Christie’s gonna run, he’s Italian and so am I. I can see it in his eyes.
Fiona isn’t strictly a new comer, she ran for California senate I think and has a pretty impressive business record.
[quote=“Il Ðoge”]Christie’s gonna run, he’s Italian and so am I. I can see it in his eyes.
Fiona isn’t strictly a new comer, she ran for California senate I think and has a pretty impressive business record.[/quote]
You mean tanking Hewlitt-Packard?
businessinsider.com/carly-fi … -hp-2015-3
(Note that’s from Business Insider, not the New Republic or the Nation)
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Il Ðoge”]Christie’s gonna run, he’s Italian and so am I. I can see it in his eyes.
Fiona isn’t strictly a new comer, she ran for California senate I think and has a pretty impressive business record.[/quote]
You mean tanking Hewlitt-Packard?
businessinsider.com/carly-fi … -hp-2015-3
(Note that’s from Business Insider, not the New Republic or the Nation)[/quote]
And note that was a FAILED run for a senate seat. She wasn’t even close. And yeap, the business community tore her to shreds when HP fired her. She’s a loser, and part of my original point was the party should distance itself from losers.
I don’t think Christie will run-or, I should say he would be stupid to run this time. However, looking at the stupidity in the field so far, he might put aside what he knows is right and go with his ego-that’s what others seem to be doing.
What is Fiorina going to run on exactly? Republicans are going bat shit crazy about the Hillary email thing, yet the idea of voting for someone who got paid insane amounts of money for failure is fine? :loco: It’s like the Mitt Romney thing all over again. During the height of financial industry angst, the Republicans put forth a guy who made hundreds of millions of dollars in shady WallStreet crap. Who’s idea was that? Hey I know how we can fix this economy. Get a guy who epitomizes what’s wrong with finance and make him President, they’ll never see us comin’ 
Ever seen the movie Dinner for Schmucks? Is that what the Republicans are doing here? Are these rich campaign donors just playing a big game to see how many votes the worst possible candidates can actually get, just for fun? Is there something wrong with just putting forth a few candidates who actually have a chance of winning?
There have been a lot of new announcements for the Republicans, listed in what is in my opinion most to least likely:
Jeb Bush: probable nominee
Scott Walker: polling well, real experience
Chris Christie: real experience
John Kasich: underrated, but he should be taken more seriously
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio: the first not so much, the latter probably more likely to be slotted for VP
All no chance: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump
That’s 16 candidates so far 
Christie: scandal-ridden
Walker: union-busting is his main claim to fame, but he’s emerged as the most serious alternative to JEB
Rubio: would probably get offered the VP slot if JEB weren’t from Florida. A lot of Republicans dislike him for being pro-immigration, while Latin American voters dislike him for being Cuban.
Jindal, Santorum, Huckabee: religious nuts
Paul: some other kind of nut
Perry: dumber than rocks
Trump: must be some kind of publicity stunt, the man is not remotely qualified
Carson: some black guy, that’s all I know. Note: serious candidates tend to be (or have been) senators, governors, things like that.
At this stage, it’s not worth much, but my prediction for top 3:
Jeb!
Scott Walker
Marco Rubio
My faith in Scotty has gone down a bit- I think his anti-gay-marriage schtick is gonna make later primary voters realize he con never be a serious contender.
I’m thinking 50/50 it’s gonna be Romney. After these GOP clowns go several rounds of debates trashing each other with no clear respectable candidate emerging, Romney is going to swoop in and will seem almost presidential by comparison.
My gut says this isn’t going to happen, but this is a very unpredictable lot, lol. I really can’t see Romney entering, but I also couldn’t see Donald Trump being taken seriously by 12% of Republican voters 
And since we are talking about the Republican party, what does it say that Donald Trump could have an announcement where he says Mexican immigrants are “rapists and criminals” and he is still taken seriously by anyone. Where was the statement from the party officials? Other candidates? Where was the chairman of the Republican party? None of them should want this guy associated with their brand. What does it say about the Republicans that they don’t have the balls to push this guy out of their party? And without doing so, how do they expect to attract Latino voters with a straight face? (You’re all criminals and rapists, vote for us!)
I agree with MikeN three posts up. A big reason for Walker’s success is that he’s been able to attract Tea Party support (e.g. on gay marriage). Of course this means he’d be unelectable even if nominated.
