politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Let It Burn: The conservative choice
Source:
Ace Of Spades
URL Source: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=361624
Published: Feb 19, 2016
Author: Weirddave
Post Date: 2016-02-20 09:12:05 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 3635
Comments: 46
I get that, because I'm frickin furious. I mean, I-better-not-have-a-drink-to-calm-down-because-I-might-never-stop-drinking livid. The damage done to our country in the past two decades but really in the past seven years is mind numbing. Not only has TFG thumbed his nose at the founding principles of this nation while doing an in-your-face touchdown dance at conservatives, but “our” party, the Grand Old Pussies, have continually rolled over before him while begging for scraps of his magnificence for their table. We've done our part as citizens. We gave the GOP a majority in the House in 2010 so they could stop him, and when that wasn't enough, we added the Senate in 2014. We've donated, politicked, canvassed and phone banked. We have made ourselves perfectly clear, chasing the dayglo Speaker of the House from his perch and electing patriots like Dave Brat in Virginia. And what has the response been? Disdain. Scorn. Anger. How dare we question our betters? From colluding with Democrats to prop up the brittle bones of the senile Thad Cochran in Mississippi, to passing the cromnibuss pork spending bill after Boo Hoo Boehner resigned to the repeated attempts, such as the Rubio/Schumer Gang of 8 bill, to shove nation-killing amnesty down our throats, we have been ignored, insulted and reviled. Even today the DC establishment is pulling out all the stops to get Rubio elected so that they can serve their Chamber of Commerce masters. Enough. If these people have forgotten that they work for us and are determined not to remember, then it is up to us to forcefully remind them. Let It Burn. That decision, it's easy. What's not so easy is, as Ghostbusters might put it, is choosing the form of the destructor. Let's survey the field. Kasich is a joke, a big government Republican pining for the days of Nelson Rockefeller. Ben Carson is a decent man who has been seduced into being a never ending, multimillion dollar bot compiling an email list for future fund-raising efforts. Jeb Bush is the last gasp of the Bush dynasty, running 10 years too late and Marco Rubio is the slickly packaged Madison Avenue pretty boy, America's last, best chance for amnesty. If Mexico is your vision of America's future, then Marco is your guy. That leaves Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump is sheer bravado, 1.21 jigawats of pure testosterone. If you want to stick your thumb in the eye of DC elites, well, Donald will stick his thumb, palm, wrist and forearm right into the skull of the Washington cartel. Balls to the wall, damn-the-torpedos, full speed ahead American arrogance, that's Donald Trump. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the slow knife, the knife that takes its time, the knife that waits years without forgetting, that slips quietly between the bones. That's the knife that cuts deepest. He’s the smartest guy in any room, and his great sin is that he’s a class traitor. He went to Princeton and Harvard, checked all of the right boxes on his way up. The DC elite look at Ted Cruz and they see someone who is one of them, except he won’t play ball. He has principles. He takes the promises he made to the electorate seriously He actually seems to believe in that rah rah America crap the rubes in flyover country revere. Those are the choices. Visceral brutality or the elegant intellectual. How to choose? None of us really knows how either man would act as POTUS. Campaign promises are cheap and subject to change. Words are worthless next to deeds. I would like to look at this question through a different lens, one that I haven’t heard talked about much. Brand. Every corporation, every organization, even every individual is always concerned with their brand. This is a fundamental human concept, we’re all concerned to some degree with how others perceive us. Politicians are ACUTELY aware of this, and will do anything to preserve their brand. With that in mind, lets look at how each of these might behave as president. First of all Trump. What is his brand? Bold? Outspoken? Crude? All of those, certainly, but Trump’s brand is TRUMP. He’ll promise the moon, stars and planets, but when it comes down to decision time, he is always going to err on the side of glorifying Donald John Trump, it’s what he has done all his life. Trump Towers, Trump casinos, Trump golf courses, the list goes on. I’ll bet his seamstress rips the Fruit of the Loom tags out of his underwear and sews in Trump tags. This tendency worries me in a president. It’s certainly likely that he could tear great gaping holes in the Washington machine, but what will he replace it with? We’ve had 8 years of an administration treating the rule of law as toilet paper for their own ends, is continuing to rip it asunder for different ends really an improvement? He says now that he’ll build a wall, but do you really think he’ll do it if the effect is to deprive Trump properties of cheap labor(and thus damage the Trump brand)? I find that unlikely. Do you think he’ll negotiate hard against China if China grants preferential land rights to Trump casinos? I doubt it. Equally likely IMO is that Democrats in DC will figure out how to manipulate him via his enormous ego. Suppose a bill to “repeal” Obamacare comes across his desk, a bill that replaces it with full single payer called “Trumpcare”. Does ANYONE doubt that he’s sign that puppy in a second? Trump may very well do a great deal of damage to the establishment Washington, but I have no confidence that it will do anything but destroy the last vestiges of constitutional governance in this nation. We’ll still have elections, but they’ll be