Republicans: Who do you want as your nominee?

Substitute "Turdblossom Rove" for the ecstatic Democrats, and you'd be onto something. The thumb with eyeglasses would go blooey!

 

this isnt a baseball game, or a sport. "oh lets just put together a winning team, but do it as cheaply as possible. if we win by 1 point that will be fine because we still win"

retarded logic man. why do you want it harder for soldiers? any cut hurts. logically what can you possibly cut that can help soldiers? nothing. will it hurt? yes. I want our soldiers to be dominant. Our army should be able to crush the entire world 3 fold, not cut by 66% so we are barley #1 lmao.

you are completely unpatriotic and completely clinically paranoid or you simply do not know history. the USA faced destruction multiple times in it's short history. Whether by the british in 1812 or by the axis in WW2, as well as the soviets in the cold war. and let me tell you, a smaller government and lower taxes did and will do NOTHING to save us if such an event would repeat itself which it will. You are living in a fantasy land if you believe no world war can ever happen again.

Our soldiers and military were the ones who kept us around. im not looking to "even the playing field" like you are. that is completely cynical and evil. our troops should have everything at their disposal.

 

Firstly, when, after cutting by 66%, you are still double the nearest country, that is not "barely #1". That is still kicking the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of everybody.

Let's go down this list of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Unpatriotic? Negative. I support what is in this countries best interest.
Paranoid? Coming from someone who thinks we need to have enough military to fight the entire rest of the world at once, a completely fear based perspective, that accusation is an ironic joke. You are seriously paranoid to think that much "defense" is necessary. I don't know history? I know that both Jefferson and Madison spoke against having a standing Army at all.

You prove MY point with these examples. We won in 1812, and we won in both World Wars, and we WEREN'T previously stockpiling enough military to fight in Armageddon. When a threat arose, we mobilized. Otherwise, we realized that there are better things to do in life than kill people, and better things to spend money on than legions of gunmen waiting around for a fight to break out.

If a 6 foot tall man had to fight a 12 foot tall man, would you call that a level playing field? Does the 12 foot man also have to bring a bazooka to a fist fight? Have you ever heard of overkill? Also, consider this: a country is stronger when it doesn't waste its strength. Spending extravagantly, when there is no real threat to justify it (and there isn't. Our big enemy, the USSR, is gone. Post cold-war, its time to cut back. We are still in an arms race, but AGAINST NOBODY) causes us to weaken ourselves financially when we should be conserving our strength. Sounds like you are for the military at the expense of the country. There does come a time when enough is enough, and more is just stupid. We passed that point during the Cold War, and never backed down to a reasonable level.


BTW, loving the results of your poll! Rand Paul FTW!

 

Polls show Paul has a heavy lead, followed by Huntsman. I'd actually be ecstatic about a Paul/Huntsman ticket, I just don't want another dragged out campaign.

 

You have just shown that you have ZERO concept of how the military works. You cannot equate a single unit form China to a single unit in the US military. The US trains their soldiers better, they receive more pay and they have far more logistical support. The lethality of single squads has more than doubled ever several years.

Yes you can cut spending but if the US only spent twice as much as China we would be fielding an army, navy and air force 1/10 its size. Simply put our (*)(*)(*)(*) is way better than theirs and its more expensive.

Regarding past wars and build ups that is laughable logic as well. There is a vast difference between today's military which is highly technological and even back in the 70s and 80s where you could get buy with the basics and be just fine. It takes over 10 years to get seargents with sufficient training and experience and even longer for higher ranking officers.

Back during the Gulf War and Operation Freedom the US had to train up foreign British soldiers to match our system because we had stuff they didn't........and those were fully trained Brits. Imagine having to throw together an army from scratch.


Regarding the best candidate I am rooting for Scott Walker from my state.......although I don't want him to run till 2020.

 

MORE than qualified!! He's done more for Ohio than Christie has for NJ..

