What Republican could possibly run for President next?

I would like it to be us, but for us to remain as such we have to reposition ourselves geopolitically. This can't possibly sustain itself, as garnering multiple small enemies will one day become a new AXIS of its own, one in which Russia will not be on our side. Letting go of the failed M.E area is a victory for today and tomorrow.

As for answering the question, I believe now is the time for our allies Japan and Germany to take center stage. I believe we should've joined the AXIS the first time around to begin with. It was geopolitical folly then and folly now. Especially now with Japanese and German reform. Let Japan take its place in the Asian Sphere and the Asian nations may actually be able to get somewhere significantly in peace talks.(That's more doable than the lost cause of the Israeli-Palestinian Civil war)

Germany has positioned herself once again to lead Europe, with the shackles of WW2 and the Holocaust behind her she can protect Europe in earnest. Along with Britain.

Where there's a vacuum will be the area where there are no winners: Israel is as theocratic as Iran.(As we can see with their own admission that it's difficult to have a 'Jewish' State and a 'Democratic' one in the same time). Ideally, it's a draw and everyone is geopolitically irrelevant. But that won't happen, someone will end up winning that battle(which is like a battle for 10th place LOL).

Whoever does will be squashed by the German/Japan axis of Europe/Asia Russia can own her own borders and we to the West.

This is much better for combating terrorism as well as protecting our Western Hegemony. What we're doing now in interfering with every region is ensuring that there'll be a world rebellion. It's actually geopolitically incompetent.

 

That didnt work last time with Romney, the far right said he didnt have a chance in hell of winning the primary.

Christie only looks good because hes never been tested and never had aggressive players go up against him. Heres some facts.
The democrat leadership in NJ created Christie by giving him everything he wanted his first two years in office.
The senate democrat leader hates cops and was gleeful that christie was going for the pensions and benefits and taking all public worker colas in NJ. He not only allowed it he fought for christie to get it. Christie told police and fire officials to their face during his first campaign I promise I will not touch your pensions and he got their endorsements. He immediately did just the oppositie.
Christie was givin a pass. Christies record in NJ stinks, he told everyone that if he got the pension cuts he would wipe out the deficit, the deficit has grown, he has created no jobs. He took the homestead rebate from all homeowners in NJ and put that in the general fund which was a large tax hike to all homeowners. Then tried to give corporate and state tax cuts.

When he gets up against guys like Rand Paul and Cruz that are just as aggressive as he is and are armed with his record me thinks some of the gloss is going to come off of Crispy Chremes glaze. He is going to get pummeled like he never has as of yet.

Christie does not have a stellar record to carry him through of course thats my humble opinion

 

are conservatives really that ignorant and blindsided in their belief system, that they cant acknowledge that christie has by far the best shot at winning it?? thats just hilarious..
im pretty sure tho christie wont be the nominee, he seems to have at least some integrity (which obviously is a no-go for the republican nominee)...

 

Christie may have just won reelection by a wide margin. However, it was against a weak opponent who did not even get the backing of here own party. I think that he will get the nomination because he is seen as more moderate and thus electable than tea party backed people and will then get his size 64 pants beat off of him by Clinton. Even now, he does not have every body fooled. His record sucks. He got a left handed endorsement from the states larges news paper:

In endorsing Christie, the Star Ledger editorial board stated “The surprise is that his achievements have been only modest. He signed an important reform to contain pension and health costs, but it was mostly done before he arrived. He signed a useful tenure reform last year, but it is a weak version that still protects bad teachers with seniority.” And…

“His reorganization of the higher education system is promising, but untested. Balance that against his measurable failures, and you have to conclude he is much better at politics than he is at governing. The property tax burden has grown sharply on his watch. He is hostile to low-income families, raising their tax burden and sabotaging efforts to build affordable housing. He’s been a catastrophe on the environment, draining $1 billion from clean energy funds and calling a cease-fire in the state’s fight against climate change.” They go on to say……