contests between Democrats and Republicans simply to put their guy or gal in charge so they can manipulate the raw levers of power for the benefit their donor groups. We citizens will simply be beasts of burden to fund the lavish lifestyles of the well connected. IOW, America will revert to the human norm, a vast underclass laboring to fund the lavish lifestyle of a small elite. Fine. What about Cruz? Cruz has built his entire public and political persona on fealty to the Constitution. That’s his identity. You can believe that his filibuster was a publicity stunt or a principled stand, but the fact is that fact is that he sold it as a principled stand, and for him to go back on that would do incalculable damage to his brand. Washington DC today operates far removed from the Constitution. Cruz has to attack that, and he has to attack it from the angle of returning to Constitutional governance. He HAS to. To do otherwise would do tremendous harm to his brand. Does he mean it? I tend to believe that he does, but it doesn’t really matter. That’s the box he has locked himself into. Moving outside that box would finish him as surely as “read-my-lips” George H.W. Bush was finished by raising taxes. So that’s the choice if you’re in the let it burn crowd. Raw destruction for destruction's sake, or surgical destruction in the name of restoration. I know which I prefer. We’re angry because greedy, corrupt politicians have betrayed our birthright. We’re angry. What should we do with that anger? Use it for short sighted revenge, or channel it in the direction that might start to recreate at least some of what we’ve lost? Choose wisely. Poster Comment: I liked how this piece outlined the anger at the GOPe and how many conservatives feel about Trump vs. Cruz vs. GOPe candidates in the primary. The writer leans Cruz but would take Trump over any other GOPe candidates if push came to shove. Anger. You're angry.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
#6. To: rlk (#3)
(Edited)
This is a myth he has acted out. His wife is highly paid to argue erasing the borders and merge Mexico and the U. S. He's in it with her as a surrepticious collaborator until he gets the presidency and is free to show his cards. He's deceptive as hell. It's the same old crap. Public image versus concealed reality. I don't agree,but let's assume you are right for a mintue. What is the alternative,King Joffrey (Trump)? ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
And my dead dawg Scruffy.
Ok: Trump/Cruz. Trump is Patton. He will tear great big gaping holes in the establishment. He will trash the enemy, and anybody who stands in his way IS an enemy. He'll rip, he'll expose, he'll belittle, he'll use power balls-to-the wall. And yes, he WILL build the wall. He didn't campaign on it and scream about it not to do it. Trump can be depended on to damn the torpedoes, fire more of his own, charge the lines, and grease the treads of his tanks with the enemy's guts. That's Trump. If you want a return to the Constitution, FIRST you have to rip down bodily the structures and weeds that have gotten in its way. Cruz is smart and cautious. Cruz won't aggressively abuse executive power to rip down the massive bastions of power that the enemy have built. He'll self limit. He'll be Eisenhower: cautious, calculating. But on offense, he'll be like Monty at Market Garden - some narrow front thing for a specific objective that will fail because the surrounding territory is still full of Germans. Trump will burn down the whole goddamned thing. There will be no "Germans" left in the woods or the underbrush, because Trump will leave broken sticks and bare ground - scorched earth. We all know it. And we NEED the Trump moment. We need the point where we don't just POLITICALLY defeat the adversary, but we actually HURT them, take their stuff, brake their things, make them feel FEAR, for what more they can lose. They need to be stood in front of a precipice and forced - to preserve what they have - to admit that the people DO have the power, and that the people DO matter, dammit, and that the people have the right to their country. And if they WON'T admit it, we need somebody who will (figuratively) put a bullet through their head, take their shit, throw them in the open grave, and haul the NEXT one up to demand the same thing. The current power structure needs to be BROKEN and stripped of the sources of its power, and made to beg, from a point of weakness. They need to be treated the way cops treat underlings, so they get it and are afraid. And that's Trump. Trump is a gorilla. We need the gorilla. Once the enemy has been wrecked, his structures broken, the ground cleared, THEN a Cruz can build something solid. You needed a Patton to wreck the Germans, but you needed an Eisenhower to administer them once they were beaten. The answer is Trump/Cruz. Harness the conservative wing. Reagan was the visceral force. Bush was the brainy insider. But Bush was a traitor. Cruz probably won't be. Cruz is not Poppy Bush. Cruz should be Trump's Veep. Unite the GOP, tear the working class who actually WORK, the Unions themselves (not government unions, workers unions) out of the Dems and have them vote Trump, to get jobs back. Make a new Trump coalition, with conservative chops because Cruz is there. Let Trump conquer and tear down - and also build that wall. Cruz doesn't want to, but he will be happy to have it. Likewise with the Muslim immigration. Cruz doesn't have the stones to do that, but if Trump makes it a fait accompli, Cruz won't cancel it. We need to win the war first, and that doesn't mean winning an election. It means unleashing a silverback gorilla to tear the shit out of the enemy and rip his head off. That's Trump. Trump/Cruz. Trump for 8, then Cruz for 8 more. That will get it done. It won't work if it's just Cruz. He's not a silverback gorilla. How long would it have taken Eisenhower to get to Berlin without Patton?
