As of today 3/13/15, my top three are...
1. Carson
2. Rubio
3. Walker
Not a prediction of any sort, just my top three if I could make the nomination myself based on what I know today
Any thought about the GOP field? Tee it up.
1. Giuliani
2. Ted Nugent
3. Donald Trump
Kid Rock for Vice President
In all seriousness, Tom Selleck. He would win in a landslide.
As of today 3/13/15, my top three are...
1. Carson
2. Rubio
3. WalkerNot a prediction of any sort, just my top three if I could make the nomination myself based on what I know today
Any thought about the GOP field? Tee it up.
As of today I think I'd agree with you. Walker intrigues me. He sure seems to stir the ire of Democrats, yet he is still here. He appears to have waded through all the stuff in Wisconsin, even though we had promises on this board that he would be indicted and removed from office on several different occasions. We'll see how these guys hold up as the heat gets turned up.
quote:As of today 3/13/15, my top three are...
1. Carson
2. Rubio
3. Walker
Not a prediction of any sort, just my top three if I could make the nomination myself based on what I know today
_________________________________________________________________________
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.
My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
quote:As of today 3/13/15, my top three are...
1. Carson
2. Rubio
3. WalkerNot a prediction of any sort, just my top three if I could make the nomination myself based on what I know today
_________________________________________________________________________As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
A trifecta of stupid.
_________________________________________________
Thanks Pops for your ever insightful contribution to the thread.
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
Perry? Based on patriotism? Nothing says patriotism like threatening to sucede from the union.
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
Perry? Based on patriotism? Nothing says patriotism like threatening to sucede from the union.
______________________________________________________________
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.
Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
Perry? Based on patriotism? Nothing says patriotism like threatening to sucede from the union.
______________________________________________________________
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?
I understand it all very well, and that makes one of us.
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
Perry? Based on patriotism? Nothing says patriotism like threatening to sucede from the union.
______________________________________________________________
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?I understand it all very well, and that makes one of us.
________________________________________________________________________
Gov. Perry did his job while obama failed.
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
Perry? Based on patriotism? Nothing says patriotism like threatening to sucede from the union.
______________________________________________________________
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?I understand it all very well, and that makes one of us.
________________________________________________________________________
Gov. Perry did his job while obama failed.
explain that?.
__________________________________________
If you need that explained to you it is obvious you are too stupid to comprehend.
As of today:
1.) Walker
2.) Bush
3.) Perry.My choices are based on professional and governmental experience, policy positions and patriotism.
It is a long, long time to Nov. 2016
Perry? Based on patriotism? Nothing says patriotism like threatening to sucede from the union.
______________________________________________________________
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?I understand it all very well, and that makes one of us.
________________________________________________________________________
Gov. Perry did his job while obama failed.
explain that?.
__________________________________________
If you need that explained to you it is obvious you are too stupid to comprehend.
Did you lose your "broom operator" license at walmart lard-ass?
___________________________________________________________________
And what does that have to do with the Republican Candidates 2016 thread?
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.
This is total BS, absolutely not true.
Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
Again, total BS. Perry's position at the time:
One Texas GOP official who likened Obama voters to "maggots" and called for an "amicable divorce" between Texas and the United States, prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to weigh in. In an e-mail to a Dallas Morning News reporter on Monday afternoon, the governor's press secretary affirmed for anyone who might be wondering that her boss "believes in the greatness of our Union and [that] nothing should be done to change it." Nov. 14, 2012
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_secession_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html
In 2009, when Perry was trying to court the Tea Party, he said this:
Those soothing words are a far cry from the ones Gov. Perry uttered back in 2009, at a Tea Party rally in Austin. Though he hadn't yet announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Perry was already trafficking in the kind of bellicosely anti-Washington language that would earn him his brief moment as the GOP's front-runner, before he flamed out spectacularly during the primaries. At that rally, Perry answered a reporter's question about the notion of state sovereignty with all the menacing subtlety of a Lone Star loan shark. "We've got a great union," he said. "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"*
As to Texas' "right to secede", that is a total myth:
Right before he made that comment, Perry had told the same reporter that "when [Texas] came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave, if we decided to do that." To the extent that Texas' future right to secede from the United States may have been discussed, argued, and/or wished for upon the state's annexation, the governor was technically correct in saying that it was an "issue." But Perry's wording suggested that a right to secede was built, as some sort of term or condition, into the original joint resolution of Congress that brought the Republic of Texas into the union.
That simply isn't true. Texas' so-called "right" to secede is no more than a politically emboldening myth, the boastful residue of the decade it spent as a sovereign nation before joining America. There's simply nothing in the state's official annexation papers, or in any other contemporaneous documents for that matter, to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, over the last century and half this myth has proven harder to kill than a mound of East Texas fire ants.
