The "Trumpster" for President.

[Armistead]

It's looking more and more like he'll run. Whadda ya think.

I still would rather have Ron Paul, but I would vote for Trump as a GOP runner.

If Palin somehow won the ticket, I would rather have Nancy or Barney. I hate that woman, dumb as a brick.

[Buddahaid]

The Donald is my poster child for ****heads. One big oozing piece of festering excrement!

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It's looking more and more like he'll run. Whadda ya think.

I still would rather have Ron Paul, but I would vote for Trump as a GOP runner.

If Palin somehow won the ticket, I would rather have Nancy or Barney. I hate that woman, dumb as a brick.

I like Trump's views on China and how we need to restart industry in the US.I'd have to see how he fairs against others views when it comes to national defense, spending, immigration etc I would prefer Ron Paul myself but he is older and not as electable as others.e have to deal with China now or going to be big trouble.

Palin is my least favorite and not the most intelligent but come on, Nancy Pelosi is the one who is as dumb as a brick and a big time liar.One thing about Palin is she means well and would follow the constitution where as Pelosi and those on her side of the isle just piss on because they believe it is no longer relevant and that the US needs to go the way Europe did(see where that got them).Now Palin has certainly had her moments and is not exactly a scholar BUT she is not as dumb as she is portrayed and may surprise a lot of people.Palin is my least favorite but I would take her over Obama anyday.The prospect of a second Obama term is just scary and something American can not handle.Obama will have nothing to lose and will prob push his Leftist agenda harder than ever, esp if he was to get congress back somehow.We can recover from a first Obama term, a second, I am not so sure.

Pelosi videos:

[Armistead]

My only reason for Nancy over Sarah is I want to live a few more years, even if in socialism.

I can see Sarah..."Is that Russia there I can see from my doorstep...Nuke em...

However, I would bang Sarah before Nancy any day.


Obama, I bet he wins again, why, the GOP will get stuck, nothing will get done and people will in turn keep Obama as payback.....you betcha.

[AVGWarhawk]

Palin said she would run but if she become a distraction she will pull out. Smart move on her part and great news for the rest of the US. Don't get me wrong. Palin is a nice person and means well but running country is not really her cup of tea.

Trump is wasting his and my time. We do not need to see pie charts...

Governor Christie from NJ will probably run and do well.

[Armistead]

Christie, a past lawyer and lobbiest for GPU energy....He would be another Bush with more of a brain...

I would like to see Paul and Nader team up....lol

[nikimcbee]

Could they do worse than the current occupant?

Palin is getting on my neves though

[seanobrgp]

If the intent is to find the purest fiscal conservative and hope to carry him or her through the Republican primary, any of the above could be acceptable, though this assortment would never have my support. I'd also like to point out that the situation with North Korea, President Obama's hapless attempts at forcing Israeli cooperation on the Palestinian issue, and the recent announcement that the combat mission in Afghanistan won't conclude until 2014 at the earliest all emphasize the importance of supporting someone who has substantial foreign policy knowledge and will be viewed with respect by the international community. I'd rather we not repeat the experience of the Bush administration, where he swore all throughout his first campaign that he had no intention of engaging in international adventurism, then swept us into Iraq on a fool's errand, leaving us without the leverage to confront actual threats to our national security and abetting Iran's desire for regional prominence.

I want a nominee with a clear definition of what they want America to accomplish in the world, and preferably one willing to take advantage of the opportunities in the Asia-Pacific that will result from China's continued assertiveness.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Palin is my least favorite and not the most intelligent but come on, Nancy Pelosi is the one who is as dumb as a brick and a big time liar.One thing about Palin is she means well and would follow the constitution where as Pelosi and those on her side of the isle just piss on because they believe it is no longer relevant and that the US needs to go the way Europe did(see where that got them).Now Palin has certainly had her moments and is not exactly a scholar BUT she is not as dumb as she is portrayed and may surprise a lot of people.Palin is my least favorite but I would take her over Obama anyday.The prospect of a second Obama term is just scary and something American can not handle.Obama will have nothing to lose and will prob push his Leftist agenda harder than ever, esp if he was to get congress back somehow.We can recover from a first Obama term, a second, I am not so sure.

I don't want to be rude, but this is pure demagoguery. We've endured two years of the Obama administration, and during that time all he has to show for his efforts is milquetoast financial regulatory reform, health care legislation with a strong resemblance to Heritage Foundation proposals from the Clinton era that can still be negated, and a stimulus program that contained tax credits and had a neutral impact at worst. He's also correctly intensified our efforts in Afghanistan, tried -- if ineptly -- to take a harder line with Pakistan while accepting their indispensability, and has a much warmer relationship with South Korea than his predecessor ever did. I'm not a President Obama supporter by any stretch, particularly opposing his handling of foreign policy, but we can certainly survive another two years of the same, and an additional four if that is the outcome of the next election. The progressive movement in this country is close to denouncing his administration altogether, which should indicate to you just how much fealty he's shown to his grandiose campaign rhetoric.