I-might-never-stop-drinking Did Rafael Sr. promise him a Molson Beer distributorship? Ted is never going to make it into the White House, he looks too much like a used car salesman. Neither would beat Hillary. I would sooner take my chances with Rubio than cede the WH, and perhaps the Senate, to Hillary and the DRats. Rubio may be a slickly packaged Madison Avenue pretty boy with a hidden Hispanic agenda but he would certainly do more to reign in the chaos of what we euphemistically call our border. Anyone who believes that the U.S. will, much less can, stop the Hispanic waive that is changing the county's demographics is an ignorant fool. They would deserve Dollar Donald's flim flam or what would be Cruz's futile attempts to implement his constructed vision for the flyover folks but instead will get Obama2 on steroids. There is no good candidate to chose from among the current contenders in this upcoming general election but just the chance to choose the barely better candidate. Either way the Great Experiment, the country of our fathers will continue to die, probably a death by a thousand cuts as opposed to a stake in the heart. But it may not make any difference at all as the country of our fathers, the one in which I grew up, is more than half dead now. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Horse crap. Cruz is a shameless devotee for judicial activism, he promotes Mark Levin's dimwitted attacks on the Constitution in the heavily plagiarized Liberty Amendments, and he advocates a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Only the most dimwitted or ill-informed are taken in by his pretense of fealty to the Constitution.
An article 5 convention is to PROPOSE amendments . The amendment in the end would still need the same approval process as the other 27 amendments did . BTW amending the Constitution is a constitutional act. That's why the founders made provisions for it .
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Lol, you are arguing with someone who is clueless and scared of freedom. Logic and facts won't work. 'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
The thing is ;all the other amendments were acts of Congress.But how do you get them to entertain amendments that would reign in their authority and power ? Levin's book does borrow some ideas from Prof Randy Barnett who has proposed 'Federalism amendments' to be submitted through an Art.5 Convention of States .
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Not the same approval process. The Article V Convention of States would propose the amendments directly to the states. Congress would not get a vote. I think it's a good idea - have the Convention, and use it to break the Supreme Court.
yes it is . Here is the pertinent part of Art 5 : The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ,which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof , The approval of amendments is by State legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of the states . It is the proposal process that is different in a Convention of the States . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Neither would beat Hillary. Are you kidding? They would destroy her. Might even break President Reagan's record for landslide. Only Crazy ass and corrupt dims "want" to vote for hillary. Bernie is kicking her ass and if not for the corrupt system he would be dominating her electorally. She selling out to anyone willing to help her. If she can get by bernie and not piss off half her base the Cruz or Trump will tear her ass up. I would sooner take my chances with Rubio than cede the WH I would just stay home election day. There is no good candidate to chose from among the current contenders in this upcoming general election but just the chance to choose the barely better candidate. Voting for more of the same isn't going to do anything more than getting more the same. Im for Cruz but would vote for Trump.
Neither would beat Hillary. Are you kidding? They would destroy her. Keep an eye on the polls on the matchups. they clearly say that you are wrong. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Wrong. Moral people lead better.
IF this is true then America is done and voting is a waste of time. I think its MSM pushing what they want. I do not see either one of those guys losing to her and I can see either one of them making Hillary cry on stage during a debate. If she is not protected the real her comes across.
Good men can lead good men. Government is not good and are run by corrupt minded people. Ben has no clue what he would be getting into if elected. It would the biggest disaster of his and our life time. It would be Bush 1 and Carter rolled into one and running the country. Dims would eat his ass up. Trump and Cruz are the only ones that get this. Nice guys finish last in politics.
