Republicans for Breakfast

[Sousuke 1,214]

I think most of the candidates are going to further expand the power of the executive branch furthering us down the road started by Bush.

If Rand Paul is nominated, I vote for him otherwise I'll probably not vote at all. I won't vote for Christie or Bush nor Clinton. Its not like the government will be any different whether Christie or Hillary are in office - they'll deliver the same way.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think most of the candidates are going to further expand the power of the executive branch furthering us down the road started by Bush.

If Rand Paul is nominated, I vote for him otherwise I'll probably not vote at all. I won't vote for Christie or Bush nor Clinton.

You can always write your candidate in. I don't see how Paul would be nominated. And if he was, I certainly don't see how he would stand a chance to win. And that is a good thing.

[BatmanUSA 105]

I don't think paul would get the nomination, and if he won I don't see how he would make a difference unless he uses Obamas playbook to ignore laws he doesn't like and/or to use executive orders to make new laws.. Christie or Clinton would just be SSDD, but I can see Hillary winning just because of the way this country is changing, and economically and for me personally, financially I did better under Clinton than either Bush.

I wonder if Hillary smokes cigars..??

Edited April 19, 2014 by BatmanUSA

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hillary will be our next president and she'll pleasantly surprise even the most staunchest of haters.

I predict she will select Elizabeth Warren as her VP. Either that, or she'll give her a prominent role in her cabinet.

ETA: She's a Clinton in name only. She will be a much different president than her husband.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Porterhouse

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hillary will be our next president and she'll pleasantly surprise even the most staunchest of haters.

I predict she will select Elizabeth Warren as her VP. Either that, or she'll give her a prominent role in her cabinet.

ETA: She's a Clinton in name only. She will be a much different president than her husband.

Yes, she'd need a strap-on to be like her husband.

[Pooky 3,355]

Yes, she'd need a strap-on to be like her husband.

Of the two of them, I'd have to disagree about her.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Hillary will be our next president and she'll pleasantly surprise even the most staunchest of haters.

I predict she will select Elizabeth Warren as her VP. Either that, or she'll give her a prominent role in her cabinet.

ETA: She's a Clinton in name only. She will be a much different president than her husband.

I doubt it. Elizabeth Warren's name will never be even considered for the ticket. She has to much integrity to be considered for the position. Not saying that Hillary Clinton has no integrity, but you don't win the nomination without lots of money and you don't get lots of money without being prepared to hold your nose.

[Póg mo 1,749]

I think most of the candidates are going to further expand the power of the executive branch furthering us down the road started by Bush.

If Rand Paul is nominated, I vote for him otherwise I'll probably not vote at all. I won't vote for Christie or Bush nor Clinton. Its not like the government will be any different whether Christie or Hillary are in office - they'll deliver the same way.

Always vote, the political establishment is quite happy to see low election turn outs and an indifferent populous.

[Peikko 1,575]

Always vote, the political establishment is quite happy to see low election turn outs and an indifferent populous.

Couldn't agree more. A registered vote is a registered vote that the politicians have to take notice of. In the UK spoiled ballots are counted and figure in the election results. It would be a complacent politician indeed who saw more spoiled ballots than votes for specific politicians as a mandate. Vote, do not stay home.

[Pooky 3,355]

I doubt it. Elizabeth Warren's name will never be even considered for the ticket. She has to much integrity to be considered for the position. Not saying that Hillary Clinton has no integrity, but you don't win the nomination without lots of money and you don't get lots of money without being prepared to hold your nose.

Too much integrity?

She's a proven liar, so there goes that theory.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll say this much: There is not a single person in Congress that hasn't stretched the truth - to put it mildly - and learned how to side-step a few landmines.

[UncleBeer 244]

I doubt it. Elizabeth Warren's name will never be even considered for the ticket. She has to much integrity to be considered for the position.

Riiiigght: Harvard's first "woman of color". Now that's integrity. You crack me up.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Too much integrity?

She's a proven liar, so there goes that theory.

Churchill fvckin lied as with every fvcking political figure since civilization. Hell, I'm sure you've told a few doozies in your time - should someone from your past tell your current employer about the time you lied to your mum about the cookies you stole from the cookie jar? A thief and a liar - oh my.

[Pooky 3,355]

Churchill fvckin lied as with every fvcking political figure since civilization.

Funny, but no-one claimed Winston had too much integrity.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Hillary will be our next president and she'll pleasantly surprise even the most staunchest of haters.

I predict she will select Elizabeth Warren as her VP. Either that, or she'll give her a prominent role in her cabinet.

ETA: She's a Clinton in name only. She will be a much different president than her husband.

Its funny that you mention the section in bold. I actually see him as being one of the better presidents and at least in the modern era the 1990s feel a bit like a golden age now.