Cap and trade is stillborn, his bipartisan deficit commission is recommending a re-imaging of the tax code favorable to us, and even New Start, which has the endorsement of Brent Scowcroft among other luminaries, may not be ratified. As for your concern that the Constitution is being circumvented, the Supreme Court, which in its current composition is more prone to conservative jurisprudence, is there for a reason. The Republican Party has done quite well containing President Obama's mandate, and barring a Democratic landslide in 2012 and Obama suddenly showing no interest in compromising, that will not change.

[Armistead]

I agree to a point Sea. I was amazed at the number of old Reps. that supported many of Obama's wants and changes.

Obama said one thing to the GOP. If I did exactly what you wanted, you still would disagree with it. Both parties are that way, it's not about working together, they seek to destroy each other with lies and deceit. The goal of each is to gain power so they can push ideals and serve their own special interest, thus the total failure of government. The days of Reagan/Tip ONeal are gone.

Now we have two radical cable news outlets setting the tone, Fox and MSNBC.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by seanobrgp

If the intent is to find the purest fiscal conservative and hope to carry him or her through the Republican primary, any of the above could be acceptable, though this assortment would never have my support. I'd also like to point out that the situation with North Korea, President Obama's hapless attempts at forcing Israeli cooperation on the Palestinian issue, and the recent announcement that the combat mission in Afghanistan won't conclude until 2014 at the earliest all emphasize the importance of supporting someone who has substantial foreign policy knowledge and will be viewed with respect by the international community. I'd rather we not repeat the experience of the Bush administration, where he swore all throughout his first campaign that he had no intention of engaging in international adventurism, then swept us into Iraq on a fool's errand, leaving us without the leverage to confront actual threats to our national security and abetting Iran's desire for regional prominence.

I want a nominee with a clear definition of what they want America to accomplish in the world, and preferably one willing to take advantage of the opportunities in the Asia-Pacific that will result from China's continued assertiveness.



I don't want to be rude, but this is pure demagoguery. We've endured two years of the Obama administration, and during that time all he has to show for his efforts is milquetoast financial regulatory reform, health care legislation with a strong resemblance to Heritage Foundation proposals from the Clinton era that can still be negated, and a stimulus program that contained tax credits and had a neutral impact at worst. He's also correctly intensified our efforts in Afghanistan, tried -- if ineptly -- to take a harder line with Pakistan while accepting their indispensability, and has a much warmer relationship with South Korea than his predecessor ever did. I'm not a President Obama supporter by any stretch, particularly opposing his handling of foreign policy, but we can certainly survive another two years of the same, and an additional four if that is the outcome of the next election. The progressive movement in this country is close to denouncing his administration altogether, which should indicate to you just how much fealty he's shown to his grandiose campaign rhetoric.

Cap and trade is stillborn, his bipartisan deficit commission is recommending a re-imaging of the tax code favorable to us, and even New Start, which has the endorsement of Brent Scowcroft among other luminaries, may not be ratified. As for your concern that the Constitution is being circumvented, the Supreme Court, which in its current composition is more prone to conservative jurisprudence, is there for a reason. The Republican Party has done quite well containing President Obama's mandate, and barring a Democratic landslide in 2012 and Obama suddenly showing no interest in compromising, that will not change.

Oh where to begin? First, we can survive the rest of his term but his second, no.The Progressives are mad at him for not going far enough and you know why he has not? Because he has to get elected again so he's been riding the fence a little, esp after the healthcare battle which made him look like, well what he is A second term of Obama would be very dangerous because he would have nothing to lose so would most likely push as far Left as he could go, esp if the balance of power in Congress changed.

I am well aware of the Supreme Court, I am in Law School after all.However, Obama has already been able to appoint two pretty Left wing women to SCOTUS, one who is just blatantly racist(Sotomayor) towards the white population, shown in many of her decisions before the Supreme Court.Thomas and Scalia are older and only getting older, lets say one or both of them drop while he is President, could really change the balance of the court and there would be not be a real guard against him.Although the court is fairly Conservative as we speak, it is no guranteed protection, the only true protection is Obama no longer being in power.

Only thing he is to be commended for is his efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as reversing the Bush ban on Federal money for stem cell research.Everything else he has done is CRAP.Obamacare, immigration(pushing DREAM Act, suing AZ for actually trying to fight the illegal invasion), civillian trials for terrorists, copgate and his race baiting, class warfare, refusing to accept the mid terms were a rebukement of his agenda, spending money we do not have and increasing it, the nyc mosque issue, constant defiance of the American people etc

We can survive four years of him but eight? I doubt it.