crockett you are acting stupid...Ted Cruz is only 44 years old.

He's held political office since 2003. Which means he was 33 years old. Been in political office for ELEVEN years now in one form or another.

Yes...unless he retires and goes back to a real job, he's on his way to being a lifetime/career bureaucrat.

Why are you acting so goddamned dumb?
At one point Harry Reid was "new" too. Strom Thurmond was a "newbie" at one point too.

These clowns should come into office, SERVE THE PEOPLE (not themselves) for a couple of years and then go HOME.

Your ideas on this are the same ones that have fucked our country.
How much "experience" did Pres. Obama have by the way?

And I'll ask you again...what exactly do these great Senators and Congressmen that you worship have experience AT? WHAT?

Answer: Nothing. And there is nothing in their job description that requires them to have ANY skills (other than being able to read and write and vote in the House and Senate).

I reject your lame and OLD ideas. You're no progressive. You are locked in a time machine with old ancient bureaucrats who need to get the fuck out of the way of progress.

Robbie, I'm not the guy acting dumb whom thinks random joes with zero experience are going to somehow get elected into office and work miracles.

Another thing you have this issue of thinking that because I disagree with you, that I somehow stand for everything you seem to hate. You do do this all the time and it's the same dumb mentality that most hardcore right wingers have.

If anyone disagrees with you, they are instantly the enemy and represent everything you hate about what ever the subject is. Because I think your idea about inexperienced people being a bad idea, you somehow equate that to me being pro old ancient bureaucrats.

I don't think you ever worked alongside him or you would take that back.

Smarter than his brother, but I can tell you firsthand he is a lying pile of turd. :2 cents:

He has no chance anyway. The country wont elect anyone leaning libertarian. To bad :( Im not a big RP fan, but it would be interesting to see what this country would look like with his father in the WH for a couple terms, lol

Well I never said I'd vote for him.. I just said it wasn't a horrible governor, but I sure as hell would never vote for him.

Rand Paul suffers from the same problems as his father does. Yes he sometimes says some interesting things, he then often says some bat shit crazy stuff. However the biggest problem with him, is he is too far to the extreme and not very moderate. The Republican Party is already too far to the right, it needs to be pulled back away from the whackos and then pushed toward actual fiscal consertivism.

The problem is you couldn't even sell real fiscal consertism to the Republican Party at this point, which is why he has no hope. They have to be moved back to being moderates and lose all the hate and fear mongering before any chance of fiscal consertism has any hope of coming back.

Again, I ask you....WHAT experience???? What are these old men that you think are so great experienced AT?

And again I TELL you...Senators and Congressmen don't do anything but vote on legislation.
And if you are a Democrat in the House you vote the way you are told to by Nancy Pelosi. If you are Republican you vote the way you are told to by John Boehner.
If you are a Dem in the Senate you vote the way Harry Ried tells you. If you are a Republican you vote the way Mitch McConnell tells you.

Now YOU tell ME how any of the 2 party lifetime/bureaucrats have to have "experience" to do that?

Your ideas are old, antiquated, and nothing but "more of the same". And the "same" is what has ruined this country. Again, you are NOT progressive at all. You are for keeping things just the way they are and pretending to be some kind of fake liberal.

Instead of continuing on with your rant about how people need "experience"...Just answer my questions:
Experience at WHAT?
And 2nd question: How much "experience" did Pres. Obama have at being an executive?

I can answer that for you (because you won't)
Answer to the 1st question: Nothing
Answer to the 2nd question: None.

Now how about you try answering those two questions? Or would that open your eyes if you did?

Keep dreamin'. The demographics are against the GOP, and they're getting worse. Doesn't matter who they run, they're gonna lose the WH. Maybe some day, when they stop shitting on latinos, blacks and especially women(!), they'll have a realistic chance at the WH. Until then, not so much...

If you'd like to place a bet, though, I'd be glad to take your money.

All that said, see sig.

I don't dream this up and i dont gamble with gfyers. I base most of my views on what i learn about the history of things and the simple fact is history strongly shows the wh will change hands in 2016.

Nothing is going to change until dems control the White House long enough to have the Supreme Court 5-4 in liberals favor. Once this happens big things will change and finally some sanity can start to creep back in

Well that's nice. On the other hand, there are these things called "polls" (not to mention "demographics"), and it turns out they're usually accurate, especially when polls on the same topic are aggregated.

Tragically, right-wingers especially (and especially over the last 6 years) have been trained to ignore objective reality and double (if not quadruple) down on indefensible positions, so your opinion is not surprising. Just like it was unsurprising when, on election night 2012, Karl Rove believed his own bullshit so much that it led to this epic meltdown, even though polls had been predicting Obama's decisive victory virtually all summer and fall.

Leading up to the election, I pointed this out a few times here, and every time the response from GOP partisans was pretty much "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA." In other words, ignoring objective reality.

Don't get me wrong, IMO, in the current political environment, it doesn't matter much whether a democrat or republican wins the WH. At the national level, both parties are utterly corrupt and ONLY serve their huge money donors. So either way, We The People lose.

For things to "change"...first a case has to be brought to the Supreme Court. They don't just decide to change things on their own.

And what "sanity" do you think the Supreme Court will have "creep back in" if they have a majority of Justices appointed by Democrat presidents?

Will there magically be cases brought to the Supreme Court that will fix the debt? Stop the feds from bombing other countries? Stop them from spying on us? Etc., etc.?

