GOP Presidential Nomination

[p_rehbein]

Obama ain't running in 2016. The Constitution has meant squat before Obama, it will mean squat after Obama. If Ben Carson, Mitt Romney, and Bush are the best the GOP can field, they might as well just disband their party and hand Hillary the presidency.

Of the three you mentioned, Carson is probably the only one that could defeat Hillary........but, worry not, Hillary will defeat herself in due time.

BTW: I have not said Carson was my 1st choice for President, simply stated that he is head and shoulders over Obama. While Obama is not running in 2016, the policies he has enacted during his two term ARE! The coming election will certainly be MORE about Obama than the Dems want it to be.............and if Hillary does run, it will then turn into Obama's missteps, and the Clinton legacy.............and the Dems are gonna be in a whole lotta.........................

 

[1still_waters]

more correctly, that's how the Political Machines on both sides work............those who control the money.......but it is not how our elections work............goes back to the "lesser of two evils" adage we are stuck with every General Election....sigh

But Obama wasn't even out of 1st Grade concerning "experience" when he was elected, and to be a Constitutional Scholar, he is surely sorely lacking in grasping Constitutional Law and Original Intent.............going by the last 6 years that is.

He isn't the first President to usurp the Constitution, but he is the latest, and he seems to have turned usurping the Constitution into an "art form."

.................anyway............

All around, I would choose Carson over Obama regardless of having held Political Office or not.

The whole lesser of two evils, is reflective of the fact we live in a nation where a presidential candidate won't agree with you on everything, and maybe not even on 3/4ths of everything. Presidential nominees reflect diversity of thought within each party. They're a consensus of diverse thought from the party.

Instead of viewing it as "holding your nose" to "vote for the lesser of two evils", maybe view it as voting for the option that is closest to your ideals, with the understanding that you live in a country where opinions opposite of yours exist. You WILL never have a presidential candidate that agrees with you on everything, and maybe not even on 3/4ths. That's simply a reality we have to accept, and using the "holding my nose" or "lesser of two evils" statements causes people to deny a certain reality. That reality is that we coexist with people in a nation who disagree with us.

 

[Sirk]

Of the three you mentioned, Carson is probably the only one that could defeat Hillary........but, worry not, Hillary will defeat herself in due time.

BTW: I have not said Carson was my 1st choice for President, simply stated that he is head and shoulders over Obama. While Obama is not running in 2016, the policies he has enacted during his two term ARE! The coming election will certainly be MORE about Obama than the Dems want it to be.............and if Hillary does run, it will then turn into Obama's missteps, and the Clinton legacy.............and the Dems are gonna be in a whole lotta.........................

I'm not as optimistic as you. It seems the public has a very short memory and is easily swayed by the MSM. I wonder what "October surprise" is in store for us this year.

 

[p_rehbein]

Well that's quite simple. The American citizen are kings. Kings are very basic-minded people. The presidency is a job. Put yourself in the hiring man's chair. Job experience is going to be a big factor they look for. It's not a done deal by experience, but someone with experience is going to have the advantage over someone without.

the MAIN argument against your position is that EVERY person EVER asked, Politicians from Federal/State Offices, former Presidents, Pundits, Scholars.............ALL ATTEST that there is NO JOB or POSITION one can hold that prepares one to be President/for the Presidency.

In my opinion, being a Governor comes closest.........but that's just me.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Anyone with the gift of gab and a pretty face can fool a slumbering electorate. Especially when they have a fawning media machine behind them.

That would be true if the field were full of unknowns. As it is though Hillary, Bush, and Mitt are all household names. Nearly everyone in America, and even many people throughout the world know who they are. It'll be an interesting campaign season for sure.

 

[p_rehbein]

The whole lesser of two evils, is reflective of the fact we live in a nation where a presidential candidate won't agree with you on everything, and maybe not even on 3/4ths of everything. Presidential nominees reflect diversity of thought within each party. They're a consensus of diverse thought from the party.

