CPAC Straw Poll results

Started by MACMan, February 28, 2015, 05:49:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Darth Fife


redbeard

Quote from: Solar on March 01, 2015, 06:13:29 AM
If the election were held today? Sure, but we are still two years out, so this is nothing more than candy and shiny distractions for the week. Nothing to get excited about.
I just find it interesting that Walker in a few short weeks seems to be taking the lead from people that have been stumping for the last year or longer. I agree Walker could Implode but if he survives say the next 6 months he may be our man!! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

jungle x

Hey Darth, no offensive meant, but that youtube is a little deceptive- this is a transcript of the real interview:

http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml

it can be argued that the LP has since be jacked by potheads and peaceniks but I think Reagan's points were valid at the time.

I don't think Rand will even run in 2016 anyways, he will want to keep his seat in the Senate. The CPAC straw poll has proven to be useless in predicting the nominee in any event. I still contend ANY of them, even (shudders) Jeb, is better than that current idiot in the WH.

redbeard

Quote from: jungle x on March 01, 2015, 12:32:50 PM
Hey Darth, no offensive meant, but that youtube is a little deceptive- this is a transcript of the real interview:

http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml

it can be argued that the LP has since be jacked by potheads and peaceniks but I think Reagan's points were valid at the time.

I don't think Rand will even run in 2016 anyways, he will want to keep his seat in the Senate. The CPAC straw poll has proven to be useless in predicting the nominee in any event. I still contend ANY of them, even (shudders) Jeb, is better than that current idiot in the WH.
Rubio also has the same problem He would be required to pull his name from the senate race to run for president. I think both of them will run awhile in the primary to test the waters but will quickly retreat! :popcorn: :popcorn:

Solar

Quote from: redbeard on March 01, 2015, 12:30:19 PM
I just find it interesting that Walker in a few short weeks seems to be taking the lead from people that have been stumping for the last year or longer. I agree Walker could Implode but if he survives say the next 6 months he may be our man!! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I don't see him imploding, but an early lead like his is unsustainable, that's human nature.
The media loves a punching bag, and if he's viewed as a threat by the leftist media, he'll get a nuclear Palin treatment, and despite how badly the base may want him, people are stupid.
So it'll be in his best interest to slow down a bit.

What I mean by that is, a lot of people live in fear of the Dim party winning in 2016. Yes I know, the idea of any Dim winning is beyond laughable, but if the ignorant middle think he could lose, they'll go for the safety of a rino pick just like they always have.
The best outcome is if he simply holds solid in the polls over the next two years, and comes in strong for the finish, anyway, I'm certain that's what his team is hoping for.

I don't expect to see Cruz making any waves till the end, and it would be in his best interest at that point, to take off the gloves and tell the American people just what they want, and need to hear.
That would be a win for him.
And if he and Palin, or West join forces, the race is a lock for them.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

jungle x

Quote from: redbeard on March 01, 2015, 12:47:43 PM
Rubio also has the same problem He would be required to pull his name from the senate race to run for president. I think both of them will run awhile in the primary to test the waters but will quickly retreat! :popcorn: :popcorn:

Yeah, you could be right about Rand and Marco - neither would ever become the nominee. Rand Paul because he is a Paul and he's really a libertarian. His old man is senile, I know, but what he said about the French deserving their terrorist attack last month was insane.

OTOH, Rubio is a sleazy conman and will be overshadowed by Jeb. Jeb is the MSM favourite, which means he's the one that they want to lose to Hillary or the fake Indian lady and for that reason, Carly, Sarah or Susan cou;ld be VP nominee.

redbeard

Quote from: jungle x on March 01, 2015, 03:44:08 PM
Yeah, you could be right about Rand and Marco - neither would ever become the nominee. Rand Paul because he is a Paul and he's really a libertarian. His old man is senile, I know, but what he said about the French deserving their terrorist attack last month was insane.

OTOH, Rubio is a sleazy conman and will be overshadowed by Jeb. Jeb is the MSM favourite, which means he's the one that they want to lose to Hillary or the fake Indian lady and for that reason, Carly, Sarah or Susan cou;ld be VP nominee.
If Walker survives the attacks by the LSM and the RINO's Jeb hasn't a chance against him. I think the Party is ready for some new blood as Romney said when he pulled out! Christy has been on life support for over a year. Perry? Maybe, But can he excite the whole party to come together? I hope that all of the senators back out of it and work toward keeping control of the senate and taking over the senate leadership. That is all except Lindsey Graham I'd love to see him surrender his seat!! :lol: :lol:

AmericanMom

Quote from: redbeard on February 28, 2015, 06:22:49 PM
25.7            Sen. Rand Paul
21.4            Gov. Scott Walker
11.5            Sen. Ted Cruz

11.4            Dr. Ben Carson
8.3             Former Gov. Jeb Bush
4.3             Former Sen. Rick Santorum
3.7             Sen. Marco Rubio
3.5             Donald Trump
3.0             Carly Fiorina
2.8             Gov. Chris Christie
1.1             Former Gov. Rick Perry
0.9             Gov. Bobby Jindal
0.8             Former Gov. Sarah Palin
0.3             Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
0.3             Former Ambassador John Bolton
0.1             Sen. Lindsey Graham
0.1             Former Gov. George Pataki

1.0             Undecided
0.7             Other


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/28/cpac-2015-see-the-full-straw-poll-results/#ixzz3T63WTn2z
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Walker at a close #2 pretty good for someone just starting his campaign! :popcorn: :popcorn:


I will fully support any of those three....   :thumbsup:
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan

redbeard

Quote from: AmericanMom on March 02, 2015, 07:52:59 AM

I will fully support any of those three....   :thumbsup:
I think I might like a Walker/Perry ticket! Put VP Parry in charge of securing the boarder! :lol: :lol: :lol:


mdgiles

Quote from: dashvinny on February 28, 2015, 08:23:59 PM
Rand Paul wants no more lives thrown away in Iraq. I like that. Nice to see the bloodthristy warmonger candidates did poorly, expecially the hated  Rubio.
You mean like those isolationists before WW2 who assumed all we needed to do was ignore the problems in the world, and they would just go away.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Darth Fife

Quote from: mdgiles on March 03, 2015, 06:26:54 AM
You mean like those isolationists before WW2 who assumed all we needed to do was ignore the problems in the world, and they would just go away.

Over 10 years, upwards of a trillion dollars,  thousand of American men and women dead, tens of thousands horribly crippled, all of this (and more) wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan!

If the Camel Jockeys of the Middle East are unwilling to defend their nation against ISIS, why should we do it for them?


zewazir

Quote from: Darth Fife on March 03, 2015, 01:20:21 PM
Over 10 years, upwards of a trillion dollars,  thousand of American men and women dead, tens of thousands horribly crippled, all of this (and more) wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan!

If the Camel Jockeys of the Middle East are unwilling to defend their nation against ISIS, why should we do it for them?
Do you think ISIS will stop once they have full control over the ME?  Or do we only put our oar in the water when the canoe is halfway down the falls? How much destruction will ISIS be capable of if they have full control of recognized national governments behind them, along with their militaries?  ISIS is pushed by pure evil, as can easily be determined by their declared agenda, as well as methods.  "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The only reason there is "waste in Iraq and Afghanistan" is the fact that our political leadership is not willing admit what we are battling against, and thereby won't commit themselves to an actual declaration - and prosecution - of war. This isn't another Vietnam, though our (lying scum) news services love to paint it thus. ISIS is on their way to becoming a direct threat, along with the declaration of intention to do more than simply threaten us.

supsalemgr

Quote from: Darth Fife on March 03, 2015, 01:20:21 PM
Over 10 years, upwards of a trillion dollars,  thousand of American men and women dead, tens of thousands horribly crippled, all of this (and more) wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan!

If the Camel Jockeys of the Middle East are unwilling to defend their nation against ISIS, why should we do it for them?

I understand your premise. However, this is not 1000 years ago when the mode of transportation was small boats and horses and the weapons were swords. In 2015 these heathens can travel all over the world and can gain access to weapons of mass destruction. We cannot ignore them as much as we would like. The change in strategy should be a goal of victory, not a goal of containment.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Darth Fife

Quote from: supsalemgr on March 03, 2015, 02:13:01 PM
I understand your premise. However, this is not 1000 years ago when the mode of transportation was small boats and horses and the weapons were swords. In 2015 these heathens can travel all over the world and can gain access to weapons of mass destruction. We cannot ignore them as much as we would like. The change in strategy should be a goal of victory, not a goal of containment.

So, are we resurrecting the "Domino Principle" only this time we are substituting Radical Islam for Communism?

If I was sure that we would 1) formally identify our enemy - Radical Islam and 2) set as our single goal, its ultimate destruction. I would be the first in line to beat the drum for this.

However, it is patently obvious that the leadership of both major political parties have neither the intention, nor the will to do what is necessary to win this engagement.

I have no intention of supporting a war that Barack Hussein Obama, Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, et al.  don't have the balls to win.