Con Con Is a Terrible Idea Article V requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention to consider "amendments" (note the plural) if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. There are no other rules in the Constitution or in federal law to list or limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. The whole process would be a prescription for political chaos, controversy, confrontation, litigation, and judicial activism. Just about the only thing we can predict with certainty is that it could not be secret from the media and the public, as was the original 1787 Constitutional Convention. Many prestigious constitutional authorities say it is impossible for Congress or anyone else to restrict what a Con Con does.
The runaway convention fear I believe is a myth perpetrated by those who don't want Congress to lose it's control of the process. But let's assume that it does propose Amendments outside of a narrow mandate ;a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments” in the clear plain text I provided . The text and history of Article V indicate that Congress¹s role in calling a convention is merely ministerial. The original purpose of Article V was to give States the power to circumvent a recalcitrant or corrup t Congress. It thus makes little sense for it to give Congress broad power to control a convention. In light of the text of Article V and its purpose to empower States, States should have the power to limit the scope of a convention and to limit their applications¹ validity to only a certain topic. The original purpose of Article V also indicates that States’ applications should be grouped and counted by subject‐matter. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
That's why we're still under the Articles of Confederation.
No Tomder, it's not the same process. The normal process is: amendment is proposed to Congress, and a supermajority of both houses of Congress have to approve it, then it is submitted to the states for ratification. With an Article V convention, Congress has no say, no standing, no vote. The Convention decides, and the proposed amendment is submitted directly to the states for ratification. Congress doesn't get the opportunity to shoot it down by failing to pass it. Congress gets no vote. That's the difference. The federal government is bypassed COMPLETELY with an Article V convention. The other 27 Amendments were passed by Congress and proposed to the states. It's a fundamental difference. Washington has been the place from which the other amendments were proposed. In an Article V convention, Washington has no role.
Well.............? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Before the Constitutional Convention there was the Annapolis Convention. . The delegates from the states participating concluded that a broader convention was needed to address the nation’s concerns. The States, not the Congress of the Articles of Confederation , called the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They told their delegates to render the Federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies (demands )of the Union. And that is exactly what they did. Only 2 states ,NY and Massachusetts, said that the purpose of the convention was “solely amend the Articles” . The delegates had the authority to write the Constitution ....AND most important ; it was not ratified until the states approved ....just as any amendment proposed by a convention of the states would need approval of the state legislatures to become an amendment . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
We are not really arguing here .The traditional (what you call 'normal') way that Amendments have been proposed is just one of the ways to constitutionally amend the constitution . The final process regardless of how they are proposed is through the State Legislatures. Truth be told ,the threat of a convention of the states should only goad Congress to act on the concerns that are behind the call for a convention. The threat of a convention is what really prompted Congress to amend the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Pennsylvania,New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina all called for numerous amendments to the proposed Constitution during their ratification process. The implied threat was that if Congress did not act on a Bill of Rights that they would call for a convention. Congress approved 12 amendments .The states ratified 10.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Nice foot shot.
It's the only alternative unless you have a new one.
A good man, no doubt. But probably not a good president.
Yep. And the GOP base is sick of it. Otherwise, we'd likely have no Trump in the race by now.
Trump more immature and less modest 70 year old version of King Joeffrey from Game of Thrones. ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
But Trump lacks the basic honesty of the average used car salesman. ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
You have to be kidding. The only real difference between Rubio and Bubbette! is he doesn't strap HIS penis on. Well,his probably doesn't glow in the dark,either. ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
She has the Whymen? vote and the black vote locked up,but that's about it. She seems to have a lot of support now because this is the primary season,and about the only people who really pay attention to the early primary season are the dedicated party members that would vote for a yellow dog,even one named Hillary,if that was what was running with a Big Red D on their chest. It is always the undecided voters that determine who wins the general elections,and she is not what anyone would call wildly popular with that crowd. She doesn't inspire trust in anyone but the dedicated Party People. ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
It's the only alternative unless you have a new one. If it comes down to either Sanders/Hillary (in any combination) or Trump,I will play my option to vote for neither. I no longer play that "lesser of two evils game,and haven't since Boy Jorge's first election. ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Just remember, your vote for Scruffy is as meaningless as it is for any other presidential candidate!
