Ted Cruz, so whaddya think?

[Denny Crane]

Yep. I don't worship old documents, be they the bible or the constitution or corporate bylaws. Historically interesting, yes, definitely. Rules according to which modern man must live life, without question or alteration? Sorry, no.

barfo

You're in the wrong country.

North Korea seems like a place you'd like.

 

[jlprk]

You got any evidence that North Korea doesn't abide by elastic documents as we do? Or are you just calling people names.

 

[Denny Crane]

You got any evidence that North Korea doesn't abide by elastic documents as we do? Or are you just calling people names.

I'm calling nobody names. Any document they have is a farce - that's the point.

 

[jlprk]

I don't know their system, but I bet they have one, complete with self-limitations on power.

From the outside, a country's powers always appear to have no self-limitations. From the inside, they probably always appear to have limitations on power.

I once saw a chart of Libya's system of tribes, and Khaddafi's power was more limited than you might think.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know their system, but I bet they have one, complete with self-limitations on power.

From the outside, a country's powers always appear to have no self-limitations. From the inside, they probably always appear to have limitations on power.

I once saw a chart of Libya's system of tribes, and Khaddafi's power was more limited than you might think.

I didn't say anything about Libya, did I?

 

[jlprk]

You said Barfo should move to North Korea because they don't have old documents limiting internal power. I doubted whether you really know that.

 

[Denny Crane]

You said Barfo should move to North Korea because they don't have old documents limiting internal power. I doubted whether you really know that.

I didn't say he should move there for those reasons.

North Korea surely doesn't "worship old documents." They write into their constitution whatever their Supreme Leader wants in there, at whim. Just like Barfo has indicated he prefers, and on numerous occasions.

 

[jlprk]

They write into their constitution whatever their Supreme Leader wants in there, at whim..

Can you offer anecdotes, much less knowledge of their system, or are you just making this up? As if I don't know.

 

[Denny Crane]

I know enough about their system to not have to make it up.

They don't have legitimate elections, for example. Elections are only required by "old documents" here.

It's also clear that if barfo had his way, something like North Korea would be the result.

 

[jlprk]

Legitimate, how? Like when Israel and Ukraine wouldn't allow foreign observers into their elections?

Do you really think that 95+% of North Koreans didn't vote for Kim?

North Korea is probably like the U.S., where people vote for whom the media tells them about, and ignore candidates the media ignores. Powers-that-be need to control only the media, not the elections.

 

[Denny Crane]

Legitimate, how? Like when Israel and Ukraine wouldn't allow foreign observers into their elections?

Do you really think that 95+% of North Koreans didn't vote for Kim?

North Korea is probably like the U.S., where people vote for whom the media tells them about, and ignore candidates the media ignores. Powers-that-be need to control only the media, not the elections.

I think there was no opposition to Kim. If there were, they'd have been shot.

 

[jlprk]

You think = you're making it up, as I previously guessed.

 

[Denny Crane]

You think = you're making it up, as I previously guessed.

You guess about everything, right?

I know the leaders of N. Korea run unopposed. No guessing involved.

 

[jlprk]

You know their legal system? Have you ever lost a case there?

 

[Denny Crane]

You're not at all refuting what I've written.

 

[jlprk]

This is North Korea. I don't have to answer to your old documents.

Besides, then I'd have to read whatever you wrote, instead of abusing you without reading the thread.

 

[Denny Crane]

Explains a lot.

 

[jlprk]

You apparently have passed the bar, but have no litigation experience, based upon your occupation motto. Is your North Korea legal system knowledge just as deep?

 

[Denny Crane]

"Are we there yet?"

That's what you sound like.

 

[jlprk]

Aw Dad, you're no fun to kick around. Okay, I'll read my Little Lulu and let you drive.

 

[speeds]

Mark Everson also filed with the FEC. Somebody tell me about that guy.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...se-sometimes-random-people-run-for-president/

Mark Everson enters the 2016 race, because sometimes random people run for president

 

[speeds]

Ok, so if we're making a bracket, he's a play-in.

Who's actually going to get the nomination? Is there a top-3?

From here it feels like Christie, Bush, and ?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think Christie isn't a factor at all.

It looks to me like 3 candidates will get serious consideration. Bush, Walker, and Paul.

 

[speeds]

I guess I thought Christie since he's been around these parts lately talking up pipelines and such.

What's Scott Walker's deal?

Edit: ok, a little of my own Google University work shows he is an unspectacular candidate who was unpopular in his own state.

So it's Bush/Clinton again. Wonderful.

 

[Denny Crane]

Walker is governor of Wisconsin. He wins elections in the teeth of the strength of democratic party onslaughts to defeat him.

He's most famous for signing a bill that eliminates public unions' collective bargaining power in Wisconsin. Following that, the democrats spent vast sums of money and poured resources from out of the state into a failed recall election. He then won re-election.

Wisconsin is the state that kept electing the socialist Russ Feingold to the senate.

If republicans want to win, they need to nominate a governor who can be painted a success, IMO.

 

[speeds]

What happened to Rubio? I thought he was the next big thing? Too soon?

 

[Denny Crane]

What happened to Rubio? I thought he was the next big thing? Too soon?

Rubio is currently rated high among oddsmakers.

He's young and bright but I've not seen him to be much of a leader. I think when he's exposed to bright lights and cameras, he won't look ready (yet).

Plus, it is really rare that Senators are elected president. Obama was one of 2 or 3 in history.

The reason I put Paul, a senator, in the list I made is that he's actually engaging hispanics, youth, the black community, etc. Reaching beyond the republican voting blocs. if he can make it past the primaries, he has a real shot to score a lot of voters who'd normally blindly vote D.

 

[Denny Crane]

Another Paul video, courtesy of C-SPAN:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324817-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-remarks-bowie-state-university

 

[MarAzul]

I think Bush is at the top of the polls today because many Republicans and most independents want a candidate nearly like a Democrat. That would be Bush and Christie.
I don't have anything against Cruz, but he is most unlike the characteristic that makes Bush and Christie what they are, marginally conservative, almost progressives. It will be difficult for Cruz because he shows himself to be harder than he actual is.

Walker has walked the walk, a Conservative and on my favorite list although, I think he might be a bit young and vulnerable to attack by the liberal hounds.

Rubio, also may not be ready although I think he has the most charisma which seems to be the prime commodity required these days. But I think he may have ticked off too many conservatives with his immigration stance, then back water.

Rand Paul is the top of my favorite list because of his conservative stances and his librarian bent. Although he did bother me when he advocated the US go to town on ISIS! The time is not right for that crap, but he still is my top prospect. Can he Win? uh, I don't know, charisma is a bit short, but I think he will draw the most independents and Hispanics.

Then we have Romney, my real first choice. First because I think we need a real Capitalist in charge to get this nation back to work and back under control in the fiscal sense. But I am in the minority here and damned if I know why.

So Rand Paul is where I look.

However, I will vote for any of the above and others unnamed, before Clinton. I have voted for the dem twice, Kennedy because I never thought well of Eisenhower and I thought Nixon was a con man. Then I voted for Bill Clinton, bad mistake, just because I did not like Bush's tendency to come across like a preacher. The Lady Clinton proved without a shadow of doubt, she is not capable of being commander in chief. She bungled Benghazi badly then trotted out the bull shit about a video to cover for the fuck up. Looked us right in the face and lied, just like her cohort (Bill) had, with the same phony sincerity. I can't imagine anyone that ever served in the military would vote for her. The trading of bad dudes for a deserter will not help her case.