Didn't liberals claim Reagan was too old?
- Thread starter Big Money
- Start date
Who said we need to?
maineman
Banned
certainly not me, that's for sure. I HOPE you do!
Of course you do.
Sure you do.
You thought that was affirmation?
Of course it was.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
Here's what I see right now. Democrats think they have 2016 locked up. And it's that overconfidence that's going to get them bitchslapped. They're coming out is the crazy ones, as if that's anything new.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
Spoiler alert. Democrats (and possibly most Republicans) DO have it locked up. But soft minds don't know why it's locked up because of their focus on Hillary. Quote me on this next election (you won't because you won't read it, Republicans are more of a title reading sort, something they need to work on, so i'll leave out lots of information like Fox news does, but without adding false information.)
It will be Christie vs. Clinton. Christie is going to win.
America as a whole HATES politics, mostly because if they get involved with it they are exposed to people like the OP. America as a whole is sick of the hard right filibustering good bills that will help America. America as a whole is sick of the Left being unaccountable for their own actions. We are all sick of debt which the right drives up while blaming the left for driving it up for forcing taxation they don't want to pay through a voting process when the right should have simply taxed for it and pointed at the person who caused it. Americans are SICK of the Party Fighting.
Christie slammed the Left for too much UNNECESSARY funding. Christie attacked the Right for not releasing NECESSARY funding. Christie is one of the only Right Winger states that isn't a "taker state", meaning, they pay for what they spend more than any other Right Wing state (most take more than they spend).
People are sick of the idiots trying to enrage people and the cultists and the controlists. America is ready for a person that has qualities on both sides. Party parrots are a joke.
I am amused by your tireless dimwitted "right wing tea bagger" canard; but the difficulty isn't coming up with highly qualified candidates, but rather, picking and choosing from so many good candidates ... something the Democratic Party doesn't have to worry about because they are committed to only a few really dumb dimwits.
Here is a list; all of whom are infinitely better qualified and more honest than the Hildabeast. My preferences are bolded.
Mike Pence: Looking for a dark horse? Try the Indiana governor. He’s a gifted communicator, liked by social and fiscal conservatives and not part of the Washington establishment.
Paul Ryan: There appears to be a significant dialing back of Ryan’s interest in a presidential run from even a few months ago. And, as several Republicans noted to us, the Wisconsin congressman’s really not doing much to build the beginnings of a presidential bid.
John Kasich: The Ohio governor needs to win reelection before he or his people will seriously entertain the possibility of another run for president. But let’s say Kasich wins. He’s a two-term governor of a Midwestern swing state who spent time in Washington — a long time ago — in Congress as the head of the House Budget Committee. That’s not a bad starting place.
Bobby Jindal: Several people we talked to suggested that we drop the Louisiana governor below Kasich in our rankings. But Jindal has the next year to continue to organize a presidential bid, while Kasich needs to keep both eyes on his reelection. That’s enough for us to give Jindal a slight edge. Jindal is quite clearly trying to position himself as the “ideas guy” in the field, also known as the Newton Leroy Gingrich Memorial Slot.
Marco Rubio: The problem for the senator from Florida is that his work to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill through the Senate has damaged him within the party base — and, because the legislation remains mired in the House, he has nothing to show for it. Sign of the times? A poll by WMUR in New Hampshire showed Rubio in sixth place in the state’s primary field, tied with Rick Santorum. Oomph.
Scott Walker: The Wisconsin governor is in a similar position to Kasich. He has a very strong case to make for 2016 if he can get through his 2014 reelection race. Walker has proved himself — in his 2010 election and his 2011 recall election — to be a very able politician, so we have our doubts about Democratic claims that he may be vulnerable next November.
Ted Cruz: If the Iowa caucuses were held today, the senator from Texas would win. But they won’t be held today. Therein lies the fundamental question at the heart of Cruz’s increasingly likely candidacy: Can he sustain the energy and passion that the tea party base of the GOP has for him over the next two-plus years?
Rand Paul: Cruz’s ascension as the face of the tea party movement may actually make it more likely that the senator from Kentucky winds up as the nominee. If Cruz is seen as the most ideological of the top tier of candidates, Paul can cast himself as the most electable hybrid conservative — someone whom conservatives can feel good about and who can expand the GOP’s shrinking electoral map.
Chris Christie: No one has had a better 2013. The only question for Christie is whether the power center of the party has moved so far toward the tea party that — with his focus on pragmatism over principle and winning over all else — he simply cannot be its choice.
I’m comforted by your prediction because you are seldom, if ever, right about anything.
Your tired canards are amusing in that you attempt feign impartiality while posting like a brain dead Democrat stuck on stupid.
