USA Politics

Huckabee is like when Sharpton or Jessie ran .. they do not expect to win, but the act of running increases their speaking tour. Huckabee has the advantage of actually having done something beyond extort people and cheat on his taxes.

I would expect Christie or at least 1 other current governor (Walker, Snyder, Kasich, etc) to jump in
 
Have to think his stock is on the rise over Detroit. He took a lot of flak for supporting bankruptcy, but it 100% was shown to be the right option.
 
I thought bankruptcy was the right call for Detroit too, and it seems to be working at this stage. Snyder has other things I dislike, but a lot of that are his representatives, who are pretty batshit crazy social conservatives, the kind nobody here likes.
 
Ryan announced today he will not run, which is probably a good move and he can probably do more good in a policy position.

“After giving it a lot of thought, I’ve decided not to run for president,” he said in the statement. “Our work at the House Ways and Means Committee over the next few years will be crucial to moving America forward, and my job as chairman deserves undivided attention. It’s clear our country needs a change in direction. And our party has a responsibility to offer a real alternative. So I’m going to do what I can to lay out conservative solutions and to help our nominee lead us to victory.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/paul-ryan-not-running-president-2016-114188.html#ixzz3OeSkmSqP
 
B7UW0DJIcAAvxb9.png:large


Interesting diagram, and probably very true.
 
Probably pretty close ... which pretty much explains why I prefer Paul and Walker ... though I like Christie more from a personality perspective.
 
I don't like the libertarian point of view on a lot of things, but I will give Paul credit for being ideologically consistent, whereas a lot of people are fairly flexible.

If I had to pick from all those, I'd probably pick Romney or Christie or Bush.
 
Wästed The Great said:
I think Romney would be a pretty good choice out of all those.
Click to expand...
Like I've been saying since...2008, I don't think Mitt Romney would be a bad president of the USA. I don't think he would be ruled by the Tea Party or the Christians Conservatives; he seems very firm on his own faith, but he also seems very much like he believes faith should be private. He was a good governor.
 
Romney was the better choice in 2012 ... I would prefer to see him not get the nomination again, though I would take him over Hillary in a second
 
Depends on how you look at it, too. Most of the states that voted for him take more in federal assistance than they pay in. I'd say he needed to have a better platform, but it's not just about that.
 
LooseCannon said:
Depends on how you look at it, too. Most of the states that voted for him take more in federal assistance than they pay in. I'd say he needed to have a better platform, but it's not just about that.
Click to expand...


The election came down to he was painted as an out of touch rich white guy from a weird religion ... sadly I do not think all that many vote on platforms and somehow the idea of "here is a guy who did well" was turned into a negative and we want a President we can watch a game with and have a beer.
 
I think the platform has something to do with it. Some people voted for Romney because they hate Obamacare, for example.
 
LooseCannon said:
I think the platform has something to do with it. Some people voted for Romney because they hate Obamacare, for example.
Click to expand...


Sure, it has something to do with it, but I think mostly on a superficial level. Obamacare is bad, Romney is going to feed sick people to sharks, "1980s called, they want their foreign policy back", etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top