Skip to content

The GOP establishment trying to force idiot candidates on America

Political Discussion
121 15 2.5k
  • Lead in the GOP is one thing, convincing half the country to vote for him is another.

  • I think we should all agree that the worst GOP candidate is better than the two idiots that Democrats have on the table at the moment. If the GOP can't win the next one, and lose to Clinton or the self proclaimed socialist Sanders, this country is screwed to hell...

  • I'm actually inclined to agree. At this point, Hillary is winning by default because of no viable opposition within the party or from the opposition. She's done nothing to show she should be president apart from a string of soundbites and a term as secretary of state (?) where her achievements are, what, exactly? All the foreign affairs stuff has basically been headlined by Obama - like the deals or not, Cuba, Iran etc were his deal, she doesn't seem to have actually done much? The russia reset didn't exactly go well, did it?

  • I think we should all agree that the worst GOP candidate is better than the two idiots that Democrats have on the table at the moment. If the GOP can't win the next one, and lose to Clinton or the self proclaimed socialist Sanders, this country is screwed to hell...

    @brownskidd said:

    I think we should all agree that the worst GOP candidate is better than the two idiots that Democrats have on the table at the moment. If the GOP can't win the next one, and lose to Clinton or the self proclaimed socialist Sanders, this country is screwed to hell...

  • When the field breaks down two three or four candidates it will be Donald Trump vs everyone. That is everyone who isn't a hardcore Trump supporter will be against him no matter who they are for. I'm not sure how many Democrats would support him but after hearing his views on tariffs on overseas goods which would be a great boost for the unions I would assume people like Bob might vote for him?

    And even though he is an asshole I completely agree with his opinion on politically correct speech.

    (And besides being an asshole he's absolutely no worse than any member of this board.)

    WSS

  • (worse in what way?)

  • (worse in what way?)

    @gftchris said:

    (worse in what way?)

    Well let's see, megyn kelly called him out for referring to some women as fat cows idiots etc. We here call each other all sorts of shitty names all the fucking time. You stupid cock sucker. 😉

    WSS

  • I'm actually inclined to agree. At this point, Hillary is winning by default because of no viable opposition within the party or from the opposition. She's done nothing to show she should be president apart from a string of soundbites and a term as secretary of state (?) where her achievements are, what, exactly? All the foreign affairs stuff has basically been headlined by Obama - like the deals or not, Cuba, Iran etc were his deal, she doesn't seem to have actually done much? The russia reset didn't exactly go well, did it?

    @gftchris said:

    She's done nothing to show she should be president

    And she's done a lot to show why she shouldn't.

  • They really do think Trump can win the general election. My god, if it's Trump....I mean ffs Biden's gonna trounce him. Not like people would be happy to vote for Biden but FFS Trump is completely unelectable in the general election. He will not win the GOP delegates either, those people have made clear what they think of Trump......so what all this "populist" enthusiasm for Trump is going to do is make him think running 3rd party is a good idea. Whether he's the GOP nom or runs 3rd party he's "ensuring" another 4 years of a democrat. Martin Omalley would jaw jack him in the general election. You idiots just don't understand what you're doing by feeding his ego.

  • I think we should all agree that the worst GOP candidate is better than the two idiots that Democrats have on the table at the moment. If the GOP can't win the next one, and lose to Clinton or the self proclaimed socialist Sanders, this country is screwed to hell...

    @brownskidd said:

    I think we should all agree that the worst GOP candidate is better than the two idiots that Democrats have on the table at the moment. If the GOP can't win the next one, and lose to Clinton or the self proclaimed socialist Sanders, this country is screwed to hell...

    Actually no. Imo the worst GOP candidates are Trump, Walker...maybe Huckabee although I don't think he's a bad dude. Walker because he's against abortion even to save a womans life...so he's done. Trump...well that's obvious. If I voted in the primaries I'd vote for Lindsey Graham over him. Actually Sanders and Hillary look better than 80% of the republican candidates. There's "maybe" 3 or 4 that have a legitimate shot at beating whoever the dems run. Paul, Rubio, Kasich and Fiorino. Pick anyone outside those 4 and it's going to be the exact same numbers as the last two elections.

  • @gftchris said:

    (worse in what way?)

