on Hildabeast's Hersey highway.

Hildabeast will kick GOP ass either way Originally Posted by CJ7

and Obie still got elected twice, and next in line is Hildabeast Originally Posted by CJ7

regardless what you can say about Hildabeast, she will be the next POTUS. Originally Posted by CJ7

when Hillary DOES become POTUS. Originally Posted by CJ7

As of this moment, BT's 2016 vote is "TRENDING" HILLARY!

Trendy, can you hear me now? Originally Posted by bigtex

If you think the Wing Nuts are going to "piss their panties" in 2016 when Hillary gets elected POTUS.

Just imagine their reaction when Michelle O. becomes Hillary's successor in 2024! Originally Posted by bigtex

November 2016 countdown !!!!!!!!!!!

Say hello to Madame President, Hillary Clinton! Originally Posted by bigtex

NO.

Keeping power in the same family is an evil in its own right.

Even if a particular family member happens to be a good leader.

The harm outweighs the good.

It is a slippery slope. You are disregarding the obvious dangers of nepotism because you think one particular family member may be worth the risk.

That's horse shit.

We have over 300 million people. No matter HOW good a politician is, he or she is only a teensy-tiny bit better than the second best choice.

So pick the second best choice (assuming he is not part of a dynasty) and avoid all the fucking dangers of nepotism.

It really isn't that hard. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You are absolutely right. No less a man than Abraham Lincoln said this, "No man is good enough to be the President, but someone has to be!!"
Maybe it was Thomas Paine, but you get the idea...

I don't have an opinion on the family dynasty question. What matters is who is electable. Then you get to the issue of whether they will do a good job for the country or not. Because if they ain't electable, the second issue doesn't matter. That is sad but true.

I get what saying you're saying NY'er and I agree with a lot of it. But, if the GOP wants to have any chance of winning the next election, Jeb Bush is the best choice of all the candidates currently in the mix. The lack of electable GOP presidential candidates is mind-boggling given the number of people competing for the job. (the only thing more mind-boggling is the utter lack of Democratic candidates besides Hillary....early bet: she'll pick that Castro kid from San Antonio to be her VP....is he even old enough?)

The mouthbreathers will all jump in here and talk about Cruz, Palin, Perry, and Alan fucking West but the reality is that none of those people are electable. The guys that are too smart for their own good (you know who you are) will advocate Gary Johnson or somebody else that nobody has ever heard of....The center, even a lot of the center-right, isn't going to vote for a nut job and while the mouthbreathers will argue that point...well....that's why they are mouthbreathers.

In my opinion, Bush is electable. I think Christie is electable as well but less so because he is morbidly obese (sorry, but its true). Both will attract independents. Neither alienates the 51% of the population that is female and that votes in increasingly large numbers. Bush will attract significant numbers of Hispanics that would traditionally vote republican. He is fluent in Spanish. A small thing, but you think when he buys $10,000,000 worth of airwave time and speaks in Spanish during his commercials that it isn't going to matter in a close election?

The issue for Bush isn't family history, although it would be interesting to see whose relative would constitute a larger drag, Shrub or Willy. The issue is whether the red meat crowd like the Admiral, Whirlytard, IBAnIdiot and the knuckleheads that think like them will show up and vote for a candidate that they consider at best a RINO and, at worst, a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican. Bush burned a lot of bridges with his immigration stance although it is, politically, exactly the right stance to take for a Republican who wants to appeal to an audience larger than the halfwits who believe Obama was born in Kenya and Putin would be a good POTUS.

Frankly, I don't think it matters at all what any of us think. Bush is going to run. And, I think he will secure the nomination easily. And, he will pick Christie as his running mate. And defeat Hillary, but it will be a close run thing. I hope to god we hold on to the Senate. No telling what kind of damage the House GOP could do without a Senate smart enough to check their crazier antics.

That's my crystal-ball gazing commentary for the day.

I don't have an opinion on the family dynasty question. What matters is who is electable. Then you get to the issue of whether they will do a good job for the country or not. Because if they ain't electable, the second issue doesn't matter. That is sad but true.

I get what saying you're saying NY'er and I agree with a lot of it. But, if the GOP wants to have any chance of winning the next election, Jeb Bush is the best choice of all the candidates currently in the mix. The lack of electable GOP presidential candidates is mind-boggling given the number of people competing for the job. (the only thing more mind-boggling is the utter lack of Democratic candidates besides Hillary....early bet: she'll pick that Castro kid from San Antonio to be her VP....is he even old enough?)

The mouthbreathers will all jump in here and talk about Cruz, Palin, Perry, and Alan fucking West but the reality is that none of those people are electable. The guys that are too smart for their own good (you know who you are) will advocate Gary Johnson or somebody else that nobody has ever heard of....The center, even a lot of the center-right, isn't going to vote for a nut job and while the mouthbreathers will argue that point...well....that's why they are mouthbreathers.

In my opinion, Bush is electable. I think Christie is electable as well but less so because he is morbidly obese (sorry, but its true). Both will attract independents. Neither alienates the 51% of the population that is female and that votes in increasingly large numbers. Bush will attract significant numbers of Hispanics that would traditionally vote republican. He is fluent in Spanish. A small thing, but you think when he buys $10,000,000 worth of airwave time and speaks in Spanish during his commercials that it isn't going to matter in a close election?

