Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Republicans who have announced are all young, bright thinkers, with ideas that really differ from that of the establishment in charge in Washington now.
Really provides a sharp contrast to the Democrats who are all "old heads" with the same tried slogans, thoughts and ideas that they've had since the 60's.
Should be interesting no matter what the matchup is- Cruz, Paul, Rubio, or Walker vs. Clinton, Warren, Sanders or Biden.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how the race is covered. Remember how McCain was the old tired angry white guy and Obama was the young energetic hip guy. Now the tables are turned, don't think will here a lot about the 1%s either since Hillary is worth about 100Million. The old war on women will probably have to be their war cry this year.
I do believe Walker is going to prove to be much more formidable than most think.
I don't buy Marco Rubio as a conservative. He's a neocon who will follow the saber rattling foreign policy of the last 20 years.
Jeb Bush is not a conservative by any definition of the word.
Ted Cruz is too much of a culture warrior for my tastes and I don't trust that he wouldn't invade Iran if he became President.
I feel like Scott Walker would be out of his depth if got the nomination and would probably follow neocon foreign policy.
Rand Paul is the only true conservative in the race. His foreign policy best matches the historically conservative view of non-interventionism. His strong stance on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights match historical conservative views and ending the police state/war on drugs would shrink the size and scope of government and reduce the budget. He is rock solid fiscally and opposes the Federal Reserve. If you look at conservatives like Senator Robert Taft, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and the Founding Fathers, their views mesh best with Rand Paul.
I give the field a B right now and will up or down that grade depending on how well they perform during the debates.
I will not pick my candidate until right before my state primary but that person will be someone who has experience running something like a governorship or the head of some other government office, a military command, a business, a medical/law practice, a charitable entity.
I don't care if that person graduated magna *** laud in shoelace tying, is on the shoelace tying committee in the Senate or House, has a zillion ideas on new ways to tie shoelaces, or is considered to be an expert in the art of shoelace tying. If they never actually tied their shoelaces, I'm not voting for them. People can't be choosing a career path where they never have to run anything and then expect their first time managerial job to be the White House. They don't know how to implement. They don't know how to problem solve, They don't know how to manage a budget and they sure as heck don't know what to do in a crisis, except theoretically.
I don't buy Marco Rubio as a conservative. He's a neocon who will follow the saber rattling foreign policy of the last 20 years.
Jeb Bush is not a conservative by any definition of the word.
Ted Cruz is too much of a culture warrior for my tastes and I don't trust that he wouldn't invade Iran if he became President.
I feel like Scott Walker would be out of his depth if got the nomination and would probably follow neocon foreign policy.
Rand Paul is the only true conservative in the race. His foreign policy best matches the historically conservative view of non-interventionism. His strong stance on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights match historical conservative views and ending the police state/war on drugs would shrink the size and scope of government and reduce the budget. He is rock solid fiscally and opposes the Federal Reserve. If you look at conservatives like Senator Robert Taft, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and the Founding Fathers, their views mesh best with Rand Paul.
The founding fathers? A good number of them were federalists and argued for a strong federal government.
I don't know where you all come up with this stuff.
I give the field a B right now and will up or down that grade depending on how well they perform during the debates.
I will not pick my candidate until right before my state primary but that person will be someone who has experience running something like a governorship or the head of some other government office, a military command, a business, a medical/law practice, a charitable entity.
I don't care if that person graduated magna *** laud in shoelace tying, is on the shoelace tying committee in the Senate or House, has a zillion ideas on new ways to tie shoelaces, or is considered to be an expert in the art of shoelace tying. If they never actually tied their shoelaces, I'm not voting for them. People can't be choosing a career path where they never have to run anything and then expect their first time managerial job to be the White House. They don't know how to implement. They don't know how to problem solve, They don't know how to manage a budget and they sure as heck don't know what to do in a crisis, except theoretically.
I understand what you are saying and I am somewhat sympathetic to your point of view; however, not all experience is good experience. Jerry Brown has been a mayor and the governor of California for 3 going on 4 terms now, but I certainly wouldn't vote for him for President. George Bush was a governor and that did not translate into a successful presidency. Jimmy Carter was a governor as well before becoming POTUS.
The founding fathers? A good number of them were federalists and argued for a strong federal government.
I don't know where you all come up with this stuff.
A larger portion of them were true federalists, or anti-federalists. The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are conservative/libertarian documents.
I understand what you are saying and I am somewhat sympathetic to your point of view; however, not all experience is good experience. Jerry Brown has been a mayor and the governor of California for 3 going on 4 terms now, but I certainly wouldn't vote for him for President. George Bush was a governor and that did not translate into a successful presidency. Jimmy Carter was a governor as well before becoming POTUS.
I wouldn't vote for Jerry Brown either but he is qualified for the job. In other words, I'd accept his application but reject him on the interview.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you rate "the field?"