In case you haven't figured it out by now, Rick Perry is an idiot.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?
Texas, just like any other state, cannot legally secede from the Union. And, just like any other state, is under the rule of federal law at all times, no matter what state laws it may enact. Federal Law always trumps state law. Always.
Just couldn't let this BS regarding my home state pass without comment. 
[Edited on 3/14/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.
This is total BS, absolutely not true.
Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
Again, total BS. Perry's position at the time:
One Texas GOP official who likened Obama voters to "maggots" and called for an "amicable divorce" between Texas and the United States, prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to weigh in. In an e-mail to a Dallas Morning News reporter on Monday afternoon, the governor's press secretary affirmed for anyone who might be wondering that her boss "believes in the greatness of our Union and [that] nothing should be done to change it." Nov. 14, 2012
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_secession_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.htmlIn 2009, when Perry was trying to court the Tea Party, he said this:
Those soothing words are a far cry from the ones Gov. Perry uttered back in 2009, at a Tea Party rally in Austin. Though he hadn't yet announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Perry was already trafficking in the kind of bellicosely anti-Washington language that would earn him his brief moment as the GOP's front-runner, before he flamed out spectacularly during the primaries. At that rally, Perry answered a reporter's question about the notion of state sovereignty with all the menacing subtlety of a Lone Star loan shark. "We've got a great union," he said. "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"*As to Texas' "right to secede", that is a total myth:
Right before he made that comment, Perry had told the same reporter that "when [Texas] came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave, if we decided to do that." To the extent that Texas' future right to secede from the United States may have been discussed, argued, and/or wished for upon the state's annexation, the governor was technically correct in saying that it was an "issue." But Perry's wording suggested that a right to secede was built, as some sort of term or condition, into the original joint resolution of Congress that brought the Republic of Texas into the union.
That simply isn't true. Texas' so-called "right" to secede is no more than a politically emboldening myth, the boastful residue of the decade it spent as a sovereign nation before joining America. There's simply nothing in the state's official annexation papers, or in any other contemporaneous documents for that matter, to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, over the last century and half this myth has proven harder to kill than a mound of East Texas fire ants.In case you haven't figured it out by now, Rick Perry is an idiot.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?Texas, just like any other state, cannot legally secede from the Union. And, just like any other state, is under the rule of federal law at all times, no matter what state laws it may enact. Federal Law always trumps state law. Always.
Just couldn't let this BS regarding my home state pass without comment.
[Edited on 3/14/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
_____________________________________________________________________
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.
This is total BS, absolutely not true.
Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
Again, total BS. Perry's position at the time:
One Texas GOP official who likened Obama voters to "maggots" and called for an "amicable divorce" between Texas and the United States, prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to weigh in. In an e-mail to a Dallas Morning News reporter on Monday afternoon, the governor's press secretary affirmed for anyone who might be wondering that her boss "believes in the greatness of our Union and [that] nothing should be done to change it." Nov. 14, 2012
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_secession_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.htmlIn 2009, when Perry was trying to court the Tea Party, he said this:
Those soothing words are a far cry from the ones Gov. Perry uttered back in 2009, at a Tea Party rally in Austin. Though he hadn't yet announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Perry was already trafficking in the kind of bellicosely anti-Washington language that would earn him his brief moment as the GOP's front-runner, before he flamed out spectacularly during the primaries. At that rally, Perry answered a reporter's question about the notion of state sovereignty with all the menacing subtlety of a Lone Star loan shark. "We've got a great union," he said. "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"*As to Texas' "right to secede", that is a total myth:
Right before he made that comment, Perry had told the same reporter that "when [Texas] came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave, if we decided to do that." To the extent that Texas' future right to secede from the United States may have been discussed, argued, and/or wished for upon the state's annexation, the governor was technically correct in saying that it was an "issue." But Perry's wording suggested that a right to secede was built, as some sort of term or condition, into the original joint resolution of Congress that brought the Republic of Texas into the union.
That simply isn't true. Texas' so-called "right" to secede is no more than a politically emboldening myth, the boastful residue of the decade it spent as a sovereign nation before joining America. There's simply nothing in the state's official annexation papers, or in any other contemporaneous documents for that matter, to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, over the last century and half this myth has proven harder to kill than a mound of East Texas fire ants.In case you haven't figured it out by now, Rick Perry is an idiot.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?Texas, just like any other state, cannot legally secede from the Union. And, just like any other state, is under the rule of federal law at all times, no matter what state laws it may enact. Federal Law always trumps state law. Always.
Just couldn't let this BS regarding my home state pass without comment.
[Edited on 3/14/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
_____________________________________________________________________
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
The State of Texas, by law, must vote to remain part of or the Union or secede every year before the legislature may proceed.
