EPTOn April 08 2012 21:58 Jibba wrote:
I assume that's why they douche.
I assume that's why they douche.
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth, but that was pretty funny.
Republican nominations - Page 570
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth, but that was pretty funny. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
Love the old school headsets. Remember the St Charles Caucus.. this guy is actually running for office... or was .. Stealing is stealing, no matter how you rationalize it. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
Unless 1000 dui's are handed out at the parking lot you can expect RP takes Missouri. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-calls-mitt-romney-concede-180027008.html | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On April 11 2012 03:16 dAPhREAk wrote: Romney Wins. Santorum dropped out. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-calls-mitt-romney-concede-180027008.html And only two remain... how is that going to be spun.... while we are waiting for State Conventions, which come before National Convention in Tampa, I saw this priceless minute on Raw Story. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
 .Let the veepstakes begin! | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Santorum was in a tough spot anyway as far as the delegate count went. Almost impossible to overcome unless Romney did something astonomically stupid. But Rick was facing the possibility of losing the Pennsylvania primary... down 5% or so in the polls. If Santorm has hopes of any national office down the road... Senate again or another Presidential run.... he could not lose Pennsylvania. That would have ended his future chances in 2016 and beyond. And I'm taking Rand Paul (Ron's Son) in the Veepstakes. | ||
|
ECHOZs
United States499 Posts
On April 11 2012 04:38 RCMDVA wrote: Santorum was in a tough spot anyway as far as the delegate count went. Almost impossible to overcome unless Romney did something astonomically stupid. But Rick was facing the possibility of losing the Pennsylvania primary... down 5% or so in the polls. If Santorm has hopes of any national office down the road... Senate again or another Presidential run.... he could not lose Pennsylvania. That would have ended his future chances in 2016 and beyond. And I'm taking Rand Paul (Ron's Son) in the Veepstakes. Yeah losing PA would have been devestating to his political career it was a no brainer to dropout now. Rand Paul would be a good chocie he could certainly bring in some support of the independents which Romeny never appealed to. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 11 2012 06:19 ECHOZs wrote: Yeah losing PA would have been devestating to his political career it was a no brainer to dropout now. Rand Paul would be a good chocie he could certainly bring in some support of the independents which Romeny never appealed to. he needs a female. and not the crazy bachmann or palin. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On April 11 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: he needs a female. and not the crazy bachmann or palin. An evangelical woman would be best, preferably a Southern evangelical woman. Romney has major problems in all three of those demographics, which are all key. Good luck finding a viable VP who meets those requirements. I know this whole Rand Paul thing has been floating around lately, even in mainstream print/television. I like to think that they just got some of the Ron Paul internet crazy sauce on them. It's sticky, so it could happen. Rand Paul would be a disasterous candidate. It seems people have forgotten all the bizarre stories that came out when he ran for senate. I assure you, there are more. And if you think Ron Paul was a little shady on race, just wait for Rand. Not so long ago, he was running around talking about eliminating the Civit Right's Act. Given the intense scrutiny VP candidates get, Rand would be a huge gamble at best. I think we all know how the last VP gamble went. | ||
|
Housemd
United States1407 Posts
On April 11 2012 07:35 Omnipresent wrote: An evangelical woman would be best, preferably a Southern evangelical woman. Romney has major problems in all three of those demographics, which are all key. Good luck finding a viable VP who meets those requirements. I know this whole Rand Paul thing has been floating around lately, even in mainstream print/television. I like to think that they just got some of the Ron Paul internet crazy sauce on them. It's sticky, so it could happen. Rand Paul would be a disasterous candidate. It seems people have forgotten all the bizarre stories that came out when he ran for senate. I assure you, there are more. And if you think Ron Paul was a little shady on race, just wait for Rand. Not so long ago, he was running around talking about eliminating the Civit Right's Act. Given the intense scrutiny VP candidates get, Rand would be a huge gamble at best. I think we all know how the last VP gamble went. You should provide a link for your statement. Rand Paul has stated that he would not support any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights of 1964 and that he would march with Dr. Martin Luther King to end Jim Crow laws. He only opposes Title 2 which states that no public business can discriminate based on race, religion, or nation origin. It's extremely stupid of him to even think about opposing Title 2 but to exaggerate and say that he would repeal the whole Civil Rights Act is extremely stupid of you. Oh and Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Private_property_and_civil_rights | ||
|
Emokes
United States37 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
Now for the bigger question-can Romney beat Obama? I think Obama has a better shot than Romney, especially if the economy continues to grow. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On April 11 2012 08:02 DoubleReed wrote: Yea I think Rubio is a shoe-in. Seems like the most likely VP candidate at the moment. Romney might want Rubio but does Rubio want it? The vice-presidency isn't the political platform it used to be anymore, it seems more likely to end a political career at this point than to actually further it. George HW Bush was the last vice president that got elected to the big chair. I think Rubio is a pretty ambitious guy that wants to run for serious office at some point, and the only true legal responsibility of the vice presidency is to have a heartbeat (the vice presidency once famously described as 'not worth more than a warm bucket of spit'). Would Rubio really want to possibly throw his future political career away by possibly losing the election or by possibly having Romney's presidency as a millstone around his neck? I'm personally not so sure. | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
Unless there is enough dissatisfaction with Romney, amongst the republican party, to allow Ginrich to win a couple more states by picking up the santorum voters. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Yeaaaaaaaaah. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
I believe that the US Senate would need to declare Rubio a natural born citizen (like the did for John McCain) at the very very least. Which really won't count for much. With all the foggy birth certificate & dual-citizen issues Obama had (no matter what you believe)... Rubio's issues are pretty clearly cut and dried. There are no disputed facts. His parents were two Cubans. He is a Cuban anchor baby born in Miami. And I believe Cuba would still claim him as a citizen. It would probaly require a SC decision to define what natural born really means. If you are a anchor baby... you are a US Citizen. But does that make you a "Natural Born" citizen? | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
Romney vs Obama.. So boring... | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On April 11 2012 07:50 Housemd wrote: You should provide a link for your statement. Rand Paul has stated that he would not support any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights of 1964 and that he would march with Dr. Martin Luther King to end Jim Crow laws. He only opposes Title 2 which states that no public business can discriminate based on race, religion, or nation origin. It's extremely stupid of him to even think about opposing Title 2 but to exaggerate and say that he would repeal the whole Civil Rights Act is extremely stupid of you. Oh and Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Private_property_and_civil_rights Way to keep it classy. I haven't been called "extremely stupid" in a while... Luckily for you, being a dick doesn't mean you're wrong on the substance. Your correction/clarification is essentially right, if incomplete. That is his official stance, and there's no reason to think he lying. It's consistent with his (and his father's) libertarian/strict constructionalist ideology. I rushed that post before running out to meet a couple friends. I was late and should have been more careful. I'd like to add that he also opposes title VII, which essentially extends Title II consumer protections to employees. Under Title VII, it's illegal to disctiminate against your employees on the basis of race, religion, or nationality. Together, these are the only 2 titles of the Civil Rights Act in which the government regulates businesses rather than state/local governments or courts. Both of these provisions are well established law, and have passed multiple tests in the Supreme Court: Title II: HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S. KATZENBACH v. MCCLUNG Title VII: GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER COMPANY RICCI v. DESTEFANO I think the political consequences of Rand Paul's position are pretty obvious. Additionally, it demonstrates a disregard for established legal precedent that has stood unchallenged in over 40 years. That's almost the definition of an extreme view, and not something you want in a VP candidate. | ||
| ||
