Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 97

Thread: Lindsey Graham Mulling White House Run

  1. #31
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    No, SC voters don't want religious people as much as they want warmongers. They (wrongly) think that if we fight a hundred wars Obummer will re-open their shuttered bases and the State won't be saturated in poverty anymore.
    Mike Huckabee almost beat McCain in the 2008 primary, and that was being an unknown at the time really. He campaigned hard, and was trying to win it, and came pretty close. I would imagine with his name recognition now to the GOP base, and the 2008 numbers behind him, he would take SC. And, there is nothing that I have seen of him that would mean the SC voters wouldn't get what you said they want as well.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    Mike Huckabee almost beat McCain in the 2008 primary, and that was being an unknown at the time really. He campaigned hard, and was trying to win it, and came pretty close. I would imagine with his name recognition now to the GOP base, and the 2008 numbers behind him, he would take SC. And, there is nothing that I have seen of him that would mean the SC voters wouldn't get what you said they want as well.
    aaaand Newt won in 2012 campaigning (in SC specifically) on blowing the whole planet to smithereens. Never saw much of that out and about, but I was in SC in 2012 so I saw it first hand.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    So the list of hopefuls is now possibly: (in no particular order)

    Lindsey Graham
    Mitt Romney
    Jeb Bush
    Ben Carson
    Paul Ryan
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    John McCain?
    John Bolton
    Michele Bachmann
    Hermann Cain
    Chris Christie
    Peter King
    Rick Santorum
    Mike Huckabee
    Bobby Jindal


    Yep...that GOP is coming around. Rick Perry left off intentionally. I cant see him running with the legal issues he has going on.
    Last edited by Carlybee; 10-03-2014 at 11:46 PM.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    So the list of hopefuls is now possibly: (in no particular order)

    Lindsey Graham
    Mitt Romney
    Jeb Bush
    Ben Carson
    Paul Ryan
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    John McCain?
    John Bolton
    Michele Bachmann
    Hermann Cain
    Chris Christie
    Peter King
    Rick Santorum
    Mike Huckabee
    Bobby Jindal
    It's sad isn't it? 320 million people or so in the U.S. and this is the list we have to choose from to lead us? I'm really losing respect for the office of the President.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    It's sad isn't it? 320 million people or so in the U.S. and this is the list we have to choose from to lead us? I'm really losing respect for the office of the President.
    my loss is more for the electorate.

  8. #36
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    aaaand Newt won in 2012 campaigning (in SC specifically) on blowing the whole planet to smithereens. Never saw much of that out and about, but I was in SC in 2012 so I saw it first hand.
    Yeah, McCain won it in 2008 with the "bomb bomb bomb Iran" thing probably (was that in the primary, or the general?). I just don't see anything from Huckabee that would make him not be in the running for it. Though, Newt's numbers in 2012 were incredibly high compared to the 2008 numbers in general.
    In 2008, McCain won it with 147,000 votes. Huckabee 2nd with 132,000 votes.
    In 2012, Newt won it with 244,000 votes. Romney 2nd with 168,000 votes.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    So the list of hopefuls is now possibly: (in no particular order)

    Lindsey Graham
    Mitt Romney
    Jeb Bush
    Ben Carson
    Paul Ryan
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    John McCain?
    John Bolton
    Michele Bachmann
    Hermann Cain
    Chris Christie
    Peter King
    Rick Santorum
    Mike Huckabee
    Bobby Jindal


    Yep...that GOP is coming around. Rick Perry left off intentionally. I cant see him running with the legal issues he has going on.
    Perry would probably win if he banned flights from Africa.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    So the list of hopefuls is now possibly: (in no particular order)

    Lindsey Graham
    Mitt Romney
    Jeb Bush
    Ben Carson
    Paul Ryan
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    John McCain?
    John Bolton
    Michele Bachmann
    Hermann Cain
    Chris Christie
    Peter King
    Rick Santorum
    Mike Huckabee
    Bobby Jindal
    Ron Paul

    Yep...that GOP is coming around. Rick Perry left off intentionally. I cant see him running with the legal issues he has going on.
    Fixed.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I'm really losing respect for the office of the President.
    With the track record of Presidents we've had since the Constitution was instituted...

    I'm not sure if there was ever really any respect to be found in the office of President.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    No, SC voters don't want religious people as much as they want warmongers. They (wrongly) think that if we fight a hundred wars Obummer will re-open their shuttered bases and the State won't be saturated in poverty anymore.
    There is a lot of this. In Kentucky many Republicans are more independent minded (and so are the Democrats). In South Carolina they just accept whatever FOX News tells them. For instance, they know Obamacare is bad, but only because it has the word "Obama" in it. Likewise, when Bill O'Reilly tells them that Obama is abandoning America's role in the world, they believe it and want Obama to be a "strong leader."
    Stop believing stupid things



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Romney and McCain won't run again. Once you win the primary, that's your shot. That's why you never saw Bob Dole or John Kerry again either.
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    I think I know what he is up to here....


