Debate Now Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

[Treeshepherd]

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....

I don't usually vote for president. Not that it matters, because Hillary is winning California and taking all the electorals.

I liked Rand Paul, but then thought he was selling out as a libertarian to win Republican favor, but now I'm back on board after he fought the Patriot Act.

I'd support Walker, but I don't want us to get involved in another ME war. Then again, Hillary isn't any less warlike.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why not let the lesser candidates get together and buy their own hour. They would only have to stop some of the mailings to save some money. This would also weed out the pretenders. Have an Internet debate. Or persuade someone like Hannity to have one hour a week for any candidate to be questioned by one of his famous panels. He should get an Emmy for some of his panel conversations. Never happen. Or better yet have each candidate have a mock debate against a Hilary Clinton clone, now that would shake things up. Be creative and stop whining.

I don't think anybody is whining. The closest to it was in the last election that Gary Johnson ran in as a Republican--he was miffed that he didn't get more time to participate in the debates. But a debate between the lesser candidates would just underscore that they are 'lesser' candidates.

But yes, there are all kinds of ways for a candidate to get face time, but none have the perceived 'authority' that the debates provide. The one exception was Ross Perot's 30-minute spots that were quite entertaining and well received, but he had the personality and charisma to pull that off. Few people do.

I just thought the idea of a debate tournament would generate a lot of interest, would be entertaining so people would watch, and would give the lesser knowns some credible face time that they otherwise won't likely have. And if they are good enough to win some debates, they could get a LOT of credible face time that they otherwise won't likely have.

We all know a debate tournament isn't going to happen. I wish it would because it would be so much more valuable than the rigged Q&A dog and pony show that passes for debates now and tends to just provide ammunition to make candidates look foolish instead of providing opportunity for the people to get to know them. And I believe that is 100% deliberate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox News carried O'Malleys entire speech as he announced his candidacy for President this morning. Watching him, several things occurred to me:

1. Same tired old rhetoric without substance as we expect from presidential candidates but that doesn't seem to hurt them, but he presents them in a compelling manner.

2. He gives a very good speech--much more pleasant to listen to than Hillary is and with a delivery style much better than Barack Obama.

3. He is pleasant to look at too--looks very approachable and pleasant.

4. He has charisma and a likability that Hillary lacks.

For the first time I think he might actually have a fighting chance for the Dem nomination if Hillary's approval ratings continue to sink. And because he is well to the left of Hillary, we need to be paying attention.

 

[Ernie S.]

He'll get the Lib women's votes with all the shirtless photos, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

He'll get the Lib women's votes with all the shirtless photos, too.

He looked a little more distinguished and that he is aging well than he appears to be the beefcake type.

If he should be the draftee for Hillary's veep I suspect he would really bump up her chances though. However, she is not known to be the forgive and forget type and I don't believe I have ever seen her embrace anybody who has criticized her. And O'Malley, right out of the chute, is taking some serious potshots at her. I notice that Elizabeth Warren is not doing that--so there is Hillary's veep pick? I don't know.

None of that concerns us who won't be voting for any of them, but it is good to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think it would be foolish to nominate 2 women.

But.... I still have this feeling that Mrs clinton will not be the nominee.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it would be foolish to nominate 2 women.

But.... I still have this feeling that Mrs clinton will not be the nominee.

Even if you thought it would snag most of the women's and righteous left wing vote?

I think most Republicans, libertarians, and conservatives could care less whether a candidate is male or female, black or white, Hispanic or Asian or descended from some alien species. Many, maybe most of us, could care less what a candidate's social views are so long as that candidate doesn't think it proper to use government to promote them.

What we want is a candidate with the courage of his or her convictions and those convictions are the same as our own about what the role of government should be.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Omalley is too slick by half. And his ego,is his strongest trait. Maryland is in a sorry state and Baltimore is in anarchy. He has a whole lot more "want to", than " can do". He is for sale to any bidder.

