US Rep: Peter King: "Hillary Clinton would destroy Ted Cruz, GOP isolationists in 2016

I'm thinking it will be an up and coming minority puppet. They have shown that picking Obama was the best choice they have ever made "untouchable" is pretty much what he is and I think that is the formula that they will now stick with.

Originally posted by HauntWok
I can see the ticket now, Sarah Palin/Herman Cain 2016

And the slogan will be "We just give up"

I think it will be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul ticket.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by HauntWok
I can see the ticket now, Sarah Palin/Herman Cain 2016

And the slogan will be "We just give up"

I think it will be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul ticket.

Those two are really the only options, they are the only two Conservative/Libertarian Republicans really trust.

reply to post by Redden


Mike Lee is another good one, but after this administration and the beuracratic mess he has us in it'll take a staunch Libertarian and Conservative to ressurect Constitutional Federalism.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yea, true, Mike Lee is good.

Again, I just really only see Rand Paul being the one to have full support.

I am just curious to see what person the party elites will choose. My guess was Marco Rubio but after the immigration bill that him and the gang of 8 put together, I'm not so sure who it will be.

reply to post by Redden


Well, if it's left up to the party elites as you say then were doomed. They will nominate a statist, big-government Progressive GOP person and not a Conservative. They hate Conservatives.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Redden

 

Well, if it's left up to the party elites as you say then were doomed. They will nominate a statist, big-government Progressive GOP person and not a Conservative. They hate Conservatives.

Yea exactly, and I just thought of the person they would choose as their nominee....

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Jeb Bush.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Are you kidding me? People hate the tea party because there are too many Christians involved. Wow! What did our founding fathers say "in God we trust". So you would rather see a Jew or Muslim or morgan affiliate run? Or maybe an atheist would be best? Or better yet - elect someone who tells everyone they will give them something they really really want and are going to make everything all better. Yep - those ones are good - they please everyone because they are so hungry for power they don't think twice about deceiving the people.

If this is what decisions are made from that is scarry. Our constitution protects us from spreading religion (freedom of religion) so regardless of what church one goes to i suggest looking at the issues they stand for. And what morals are worse than what we have seen over the last couple of presidencies?

it seems people prefer candidates to lie and hide their beliefs until we can uncover them (and trust me all candidates have a dominant group affiliated with them). Look at the issues they care about. To discount because of a slant is to deny every politician has a slant. Theirs is just more visible (and I'm not a tea party person - just responding to the logic).

reply to post by muse7


Cruz is folly at this point. He can't be prez due to his (documented) birthplace. I think hes going to play folly for Rand and then drop out and back him in 2016 primaries.

The dems seem to be putting all their eggs in the Clinton basket already. I get it. It's a safe bet. Maybe not the best choice, though. I'd rather gamble on someone new.

I think the tone of America is changing. I'd love to see a Rand Paul v. Hillary Clinton debate. Hillary would attack with emotion. Rand would respond with facts and sarcasm. Good TV for all!

In the end I think Cruz's heart is in right place, and he's a good talker. He might have a significant place in future politics, just not as Prez.

This is interesting, but I think the economy is a bigger issue than social policy at the moment. Who cares about foreign policy when we have so many people without solid jobs?

With the way people think, I'm not sure they would want 4-8 more years of Democrats in the Executive Branch -

I am solidly centrist. In fact, I think that either Democrats or Republicans are useful depending on the circumstances of the situation that needs attention.

I am still unsure about Obama Care. I hear reports of it being cheaper than expected when it is tested - but I also hear reports that it could be way too costly - if that is the case, it could potentially be the crippling blow to our economy.

Originally posted by darkbake
This is interesting, but I think the economy is a bigger issue than social policy at the moment. Who cares about foreign policy when we have so many people without solid jobs?

With the way people think, I'm not sure they would want 4-8 more years of Democrats in the Executive Branch -

I am solidly centrist. In fact, I think that either Democrats or Republicans are useful depending on the circumstances of the situation that needs attention.

I am still unsure about Obama Care. I hear reports of it being cheaper than expected when it is tested - but I also hear reports that it could be way too costly - if that is the case, it could potentially be the crippling blow to our economy.

edit on 22-7-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

In regards to Obamacare, If the president and his affiliates who help wrote the bill calling it "The Law of the Land" then exempting themselves from the bill, completely turns me off to it.