“The governor’s claim to have fixed the state’s budget is fraudulent. New Jersey’s credit rating has dropped during his term, reflecting Wall Street’s judgment that he has dug the hole even deeper. He has no plan to finance transit projects and open space purchases now that he has nearly drained the dedicated funds he inherited from Gov. Jon Corzine.” They stated outright that the reason for the endorsement was only because, in their view, his challenger was worse. Source: http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/10/the_star-ledger_endorsement_ch.html


Even prior to that, the same newspaper, published another editorial with the tittle “ America’s Most Over Rated Governor” in which they also highlighted his failures including increased crime, police layoffs, the cancellation of a major and vital mass transit project , continuing high unemployment, and an underfunded state pension system. It concludes that he is a better politician than a governor and that his fame is based more on personality than performance Source: http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2013/09/post_13.html

And I have a lot more on him....issue by issue. He is good at given the appearance of being a moderate and will probably be able to continue that ruse in relation to the tea party people, but he's really not.

 

Even with that they could probably only win if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If someone like Elizabeth Warren was to capture the Democratic nomination they'd still probably not stand a chance. Hillary Clinton could beat a Tea Party Republican but she'd have a much harder time with a moderate Republican. It would depend upon how close to the "middle" the moderate Republican was and very few Republicans, including Chris Christy, are even close to being near the middle of the political spectrum.

Republican leadership has mentioned that they'd welcome Warren in the 2016 race because she's very liberal and progressive in her politics but Clinton is far more to the left and the last thing Republicans should want is someone closer to the middle than Clinton to run against. A centralist Republican might beat Clinton but they wouldn't beat someone closer to being a centralist from the Democratic party and as liberal and progressive as Warren is she's far closer to the center than Clinton.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-alive-talk-about-warren-not-clinton-in-2016/

Personally I believe Christy is too far to the "right" to be elected and I'm not sure the Republicans have a candidate that is closer to the center in American politics. The Republican Party as a whole has moved further and further to the "right" from the "center" of political discourse today to the point that they'll have a hard time finding anyone that could beat a Democrat in 2016. The Republicans have little if any chance of winning in 2016 because they don't seem to have anyone close enough to the center of politics in America where they will gain any advantage over the Democrats.

 

Not sure about that, it makes sense to us that know politics but the average voter goes with personality, and Christie has it big time,,Clinton,,,Blah,,old, tired. That's how Obama won, Reagan too.

 

Yes of course we landed on the moon, more than once.

The Earth goes through natural cycles. I'm surprised you still call it "global warming". Since the Earth has cooled each year for the last 13 years, leftists have begun calling it "man made climate change". And of course we all know that man cannot effect the climate. We can't even stop rain or cause rain. We've been industrialized for only around 200 years. How old is the earth? lol It's the silliest, most arrogant assertion that has ever been made; that man is responsible for destroying the environment. The biggest fraud ever perpetrated for profit.

 

The minute that Christy hugged Obama and campaigned for Obama, he destroyed any hope of ever being a Republican nominee for President. And what did it get him, the shore in NJ is still in ruins. Thanks Barry.

 

When complex and detailed situations are placed into a simplified and limited context it becomes very easy to make simplified and uninformed comments.

Mankind is obviously not solely responsible for this dramatic climate fluctuation, likely many factors are at play. Climate and the butterfly effect are extremely complicated pieces of a very large puzzle, and cannot logically be separated without losing the greater understanding. Adding pointless assertions does nothing but further complicate the issue...and is an obvious political ploy.

- - - Updated - - -

I was unaware Chris Christie campaigned for Barak Obama.....perhaps you might provide me with the details?

 

I'm not here to research for you. Try googling utube video of Obama's visit to NJ after "thoopersthormsthandy" (Al Gore). Christy touted Obama in the most glowing terms. That IS the definition of campaigning.

 

No....it is not the definition of campaigning, though it was obviously showing appreciation and sucking up to get help.