    If he runs hard then drops out after losing IA/NH but just before the SC primary, he can give all of his weight to Jeb thus helping Jeb win SC and blocking Rand from taking it. That's my guess.
    A HA! And then his warmongering lesbo girlfriend Hillary will be guaranteed the White House and Lindsey can sleep on the floor of the Lincoln bedroom!

    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    my loss is more for the electorate.
    Exactly. In the end, we lose and this list just further paints the GOP as already out-of-touch morons that are just crawling on top of one another to talk about how much they're just opposite the President without offering anything substantive in response.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    While libertarians fight amongst themselves over having a single candidate, the neoconservatives love to stack the deck and fill the stage.
    ^This. That said I hope this moron runs. I'd love to see Rand wipe the floor with him on foreign policy. "Hey Lindsey. You want to rethink that whole arm the rebels in Syria strategy now that we know the rebels we armed sold an American journalist to be beheaded?"
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    ^This. That said I hope this moron runs. I'd love to see Rand wipe the floor with him on foreign policy. "Hey Lindsey. You want to rethink that whole arm the rebels in Syria strategy now that we know the rebels we armed sold an American journalist to be beheaded?"
    I don't think that between the two of them you'd get any kind of debate on foreign policy beyond the old war on terrorism gag. Seriously. Foreign policy is more than that. Way more. It's really annoying that none of these politicians will discuss foreign policy out of context of conflict in the middle east. And this is where I'd agree with Gunny Freedom with regard to the electorate. They don't force any kind of broader debate by asking anything of these representatives with regard to foreign policy beyond the terrorvision that they're fed by media 24/7. So when it's all said and done, the people will get what they ask for. Which would be absolutely nothing save more of the same. Is unfortunate given the fact that the country really does need leadership across the geo-political board. It is lacking at the moment. The only way that they'll get that kind of leadership is if prospective representatives are forced out of the luxury of their political comfort zones and put into a position where they are expected to answer questions outside of the media driven narrative that is 24/7 war incorporated. "We ask, you decide" and all of that happy nonsense.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-04-2014 at 01:53 PM.

  19. #46
    Lindsey Graham? Really? No... really?!

    The world goes more deeply surreal every day.

    Why not just run a Stalin/Mao ticket?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    ^This. That said I hope this moron runs. I'd love to see Rand wipe the floor with him on foreign policy. "Hey Lindsey. You want to rethink that whole arm the rebels in Syria strategy now that we know the rebels we armed sold an American journalist to be beheaded?"
    Well, one things for sure, if Rand keeps on going the way he is going, then he won't be relegated to just 30 seconds worth of time over a 2 hour debate.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    ^This. That said I hope this moron runs. I'd love to see Rand wipe the floor with him on foreign policy. "Hey Lindsey. You want to rethink that whole arm the rebels in Syria strategy now that we know the rebels we armed sold an American journalist to be beheaded?"
    You forget that the debate moderators can just not call on Rand. They can ask the foreign policy questions to the hawks.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    You forget that the debate moderators can just not call on Rand. They can ask the foreign policy questions to the hawks.
    Too much popular support, they wouldn't get away with it like they did with Ron. Too many zombies would be up in arms that 'the guy they like' didn't get to speak. Unlike Ron, who only had a tiny base of support, the much broader appeal of Rand would make the 'ignore' strategy backfire badly.

    Remember how pissed we were when they denied Ron? It made us double down on support. Our little 5%-7% meant that doubling down on our support didn't matter. Rand will be walking onto the stage with maybe only 25% first choice but close to 50% second choice. Ignore him and a lot of that 50% will switch to 'first choice.'

    The can try the 'ignore him' routine with Rand like they did with Ron, but if they do it will backfire and strengthen Rand's support, because he already has 10-fold the GOP base support that Ron had.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    ^This. That said I hope this moron runs. I'd love to see Rand wipe the floor with him on foreign policy. "Hey Lindsey. You want to rethink that whole arm the rebels in Syria strategy now that we know the rebels we armed sold an American journalist to be beheaded?"
    The problem is that Lindsey's entrance into the race wouldn't be about messaging or philosophy or policy as much as it would be about strategically affecting the outcome of the SC primary and thus potentially the nominee.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  25. #51
    if this happens i'll be pulling for the fence-jumpers.

