Republicans: Who do you want as your nominee?

Yes he would be great, unlike the idiot Christie that the Left wants to be the GOP nominee.

 

I am not an republican, but I don't like boundaries, so I voted anyways. Paul Ryan is the only one of those who is electable, which is fine considering Paul Ryan will be the GOP nominee. People need to start paying attention to where he has been hanging out lately--he will redefine the GOP, take the nomination, and the Presidency.

 

i'm not american but i like Rand Paul.

 

Not really when you put it in perspective.



Because with the exception of China, no one has even a third of our economy. Taken at face value, our share of military spending is 1.86x our economic share. And despite our share of spending, we only have the 2nd most active personnel, the 10th most reserve personnel, and our total military personnel is 8th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

So it's worth keeping in mind that our higher cost is largely due to cost/person. Do you think the Chinese pay their soldiers anywhere close to what we pay ours? And there's the rub. For us to field one soldiers costs more than 5x what it costs China to field a soldier, and other countries have similar circumstances. Russia's gdp/capita is only a little more than a quarter than ours. Just worth keeping in mind when seeing how inflated our military looks, at 1.86x our 'share.'

And then, after considering that, consider what our military obligations are. Iraq and Afghanistan alone make up more than an eighth of our military spending, without which our share would drop to 1.6275x our economic share.

Now consider the rest of what our military does. It protects the sea lanes and trade , it defends the west (to include our heavy military placement in Germany and Japan). And it gives extensive humanitarian aid in just about every natural catastrophe. Considering all that it does, it's appropriate. Want to give up on our current goals and what we do, if you want to just leave western allies to their fate if war comes? If you prefer to see places like Haiti, Japan, etc. not get one half of the aid that they have in past catastrophes, then yes, our military's bloated.

 

Well, then maybe we should just hire some cheap Chinese mercs and save some money that way.

Yeah, our "military obligations" are of our own making. If we didn't have such a behemoth military, we wouldn't be going around looking for new "obligations" all the time, and , consequently, we would have fewer.

Yes. Those freeloaders need to pay for their own military. As for protecting shipping lanes, I think that is appropriate use, but all we need for that is the Navy, and not nearly as much Navy as we've got.

What are we running, a world charity here? (*)(*)(*)(*) Haiti and Japan. Every time somebody wants something, who pays for it? The U.S. taxpayer. So, yes, it's bloated as hell.

 

You're quite mistaken. You haven't been in the military, have you? With the exception of the invasions, we've only had one capital ship involved in our combat operations, out of about a dozen. Naval deployments have been getting longer and longer, and it's not because our Navy is doing so much in the middle east.

Same as above, getting out of the middle east wouldn't free up much of our naval forces.

Fine, so long as you get why it's bloated. Most people, when it comes right down to it, won't be so stand fast as to say, "f*** those people devastated by that natural disaster," so it will continue to be bloated.

 

That imaginary "Left!" that festers under your bonnet has some very odd ideas, indeed, but unless you relegate the GOP establishment (Carl Rove et al) to your cerebral catch-all gulag, those amused by TP raving would much prefer "Carnival" Cruz.

Hilarious hijinks would ensue, and the extreme-right fairy dust would descend upon the wacko birds like a Sirocco churning up the Sahara, until those mirages of a Willard landslide would appear as tepid chimera by comparison.

 

What are you the Political Forum's poet laureate?

 

You have to pretty far out in wingnut world to believe that.

The last thing the Democratic party wants is for Christie to be the GOP nominee. He's the only Republican on that list who even has a prayer of reaching across the partisan divide.

The rest of them would build the wall higher.

 

Let me guess. You are not a Republican.

 

Well, you're the one who said that the left wants Christie to be the GOP nominee.

I was just pointing out how ridiculous that claim is. We know from the poll numbers and five out of the last six presidential elections how unlikely it is that the US would elect one of the hard right wing clowns on the list.

Speaking as a Democrat though, I'd be delighted to see Cruz or Paul as the GOP candidate. For the GOP, that would turn out about like 1936 or 1964.

 

You are pointing out how ridiculous the claim is by you being a Lefty suggesting who the GOP should nominate, that being Christie. Conservatives do not want a moderate. We want a conservative.

 

That may be, but you won't elect a President.

 

I am sure you are correct because the majority of Americans now want government to provide them with stuff that 20 years ago was unheard of. They want their cell phone bills paid for. They want their health insurance paid for or partially paid for. They wan their electric car purchase partially paid for by the government. I am quite sure that what I believe in will not be voted for by the general public now.

 

They would explode in jubilant laughter if the GOP ran those two crackpots...Then win by a landslide.

 

You cant be serious. For what reason should soldiers be paid more in our military? They have the best equipment, the most funds of any military in the world, and yet they cant seem to bring the middle east to any form of decent stabilization. I call that poor performance and poor performance means you get a demotion or we fire your sorry ass. It took us 4 years to win the second world war and that was fighting across the entire globe against fully operational military forces. We have been in the middle east for more than a decade now and have been unable to accomplish next to nothing. And were not even fighting an actual military. They are nothing more than a bunch of radicals with pressure cooker bombs, rpgs, and ak's. Its pathetic just to think about it. Yet you want to give them more? I think they have more than what they deserve at the moment. I would prefer my tax money to go to ww2 veterans. Not these others.

 

Please tell us that you wrote that diatribe against the U.S. military in sarcasm mode and did not really mean what you just posted. Or at least, if you really did mean it, you have actually worn a military uniform yourself in years past.

 

Abject nonsense.

Bush was the one who dreamed up paying for cell phones.

Few people expect their health insurance to be paid for by anyone else, but they expect a fair deal.

Maybe you ought to buy an FM radio.

 

I said people wanted the government to provide for them by majority now and you mention Bush and free cell phones? Frankly I do not care who started the idea of cell phone giveaways. But the reality is it was a piece of legislation by congress. The bottom line is it is stupid and there was a public outcry against it yet the program remains. Why? Why does it remain? Why has it not been eliminated?

Because a very large group of people want the free phones and bills paid for free. They are part of one parties electorate. That is the Democrat party and the Democrats control the Senate and it is basically split in the House so this crappy law about cell phones remains the law.

My point is made. People want free stuff from the government and will vote that way. The next President will be the one that backs giving away this kind of stuff. The GOP could nominate some jerk like Christie and such a Republican would lose to the better social program giveaway from the Democrats, whom ever that would be.

 

how about we send you to the middle east and see what happens?

 

So, when the wingnuts stop calling them Obamaphones, then I MIGHT believe you.

BTW, that is a pretty pathetic attempt to dodge the facts.

There is no evidence that

. This is one of those idiotic things that angry white Archie Bunker types tell each other.

There is no such thing as the Democrat party. That usage almost always signals that the speaker is a low information far right winger. So is the "free stuff" code word.

Yes, Archie Bunker sat in his chair and said the EXACT same things you're saying now. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Of course, you could explain how you can claim out of one side of your mouth that

 

Maybe Tom Cotton?

 

If Democrats are very, VERY lucky.....


it'll be Ted Cruz.

 

So how will Republicans pull off flip-flopping on the whole "young and inexperienced" thing they tried against President Obama in 2008???

 

I'm not a Republican, but I picked Rand Paul.