 

Not me. I won't presume to speak for you. Did other folks? Of course.

For you, and me, and everyone else? Of course.

Does everyone recognize that yet? Apparently, not.

 

Under socialism, the government NEVER has worked for the people.

 

REally? Not campaigning? What would you call advocating for a candidate during an election?

 

THAT would be campaigning.....but, it is not what Chris Christie did.

That's like saying because someone has a birthday party while an earthquake happened, they were celebrating the damage with funny hats.

 

We should have joined the Axis powers in the Second World War? I don't think I can get past that part.

 

That philosophy has been obsolete for a long, long time. I think Republicans just continue to say it out of force of habit.

 

Yes we should have, and we should align with Eurasia now. Eurasia and America have always been intertwined in terms of policy and only in dropping the ball has tensions risen(see: North Korea/Chinese threat).

By joining with Europe and Asia, America would dominate the West, with about half the resources we're currently using pursuing this "global security" strategy that half the world would refute, especially if a game changer occurs.

 

Your views on history and geopolitics are certainly unique.

 

They aren't merely my views, but U.S policy. Do you know how historic the Japanese-American alliance is? It goes back to 1854 specifically with Commodore Perry. The Monroe Doctrine? Our on and off relations with the Philippines?

America as a European-English nation is heavily vested within the Western Spheres. And mutual alliance a long with Western powers ruling over their specific interests would lead to long lasting prosperity.

 

There are no "fiscal conservatives" in the Tea Party movement which is an anti-tax movement and not a fiscal conservative movement.

The first rule, and only real rule, of fiscal conservatism is the PAY THE BILLS and the Tea Party Movement has never made any proposal that would balance the budget and pay the authorized expenditures of Congress.

 

Neither have the Democrats. In fact, Democrats universally opposed Obama's budget.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/04/11/democrats-push-back-against-obama-budget-as-republicans-take-advantage/

"Big Business" has become a meme which anyone can say when they don't understand fiscal policy. The fact is, we have a 17 trillion dollar national debt, a 600 billion dollar trade deficit, etc. Whenever the discussion of reform has come up, we're universally obstructed by two fronts. The Baby Boomers and the Far-Left.

We have to reform the system, and we have to do so in a way that's meaningful, that addresses the root of the problems instead of the symptoms and leaves us in a much better position. And if that means sacrificing today for tomorrow that's a sacrifice I'll make 10/10. Living for today is a good concept in daily life, it's political suicide and has led us to this moment.

 

No argument from me on these key points but I'm the only one that has made any proposal that would balance the US budget as well as reduce the size of the US government by 1/3rd in a responsible and pragmatic manner.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=306610

My proposal balances the US budget the first year of implementation. Of course I'm a card carrying Libertarian that realizes that the "Bills must be paid" and that eliminating government spending needs to be accomplished by addressing the problem as opposed to the symptoms of the problems is the only real solution.

For example welfare spending to mitigate the effects of poverty is not the problem. The problem is poverty that needs to be reduced which in turn reduces the expenditures necessar to mitigate the effects of poverty as fewer people are in poverty. It isn't the spending that's the problem it's the poverty that's the problem.

 

Interesting. I'm a 21 yr old Nationalist and I will admit my economic knowledge isn't where I want it to be. I'm studying for a Business major and Macroeconomics taught me about black holes in the market place and that's the current fault that I really wanted to address, but I feel like I'm gonna read your thread and other things to get a better understanding.

 

Please do and if you have any questions related to it then I'm sure to address them until you're satisfied with the answer. I've not actually found any "conservative" or "liberal" that had any valid complaints related to that proposal as I listened to everyone in developing it over several years. Some of the key points such as allowing a corporation to deduct dividend payments as a "cost of production" to eliminate double taxation were brought up and addressed in the thread. I also had to address the "inheritance tax" that I've addressed as "windfall income" that doesn't apply to just an inheritance but to any "once-in-a-lifetime" large income exemption for the person.