[Granny Bear]

With Huckabee throwing his hat in the ring recently, that brings the Republicans up to 6 people that are going for POTUS.

Who do you like??

[WideRight05]

Huckabee will have my vote in the primary. This is a very strong and a very deep Republican group.

[64SUR]

I want vote for know of them. And y'all will haveto vote for another Bush. JEB in November. " Marked it Down " I'm voting Democrat. :Cheerlead

[Granny Bear]

I won't vote for Jeb Bush, SUR....mark it down!!

Also, I don't believe he has declared yet.

[64SUR]

I won't vote for Jeb Bush, SUR....mark it down!!

Also, I don't believe he has declared yet.

He will Granny Bear. He's my Sleeper President. nicker:

[WideRight05]

I want vote for know of them. And y'all will haveto vote for another Bush. JEB in November. " Marked it Down " I'm voting Democrat. :Cheerlead

Jeb is no guaranteed vote here should he win. Jeb has greatly disappointed me in many areas, most recently with his backing down over the RFRA in Indiana after supporting it at first.

Should he win the nomination, I will talk it over with several people, including my pastors. I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney not because I liked them. In fact, if you talk to many of the Republican voters (including the ones on BGR), they weren't passionate about McCain or Romney. Their disdain for Obama's policies were enough to keep them at the polls, however. I'm sick and tired of the Republicans sending candidates that try to cater to the left instead of being true to themselves. They need to send a true Christian conservative if they want to win the white house, and they certainly will need to send one to get my vote.

[TheRealThing]

Jeb is no guaranteed vote here should he win. Jeb has greatly disappointed me in many areas, most recently with his backing down over the RFRA in Indiana after supporting it at first.

Should he win the nomination, I will talk it over with several people, including my pastors. I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney not because I liked them. In fact, if you talk to many of the Republican voters (including the ones on BGR), they weren't passionate about McCain or Romney. Their disdain for Obama's policies were enough to keep them at the polls, however. I'm sick and tired of the Republicans sending candidates that try to cater to the left instead of being true to themselves. They need to send a true Christian conservative if they want to win the white house, and they certainly will need to send one to get my vote.

I was thrilled with Romney once he actually started to state what he stood for. I realized at some point during his campaign that he was being poorly handled. After the disastrous campaign was over, it became clear as he spoke on every imaginable subject, that he is a more than an adequate communicator. He'd probably have gotten elected but for his campaign manager and America would be much the better for it.

As far as who will get my vote. I haven't yet judged for myself who among the Republican field might be considered the weakest candidate. And though I would normally be generally adverse to vote for a female for that job, I would vote for Carly Fiorina in a New York second, before I would vote for Swill-ary.

[Hoot Gibson]

Cruz of lose. The Huckster will never get my vote. There are more Republicans running that I am sure I won't vote for than there are candidates that I will consider.

[WideRight05]

Cruz of lose. The Huckster will never get my vote. There are more Republicans running that I am sure I won't vote for than there are candidates that I will consider.

I can agree Ted Cruz a great leader in this group and will do a great job. He'll certainly have my support if he runs. He is somebody who can hopefully have major influence in turning our country back where it belongs, and that is back to God.

What do you not like about Huckabee?

[Hoot Gibson]

I can agree Ted Cruz a great leader in this group and will do a great job. He'll certainly have my support if he runs. He is somebody who can hopefully have major influence in turning our country back where it belongs, and that is back to God.

What do you not like about Huckabee?

IMO, Huckabee stayed in the 2008 race to split the conservative vote and assure McCain of the nomination. McCain lied about Romney's record and Huckabee was nothing more than McCain's attack dog who had no chance of winning the nomination himself. Huckabee was out of the running but won enough southern states to eliminate Romney from the running. I despise McCain and Huckabee was his tag team partner in 2008.