On a separate note, I heard a,theory, maybe it was on rush, that the reason Pataki, graham, and huckabee are getting into the race is to try and siphon off as many votes as they can from,the conservatives so that bush will win the nomination. If bush wins they will be awarded administration posts, if he loses they will get more name recognition. Either way is a win win. That conspiracy theory sounds plausible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Omalley is too slick by half. And his ego,is his strongest trait. Maryland is in a sorry state and Baltimore is in anarchy. He has a whole lot more "want to", than " can do". He is for sale to any bidder.

On a separate note, I heard a,theory, maybe it was on rush, that the reason Pataki, graham, and huckabee are getting into the race is to try and siphon off as many votes as they can from,the conservatives so that bush will win the nomination. If bush wins they will be awarded administration posts, if he loses they will get more name recognition. Either way is a win win. That conspiracy theory sounds plausible.

Well, if getting things done, showing results for effort, and accomplishing things was important to the Democrats, Hillary would not be the presumed candidate scheduled for coronation. Right now most pundits say she only has to stay alive to get the nomination. Some think she could die and still get it. So that probably won't be a problem for O'Malley either.

Interesting theory though that the establishment might be increasing the field to ensure that there aren't enough concentrated votes to derail a presumed GOP coronation? At first blush, I sort of reject that possibility, but I think I'll have to at least give it some consideration. If that is true, we'll have to change our strategy to get the right guy into that position if we in fact decide it isn't Jeb Bush.

 

[Foxfyre]

Watched an interview with Scott Walker early this morning. This guy is quick on his feet, articulate, pleasant and likable, and fields the tough questions quite competently. I don't think he can be ruled out yet.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is probably a remote possibility, but for the first time today I saw what may be a crack in the armor and indication that Jeb Bush being a candidate isn't 100% a foregone conclusion. For sure he doesn't intend to announce until he returns from a planned trip to Europe coming up soon.

And Rand Paul, bless his heart, can be admired for having strength of his convictions, but when those convictions are so far out of the mainstream on important issues as to appear rash, one does have to wonder a bit. He is coming up against criticism of his own troops in his demand that the Patriot Act be repealed in entirety when many believe that would be an extremely dangerous thing to do for everybody. Fix it yes. Tighten controls on intrusion into privacy yes. But dismantle it whole cloth? Not when an excellent argument can be made that if the Patriot Act had been in effect before 9/11, then 9/11 never would have happened.

And his colleagues have also indicated anger and resentment when he accuses the GOP overseas activities as the reason that we now have al Qaida, ISIS, ISIL, and other militant Islamic terrorist groups.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And his colleagues have also indicated anger and resentment when he accuses the GOP overseas activities as the reason that we now have al Qaida, ISIS, ISIL, and other militant Islamic terrorist groups.

Nothing like people getting pissed at you because you are right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Watched an interview with Scott Walker early this morning. This guy is quick on his feet, articulate, pleasant and likable, and fields the tough questions quite competently. I don't think he can be ruled out yet.

Ruled out ?

It would seem he has a great record to run on.

Why would he be ruled out ?

 

[Sidekick]

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....

Rand Paul... he's pretty good, easy to listen to his speech, but some people just can't stand him. Libertarian influences are the most profound in America, which is interesting because true republicanism and conservatism don't readily mix. It's really the "progressive" socialism of the Democratic party that drives the GOP into the conservative position.

There really needs to be more than two parties. Most Democrats are disenfranchised without even realizing it because it doesn't matter who they nominate, the spiteful, jealous ghost of Karl Marx will always be dictating policy to them from beyond the grave. Meanwhile, although most Republicans are not disenfranchised because of the openness to wide variety of opinions, it's difficult having to compromise to get effective leadership.

Rand Paul ought to stop running for President and pitch an arrangement to the GOP where if he's promised the VP spot he can build a good coalition among the conservative and libertarian members of the Congress with a comprehensive legislative agenda that whoever gets the nomination can implement in such a way that everyone gets a chance to know what it is ahead of time. The sort of "you have to vote for it first before you get to know what it is" business is destroying the public trust, and I think Rand Paul could do very well to reverse that trend by hammering the Senate.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I think Paul can do more good work in the senate as a constitutionalist. His actions in the last few weeks have me not wanting him as commander in chief.