Instead of viewing it as "holding your nose" to "vote for the lesser of two evils", maybe view it as voting for the option that is closest to your ideals, with the understanding that you live in a country where opinions opposite of yours exist. You WILL never have a presidential candidate that agrees with you on everything, and maybe not even on 3/4ths. That's simply a reality we have to accept, and using the "holding my nose" or "lesser of two evils" statements causes people to deny a certain reality. That reality is that we coexist with people in a nation who disagree with us.

Understand this, problem is: It depends on where the disagreements lie as to my voting for a person. Some disagreements I can live with, some I will not surrender to. I am oft criticized for saying that a Christian must not surrender the Faith just to vote for someone. If that means I don't vote for either candidate in a particular race, then I won't.

What I won't do is vote for someone simply because they are of a particular Political Party........the "well, he ain't the other guy" syndrome.

I pick carefully those I support............and if there is no clear choice...........I abstain.

Why I believe the most important votes the citizens cast begin on the "local level" and proceed up the chain to County, State, Federal, Presidency............that is the only way I see we will ever get God fearing candidates at the highest levels of Government.............but that's just me

 

[GodIsSalvation]

the MAIN argument against your position is that EVERY person EVER asked, Politicians from Federal/State Offices, former Presidents, Pundits, Scholars.............ALL ATTEST that there is NO JOB or POSITION one can hold that prepares one to be President/for the Presidency.

In my opinion, being a Governor comes closest.........but that's just me.

I agree that the job of presidency is not comparable to most political jobs. That don't matter much though, because someone has to win the job. It all comes down to winning, whether for good or ill. The partisans and politicos all ready have their minds made up, but they never determine the winner of the election. They can only determine who runs in it.

 

[p_rehbein]

I agree that the job of presidency is not comparable to most political jobs. That don't matter much though, because someone has to win the job. It all comes down to winning, whether for good or ill. The partisans and politicos all ready have their minds made up, but they never determine the winner of the election. They can only determine who runs in it.

True, but they can surely influence who a person votes for..............I once suggested that it become Law that every person seeking Political Office must sign a H.I.T.S. pledge. Now, it didn't then, nor it will ever get anywhere, but that does not mean that it isn't a good idea.

H-----onest
I-----tegrity
T-----ruth

(in)

S-----ervice


This pledge can work for almost any job or activity as well.

 

[1still_waters]

Understand this, problem is: It depends on where the disagreements lie as to my voting for a person. Some disagreements I can live with, some I will not surrender to. I am oft criticized for saying that a Christian must not surrender the Faith just to vote for someone. If that means I don't vote for either candidate in a particular race, then I won't.

What I won't do is vote for someone simply because they are of a particular Political Party........the "well, he ain't the other guy" syndrome.

I pick carefully those I support............and if there is no clear choice...........I abstain.

Why I believe the most important votes the citizens cast begin on the "local level" and proceed up the chain to County, State, Federal, Presidency............that is the only way I see we will ever get God fearing candidates at the highest levels of Government.............but that's just me

Unfortunately in our country 70% (rough estimation..you get the point) disagree with us.
That's reflected in the nominees each party gives us.

Chances are we're going to have a presidential nominee who goes against our convictions in an aspect or many.
Is the answer not to vote at all?
Well if that happens, then the worst option happens.
In presidential politics, part of existing in reality is that unfortunately to avoid the worst option, we have to choose the least worst option. I don't necessarily view that as compromise of principles, it's just acceptance of reality, and playing the best hand we can play.

We have a better hand to play in local politics, because often local nominees reflect our values closer, because smaller communities often have ideals that are similar. But in national politics that is not the situation. So I side on playing the best hand we've been dealt.

 

[Sirk]

Unfortunately in our country 70% (rough estimation..you get the point) disagree with us.
That's reflected in the nominees each party gives us.

Chances are we're going to have a presidential nominee who goes against our convictions in an aspect or many.
Is the answer not to vote at all?
Well if that happens, then the worst option happens.
In presidential politics, part of existing in reality is that unfortunately to avoid the worst option, we have to choose the least worst option. I don't necessarily view that as compromise of principles, it's just acceptance of reality, and playing the best hand we can play.