One president from Hope, Arkansas was one too many. Huckabee is too liberal for my tastes. That being said, he is a pretty good musician and I liked his show on Fox. I wish that he was still hosting the show instead of trying to split the conservative vote again. My guess is that he is in the race to benefit Bush's campaign and would probably land a cabinet position in a Bush III White House.

[WideRight05]

I would hope he's not a Jeb Bush guy. I just can't see him supporting Jeb unless he wins the nomination. This is a much, much, stronger group than the groups that ran in 2008 and 2012 and I see this being a strong battle all the way to the end.. I was not as informed in 2008 as I am now (Still had enough sense to vote McCain though haha) but didn't notice him pushing for McCain in the primaries - although I trust your word because I did not follow it as much back then.

What areas do you find Huckabee to be liberal?

[Granny Bear]

http://www.ontheissues.org/mike_huckabee.htm


This will give you an overview of Huckabee's platform.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The Republican field is weak. The media will protect Hillary at all costs. The Republicans in congress have loud mouths but no backbone.

Compare the endless digging at Christie over the closing of the two lanes of a bridge for a short period of time with the allegations of wrong doing in regard to Hillary. Hillary always gets a free pass and, in reality, most Americans of voting age are uninformed, disinterested, and intellectually lacking. A large percentage of them are looking for handouts as they watch the exploits of the Kardashians on television. Whoever said that you can't fool the American people was, in truth, fooling the American people. And, as a teacher of many college courses through the years, I can assure you that the level of preparation and intelligence of high school graduates is diminishing rapidly with each passing year. They couldn't exist if their little i phones quit working.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would hope he's not a Jeb Bush guy. I just can't see him supporting Jeb unless he wins the nomination. This is a much, much, stronger group than the groups that ran in 2008 and 2012 and I see this being a strong battle all the way to the end.. I was not as informed in 2008 as I am now (Still had enough sense to vote McCain though haha) but didn't notice him pushing for McCain in the primaries - although I trust your word because I did not follow it as much back then.

What areas do you find Huckabee to be liberal?

Huckabee's fiscal record is one of a tax and spend moderate.

Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative

Conservative ad rips Huckabee on taxes

[Panther Thunder]

I am on the Dr. Carson train. I am a big fan.

[Real Badman]

I Like Mike.

Classic Eisenhower throwback just makes me want to vote for Huckabee.

[Deathstar 80]

My top 3:

1) Ted Cruz
2) Rand Paul
3) Ben Carson

In exactly that order. If you'll notice, I now consider myself more of a libertarian-republican conservative. You could guess that if you know I'm a big Glenn Beck fan.

If Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush wins the primary, I'm considering to vote for libertarian.

[Quickkickonthird]

With Huckabee throwing his hat in the ring recently, that brings the Republicans up to 6 people that are going for POTUS.

Who do you like??

By the time its all said and done, they say that there may be as many as 18 viable candidates running in the primary. It will make for an interesting debate, LOL! They will have to set up bleachers, haha!

[64SUR]

Rand Paul is now blaming REPUBLICAN for ISIS....Time for truth or tell...I'm starting to like this guy. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

Hard to believe how ill informed many people are with regard to American history. I remember a time not so long ago when a Democrat wouldn't have dared to openly castigate their Republican counterparts. Politicians live in glass houses therefore, rock throwing was not such a smart thing to do. Further unlike today, Democrats back then put country ahead of party. In this day in time, harm to our nation for the sake of winning an election would seem to fall into the category of acceptable collateral damage for the Dems I hear bloviating out on the trail.

Chaos has characterized this world since it's inception, it follows that it's patently absurd to suggest that Republicans are responsible for wars and terrorism since most of world history happened before they got here. On the contrary, it is the strong and sage statesmanship on the part of our national leaders (both Republican and Democrat) that actually restored some form of world order and relative peace to the planet following WW2. A lot of people who've not known the horror of world war or have not been able to learn of that horror from history, naively believe that all we really have to do is play nicey nicey and the peoples of earth will be big buddies.