I am starting to have visions of a republican Camelot. Kennedy vs. Nixon. Rubio vs Clinton. Have you seen the latest on the Internet. Nixon erased eleven min and resigned in disgrace. Clinton deletes 300,000 emails and runs for president. Who says the world isn't upside down.

Go Carly! I want her in the mix. A sophisticated Sara Palin. How do you like me now?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Paul can do more good work in the senate as a constitutionalist. His actions in the last few weeks have me not wanting him as commander in chief.

I am starting to have visions of a republican Camelot. Kennedy vs. Nixon. Rubio vs Clinton. Have you seen the latest on the Internet. Nixon erased eleven min and resigned in disgrace. Clinton deletes 300,000 emails and runs for president. Who says the world isn't upside down.

Go Carly! I want her in the mix. A sophisticated Sara Palin. How do you like me now?

Yes, we need more Rand Pauls who will be the conscience of the party and force honest discussion and dialogue of what we are doing. I think he can do that better from the Senate than he can as President. And like you, while I admire him in the strength of his convictions, I think he sometimes may put ideology ahead of the practical need to accomplish critical things in the interest of the general welfare. So far as reducing the size, scope, and authority of the federal government and restoring the liberties we are intended to have, I'm with him 100%.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was just looking at this photo of Bernie Sanders making his announcement as a Presidential candidate a few days ago. What is it that is said of the GOP? A party for rich, old white people?

 

[Shrimpbox]

I was just looking at this photo of Bernie Sanders making his announcement as a Presidential candidate a few days ago. What is it that is said of the GOP? A party for rich, old white people?

What is Hilary?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think Paul can do more good work in the senate as a constitutionalist. His actions in the last few weeks have me not wanting him as commander in chief.

I am starting to have visions of a republican Camelot. Kennedy vs. Nixon. Rubio vs Clinton. Have you seen the latest on the Internet. Nixon erased eleven min and resigned in disgrace. Clinton deletes 300,000 emails and runs for president. Who says the world isn't upside down.

Go Carly! I want her in the mix. A sophisticated Sara Palin. How do you like me now?

Yes, we need more Rand Pauls who will be the conscience of the party and force honest discussion and dialogue of what we are doing. I think he can do that better from the Senate than he can as President. And like you, while I admire him in the strength of his convictions, I think he sometimes may put ideology ahead of the practical need to accomplish critical things in the interest of the general welfare. So far as reducing the size, scope, and authority of the federal government and restoring the liberties we are intended to have, I'm with him 100%.

His father is a good man and was just as vocal.

He was pilloried by the GOP.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was reading in the morning news that of all the candidates, Rand Paul is the one having trouble raising money. The usual big donors are sprinkling around the money among the other hopefuls, but I think they are reluctant to support Paul on the theory he would not be a strong supporter for Israel and would be weak on national security. I think he holds a great deal of respect among his colleagues and he has never been punished for swimming against the tide. They certainly have not pilloried him while the MSM continues to do so. I myself admire anybody who has the strength of his convictions and is willing to support them.

The Patriot Act will almost certainly be reinstated, but Paul will almost certainly have some influence over the new version:

. . .Republican leaders in the Senate are working to pass a bill to reinstate the law, after delays led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), whose presidential campaign has been noted for its appeal to independent voters and younger Republicans, and other surveillance opponents led to the law’s expiration at 12:01 a.m. Monday. But Paul’s stance on the issue is unlikely to bring him many fans within his own party.

Support for renewal peaks among Republicans, 73% of whom back the law. Democrats largely agree, with 63% saying the law should be renewed. Independents are least apt to back it, with 55% saying renew it and 42% let it expire. Liberals, regardless of partisan affiliation, are most likely to say the law should not be renewed, 50% say so while 48% want to see it renewed.

In other words, Paul might do better running as a competitor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). . . .
The GOP is serious about national security. Rand Paul isn t. - The Washington Post​