And in both Obamacare and the new immigration bill, a business has to pay a penalty to the Federal goverment because they hire a Natural citizen --per person-- over a legalized citizen --formally an illegal alien-- that means the of the cost of healthcare for the legalized citizen is cheaper. Therefore creating an 'Incentive' to hire legalized citizens over a natural citizen . Now that is completely unconstitutional and they lied straight to our faces about their own bills.

That will only be continued if another Liberal democrat is elected to office. America will be doomed if that happens. Hillary would only continue the process of Obamacare and the Gobalist Elite agenda her husband talked about.

reply to post by Redden


You have some good information there. As an educated liberal, I find your argument well thought-out. It is definitely highly sketchy that congress gets to opt out of Obama Care. Why would they want to do that? Is it not good enough for them?

Wow really? They have a difference between natural citizens and legalized citizens and legalized ones are supposed to be hired instead?

Also, globalism - how well is that working out in the E.U.? Running the world all under one government?? Mixing all of those cultures and situations under one rule of law? Running the risk of bankruptcy and then taxing the personal bank accounts of those in poor countries to keep the rich ones afloat?

I'm not sure about the stability of such a venture, although possibly. I know that a lot of countries need help and are under corrupt regimes, but the U.S. is not necessarily leading the pack when it comes to pure intentions anymore.

My basic point is, liberals offer a platform supporting gay marriage and good foreign policy - both are good - but the conservatives offer a platform with economic growth and increase in private sector jobs.

It's basically like, well, we have gay marriage in enough states that it makes it possible to get married, Obama's foreign policy ended up getting Europe, Russia and South America pissed off at us as well as Israel a bit and a lot of the middle-east - what good foreign policy is being offered, exactly?

Drone strikes, spying on ally economic, scientific and private citizen data? Forcing a European country to down the plane of a sovereign nation and embarrass itself?

Do you think that those European countries are happy that Obama made them look bad to South America? No! They are probably furious.

Four years is a long time, and there has been hardly any economic recovery - Obama's idea of economic recovery is hiring more government workers, but those are paid for by taxpayer dollars!

Four years is a long time! People could lose their jobs and their houses in four years! Four more years? That is a heavy risk to take!

reply to post by darkbake


America is at critical mass - those of us who have followed politics, foreign policy (?), and economic policy - have had it.

Globalism and communism is what the dems and repubs have been pushing for years - as they both steadily lead us into WW3 with their manipulation and arms running in third world countries.

I'm betting if they actually run Clinton the hillary, most people will not bother to vote and attempt to suck all of what money they have left out of any banks or stock market funds - gold and silver will rebound (anyway) mightily - there will be nothing left of the US.

Not saying that middle class people will "have a lot", but they will attempt to get what little they have left, out of a failing US.

Social security is broken - illegal amnesty is almost a given - welfare payments will end, when the working people say enough.

reply to post by riffraff


I know exactly how you feel, but sadly we are now in a "ethnic" political figures frenzy, it doesn't matter how corrupted, dirty or moron the candidate be the masses that are minority will become majority votes if amnesty is passed, the Democrats will ride the "ethnicity cart" to gain the White house again, Hillary is damage goods.

I have the feeling that the Democrats will parade another "ethnic" president and Holder fit the role.

reply to post by Sailor Sam


They better go find something better than Jeb,

and for Zimermman I don't thing that the vocal minority will want anything close to Hispanics for now.

Originally posted by Redden

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Redden

 

Well, if it's left up to the party elites as you say then were doomed. They will nominate a statist, big-government Progressive GOP person and not a Conservative. They hate Conservatives.

Yea exactly, and I just thought of the person they would choose as their nominee....

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Jeb Bush.

Yep, either him or Chris Christie.

If those are the handpicked men you can hand the next presidency to the Democrats. They are literally the same thing.

reply to post by Ghost of America

Cruz is folly at this point. He can't be prez due to his (documented) birthplace.

That isn't true. The place of birth is irrelevant if at the time of birth both parents are US citizens. A person is a "natural-born citizen" if either they are born within the continental United States or born overseas to parents who are United States citizens.

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.

Natural-Born Citizen Clause

Democrats will continue to win elections by promising more handouts to the 47%. Republican candidates will lose because they try to be middle of the road and don't appeal to real conservatives.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Democrats will continue to win elections by promising more handouts to the 47%. Republican candidates will lose because they try to be middle of the road and don't appeal to real conservatives.

That's why a true Conservative needs to be nominated. Last time the GOP did that the candidate carried 48 states.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Reagan would be considered Left by today's Right.