This is total BS, absolutely not true.
Gov. Perry threaded to secede after obama refused to do his Constitutional responsibility to protect our border and allow illegal aliens, human and drug traffickers and terrorists to come into the U.S. unfettered.
Again, total BS. Perry's position at the time:
One Texas GOP official who likened Obama voters to "maggots" and called for an "amicable divorce" between Texas and the United States, prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to weigh in. In an e-mail to a Dallas Morning News reporter on Monday afternoon, the governor's press secretary affirmed for anyone who might be wondering that her boss "believes in the greatness of our Union and [that] nothing should be done to change it." Nov. 14, 2012
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_secession_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.htmlIn 2009, when Perry was trying to court the Tea Party, he said this:
Those soothing words are a far cry from the ones Gov. Perry uttered back in 2009, at a Tea Party rally in Austin. Though he hadn't yet announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Perry was already trafficking in the kind of bellicosely anti-Washington language that would earn him his brief moment as the GOP's front-runner, before he flamed out spectacularly during the primaries. At that rally, Perry answered a reporter's question about the notion of state sovereignty with all the menacing subtlety of a Lone Star loan shark. "We've got a great union," he said. "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"*As to Texas' "right to secede", that is a total myth:
Right before he made that comment, Perry had told the same reporter that "when [Texas] came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave, if we decided to do that." To the extent that Texas' future right to secede from the United States may have been discussed, argued, and/or wished for upon the state's annexation, the governor was technically correct in saying that it was an "issue." But Perry's wording suggested that a right to secede was built, as some sort of term or condition, into the original joint resolution of Congress that brought the Republic of Texas into the union.
That simply isn't true. Texas' so-called "right" to secede is no more than a politically emboldening myth, the boastful residue of the decade it spent as a sovereign nation before joining America. There's simply nothing in the state's official annexation papers, or in any other contemporaneous documents for that matter, to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, over the last century and half this myth has proven harder to kill than a mound of East Texas fire ants.In case you haven't figured it out by now, Rick Perry is an idiot.
What part of States Rights, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
What part of the Presidents first responsibility of National Security do you not understand?Texas, just like any other state, cannot legally secede from the Union. And, just like any other state, is under the rule of federal law at all times, no matter what state laws it may enact. Federal Law always trumps state law. Always.
Just couldn't let this BS regarding my home state pass without comment.
[Edited on 3/14/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
_____________________________________________________________________
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
_________________________________________________________________________
Please post the link to your assertion.
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
_________________________________________________________________________
Please post the link to your assertion.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
_________________________________________________________________________
Please post the link to your assertion.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html/blockquote >
_________________________________________________________________
Posting a link for keller?
He does need help to do so.
Your link by the way has nothing to do with Texas's Constitutional right to secede.
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
_________________________________________________________________________
Please post the link to your assertion.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html/blockquote >
_________________________________________________________________
Posting a link for keller?
He does need help to do so.
Your link by the way has nothing to do with Texas's Constitutional right to secede.
Actually, you first requested the link from me. Please try to keep up. My link has everything to do with the fact that Texas, just like any other state, has no constitutional right to secede. The specifics to Texas you must've overlooked from the first link I posted. Here it is again for you:
Is this really the best you've got?
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
_________________________________________________________________________
Please post the link to your assertion.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html/blockquote >
_________________________________________________________________
Posting a link for keller?
He does need help to do so.
Your link by the way has nothing to do with Texas's Constitutional right to secede.
Actually, you first requested the link from me. Please try to keep up. My link has everything to do with the fact that Texas, just like any other state, has no constitutional right to secede. The specifics to Texas you must've overlooked from the first link I posted. Here it is again for you:
Is this really the best you've got?
_______________________________________________________________________
Your two references:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html
Note that Amendment X specifically allows for any State to secede if that State’s residents choose to do so.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_seces sion_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html
This is a Slate.com opinion piece. Slate.com is a far-left website that publishes articles specifically written to attack.
I suggest you read the actual Constitution, a document few liberals have ever read and many, like obama, treat as only a list of suggestions:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
BTW – The U.S. State Department is shutting down all U.S. Embassy operations in Saudi Arabia due to terrorist threats.
Maybe obama doesn’t want another dead U.S. Ambassador on his list of foreign policy failures.
Didn't realize the constitution mentioned Texas.....
Wish they would secede...
Please post the link that supports your assertion.
Civil War 1861-1865. Didn't you take American History?
_________________________________________________________________________
Please post the link to your assertion.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html/blockquote >
_________________________________________________________________
Posting a link for keller?
He does need help to do so.
Your link by the way has nothing to do with Texas's Constitutional right to secede.