John Richard Kasich (born May 13, 1952 is the 69th and current Governor of Ohio. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio's 12th congressional district from 1983 to 2001. He was a commentator on Fox News Channel, hosting Heartland with John Kasich (2001-2007); he also worked as an investment banker, as managing director of Lehman Brothers's Columbus, Ohio office ).

 

I would probably vote for Rand Paul, because of the fact that he strongly believes in the Constitution and civil liberties.

 

Does it matter? They will still be a republican first, and a conservative when it suits them.

 

Where is Cruz?.

 

Rubio.

 

Which one would be on top?

 

Jindal, Huckabee, and Paul.

 

No. We need to stop treating our soldiers like crap, and start treating them like the heroes they are. We need to look at the world for what it is, a cold world were every country is striving to be on top. I don't want to make the playing field "even" I want us to be the top. Period, number 1. We need to start looking out for Americans our workers (we can start by repealing that god awful anti-American NAFTA and deporting all the illegals in America and setting limits on immigration), our businesses (we can start by slapping a tariff on China equal to the amount they put on us and protecting our businesses). And our soldiers. We should be hiring much more soldiers and increasing their pay and building much more bases over here. Times are tough, going into the military and becoming a border patrol officer should become viable and major options.

 

All of them above Christie

 

The crowd is fickle.

 

Christie sucks.

 

It's interesting that Rand Paul wins in this poll. I didn't think we had such a tea party prescense.

I would stand behind the man, however his lack of charisma worries me. Especially with Bill Clinton running for first dude! That's why I choose Rubio.

 

Quit treating them crap? What are you talking about? Our country idolizes them.

With less than half of the military we have now, we would still be #1 by a longshot.

OK.

Times are tough, so the taxpayers should pay for a bloated military? There are way too many people drawing a government paycheck already. The private sector should be a "viable and major option", and not taxed into oblivion to pay for more government spending. This is the paradox of many conservatives. They say they want a smaller government and lower taxes. But then they turn around and support spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined. That is fiscal insanity. It makes your country WEAKER when you spend, spend, spend, on the military. The USSR is a perfect example. It fell because it could not economically sustain the arms race with the US. Now, the US is still engaged in that arms race, but AGAINST NOBODY. No doubt our economy will also reach the breaking point because of it. What you do put first, the military, or the country?

 

Ted Cruz hands down...

 

As a Democrat, I did not participate.

But it was interesting to see that Rand Paul led the pack.

He has no chance of becoming President.

I seriously doubt that he will make it through the next magical journey of the GOP Clown Car.

Paul' neo racism, and his inarticulate and ill formed views will doom him in the media spotlight.

I have no doubt that they people who enthusistically picked him in this poll will go down on the ship with him. But that cohort represents less than 20% of the country.

It can't elect a President.

 

Just for funsies and a token effort, they should give Mitt Romney another whirl at it. He didn't lose by much the last time. If Romney could convince white women to vote for him instead of Democrats (like they did the last time), he might stand at least a slight chance of winning.

 

Nope,,,I like the man but he has the personality of a Squid,,,,,,,,[sorry Squid] Besides health Care is in the crapper,,and will get worse. I have no doubt he could fix it,,dont know if people would give him the chance though...

When people get to know Christie,,he will walk with this........

 

It's looking more and more as if the '12 "Governor of a Blue State" Willard Model has set the RNC standard for '16 - although I can't see Big abjectly pandering to the lunatic fringe like Willard did. He'll easily straddle a wide section of the middle-of-the-road with a middle-finger hand signal to underscore it.

I really don't think that Randy and Cruz can match the comic relief afforded by Rooster Santorum, Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann. Maybe Gumpert or Virginia Foxx could be drafted?

​

.

​

Madcap zanies make the process bearable.

 

Ted Cruz would be just fine but I do not think it matters because it has been proven that America now wants a big government socialist state. Who ever gives away the most freebies on the Left will win I am sure.

 

"Carnival" would be a hoot!