2016 Republican primary

[Uncensored2008]

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored does this every time I metaphorically boot his butt up between his ears so I can give him the pleasure of hearing as I metaphorically beat his ass.

 

[expatriate]

You are aware that murder has a very specific meaning? Somehow, I think not.

Yes, and this fits that meaning in every way.

In fact, it is premeditated murder. Obama didn't like his daddy - so he killed the kid. Hey, his dad was a scumbag - but I thought generational guilt went out of style about 1300...

the boy was not the target of the strike. Ibrahim al Banna was the target. the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.

not murder. sorry. hyperbole. as I stated earlier.

::yawn::

 

[American_Jihad]

Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats

By Chris Good
@c_good
Follow on Twitter
Jul 16, 2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will likely press ahead with the so-called “nuclear option” of changing Senate rules, but will it soon come back to haunt his party?

As early as today, the Reid, D-Nev., and his Democratic caucus could enact rules changes to effectively end Republicans’ ability to block executive-branch nominees. For weeks, as Reid has mulled the maneuver, Republicans have cried foul.

“These are dark days in the history of the Senate,” Reid’s GOP counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Thursday. McConnell has pointed out that Republicans have approved all of Obama’s Cabinet nominees, but the issue is for several significant, lower-level nominees, including those Obama has tapped to head the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The pending change would only apply to executive-branch nominees–not legislation, and not judicial nominees–but Republicans have threatened broader consequences anyway.

The merits of Reid’s move aside, it could set a precedent Democrats may regret if they lose the Senate majority in 2014, and if Republicans take control of the White House in 2016. Republicans have warned of that outcome.

McConnell has warned that Republicans could push through a bill to approve a nuclear-waste dumping site at Yucca Mountain, in Reid’s home state of Nevada, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele warned Reid could regret it as soon as 2015.

...

Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats - ABC News

 

[dblack]

Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube

Rand Paul, like his father..will never ever be President.

Christie has a chance if Clinton doesn't run.

Well, there ya go. Christie has Sallow's seal of approval. Just doesn't get any better than that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the boy was not the target of the strike. Ibrahim al Banna was the target. the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.

Bullshit.

You may like it when Obama pisses on you head and tells you it's raining, but I don't.

Obama assassinated the boy's father 14 days prior, one would have to be abysmally stupid to believe that such a wild coincidence occured in such a short period. I strongly doubt you believe such idiocy - but you are a partisan hack who holds party above life, liberty, or reality.

not murder. sorry. hyperbole. as I stated earlier.

::yawn::

It's murder - irrefutable. You support it because you hold party above all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the boy was not the target of the strike. Ibrahim al Banna was the target. the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.

To suggest the boy was the target is an outright lie.

 

[expatriate]

the boy was not the target of the strike. Ibrahim al Banna was the target. the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.

Bullshit.

You may like it when Obama pisses on you head and tells you it's raining, but I don't.

Obama assassinated the boy's father 14 days prior, one would have to be abysmally stupid to believe that such a wild coincidence occured in such a short period. I strongly doubt you believe such idiocy - but you are a partisan hack who holds party above life, liberty, or reality.

not murder. sorry. hyperbole. as I stated earlier.

::yawn::

It's murder - irrefutable. You support it because you hold party above all.

is it hard to believe that we would target a known AQ operative? Is it hard to believe that the target might have also been acquainted with the boy's father who had worked for the same terrorist organization? Is it hard to believe that the boy, therefore, might be in the company of the target as part of his supposed efforts to find his father? What is wildly coincidental about that?

Again... if there were any evidence that Obama set in motion a plan whose purpose was to execute an innocent teenager, he would be impeached by now.

let me repeat:

::yawn::

 

[Uncensored2008]

is it hard to believe that we would target a known AQ operative?

The boy was on no watch lists, had no affiliation toe AQ.

Again, you're shoveling shit because you are a partisan who holds party above the rule of law.

Is it hard to believe that the target might have also been acquainted with the boy's father who had worked for the same terrorist organization? Is it hard to believe that the boy, therefore, might be in the company of the target as part of his supposed efforts to find his father? What is wildly coincidental about that?

The "target" was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was on no watch list - not on Obama's famous kill list, not even on the fucking no-fly list.

WHAT did the Obama regime say about murdering this child?

{GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.}

Fucking scumbags. Obama has a lot more in common with Pol Pot than he does George Washington or Abe Lincoln.

Again... if there were any evidence that Obama set in motion a plan whose purpose was to execute an innocent teenager, he would be impeached by now.

let me repeat:

::yawn::

Evidence?

It's proven.

You just hold party above all. Obama could blow the brains out of a child on network TV and you would applaud him - and we both know it.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

As if we need bedwetting SOCIALIST Zombies giving us advice about our candidates. LMAO

Libruls love to try and dictate EVERYTHING.. Especially our primaries.. Butt out LOSERS and worry about your criminally infested Democrat Party.

As for the mentioned names, NONE OF THE ABOVE for me.. Rand I will give a look at.. the others, not a chance in hell.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Well... Other than the fact that Reagan was a well known actor, a former democrat, and a moderate republican by today's standards, and the fact that he was running against an unpupular incumbent who had been unable to negotiate the release of the Iranian hostages... Other than that, your analysis is spot on. Rand Paul! He's your guy. He'll gobble up the middle of the bell curve with his libertarian craziness and poor Hillary won't know what hit her. I like it!

It's a funny thing that the far left is always so helpful in helping Republicans run their campaign. Without the left,the GOP would have never had the winning strategy of Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.

You miss my point. I would dearly LOVE for the GOP to nominate Rand Paul. I would never try to dissuade your party from making such a choice. Seriously.