Actually, you first requested the link from me. Please try to keep up. My link has everything to do with the fact that Texas, just like any other state, has no constitutional right to secede. The specifics to Texas you must've overlooked from the first link I posted. Here it is again for you:
Is this really the best you've got?
_______________________________________________________________________
Your two references:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html
Note that Amendment X specifically allows for any State to secede if that State’s residents choose to do so.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_seces sion_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html
This is a Slate.com opinion piece. Slate.com is a far-left website that publishes articles specifically written to attack.
I suggest you read the actual Constitution, a document few liberals have ever read and many, like obama, treat as only a list of suggestions:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
BTW – The U.S. State Department is shutting down all U.S. Embassy operations in Saudi Arabia due to terrorist threats.
Maybe obama doesn’t want another dead U.S. Ambassador on his list of foreign policy failures.
Okay, there is no way you could have actually read any of this stuff. To wit:
Tenth Amendment - The Text
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Obviously your assertion that the amendment specifically allows for "any State to secede if that State’s residents choose to do so" is totally bogus.
The question of secession was asked and answered by the Civil War - no state can legally secede from the Union.
It doesn't matter if the info about Texas comes from Slate or the man in the moon, the fact that Texas has no right of secession built into their annexation agreement is just that-fact. It is also fact that the Texas legislature does not have to vote on whether or not they want to secede before beginning every legislative session. It is also fact that Rick Perry never promoted or campaigned for Texas to secede. If you have actual information to the contrary, I'd love to see it. But on these issues you can't; they are not opinion, they are fact. You can make stuff up all you want; it doesn't make it true.
I love to actually discuss these types of issues on this board. It's one of the reasons I have hung around for so many years. It is obvious to me you don't want to discuss anything. So have fun yanking chains.
and here I am thinking you hung around all these years to hear me talk about the Patriots.
Right now I like Rubio. But I am not paying attention until next fall at the earliest.
Right now I like Rubio. But I am not paying attention until next fall at the earliest.
________________________________________________________________________
Rubio is a good man but he makes way too much sense and therefore hasn't a chance in hell.
He is also a Senator and I don't think either party will risk losing a Senate seat.
I can't see anyone but Jeb Bush as of now, but that's solely from a political junkie observation. First and foremost, before policy, ideology, speaking ability, likeability or any other intangible comes the ability to raise money. Jeb can raise the most cash.
I get the appeal of Dr. Ben Carson, but he needs serious political coaching when it comes to what to say, what not to say and how to handle blowback.
Rubio has a lot of crossover appeal (lefties need to let the water bottle thing go already).
Walker, hmmm. Very polarizing. Not much crossover appeal.
Just IMO, sooner or later the GOP needs to get past the whole liberals-are-ruining-the-country shtick as well as "Have we told you how much we hate Obama?" diatribe day in and day out. Compose a message and sell it.
I fully believe Tom Selleck could beat anyone in the field. He has kept his life private. Apparently doesn't have too much baggage. Has supported Republican conservatism for decades. He still appeals to women.
And to the masses he is the Police Commissioner of NYC. A good Catholic and family man. He admires Teddy Roosevelt and emulates him in his leadership of the NYPD.
The Republicans should wait a few months, then put him in the race. He would destroy all the other candidates on the debate stage.
If I were Reince I'd court him.
1. Giuliani
2. Ted Nugent
3. Donald TrumpKid Rock for Vice President
In all seriousness, Tom Selleck. He would win in a landslide.
Kid Rock won't work!!! We need someone from Alaska who can see Russia from their front door!!!
Bush is their best option by far but the Republicans will never nominate him and his little bro's reputation will hurt him in a general election. So far he has kept to his promise not to flip his views or ideology as Romney and McCain did the last two times. He has the right idea there and I respect him for that but his moderate stance on certain views especially on illegal immigration will prevent him from getting the Republican nomination. Republicans would rather have phonies posing as far right conservatives than a real honest moderate candidate.
Well, Well the conservative turtles here have finally popped their heads out of their shells to take the risk to actually propose possible candidates for the 2016 GOP presidential race. 😛
I agree with those who said Bush is the most viable but I think he is too centrist for the GOP hardcore and ultimately the stink of his brother will be his undoing.
Rand Paul is the only candidate so far I find intriguing as most of the time he actually sounds reasonable and grounded in the issues but then he makes some odd left field comment and sounds as crazy as the other GOP wannabes. Have to admit he sounds like the most reasonable GOP candidate so far to me despite his occasional brain farts.
Ben Carson reminds me of that crazy aunt we all have who has no filter and says whatever pops into her mind at family functions and has us laughing and shaking our heads. I just hope he makes it through the GOP debates before he completely implodes as it should be fun to hear what crazy stuff he says.
[Edited on 3/16/2015 by Bill_Graham]