One has to wonder why ISIS did rise if that were the case. We've kissed up to the Arab World, especially and including the bad boy of that area, Iran, about as much as the US Treasury will bear and yet, they're burning the Middle East to the ground anyway. And FTR, the Middle East destabilized under this administration. There are some very bad people in this world who can only be controlled by vastly superior military might and the willingness to use same. Russia is busy trying to reassemble the Soviet Union. China is busy building a military force that we would be hard pressed to deal with, and let's not forget they're nuclear too. Nuclear North Korea is ruled by a terrorist thug. I would just ask one question to those who think world peace is a mere matter of kissing up. What is the one thing that all the nations I have mentioned have in common? The answer is a mutual hatred of the US, and the fact that they would all be dancing in the streets if America were on fire.

Rand Paul, though I will admit is a much better legislator than any Democrat I can think of, is still out of left field when it comes to some issues. Back during WW2 the US was awash with people who wanted to stay out of the war, isolationists they called them. Back then the great oceans of our planet gave us some measure of protection against military aggression. Not so in our time. If China or Russia moved everything they could get into the air and on the sea against us, we'd be lucky to survive as a nation. So, give me legislators who can al least be honest and accurate in assessing the level of threat that exists out there.

[TheRealThing]

I won't vote for Jeb Bush, SUR....mark it down!!

Also, I don't believe he has declared yet.

:hilarious: That has to be one of your better sigs Granny! Though the irony is also an indictment of the left's absurdities and the direction they are trying to take this nation. In Jenner's case how lost would one have to have become, in order to defy his own intrinsic nature. That of an Olympian hero who projects power and determination, to embrace that which is unnatural in trying to become a girl?

And of course who would be a more apt yet absurd suitor than the original champion to legitimize the homosexual movement, Billy boy?

You nailed it! AFTR, were it to come to pass that Jeb Bush gets the nomination, and Lord knows I hope he doesn't, and given that the option would be Swillary or Sanders, I will show up and vote for Bush. Voting for a third party candidate who has narry a ghost of a chance of winning is like voting Democrat. If I have to take some poison I'll take a few drops (as in the case of a choke, Bush Presidency) as opposed to a gallon as would be the case in sending another deranged Clinton back to the White House. And please allow me to remind voters yet again, Ronald Reagan was the man who righted this nation's financial ship of state. When he left office the nation was so well healed in fact, that the good times he bequeathed Bill Clinton et-al lasted up until the global downturn of 2007. Bill Clinton inherited fiscal soundness, and the good times the Democratic spin machine would attribute to him is actually owed to Reagan.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Hard to believe how ill informed many people are with regard to American history. I remember a time not so long ago when a Democrat wouldn't have dared to openly castigate their Republican counterparts. Politicians live in glass houses therefore, rock throwing was not such a smart thing to do. Further unlike today, Democrats back then put country ahead of party. In this day in time, harm to our nation for the sake of winning an election would seem to fall into the category of acceptable collateral damage for the Dems I hear bloviating out on the trail.

Chaos has characterized this world since it's inception, it follows that it's patently absurd to suggest that Republicans are responsible for wars and terrorism since most of world history happened before they got here. On the contrary, it is the strong and sage statesmanship on the part of our national leaders (both Republican and Democrat) that actually restored some form of world order and relative peace to the planet following WW2. A lot of people who've not known the horror of world war or have not been able to learn of that horror from history, naively believe that all we really have to do is play nicey nicey and the peoples of earth will be big buddies.