The issue for Bush isn't family history, although it would be interesting to see whose relative would constitute a larger drag, Shrub or Willy. The issue is whether the red meat crowd like the Admiral, Whirlytard, IBAnIdiot and the knuckleheads that think like them will show up and vote for a candidate that they consider at best a RINO and, at worst, a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican. Bush burned a lot of bridges with his immigration stance although it is, politically, exactly the right stance to take for a Republican who wants to appeal to an audience larger than the halfwits who believe Obama was born in Kenya and Putin would be a good POTUS.

Frankly, I don't think it matters at all what any of us think. Bush is going to run. And, I think he will secure the nomination easily. And, he will pick Christie as his running mate. And defeat Hillary, but it will be a close run thing. I hope to god we hold on to the Senate. No telling what kind of damage the House GOP could do without a Senate smart enough to check their crazier antics.

That's my crystal-ball gazing commentary for the day. Originally Posted by timpage

Christie is a RINO, Little Timmy-tard, and that's why you're advocating for him to run.

Please complete your thoughts SupercalifragilisticIBIsatroci ous.

"Little Timmy-tard" as you call him likes RINOs? Or you can read his mind and know something about which the rest of us can only speculate, SupercalifragilisticIBIsatroci ous!

BTW -- where is the "Hersey Highway?" Do you mean Herecy? Do you mean Hearsay? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EVER MEAN, SupercalifragilisticIBIsatroci ous?

I don't have an opinion on the family dynasty question. What matters is who is electable. Then you get to the issue of whether they will do a good job for the country or not. Because if they ain't electable, the second issue doesn't matter. That is sad but true.

I get what saying you're saying NY'er and I agree with a lot of it. But, if the GOP wants to have any chance of winning the next election, Jeb Bush is the best choice of all the candidates currently in the mix. The lack of electable GOP presidential candidates is mind-boggling given the number of people competing for the job. (the only thing more mind-boggling is the utter lack of Democratic candidates besides Hillary....early bet: she'll pick that Castro kid from San Antonio to be her VP....is he even old enough?)

The mouthbreathers will all jump in here and talk about Cruz, Palin, Perry, and Alan fucking West but the reality is that none of those people are electable. The guys that are too smart for their own good (you know who you are) will advocate Gary Johnson or somebody else that nobody has ever heard of....The center, even a lot of the center-right, isn't going to vote for a nut job and while the mouthbreathers will argue that point...well....that's why they are mouthbreathers.

In my opinion, Bush is electable. I think Christie is electable as well but less so because he is morbidly obese (sorry, but its true). Both will attract independents. Neither alienates the 51% of the population that is female and that votes in increasingly large numbers. Bush will attract significant numbers of Hispanics that would traditionally vote republican. He is fluent in Spanish. A small thing, but you think when he buys $10,000,000 worth of airwave time and speaks in Spanish during his commercials that it isn't going to matter in a close election?

The issue for Bush isn't family history, although it would be interesting to see whose relative would constitute a larger drag, Shrub or Willy. The issue is whether the red meat crowd like the Admiral, Whirlytard, IBAnIdiot and the knuckleheads that think like them will show up and vote for a candidate that they consider at best a RINO and, at worst, a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican. Bush burned a lot of bridges with his immigration stance although it is, politically, exactly the right stance to take for a Republican who wants to appeal to an audience larger than the halfwits who believe Obama was born in Kenya and Putin would be a good POTUS.

Frankly, I don't think it matters at all what any of us think. Bush is going to run. And, I think he will secure the nomination easily. And, he will pick Christie as his running mate. And defeat Hillary, but it will be a close run thing. I hope to god we hold on to the Senate. No telling what kind of damage the House GOP could do without a Senate smart enough to check their crazier antics.

That's my crystal-ball gazing commentary for the day. Originally Posted by timpage

A lot of that is true, but maybe the reason there seem to be so few "electable" candidates is that so many good ones won't run because they will run into the big money machines of the family dynasty candidates.

The place to get rid of the family dynasties is in the primaries. If the GOP voters cut off future Bushes and the Dem voters cut off future Clintons and Kennedys, then the no-name candidates will have a much better shot and more of them will run. But the races all seem so stacked in favor of the well-known names.

So, GOP voters will vote for Jeb because they fear Hillary will be nominated by the Dems, and the Dems vote for Hillary because they fear Jeb will be nominated. And we end up with the same re-cycled shit. And nepotism and corruption thrive.

I read an article (NY Time, I think) that the Clintons have been compiling a friends and enemies list that goes back to BEFORE Bill ran in 1992. They are still updating it. They track everyone that lets them down in even the slightest way. And they let it be known that payback is in store for anyone who betrays them. They may smile to your face, but if you backed Obama over Hillary in 2008, you are dead to them. No matter what you did for them in the past.

Think about that for a second. Those two narcissists had the EXPECTATION that Hillary would be a leading candidate for President even after Bill left the White House. Otherwise, why keep maintaining such a list?

When a President leaves the office, that normally is the end of that family. They ride off into the sunset.

But to the Clintons, when Bill left the White House, that was only the end of the first round.

Fuck both of them. Don't even elect Hillary dog catcher.

the GOP forced me to vote for a democrat in the last election, I certainly hope they don't repeat the process

Actually, it isn't the system either.

At some point, you have to blame the people themselves. These "family heir" politicians would get nowhere if voters just told them "Get lost" right from the start.



. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The system breeds ignorant people. So yes you can blame it on the people too. Each party wants to win and each party elects who they think can win. It is what it is. Not sure what we can do about it. Saying not to vote for such and such is just another political POV, IMHO.

Something has to change... this ain't working.

Something has to change... this ain't working. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Ahhh, it's probably working better than you think and worse than I think. Which probably means it's working about right. The world turns.