    Well let's see, megyn kelly called him out for referring to some women as fat cows idiots etc. We here call each other all sorts of shitty names all the fucking time. You stupid cock sucker. 😉

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    Well let's see, megyn kelly call him out for referring to some women as fat cows idiots etc. We here call each other all sorts of shitty names all the fucking time. You stupid cock sucker. 😉

    WSS

    Maybe yourself (though generally not), but I try to stay away from that kind of stuff, and have even called others out on it being petty, immature and doing nothing to advance any conversation.

  • @westside-steve said:

    Well let's see, megyn kelly call him out for referring to some women as fat cows idiots etc. We here call each other all sorts of shitty names all the fucking time. You stupid cock sucker. 😉

    WSS

    Maybe yourself (though generally not), but I try to stay away from that kind of stuff, and have even called others out on it being petty, immature and doing nothing to advance any conversation.

    @gftchris said:

    Maybe yourself (though generally not), but I try to stay away from that kind of stuff, and have even called others out on it being petty, immature and doing nothing to advance any conversation.

    Maybe.

    But frankly I find it refreshing if a candidate call his opponent an asshole if he feels that way rather than to pretend otherwise.

    If women really want equal treatment... I think you get the point.

    WSS

  • Seriously don't you get sick of politicians or celebrities who say something a little bit un pc then have to go on TV prostrate themselves and beg forgiveness for the stupid horrible unfeeling words they said?

    Especially by reading a prepared statement from somebody's PR department in a completely unconvincing manner?

    WSS

  • @legacy-fan said:

    Speaking of serious lack of reasoning..

    I wish there was something I could get totally hung up on that had no effect on me (or anyone else in the history of the universe) that will in no way whatsoever affect that persons ability to lead, and make critical decisions as Executive of the United States - just so I could remind everyone on an Internet message board that I skipped Sunday school when I was a teenager.

    Call it whatever you want, I'm not the only one here that has said this. If you can actively shun mountains of scientific evidence in favor of your own, evidence lacking beliefs, then who is to say that wont happen on other issues? Can you not see how this could be concerning on other issues?

    @mld-woody said:

    Call it whatever you want, I'm not the only one here that has said this. If you can actively shun mountains of scientific evidence in favor of your own, evidence lacking beliefs, then who is to say that wont happen on other issues? Can you not see how this could be concerning on other issues?

    The ONLY issue where this becomes a problem is if he's mediating talks between Israel and Palestine and they bitch about who's been fucking over who longer and the math doesn't add up to him.

    That's it. Otherwise it's a non-starter.

    @logicisforsquares said:

    Yeah I would prefer the reigns of the operation to be in the hands of someone who can look at the scientific evidence and at least see that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. If they can be willfully ignorant (Carson is not dumb at all so he has to want to believe this stuff) about information, I don't want them making major decisions. I don't have a beef with someone religious being in office so long as they don't make that the key factor in their decision making.

    Again, I'd take my kid to him for neurosurgery and expect him to use his clinical judgment and evidence to treat my child - not solely rely on prayer (though I'd appreciate them). So we already have evidence of him using religion as an *adjunct* in decision making - not the only source. Not even as a crutch.

    I don't think that would change when he got to the whitehouse.

    Again I just can't fathom where a critical decision comes down to the age of the earth. A daily double on jeopardy maybe?

  • @mld-woody said:

    Call it whatever you want, I'm not the only one here that has said this. If you can actively shun mountains of scientific evidence in favor of your own, evidence lacking beliefs, then who is to say that wont happen on other issues? Can you not see how this could be concerning on other issues?

    The ONLY issue where this becomes a problem is if he's mediating talks between Israel and Palestine and they bitch about who's been fucking over who longer and the math doesn't add up to him.

    That's it. Otherwise it's a non-starter.

    @logicisforsquares said:

    Yeah I would prefer the reigns of the operation to be in the hands of someone who can look at the scientific evidence and at least see that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. If they can be willfully ignorant (Carson is not dumb at all so he has to want to believe this stuff) about information, I don't want them making major decisions. I don't have a beef with someone religious being in office so long as they don't make that the key factor in their decision making.