One has to wonder why ISIS did rise if that were the case. We've kissed up to the Arab World, especially and including the bad boy of that area, Iran, about as much as the US Treasury will bear and yet, they're burning the Middle East to the ground anyway. And FTR, the Middle East destabilized under this administration. There are some very bad people in this world who can only be controlled by vastly superior military might and the willingness to use same. Russia is busy trying to reassemble the Soviet Union. China is busy building a military force that we would be hard pressed to deal with, and let's not forget they're nuclear too. Nuclear North Korea is ruled by a terrorist thug. I would just ask one question to those who think world peace is a mere matter of kissing up. What is the one thing that all the nations I have mentioned have in common? The answer is a mutual hatred of the US, and the fact that they would all be dancing in the streets if America were on fire.

Rand Paul, though I will admit is a much better legislator than any Democrat I can think of, is still out of left field when it comes to some issues. Back during WW2 the US was awash with people who wanted to stay out of the war, isolationists they called them. Back then the great oceans of our planet gave us some measure of protection against military aggression. Not so in our time. If China or Russia moved everything they could get into the air and on the sea against us, we'd be lucky to survive as a nation. So, give me legislators who can al least be honest and accurate in assessing the level of threat that exists out there.

Ive often found myself thinking about isolationism as a nation, and I prefer to stay out of affairs, especially when other world leader do not feel the need to step up and contribute, but in todays world, is almost impossible as a country to stay away from different affairs.
You bring up a good point about China or Russia, or worse, both, throwing everything they got at us at one time and figuring out if we could hold steady.
To be honest, China will never make that mistake. If they did send 90% of there military to attack out home land, theres would be lost to Japan in a week. IMO, China would have to leave at least half there army at home at all times, which as you know consist mostly of ground troops.
Russia on the other hand may be stupid enough to try, although im not sure why as I feel we could decimate theyre entire forces in a short amount of time, and there structure and pride just isn't what it was. I feel like they would have an enormous amount of deserters.
But, even if these countries, and all others decided to attack us at once, im still fully in belief that the things we have under wraps and secretly stashed away would be the ends of all others that try. In the end, we would have a successful nuclear missile defense while they couldn't stop ours. And we would take it to that level if we needed to save our lands.

[TheRealThing]

Ive often found myself thinking about isolationism as a nation, and I prefer to stay out of affairs, especially when other world leader do not feel the need to step up and contribute, but in todays world, is almost impossible as a country to stay away from different affairs.
You bring up a good point about China or Russia, or worse, both, throwing everything they got at us at one time and figuring out if we could hold steady.
To be honest, China will never make that mistake. If they did send 90% of there military to attack out home land, theres would be lost to Japan in a week. IMO, China would have to leave at least half there army at home at all times, which as you know consist mostly of ground troops.
Russia on the other hand may be stupid enough to try, although im not sure why as I feel we could decimate theyre entire forces in a short amount of time, and there structure and pride just isn't what it was. I feel like they would have an enormous amount of deserters.
But, even if these countries, and all others decided to attack us at once, im still fully in belief that the things we have under wraps and secretly stashed away would be the ends of all others that try. In the end, we would have a successful nuclear missile defense while they couldn't stop ours. And we would take it to that level if we needed to save our lands.

I don't know where we stand right now as far as our capabilities to shoot down incoming ICBMs, but I do know that as late as 2007 General James E Cartwright, the head of the US Strategic Air Command under whose direction missile defense falls, was saying that we had a long way to go before we could relax.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avia...st=&page=4

I'm sure we've improved the program since then and you know the results of those improvements are classified, but it's still scary to me.

[Granny Bear]

Me too....I can no longer find information that I believe credible about the defensive practices for ICBMs. I'm just not sure where we stand in the degree of our vulnerability.


(glad you like me sig!)