We have a better hand to play in local politics, because often local nominees reflect our values closer, because smaller communities often have ideals that are similar. But in national politics that is not the situation. So I side on playing the best hand we've been dealt.

Cant argue with that.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Of the three you mentioned, Carson is probably the only one that could defeat Hillary........but, worry not, Hillary will defeat herself in due time.

BTW: I have not said Carson was my 1st choice for President, simply stated that he is head and shoulders over Obama. While Obama is not running in 2016, the policies he has enacted during his two term ARE! The coming election will certainly be MORE about Obama than the Dems want it to be.............and if Hillary does run, it will then turn into Obama's missteps, and the Clinton legacy.............and the Dems are gonna be in a whole lotta.........................

Hillary Clinton would mop the floor with Ben Carson. It would be a blow out.

As for Obama policies being on play in 2016, that would be the case, except for the GOP elites want to run Bush and just by having that name in the primary race, even if he don't become nominee, is going to bring back the whole Bush-era resentments, and much more people don't like Bush than Obama. Plus with Hillary, more people are going to remember her for Bill rather than Obama. Many people do view Bill's presidency as favorable especially compared to the trainwreck of Bush and Obama.

Kasich is relatively unknown, but if you can convince him to run in the primary I think he'd become popular fast and if he got the nomination, he is a heck of a debater and has a great record. I think he is the only one from the OP list that could potentially beat Hillary, but even that would be very close either way.

 

[p_rehbein]

Hillary Clinton would mop the floor with Ben Carson. It would be a blow out.

As for Obama policies being on play in 2016, that would be the case, except for the GOP elites want to run Bush and just by having that name in the primary race, even if he don't become nominee, is going to bring back the whole Bush-era resentments, and much more people don't like Bush than Obama. Plus with Hillary, more people are going to remember her for Bill rather than Obama. Many people do view Bill's presidency as favorable especially compared to the trainwreck of Bush and Obama.

Kasich is relatively unknown, but if you can convince him to run in the primary I think he'd become popular fast and if he got the nomination, he is a heck of a debater and has a great record. I think he is the only one from the OP list that could potentially beat Hillary, but even that would be very close either way.

Your assessment of Hillary and Carson is pure speculation..........no more........Hillary is her own worst enemy in a campaign as shown when Obama defeated her.

If Jeb wins the nomination, yes, the Bush eras would become cannon fodder for the press...........but that will not stop the Obama policies from being front and center as well........I think people will remember her for her term as Sect. of State also. Lots of bad stuff there..........

"WHAT DOES IT MATTER NOW?" (goodness)

Yes, they will remember her with Bill's Presidency..............and her complete disaster at Hillary-care..........during his first term.........as for how Bill rates..............the left will love him no matter what...........(except for that wee small pause in the love fest when Hillary was running against Obama), and the right will never love him..........so that's a wash.

She has her own baggage.............going all the way back to White Water and "I ain't no trailer park trash woman....."

In my opinion, you are WAY overestimating Hillary................WAY overestimating..........but if you want to christen her, by all means go ahead and do.............the next Liberal Superstar!

Whoever the Repubs run if Hillary is the Dems choice.........the race will come down to less than 5 points one way or the other.

If the Repubs actually FIND a worthy candidate, then no matter who the Dems run.......the margin of victory could easily exceed 10 points........the delima for the Repubs is WHO is that Candidate? I'm not 100% sold on any of the ones out front for sure........

Romney, Bush, and what's his name from N.J. Not Rand Paul, (can't remember the whole list right now..........)

anyway....................I'll wait and see who comes out as the Repubs nominee, and then begin to investigate.

 

[p_rehbein]

Unfortunately in our country 70% (rough estimation..you get the point) disagree with us.
That's reflected in the nominees each party gives us.

Chances are we're going to have a presidential nominee who goes against our convictions in an aspect or many.
Is the answer not to vote at all?
Well if that happens, then the worst option happens.
In presidential politics, part of existing in reality is that unfortunately to avoid the worst option, we have to choose the least worst option. I don't necessarily view that as compromise of principles, it's just acceptance of reality, and playing the best hand we can play.