    Again, I'd take my kid to him for neurosurgery and expect him to use his clinical judgment and evidence to treat my child - not solely rely on prayer (though I'd appreciate them). So we already have evidence of him using religion as an *adjunct* in decision making - not the only source. Not even as a crutch.

    I don't think that would change when he got to the whitehouse.

    Again I just can't fathom where a critical decision comes down to the age of the earth. A daily double on jeopardy maybe?

    @legacy-fan said:

    The ONLY issue where this becomes a problem is if he's mediating talks between Israel and Palestine and they bitch about who's been fucking over who longer and the math doesn't add up to him.

    That's it. Otherwise it's a non-starter.

    Again, I'd take my kid to him for neurosurgery and expect him to use his clinical judgment and evidence to treat my child - not solely rely on prayer (though I'd appreciate them). So we already have evidence of him using religion as an *adjunct* in decision making - not the only source. Not even as a crutch.

    I don't think that would change when he got to the whitehouse.

    Again I just can't fathom where a critical decision comes down to the age of the earth. A daily double on jeopardy maybe?

    No, you're missing the point. It isn't necessarily what he's believing, but how he's coming to that conclusion. You're right, the age of the Earth won't matter to the president or most people. The issue is with him ignoring mountains of scientific evidence to go with the words in an old book. He wasn't using religion as a crutch in his decision making, he was using it at his sole source of reasoning. Unless you're aware of any reputable scientific evidence that supports his claims. THAT'S why I wouldn't vote for him.

    He could come out and say "A magic man in the sky told me to tax and legalize weed, allow abortions under certain restrictions, allow day marriage, increase funding of alternate energy, improve STEM education, ban oversigning in the NCAA and investigate OSU and every SEC team, etc". I STILL wouldn't vote for him because he's basing his beliefs and actions off of pure faith.

    He's a great surgeon I'm sure. Let's just hope s few verses don't align correctly and he thinks your kid is the anti christ or something. I mean hell, he doesn't need much convincing if its in a certain book...

    As Logic said, he's not dumb. He's just willfully ignorant. Which is honestly much worse.

  • Pretend Carson is saying the earth is "Obamao" years old. That's how significant it is.

  • Again, it is how he got to his conclusion, not necessarily the actual age of the Earth. You are right, the age of the Earth will not affect a presidency. Thinking the Earth is 6000 years old and ignoring all scientific evidence, that type of decision making, THAT can affect a presidency.

    You get it now?

  • Drinking game: drink every time woody mentions stem or bitches about "young earth". Double shots every time he has a delusional belief michigan can compete with OSU. you'll never be sober.

  • Drinking game: drink every time woody mentions stem or bitches about "young earth". Double shots every time he has a delusional belief michigan can compete with OSU. you'll never be sober.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Drinking game: drink every time woody mentions stem or bitches about "young earth". Double shots every time he has a delusional belief michigan can compete with OSU. you'll never be sober.

    Is it a new mention every time I just reply to an ongoing conversation? In that case, you owe Legacy fan for your buzz.

    Is there a drinking game about you saying every black person in the world having the same "black" culture? How about your obviously very emotionally charged views on topics? No game? oh, ok

    If you want delusional, read the posts by OSU fans in the CFB Board (some of which are yours). Anything that isn't 100% OSU all of the time is an attach or an insult on the school. You can't sort one from the other, especially from a Michigan fan. I'll leave it at that though, this thread would get even more off topic. Reply to this part of the post as you see fit.

  • Again, it is how he got to his conclusion, not necessarily the actual age of the Earth. You are right, the age of the Earth will not affect a presidency. Thinking the Earth is 6000 years old and ignoring all scientific evidence, that type of decision making, THAT can affect a presidency.

    You get it now?

    @mld-woody said:

    Again, it is how he got to his conclusion, not necessarily the actual age of the Earth. You are right, the age of the Earth will not affect a presidency. Thinking the Earth is 6000 years old and ignoring all scientific evidence, that type of decision making, THAT can affect a presidency.

    You get it now?

    I've "got it" all along, kids table. I've already pointed out his ability to utilize "all scientific evidence" when a decision is actually important.

    This. Just. Isn't.

    Also, points for him having the restraint to be able to carve into a baby's head and not immediately feel the urge to sell everything he finds in there.