[Real Badman]

Ive often found myself thinking about isolationism as a nation, and I prefer to stay out of affairs, especially when other world leader do not feel the need to step up and contribute, but in todays world, is almost impossible as a country to stay away from different affairs.
You bring up a good point about China or Russia, or worse, both, throwing everything they got at us at one time and figuring out if we could hold steady.
To be honest, China will never make that mistake. If they did send 90% of there military to attack out home land, theres would be lost to Japan in a week. IMO, China would have to leave at least half there army at home at all times, which as you know consist mostly of ground troops.
Russia on the other hand may be stupid enough to try, although im not sure why as I feel we could decimate theyre entire forces in a short amount of time, and there structure and pride just isn't what it was. I feel like they would have an enormous amount of deserters.
But, even if these countries, and all others decided to attack us at once, im still fully in belief that the things we have under wraps and secretly stashed away would be the ends of all others that try. In the end, we would have a successful nuclear missile defense while they couldn't stop ours. And we would take it to that level if we needed to save our lands.

Isolationism just isn't the thing anymore coming out of the cold war. Why should the US not take action in Africa, when Russia will? It's the same brinksmanship theory that has always been around. However one thing I'm fairly sure of is the PRC and Russia would never joining forces in any geopolitical event. China and Russia have hated each other since Christ was a child, and it will be that way until Russia accepts Mao as a true communist leader. A defacto (non)religious cold war. A good point talking about Japan though. Many people often forget that Japan is a strong pacific ally of the United States. Even more so, people forget about the forgotten holocaust of WWII when Japan tore apart China way before Hitler thought about dominating Europe. China couldn't withstand the threat of a smaller technological advanced nation that has never been invaded in history. Say what you want about Russians, but they are Russians. The number one political goal of Russia is to protect the motherland, at all costs. Of course, Stalin isn't around, but I have a feeling Putin is just as cruel. In a crazy World War III senario, I have full confidence in the United States' ability to fight off China, Russia, Iran, or any other foreign threat with the help of our allies in NATO, SEATO, and the UN.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Good post! And spot on IMO.


As for the actual presidential candidates I had a mind blowing moment.
After watching The Donald talk the other day, could you imagine sending him to the white house? It would be hilarious to make him watch people, and other countries for that matter squirm. He would literally be a complete hard ass that gained fear from others. The biggest problem I have with Donald is the fact that I agree with almost everything he says, but he never gives out how he will go about making that happen or what his plans are.

Entertainment and his celebrity aside, I think it takes that type of personality to be successful in the white house. You have to be a throat cutter and cut the ones you think will cut you. He couldn't be more right about China, jobs, and how we have become such a liberal joke of a nation and how Political correctness is killing us. If he gave an honest step by step plan of what he would do to fix the things he said he would, then I wouldn't have a problem with him. I also don't know where he stands on social issues which could be a deal breaker for me as well as the environmental bull being thrown at us. However, I would love if somebody with a spine actually ran and won with good social policies and beliefs. I already know hes more qualified than Hillary at least.

[pjdoug]

He will Granny Bear. He's my Sleeper President. nicker:

sleeper for sure.

[pjdoug]

Rand Paul is now blaming REPUBLICAN for ISIS....Time for truth or tell...I'm starting to like this guy. nicker:

Stand with Rand nicker:

[Real Badman]

I don't care if Rand gets the nomination, I just don't want him as our senator any longer. Which brings me to my next point. Why haven't the democrats launched a strong offensive for the '16 senate seat?

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Ive thought about that as well.
My only conclusion is no matter what democrat runs they know its a sure loss during this time. Who in this state would want to be a democrat in the senate? Look no further than WV to see that debacle. If your a democrat you've got to fall in line and theres only one choice. Be a FAR left wing nut or get no help from your party members. A far left democrat will never win a seat in this state again so long as things stay the way they are.

Personally I don't give two shits about Rand. Never have. I think his a leach that has used our state to game notoriety when he doesn't care about Ky in the slightest bit. But even the worst republican seems to be better than the best democrat at this point. One hilarious point of view to think about is the reason democrats held this state and states like WV as long as they did. UNIONS. Now that the same party who loves unions have killed off there coal union members, theres no one left in this state to pull in big money to a democratic nominee while the companies that are still here mostly back repubs.

If we could ever give Lville to Indiana then Democrats couldn't garner up 20% of any election.