We have a better hand to play in local politics, because often local nominees reflect our values closer, because smaller communities often have ideals that are similar. But in national politics that is not the situation. So I side on playing the best hand we've been dealt.

I side with electing people first at the local level who do mirror our values, support them then, assist them in moving upward, to the next level be it County, State whatever, and supporting them there, and assisting them in moving up to the next level, the Federal Offices............House of Reps. Senate, Judgeships, etc.........

Take some time? Sure, but in time, our Nation will have a REAL choice at EVERY level of Government. As I stated, I will only hold back my vote if NEITHER candidate mirrors my Faith/values close enough to warrant voting for.

"He ain't the other guy" approach to voting is exactly why we are in the mess we are in now as I see it. To be clear, while, as in the last General Election, I did not vote for Romney or Obama, I voted in the Senatorial and House of Rep races, as well as State and many Local races...........

Folks can do as they wish, but I will stick to my beliefs and way of determining who to vote for and if I will vote at all in a particular race. What y'all do doesn't cause me to lose sleep............I gotta answer for my actions........and be able to go to bed at night and know I did the best I could. Y'all may well feel the same way, and that's ok too............

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Hillary Clinton would mop the floor with Ben Carson. It would be a blow out.

There are several indications Billary won't even run, which is too bad, because I would love to shove this post in your face in two years and see your reaction to it if they were to run against one another. I don't say Carson will be elected, but he needs to be. Head to head with Billary would give Carson the chance to draw the clear distinctions between the public viewpoint, and the warped and malformed Washington establishment viewpoint.

 

[p_rehbein]

Keeping in mind that I identify myself (Politically speaking) as an Independent Christian Conservationist.........my whittling down of the list from the OP:

NOTE: Red indicates a "NO" as to my wanting them to be the nominee. Those not highlighted are (shoulder shrugs) or (maybe's) at best.

Tier 1:

Scott Walker (dunno, must have more data)

Marco Rubio (maybe?)

Rick Perry

Bobby Jindal (good record as Governor but.......)


Tier 2:

Jeb Bush

Mitt Romney

Chris Christie

Rand Paul

Ted Cruz (lightning rod......some good ideas though)

Mike Huckabee (good values, experience, but been there before and lost)

Rick Santorum (almost red.......shrug-ingly not)

Ben Carson (intelligent, good values, and a keen sense of what our Nation needs........but)


Tier 3:

Carly Fiorina (who?)

John Kasich (uh, well, shrug)

Mike Pence (who?)

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Y'all can scratch Mitt from consideration: Mitt Romney is not a candidate for president in 2016

 

[GodIsSalvation]

There are several indications Billary won't even run, which is too bad, because I would love to shove this post in your face in two years and see your reaction to it if they were to run against one another. I don't say Carson will be elected, but he needs to be. Head to head with Billary would give Carson the chance to draw the clear distinctions between the public viewpoint, and the warped and malformed Washington establishment viewpoint.

Hillary has been making the rounds and setting up the groundwork for a campaign. There is a very good reason to believe she is running. The only people on this list that stand a chance against Hillary are the ones the GOPers themselves don't like, and the ones the GOPers favor, they are the easiest ones to defeat.

Frankly, I still wonder if the GOP is trying to intentionally throw away the election.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Hillary has been making the rounds and setting up the groundwork for a campaign. There is a very good reason to believe she is running. The only people on this list that stand a chance against Hillary are the ones the GOPers themselves don't like, and the ones the GOPers favor, they are the easiest ones to defeat.

Frankly, I still wonder if the GOP is trying to intentionally throw away the election.

I sense a great deal of wishful thinking and hoping against hope in that post. Candy Crowley of CNN doesn't think she's going to run for one very simple reason: She doesn't want to risk losing.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I sense a great deal of wishful thinking and hoping against hope in that post. Candy Crowley of CNN doesn't think she's going to run for one very simple reason: She doesn't want to risk losing.

Candy Crowley can think what she wants. You will see.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Candy Crowley can think what she wants. You will see.

I'll be sure to remind you of this post, too, when she goes the same route Mitt went this morning.