Is that on her resume'? Or is it an assumption and propaganda you either made up or subscribe to? You know what I think? You know Trump is the natural successor to Obama. He will rule with executive orders and raise hell. There is a difference though, he will do things to terrify and piss off the left. There are really only two candidates that could have reset America back 20 years. If we as voters made sure that most of the entrenched also lost their jobs, maybe back 50 years. Trump is not one of those. He will take us forward to full on nationalism. Throw in socialism and what do you have? Best part, we know it but crave it anyway.
The Countermand amendment.. http://citizeninitiatives.org/countermand_amendment.htm
Nice analogy's with Patton & Eisenhower, and accurate. BTW, what do you think of Mark Levin's call for a states convention ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
Well,his probably doesn't glow in the dark,either. Consider that visual stolen... It is very funny.
I agree with Levin on the convention of the States. We need to reduce the power of the Supreme Court. And either an outright defiance of the Court (and the ensuing constitutional crisis), or an amendment will be required. But I don't think that the net result of the convention of the states will be to really address the key things that are wrong, because amendments that address abortion, gay marriage, and judicial excess won't end up being ratified by the states. The proposals may be made, but the result will probably be non-ratification and status quo. In the end, structural changes won't cut it. What is required is fierce leadership that simply tears holes in the weeds that have grown up and chooses like-minded people to keep going. We got here because the people currently running the show did that. The problem isn't that somebody is running the show - that's always true. The problem is that they believe the wrong things.
Is that on her resume'? ---------------------- Hes wife hasn't sent me a copy of her resume. Nor, as far as I know, has she sent a copy to anybody else. She's perfectly happy where she is working on her and her husband's mutual mission and getting well paid for doing it.
Fine. What about Cruz? Cruz has built his entire public and political persona on fealty to the Constitution.
#7. To: TooConservative (#0)
That leaves Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
#8. To: TooConservative (#0)
Choose wisely
#9. To: TooConservative (#0)
Author: Weirddave
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#10. To: Justified (#5)
The only 2 guys that can fight gop elites and dims would be trump and Cruz.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
Cruz has built his entire public and political persona on fealty to the Constitution.
#12. To: Roscoe (#11)
#13. To: tomder55 (#12)
#14. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: tomder55 (#12)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
Not the same approval process. The Article V Convention of States would propose the amendments directly to the states. Congress would not get a vote.
#17. To: SOSO (#10)
The only 2 guys that can fight gop elites and dims would be trump and Cruz.
#18. To: Justified (#17)
#19. To: Justified (#5)
Ben would make a terrible president. We don't need a wimpy gop president. Ben is way over his head when it comes to politics. Nice smart guys get run over in politics.
#20. To: SOSO (#18)
Keep an eye on the polls on the matchups. they clearly say that you are wrong.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Wrong. Moral people lead better.
#22. To: tomder55 (#12)
#23. To: Roscoe (#22)
#24. To: tomder55 (#23)
The runaway convention fear I believe is a myth
#25. To: tomder55 (#16)
#26. To: Justified (#20)
IF this is true then America is done and voting is a waste of time.
#27. To: Roscoe (#24)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
(Edited)
#29. To: tomder55 (#27)
Before the Constitutional Convention there was the Annapolis Convention. . The delegates from the states participating concluded that a broader convention was needed to address the nation’s concerns.
#30. To: sneakypete (#6)
What is the alternative,King Joffrey (Trump)?
#31. To: sneakypete (#6)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Ben Carson is a good man. Would be a good President.
#33. To: sneakypete (#4)
Isn't that what we have had for the last several decades?
#34. To: buckeroo (#7)
And my dead dawg Scruffy.
Scruffy 2016
Why settle for a lesser dead dawg?
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
Ok: Trump/Cruz.
#36. To: hondo68 (#9)
Ted is never going to make it into the White House, he looks too much like a used car salesman.
#37. To: SOSO (#10)
Neither would beat Hillary. I would sooner take my chances with Rubio than cede the WH, and perhaps the Senate, to Hillary and the DRats.
#38. To: Justified (#17)
Only Crazy ass and corrupt dims "want" to vote for hillary.
#39. To: rlk (#30)
What is the alternative,King Joffrey (Trump)?
#40. To: TooConservative (#34)
Scruffy 2016
Why settle for a lesser dead dawg?
#41. To: rlk (#3)
His wife is highly paid to argue erasing the borders and merge Mexico and the U. S.
#42. To: tomder55 (#23)
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
#44. To: sneakypete (#37)
The only real difference between Rubio and Bubbette! is he doesn't strap HIS penis on.
#45. To: Stoner (#43)
#46. To: jeremiad (#41)
His wife is highly paid to argue erasing the borders and merge Mexico and the U. S.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]