70 isn't necessarily a hard limit unless she's not feeling able to take the strain. While she has indicated that she wouldn't be interested, I'm not sure that right here and now we can count her out based on that.
Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
70 isn't necessarily a hard limit unless she's not feeling able to take the strain. While she has indicated that she wouldn't be interested, I'm not sure that right here and now we can count her out based on that.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Would Emmanuel be a possibility for the Democrats?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Too abrasive, IMO.
Fixed.
Although he's repeatedly said his dream job is being the mayor of Chicago, and he's already given up working in the White House once for it. So I don't think he'll run.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
Is Clinton not an option, then? In that case, what about that former NM governor?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
GhostWriter16
Deity
Why did you leave out JEB Bush for 2016? Well, I mean it's gonna be Romney anyway since he wins in 2012, but excluding that...
ON the Democratic side, what about former Kansas Gov and current cabinet secretary Kathleen Sebelieus? (I think I botched that name.)
Because its a Bush
If Jeb were significantly different than George I wouldn't judge him based on his family, but I don't know what his views are...
OK, if we're using the word "Right" to describe economics, can you even get further to the right than Ron Paul?
Who do you have in mind that would fit the bill?
I don't respect her
Gary Johnson? But which party. He could run for either one probably
(If Gary Johnson somehow won the Democratic nomination, I'd actually probably vote Democrat
)In all seriousness, what are the odds Rand Paul runs?
Omega124
Challenging Fate
This is a joke, right? Please don't tell me this is serious.
Now, I think that, regardless of what happens in 2012, Biden would most likely be the canidate for 2016 barring any drastic changes to the politcal landscape (Or his death). Whatever happens in the GOP camp would depend on what happens in November and the next four years. What I would want to see, though, is Gary Johnson going back to the GOP for 2016.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Gary Johnson? But which party. He could run for either one probably
(If Gary Johnson somehow won the Democratic nomination, I'd actually probably vote Democrat
No. Bill Richardson. Read the post again.
OK, if we're using the word "Right" to describe economics, can you even get further to the right than Ron Paul?
Who do you have in mind that would fit the bill?
Forget Ron Paul. He's nothing but a rabid old idiot that will never go further than he is now.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I could honestly see Johnson in EITHER party, he's barely more Republican than Democrat. But when it comes to the issues he'll actually be influencing as President, well, I like Gary Johnson much much MUCH more than either Obama or Romney.
It probably won't happen though. Unfortunately, Americans want a babysitter moreso than a protector when it comes to deciding their government...
I really would love to see it though, and for my first time able to vote no less
Now, if it came down to Gary Johnson VS Rand Paul (Sadly we have to live in reality and say Ron Paul won't want to be inaugurated at 80
) that would be a truly tough decision. I'd PROBABLY take Rand in that case, but its tough.Yet still one of the candidates. He's also taking a lot of young people away from the liberal camp
Of course I agree he'll never get elected, but was still one of the candidates.
Oh, and I don't know how you can call Ron Paul an "Idiot" at all. At least unlike Romney or Obama, he has principles. And he's actually thought through what his ideas are rather than subscribing to a party platform. At least give him that much.
I really like Ron Paul's principled stand of securing pork for shrimp farmers.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Eh, Richardson's kind of shady. I like him and all, but there's a reason he didn't land a cabinet spot.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
She'd need some grandchildren to do that. (She'll be 68 in 2016. Chelsea will be 36.)
GhostWriter16
Deity
I love how this is the best you liberals can do to discredit the rare decent person in our government.
I'm not really sure if Paul's position is inconsistent. It could well be equivalent to supporting privatization of healthcare but still using UHC if it exists. There's no inconsistency. Yes, you'd rather pay a private company than the government but if the government is getting that much tax money from you, you'd like to still benefit from it. Ron Paul may well be in the same vote, he doesn't want the government to do as much as it does, but at the same time, if its going to happen, he doesn't want to leave his district with nothing to show for it. I don't necessarily see a consistency issue.
Even if there is though, that's fairly minor in comparison to the other major candidates. Like Romney's flip flopping on abortion, gun control, and healthcare (He has "Liberal" views on all of these things) or Obama's absolute failure to change Bush's foreign policy (And here I'm only focusing on areas where the candidates have been inconsistent. There are plenty of things where we know where Obama stands, but I still find those stances to be awful.)
sophie
Break My Heart
There's plenty of other things you can get him on, people just choose not to bring them up, because let's be honest, he's just not worth it.
I do not see how a pawn for the shrimp farmer lobby can be considered decent.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Put up or shut up
You don't like his ideas, we get it. All of you people prefer a government-nanny that takes care of its people rather than protecting them from violence. Under a Paul presidency we would be much more free than ever before, but you choose to focus on your fiscal disagreements, or a random irrelevant issue, and thus seek to discredit him and defend the status quo.
If you have actual cases where he has been inconsistent, bring them on.
sophie
Break My Heart
Put up or shut up
You don't like his ideas, we get it. All of you people prefer a government-nanny that takes care of its people rather than protecting them from violence. Under a Paul presidency we would be much more free than ever before, but you choose to focus on your fiscal disagreements, or a random irrelevant issue, and thus seek to discredit him and defend the status quo.
If you have actual cases where he has been inconsistent, bring them on.
No. I just think the gold standard and abolishing the Fed are fundamentally ******** ideas. But it doesn't matter because he is probably the most irrelevant nationally known politician in the United States.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
There goes the thread.
Similar threads