Quite frankly, Conservatives don't give a sh*t about who you would love to see run regarding the primaries.. You Zombies just don't get it.. no one needs your advice or wants it..

SEE DETROIT

 

[JakeStarkey]

As if we need nail-biting reactionaries from zombie lands telling mainstream Americans what's up and down.

LGS and Uncensored can step off in synch into strangeness without us.

 

[expatriate]

is it hard to believe that we would target a known AQ operative?

The boy was on no watch lists, had no affiliation toe AQ.

Again, you're shoveling shit because you are a partisan who holds party above the rule of law.

Is it hard to believe that the target might have also been acquainted with the boy's father who had worked for the same terrorist organization? Is it hard to believe that the boy, therefore, might be in the company of the target as part of his supposed efforts to find his father? What is wildly coincidental about that?

The "target" was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was on no watch list - not on Obama's famous kill list, not even on the fucking no-fly list.

WHAT did the Obama regime say about murdering this child?

{GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.}

Fucking scumbags. Obama has a lot more in common with Pol Pot than he does George Washington or Abe Lincoln.

Again... if there were any evidence that Obama set in motion a plan whose purpose was to execute an innocent teenager, he would be impeached by now.

let me repeat:

::yawn::

Evidence?

It's proven.

You just hold party above all. Obama could blow the brains out of a child on network TV and you would applaud him - and we both know it.

show me the proof that the attack's target was the teenager and not the AQ operative.

I'll wait.

 

[expatriate]

It's a funny thing that the far left is always so helpful in helping Republicans run their campaign. Without the left,the GOP would have never had the winning strategy of Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.

You miss my point. I would dearly LOVE for the GOP to nominate Rand Paul. I would never try to dissuade your party from making such a choice. Seriously.

Quite frankly, Conservatives don't give a sh*t about who you would love to see run regarding the primaries.. You Zombies just don't get it.. no one needs your advice or wants it..

SEE DETROIT

Oh... I am well aware that you don't give a shit about my opinion. Trust me... I feel precisely the same about yours. That doesn't stop either one of us from offering them up whenever we want to... does it?

The subtle and wonderful difference here is that you guys are wondering who you can pick to WIN the White House... we pretty much know who we will pick to KEEP the White House. See how that works?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored and LGS continue to display the weakness of the far right, and that is why Christie et al will continue to have nothing to do with them.

 

[rightwinger]

Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats

By Chris Good
@c_good
Follow on Twitter
Jul 16, 2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will likely press ahead with the so-called “nuclear option” of changing Senate rules, but will it soon come back to haunt his party?

As early as today, the Reid, D-Nev., and his Democratic caucus could enact rules changes to effectively end Republicans’ ability to block executive-branch nominees. For weeks, as Reid has mulled the maneuver, Republicans have cried foul.

“These are dark days in the history of the Senate,” Reid’s GOP counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Thursday. McConnell has pointed out that Republicans have approved all of Obama’s Cabinet nominees, but the issue is for several significant, lower-level nominees, including those Obama has tapped to head the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The pending change would only apply to executive-branch nominees–not legislation, and not judicial nominees–but Republicans have threatened broader consequences anyway.

The merits of Reid’s move aside, it could set a precedent Democrats may regret if they lose the Senate majority in 2014, and if Republicans take control of the White House in 2016. Republicans have warned of that outcome.

McConnell has warned that Republicans could push through a bill to approve a nuclear-waste dumping site at Yucca Mountain, in Reid’s home state of Nevada, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele warned Reid could regret it as soon as 2015.

...

Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats - ABC News

Does anyone doubt for a second that Filibuster J McConnell would change the rules of filibuster the second Republicans get 51 Senators?

 

[American_Jihad]

Cruz wins Values Voter Summit's 2016 straw poll​

October 12, 2013

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz decidedly won the presidential straw poll at the 2013 Values Voter Summit, solidifying his status among religious conservatives.

Cruz, a first-term senator and Tea Party favorite, has emerged as one of the Republican Party and conservative movement’s most dynamic leaders – highlighted by his effort to defund ObamaCare.

Cruz, who appears to have presidential aspirations, took 42 percent of the vote, with Dr. Ben Carson and former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum each getting 13 percent.

...

Cruz wins Values Voter Summit's 2016 straw poll | Fox News

 

[JoeB131]

The Fix’s first rankings of the 2016 Republican presidential field!


by Chris Cillizza, Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
February 8, 2013

One of the Fix’s favorite phrases is this: It’s never too soon. As in, it’s never too soon to be thinking about the next political campaign and the next set of candidates that will populate that campaign.



The Fix?s first rankings of the 2016 Republican presidential field!

10. John Thune - boring.
9. Rob Portman - Boring
8. John Kasich -
7. Mike Pence - Might be a good pick, but needs more exposure.

6. Rand Paul - Crazier than Batshit


5. Jeb Bush - Sorry, his name is a deal-killer. No way anyone elects another Bush after the disasters the last two have been.

4. Paul Ryan - Ryan lost most of his street cred when he went down in flames with the Mormon. He lost the rest when he started talking nice with Obama.

3. Bobby Jindal - Piyush's career is over when he's term limited out.

2. Chris Christie - I think the media will love this guy all the way until he's the nominee, and then they will turn on his fat ass. Also, we haven't had a fat president since Taft.

1. Marco Rubio - Sorry, Rubio's cred went down with the immigration bill.

 

[JoeB131]

The sad thing is, the right is just deluded enough to think Ted Cruz is a winner.

 

[Katzndogz]

The sad thing is, democrats still think they can choose the republican presidential candidate.