Posted on 09/21/2014 4:48:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Forbes is looking like Presidential Timber IMHO. The business savvy of Romney without all his social issue baggage.”
You must have a very short memory or no memory at all. Forbes is PRO Abortion. Take a look at his last presidential run
Don’t forget the 14 gangsters. They will rear their ugly heads again
to clog up the senate.
And I'll vote for a candidate who supports most of these principles even if he doesn't support all of them, but I won't expect much of him and I won't be disappointed if he loses. I'm not inclined to waste time or energy with inconsequential @ssholes from either major party.
The ptb had already decided that GWB would be the nominee. Forbes/Quayle or the reverse would've had the knowledge and maturity to run the country, Forbes with the economics and Quayle on foreign affairs.
We'd never have been in the mess we're in now.
The country might be ready for "boring" (neither one is, but they're not media darlings). Forbes/Quayle or Forbes/JeffSessions might be the hail-Mary pass that could save the US.
Good luck you will need it.
Reagan also screwed us with his VP choice George Bush, who blew up the Reagan revolution with his New World Order, thousand points of light, and raising taxes He also appointed a Libtard, back-stabbing General Colon Powell, who told Bush to let Sadam’s army retreat back home...lead us to Gulf War II that eventually put us on path directly to the current Lyin’ King Huissen Obozo!
Don't forget, Reagan gave us amnesty and more spending as well! Yeah, Reagan sucked! /sarc unfreakinbelievable!!!
Somehow I don’t want the GOPe making plans for me....I’ve failed to get rid of them so far but I don’t plan on quitting.
Good point but it’s five years away
I prefer “getting rid” of the sob in 7 weeks.....
Oddly enough, Steve Forbes actually came across as a stronger pro-life candidate than George W. Bush in 2000. He really put him on the spot in one of the Republican debates when he asked Bush if he’d make a commitment to appoint a pro-life running mate.
I don’t believe in luck, so I’m not sure what that means if I’ll “need it.” LOL.
It is a real shame that the bots elected W instead of the vastly more conservative, inteligent and capable Steve Forbes. I did all I could back in 2000. Oh well, elections have consequences and we are now paying a heavy price for not electing Forbes in 2000.
ROFL!
oh, that's a good one!
We could win EVERY Senate seat up in November and the Senate would STILL rubber stamp ANY Obama nominee to the court!
Yes, if we had the majority, a few Republican senators would make a good show for the cameras, but in the end the Senate would approve ANY nominee.
Are you suggesting that because we can’t do anything about Obama in this election, it’s not worth doing anything? Is the status quo really acceptable to you?
If you don’t seized control of the Senate in this election cycle, how do you propose it be done in 2016?
” Elections are not about individual races, or even the political philosophy of individual candidates. Elections are about political power and power is exercised through the two major political parties. “
I absolutely agree with your statement. The Republicans love power as much as any Commie.
Why should us peons desire a limited G’ment when our bettors can tell us what to do, when to do it and how to do it?
“Your replies tells me all I need to know. Don’t deny it. You want the rats to continue to be in power.
Shame on you”
Nice straw-man you built there.
You and yours burned the bridge.
Live with it, quietly please.
You must hate Sara Palin then. She doesn't seem to agree with your logic.
Democrats bad, Harry Reid evil will not be enough.
Are you willing to let 40 million illegals become legal just to say hey see I was right while watching the country go down the proverbial tube? At least you can sit back and say you were right....right?
I hate to admit it, but you’ve got a good point. I wonder if RNSC put that in their mailers? I wouldn’t know because I’m always too pissed off to open them up.
Theoretical, twisted pretzel-like, faculty lounge logic. Maybe you are textbook correct in your description of my analysis but it still doesn’t solve the problem of getting a candidate elected.
I am saying there are two choices but I’m also stressing that the non-voting option is not valid one if you want to elect somebody besides the opposition.
Getting candidates elected who will carry out policies you believe in will not happen if you stay at home on election day and sit on your hands. Too many people on this site who think that is a strategy. But it is not a realistic strategy if you don’t want the opposition elected. Anybody can do “nothing”. It takes more to do “something”. That “something” may not be prefect for some folks but then, neither is anything in life. Do “something” and VOTE for our candidate, perfect or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.