Romney? But he’s already lost once, and there’s no reason to think he’d do any better this time. Plus it’s just not done. (Yes, there was Nixon but that was different.)
It’s sad to say, but it’s because his message resinates with far too many American citizens as well. I’d love to say he’s on an island by himself with that one, but he just isn’t.
Roughly 20% of former Presidents lost at least once before they won.
He didn’t say ALL Mexicans were criminals and rapists, he also added “and some, I assume, are good people”. Although that’s not a whole lot better.
He didn’t say ALL Mexicans were criminals and rapists, he also added “and some, I assume, are good people”. Although that’s not a whole lot better.[/quote]
It’s not really better at all. Republican Governor Susana Martinez summed it up well:
[quote]“I think those are horrible things to say about anyone or any culture … anyone of any ethnicity,” said Martinez, a Republican. “I mean, that is uncalled for … completely.”
abqjournal.com/606924/news/g … trump.html
[/quote]
That in itself is an amazing comment when you think about it. I guess it means that he deems every Mexican he’s ever met to be a bad person, or that he’s never met a Mexican more likely.
Yup. And that’s part of the problem. He’s saying that most Mexican immigrants are criminals, as if criminality were a generally inherent trait of Mexicans. And he thinks Hispanics will vote for him after saying crap like that.
He also needs to check the map: the Middle East shares no borders with the Americas.
I thought what Trump said was very clear and he has clarified his statement in subsequent interviews. First, that the people coming over are criminals and rapists. He’s said it’s a huge number, but won’t give a number. He assumes, but doesn’t know for sure, that some are good people. He does know that lots and lots of them rape because people are raped. But he only assumed some are good while he knows lots are bad. Also, he’s been very clear that Mexico sends these bad people on purpose. How does he know? Because, he said, that’s what he would do. :loco:
Democrats are having hands free orgasms over this 
Not as the nominee of their party, surely. Are you counting all the way back from the beginning?
The amazing thing is how quickly spouting insane racist bullshit moves you up the Republican approval list. I don’t know what the answer to this is unless…huge numbers of Republicans are racist assholes?
Waiting with bated breath for Republican supporters to explain it’s all an incredible coincidence.
[quote=“Cooperations”]Also, he’s been very clear that Mexico sends these bad people on purpose. How does he know? Because, he said, that’s what he would do. :loco:
Democrats are having hands free orgasms over this [/quote]
That’s the part that gets me too but so far hasn’t received any attention because the rapist part is even worse. He says that “Mexico doesn’t send their best. They send the criminals, drug dealers, and rapists…”
Does this guy actually think that’s how illegal immigration works? That somehow people have to first be selected by their home countries government for deportation? They have to pass some kind of exam or something in order to be sent illegally over the border? Mexico sifts through the candidates and selects the shittiest human beings to send over? :loco:
[quote=“BrentGolf”][quote=“Cooperations”]Also, he’s been very clear that Mexico sends these bad people on purpose. How does he know? Because, he said, that’s what he would do. :loco:
Democrats are having hands free orgasms over this [/quote]
That’s the part that gets me too but so far hasn’t received any attention because the rapist part is even worse. He says that “Mexico doesn’t send their best. They send the criminals, drug dealers, and rapists…”
Does this guy actually think that’s how illegal immigration works? That somehow people have to first be selected by their home countries government for deportation? They have to pass some kind of exam or something in order to be sent illegally over the border? Mexico sifts through the candidates and selects the shittiest human beings to send over? :loco:[/quote]
The republican blowhards are trying very hard to either distance themselves or say the donald has a point. Unfortunately, their point isn’t the same as the donald’s point:
[quote]As for his instantly notorious Mexico comments, they did more to insult than to illuminate, yet there was a kernel in them that hit on an important truth that typical politicians either don’t know or simply fear to speak. “When Mexico sends its people,” Trump said, “they’re not sending their best.”
This is obviously correct. We aren’t raiding the top 1 percent of Mexicans and importing them to this country. Instead, we are getting representative Mexicans, who — through no fault of their own, of course — come from a poorly educated country at a time when education is essential to success in an advanced economy.
politico.com/magazine/story/ … z3ezec6iyI[/quote]
Rich Lowry must have a problem with the English language. We are not bringing any illegals- that’s what makes them illegals. Mexico is not sending any illegals. Trump didn’t mention education, he mentioned rape and crime. Rich Lowry is wrong in both what he said and how he tried to represent what Trump said. The stupidity of Trump must be contagious