I'm all for "liberal" judges who WON'T take away our personal freedoms...but realistically, they have to have a case brought before them to consider anything first. :)

Pretty sure we are stuck with debt, bombing, and spying. I was mostly referring to the fact that the current Supreme Court has almost completely dismantled campaign finance laws

Granted, then of course congress will have to actually pass new laws for it and by then it maybe far to late

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


I just stated to you I made that comment based on history, not political affiliation. You're too much party aligned to grasp that apparently. I've stated this here many times, I am not a right-winger or a republican. I'm a realist with no affiliation to anyone, any thing or any fucking political party.

I would make the same prediction if the parties where flip-flopped at this point, and say the repubs are out of the wh in 2016 and the dems are in.


Nevertheless, I hope you feel better now that you got all that off your chest, whew!

Santorum, again? ha haha, he must be a masochist.

Jon Stewart is going to have a field day with this election.

Republican comedy writes itself!

Yes it does.

Fucked up thing about Santorum...I didn't know much about him except when I would see him on the Sunday news shows before 2012.

And on those shows he seemed bright, articulate, and very focused on economics. I didn't bother to check out his background...because I didn't give a fuck at that point. lol

Then when the 2012 election kicked up, I was thinking that he would be a good candidate...until the first time I saw him during the campaign being interviewed.

Man, I've never seen such a change. There he was in that ridiculous sweater vest, spouting religious nonsense like a crazy man. And with that angry pursed lips look.

I suppose I never saw that side of him in the past...but that seemed to be his ONLY side during the campaign.

Fucking politicians. :(
They seem to just change like the wind to try and get power.
Romney changing his abortion stance, Hillary talking like a black person when she was campaigning in an all-black environment. It's fucking ridiculous.

And you'd think that with cellphone video catching these people acting that way, and the internet shooting it out everywhere...that they would smarten up and stop it.

for a republican, i liked Jon Huntsman - even when he's a mormon

but at least he doesn't seem to be insane like some of the other candidates

Vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo :thumbsup

Let him get in the "lead" and I'll guarantee you that the media will dig up everything he has ever done and make it headline news.
Remember in 2012 when they spent all that time "reporting" on Mitt Romney cutting another kids hair 50 years ago? Or the strapping the dog pen to the top of his station wagon 40 years ago?

Trust me, they can dig into everything you ever did and make you look as bad as they want to.

Huntsman would be the same way.

Remember how the media fawned over Romney in the primary. And then when he won it...they turned on him viciously.

Same thing with McCain in 2008. He was the one "good" Republican. The "maverick". The one who got robbed by George Bush in 2000...and once he was the nominee? They tore him a new asshole. lol

There's no ratings in "good guys".

So they hold those "stories" until they get a nominee.

Can't you just imagine all the reporters sitting on that stupid Romney and his dog story? And having to wait until just the right moment to "break" a 40 year old story of a guy tying a dog pen to the top of his station wagon. lol

Actually McCain had a pretty drastic change over and he stopped being the Mavrick and started acting like any other Republicain goon with line for line talking points. Then there was the whole Palin issue..

The media turned on him as you call it, because he started acting ridiculous.

well, Huntsman is out of question anyways because he signed a paper on gay marriage and as former ambassador in China he's probably automatically considered a communist.

but that's what I meant earlier - someone with international experience, good ratings as governor, some common sense (even as a mormon) is by far not crazy enough to satisfy the tea bagging crowd that holds the republican party hostage right now.

and whoever fits that profile is never going to win in the presidential elections - because thankfully the normal Americans are still a majority ;)

Yes and to remind everyone how far to the extreme the Tea Party is.. After McCain supported ending the budget hostage crisis, the Tea Party members of his own state voted to censure him and claimed he was too liberal.

Actually it was several COUNTIES in Arizona that had their COUNTY GOP "censure" him for what they called "abandoning party principals".

They pretty much said what we all know about McCain...he's not a religious right nutcase like the more extreme cases. And from what we've all seen coming out of Arizona the last few years..the people there have become VERY conservative.

They want somebody to represent them that reflects their own will. That's how it's supposed to be. And I guess IF he tries to run again (hopefully he won't and he will FINALLY leave govt.) the people he is supposed to represent will show him how they feel at the ballot box.

But I swear to God...I don't think McCain has ever seen a war he DIDN'T want to get in.

The guy always seems to be itching to get our military involved all over the world. :(

Disclaimer: I'm no fan at all of Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't vote for her with YOUR dick, so to speak.

That said, here's the current polling data of she v. the potential GOP nominees. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tial_race.html

Rand Paul 3/6 - 6/30 -- 49.6 40.6 Clinton +9.0
Chris Christie 3/6 - 6/30 -- 48.6 39.1 Clinton +9.5
Jeb Bush 3/4 - 6/30 -- 49.7 39.7 Clinton +10.0
Mike Huckabee 3/6 - 6/30 -- 50.3 40.7 Clinton +9.6
Paul Ryan 3/6 - 6/30 -- 49.0 42.3 Clinton +6.7
Ted Cruz 3/2 - 6/15 -- 51.8 38.0 Clinton +13.8
Marco Rubio 3/6 - 6/21 -- 49.0 37.5 Clinton +11.5

The problem with the GOP is that they have moved way too far to the right. In other words, they're having another "Barry Goldwater moment", and they won't win another Presidential election until they muzzle the extremists who have hijacked the party over the last 6 years.

They're alienating 2 key demographics: Latinos and (especially) women. Check out what's happened to the female vote: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/ge...p-history.aspx. For those too lazy to look at data, the gender gap in 2012 was 20%!!

Especially until they quit crapping on women, they won't win another national election. Though I have to say, it's gonna be hilarious when demographics turn Texas "blue" by 2020 at the latest.

"As you sow so shall you reap"

http://m.artician.com/pu/QSEEN5D4HFH...A.preview.jpeg


A dead Republicans is better then a live democratic.

McCain is an excellent servant to his big benefactors.

Nice grammar.