Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5191
They couldn't agree on an anti-Romney candidate. It was a very weak field.Mdraf wrote: If the Tea Party "hijacked" the GOP how in the world did Romney win the nomination?
No, it was because he was opposed to unlimited spending on the military industrial complex. No candidate like that can ever win the R nomination as long as the current scumbags are in charge.TennPaGa wrote:Indeed. The Tea Party types loved, at various times:Ad Orientem wrote:They couldn't agree on an anti-Romney candidate. It was a very weak field.Mdraf wrote: If the Tea Party "hijacked" the GOP how in the world did Romney win the nomination?
Michele Bachman
Herman Cain
Rick Perry
Newt Gingrich
Oddly, though Ron Paul could arguably be viewed as the godfather of the whole Tea Party movement, and he won the 2011 CPAC poll, and nearly won the Iowa straw poll (won by Bachman), he never seemed to get serious attention from even the Republican media (Fox News, Wall Street Journal), and was treated like crap by the Republican party. I wonder why that was?
Hint: it wasn't his views on the gold standard.
Paul is very smart and can handle himself very well.Benko wrote: Christie does have one important quality (IMHO): he can more than hold his own when questioned by media/others trying hard to make him look bad (there are you great fun you tube videos of such). CHristie is too much a RHINO to be my preferred candidate. I believe Cruz can handle himself. Anyone seen enough of Paul to know if he can? From the last group, the only one that could handle the media was Newt.
Put another way, both CHristie and Cruz are alphaish (as in alpha male) and that quality (I suspect) will be helpful in getting elected. Or perhaps I am nuts.
Agreed. I just watched an interview of him and I was impressed. Perhaps sanity without charisma is sufficient to get elected at this point in time.Libertarian666 wrote:
Paul is very smart and can handle himself very well.
+ 1Pointedstick wrote:That he has almost 70% support in a very blue state should ring some alarm bells. It's not just the far right; the less-far and only slightly far right hate his guts too. They think he's a total RINO. He's another east coast liberal in conservative's shoes, in their estimation. They think of him as Mitt Romney II with a weight problem and a "union thug" attitude.Ad Orientem wrote: I'm not sure I agree. His weight problem gives him an ordinary guy image. He has public approval ratings near 70% in New Jersey. If he is the nominee NJ will likely go Republican for the first time since forever. His great weakness is that the far right hates his guts. While the Tea Party types constitute only about 30% of the GOP they vote as a block and they are dominant in some key Republican states. They are a minority but they have effectively hijacked the GOP. So yeah, that is going to be a problem.
But if he somehow manages to get the nomination (unlikely) he is the only one I think who can go toe to toe with Hillary and the Clinton machine.
Brian Sandoval is a great up-and-comer but he has a major problem: he's virtually unknown on the national political stage. Same with NM governor Susana Martinez. Both of them are genuine, down-to-earth moderately conservative hispanics popular on their home turf who haven't done a lot outside of their state borders to build a national profile.Coffee wrote: Brian Sandoval: Young, good looking, Latino and smart enough to get elected in a state divided by Conservatives and Libertarians in the north and Dems in the south.
What say you now? ;-)Kshartle wrote:How could he possibly? He is disgusting for women to look at and he's a big socialist gangster right? How is he going to appeal to anyone? Who would he appeal to?dualstow wrote: Chris Christie?
That would basically be the elephant people giving up in my opinion. They would just be hoping enough people would vote against Hillary.
There are only 3-4 states that decide the election: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio & Indiana I think. Maybe there are one or two others....Iowa?
She will crush him in PA, OH and IN.
We're talking about the (ugly) reality on the ground here, not whom you like best.Libertarian666 wrote: Rand Paul would wipe the floor with either of them, so I don't really care.
Oh, you mean Christie as a Republican candidate? I don't see how that is possible, since he is the very definition of RINO (Republican In Name Only). He's much better qualified as a Democrat.
I guess that's what I should have asked. Mr Paul won't be wiping the floor with anyone.moda0306 wrote: Tech,
You think (Ayn) Rand Paul would have a chance of getting elected?
Not if he isn't nominated by the Rs, no.dualstow wrote:I guess that's what I should have asked. Mr Paul won't be wiping the floor with anyone.moda0306 wrote: Tech,
You think (Ayn) Rand Paul would have a chance of getting elected?
1. I agree, though the Rs do have a bad habit of shooting themselves in the foot. There are many way to do this from candidate selection, to being wimpy when the Ds will be playing hardball, to passing immigration e.g. Rubio found out what coming out for immigration did to his polls, and it sounds like Rs may be getting ready to cave on immigration.Libertarian666 wrote: However, I'm not sure that is important. Given the unfolding disaster of Obamacare, which is only going to get much worse over the next couple of years, I think almost any R has a good chance to beat almost any D in 2016.
The repukes will nominate Paul Ryan. I doubt Christie even competes since he'll take a lot of Rhino votes from Ryan and help Rand win the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, my beloved Florida.) Winning three out of four there would make Rand unstoppable which would be intolerable to the repukes.Reub wrote: I'll be surprised if Christie can survive the primary process. I also think that Hillary could be looking very stale by 2016.
Not surprising from a guy with "shart" in his nameKshartle wrote: Whenever I talk politics and that gang, a little puke comes up.
.Yeah, I'll spare you what happens when I talk about the dems. I REALLY have to avoid those threads.moda0306 wrote:Not surprising from a guy with "shart" in his nameKshartle wrote: Whenever I talk politics and that gang, a little puke comes up.
I wonder if Obamacare covers shitty conditions like that...Kshartle wrote:Yeah, I'll spare you what happens when I talk about the dems. I REALLY have to avoid those threads.moda0306 wrote:Not surprising from a guy with "shart" in his nameKshartle wrote: Whenever I talk politics and that gang, a little puke comes up.
Assuming they are accurate polls, it doesn't matter. Neither Paul has a good chance of ever becoming president.Libertarian666 wrote: As for {Rand Paul's} electability, I guess you haven't heard that there were polls showing that his father, who is MORE libertarian than he is, would have done better against Obama than any of the other R candidates, or you don't believe those polls were accurate Which is your privilege, of course.
Susana Martinez? The far right can't stand a black brother in the white house, but a female hispanic would be tolerable? They get upset when a hispanic boy sings the national anthem at a basketball game...Pointedstick wrote:... Same with NM governor Susana Martinez. Both of them are genuine, down-to-earth moderately conservative hispanics ...
I'd call this the "racist right." Not necessarily "far right." They sometimes even like government benefits when people that look like them are getting them.jan van mourik wrote:Susana Martinez? The far right can't stand a black brother in the white house, but a female hispanic would be tolerable? They get upset when a hispanic boy sings the national anthem at a basketball game...Pointedstick wrote:... Same with NM governor Susana Martinez. Both of them are genuine, down-to-earth moderately conservative hispanics ...