Jump to content

2016 GOP Candidates for President


Recommended Posts

 

Plus, he is named "Jeb."

 

What kind of person has a name like that?

We elected an Obama.

 

One name is the name of tolerance and diversity. The other is for Bible-thumping rednecks only. Obama might as well be named "Freedom E. Ringer;" Jeb might as well be named "Cletus A. Gayhater."
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's always the rent is too damn high party.

not even sure i want to know what is going on here     im proud of not knowing what is on here     makes me more authentic     did i just give away that i know what i going on in here

I would find it hilarious considering all the Birthers out there railing on about Obama's birth certificate if Cruz was able to secure a nomination.

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Ted Cruz not electable: too conservative AND born in Canada. Agreed he's not electable. His mom was American, though. He would most likely be fine.

 

But there is a constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen, so he's disqualified.

 

 

Bobby Jindal is not electable as president. Why?

His politics and the lack of charisma. Plus, I am assuming he (or any republican) is going up against Hillary. He'd get his ass handed to him in a general election against her.

 

 

Chris Christie is not electable: bridge scandal. Disagree. The reports just haven't been damning. Basically not a huge deal except to people who are firmly on the left or the far, far right -- i.e. people who would never vote for him in a general (left) or primary (right) election anyway.

It would be very different in a general election, assuming he even got past the primary process. A big deal would be made of it, and I think where there's smoke, there's fire. Maybe I am just speculating, but I am sure there is at least one other incident that could be used as a scandal. Plus, is outspoken, and sometimes antagonistic manner towards the press reminds me of Rumsfeld. In the beginning, people actually liked Rumsfeld because of that, but I think it would be used against him, not just by the press, but attack ads. People would turn against him, I believe.

 

 

Rand Paul is not electable: too libertarian nutty. Inconclusive. If you would have said this two years ago, I would have agreed. Maybe even one year ago. That dude is slippery, though. He has matured as a communicator, and is now capable of appearing to take a stand as a shadow-weasel.

I can see him as a Senator for a long time. But as president. Very doubtful to me.

 

 

Jeb Bush is probably the most electable out of that list, but hello, political dynasty. The Georges shoot down his chance. Agreed, though I don't know how important the dynasty factor is to most voters. On a personal note, Jeb is way scarier than Dubya to me. Dubya played up his conservatism, but IMO had the intellectual and ideological heft of a Thomas Kinkade print; Jeb plays (pleas?) to moderates and "reasonable people who may disagree," but may actually be guided by some core values. Icky ones, too.

Well, I think for most left leaning voters, and many centrist voters, the radioactive half-life of W is still in effect. The left just hates the guy, and nothing would get out the democrat vote like another potential President Bush. As for republicans, it depends on the type of republican. If they were a fan of W, then yeah, Jeb would get their votes. But for the tea party types, he's not "conservative" enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is a constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen, so he's disqualified.

Politifact wrote an article on this, indicating only a slim chance that his birth outside the United States would cause any problem: Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president?

 

That's enough to satisfy me. Though I admit it would be funny to see Cruz of all people have his aspirations foiled by his place of birth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the question should be for Cruz is what decision was made by his parents upon being born. Did they declare him an American citizen or Canadian. That alone should settle it. If his mom is American and his father is Cuban and he was born in Canada he could be declared a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada.

 

The problem is the Constitution is not clear on that matter. This is an interesting question. I will have to bring it up with my students because we are currently covering the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

But there is a constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen, so he's disqualified.

Politifact wrote an article on this, indicating only a slim chance that his birth outside the United States would cause any problem: Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president?

 

That's enough to satisfy me. Though I admit it would be funny to see Cruz of all people have his aspirations foiled by his place of birth!

 

I don't find that enough. I don't deny he is a US citizen, but I don't think he qualifies as a natural-born citizen. The actual verbiage of the constitution is:

 

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

I believe the intent of the term natural born citizen is someone who was born within the borders of the US, its territories, or what is considered US soil (IE an embassy, or military installation). Just because his mother is a US citizen, and he may be a US citizen,doesn't mean he a natural born citizen, since he was born off of US soil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Well, I would assume not, too. But if somebody researches it and a bunch of legal experts are saying there's only a slim chance it could be a problem, I'm gonna go with them.

You've got me there, but I would like to see more on who this " vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is" exactly is. Personally, I think his argument goes against what I think the spirit of the law was intended to be, but it seems its going to take a Supreme Court ruling to sort it out.

 

I just find irony in someone who has partly made a political career out of immigration and border reform, going as far as saying he wants mass deportations, could be found as a natural born citizen by a loophole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got me there, but I would like to see more on who this " vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is" exactly is. Personally, I think his argument goes against what I think the spirit of the law was intended to be, but it seems its going to take a Supreme Court ruling to sort it out.

 

I see your point, but look at if from this angle: The spirit of the law is to prevent someone from infiltrating the presidency and performing his duties outside of the interests of our own country. I don't think anyone truly believes the purpose was to keep a pure American bloodline merely for the sake of purity bloodline. That could have been the rationale when it was written, but not it's true purpose. It was always a function of protection from infiltration.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Yeah I hear ya Dana-kin. I guess the thing is with me, it was something that had been taught to me since grade school that natural-born citizen means someone born on US soil, and seemed to always be something that was not in dispute, until recently. With Cruz, I just think it is odd he is claiming to be natural born tangentially because of his mother's citizenship, yet he has gone on record to say he wants to deport the non-citizen parents of babies born in the US. Just seems intellectually hypocritical to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, I don't think ANY of the presidents in the past 100 years were "natural born citizens...AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION." Why are the originalists not crying a river over this travesty and bringing complaints before the Supreme Court?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I wonder from a legalese standpoint what percentage of lawyers think the Constitution was poorly written, and if it had to be ratified now, how many things would have to be re-written!

Link to post
Share on other sites

omg omg omg

 

I would never vote for either of them, but a Bush/Warren election cycle would be so brilliant to watch unfold. Terrible for the country if either of them win, of course (though who of the mainstream choices would make it so?), but oh so entertaining.

 

Bush is such an icky, icky toad, Warren is such a vapid hypocrite. We hatessss them, precioussssss. But watching their sycophants and apologists battle it out would be at least as good as WrestleMania III.

 

Bush/Clinton would certainly be entertaining, as well, but I don't really have any strong feelings for Hillary Clinton (positive or negative), so seeing her get pummeled would be less viscerally thrilling than either Jebbie or Lizzie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Warren is unelectable. Period. I don't think she would make it through the primaries. Her rivals would play her "I'm a 1/32 Cherokee princess" quotes, revealing her for the hypocritical moron she is.

 

Bush is actually a pretty moderate republican, and probably pretty electable, but the fact that 2 other members of his immediate family were presidents themselves just is so distasteful to me. In a country of 310+ million, that's the best the GOP can do? What's that say about the GOP?

 

Also, I can't stand Hillary Clinton, but I have to say if it comes down to Bush/Clinton, I don't think there is a way a Bush can win going up against a Clinton, Benghazi notwithstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Bernie Sanders is considering running for president. Sounds like if he did, he might run as a Democrat, even though he ran as an Independent for Vermont. He's a socialist, which means that *I* love him, but having that word used so casually in association with him will make even most dems scared to vote for him, I think.

 

Regardless, I'd be happier with him than Hillary. Too bad he's so old, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

×
×
  • Create New...