    edit: he's not even listed among the potential candidates in the betting markets http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...ican-candidate
    Last edited by surf; 10-04-2014 at 03:56 PM.
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions 2019 MLS Cup Champions 2022 CONCACAF Champions League - and the [un]official football club of RPF

    just a libertarian - no caucus

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I don't think that between the two of them you'd get any kind of debate on foreign policy beyond the old war on terrorism gag. Seriously. Foreign policy is more than that. Way more. It's really annoying that none of these politicians will discuss foreign policy out of context of conflict in the middle east. And this is where I'd agree with Gunny Freedom with regard to the electorate. They don't force any kind of broader debate by asking anything of these representatives with regard to foreign policy beyond the terrorvision that they're fed by media 24/7. So when it's all said and done, the people will get what they ask for. Which would be absolutely nothing save more of the same. Is unfortunate given the fact that the country really does need leadership across the geo-political board. It is lacking at the moment. The only way that they'll get that kind of leadership is if prospective representatives are forced out of the luxury of their political comfort zones and put into a position where they are expected to answer questions outside of the media driven narrative that is 24/7 war incorporated. "We ask, you decide" and all of that happy nonsense.
    You are right- just look at RPFs' "Foreign Policy" section:


  27. #53
    I can't imagine Graham having broad based support. He comes off as unlikeable to me but the zombies may like him. Ultimately whomever the GOP wants to get the nomination is who will get it.

  28. #54
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Too much popular support, they wouldn't get away with it like they did with Ron. Too many zombies would be up in arms that 'the guy they like' didn't get to speak. Unlike Ron, who only had a tiny base of support, the much broader appeal of Rand would make the 'ignore' strategy backfire badly.

    Remember how pissed we were when they denied Ron? It made us double down on support. Our little 5%-7% meant that doubling down on our support didn't matter. Rand will be walking onto the stage with maybe only 25% first choice but close to 50% second choice. Ignore him and a lot of that 50% will switch to 'first choice.'

    The can try the 'ignore him' routine with Rand like they did with Ron, but if they do it will backfire and strengthen Rand's support, because he already has 10-fold the GOP base support that Ron had.
    They can/will ignore him if they want. Just like they have done for multiple Republican and Democrat candidates in debates over the years (Mike Gravel comes to mind), and few of the typical brainwashed GOP voters will care. They don't think, they do as instructed.
    When the attack ads start against Rand in the southern states, I think he will lose most of those, just based on the history of those voters and which Republican candidates have/haven't done well in them in the past.

    Which is why I have said I think he needs a path to the White House and GOP nomination outside of South Carolina, Iowa, and Florida. If he wins New Hampshire, that's a start. I guess Maine would be next, but I'm not sure where he would go after that.

  29. #55
    The hawkish Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says he is thinking about running for president in 2016.


    Please Santa, I promise to be good if you give me this one gift.

    Imagine how great Rand will look standing next to Lindsey on the debate stage.

    And it will add so much more entertainment to the campaign/debate season.




  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    They can/will ignore him if they want. Just like they have done for multiple Republican and Democrat candidates in debates over the years (Mike Gravel comes to mind), and few of the typical brainwashed GOP voters will care. They don't think, they do as instructed.
    When the attack ads start against Rand in the southern states, I think he will lose most of those, just based on the history of those voters and which Republican candidates have/haven't done well in them in the past.

    Which is why I have said I think he needs a path to the White House and GOP nomination outside of South Carolina, Iowa, and Florida. If he wins New Hampshire, that's a start. I guess Maine would be next, but I'm not sure where he would go after that.
    You...really think Mike Gravel had anywhere near the kind of support Rand has? He was the Dems version of Ron Paul, and he had LESS support than Ron Paul.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    You...really think Mike Gravel had anywhere near the kind of support Rand has? He was the Dems version of Ron Paul, and he had LESS support than Ron Paul.
    No, but that was just an example of them ignoring people, and him calling them out on it and nobody caring. They were promoting Barack, Hillary, and John (Edwards) at the time.

    And if Rand supposedly has 10-fold the GOP base support Ron had though, I don't think he would be polling at 7% in Iowa (in any poll), or placing behind someone like Rick Santorum in the Value Voters Summit straw poll.

    The media can, and will, ignore candidates as they see fit. They will also use some candidates to simply help their ratings.

    And on this, I don't see Lindsey Graham endorsing someone else in South Carolina as causing Rand to lose the state. I don't see Rand winning South Carolina, with/without Lindsey Graham.
    Last edited by jjdoyle; 10-04-2014 at 09:15 PM.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    No, but that was just an example of them ignoring people, and him calling them out on it and nobody caring. They were promoting Barack, Hillary, and John (Edwards) at the time.

    And if Rand supposedly has 10-fold the GOP base support Ron had though, I don't think he would be polling at 7% in Iowa (in any poll), or placing behind someone like Rick Santorum in the Value Voters Summit straw poll.

    The media can, and will, ignore candidates as they see fit. They will also use some candidates to simply help their ratings.

    And on this, I don't see Lindsey Graham endorsing someone else in South Carolina as causing Rand to lose the state. I don't see Rand winning South Carolina, with/without Lindsey Graham.
    Well then, by offering the counterexample of Mike Gravel, knowing that he was less popular than Ron, you weren't paying attention to my original argument. Also, by stating that Rand does not have tenfold the support from the GOP Base that Ron had, it demonstrates to me that you are not actively engaging Republicans out in the real world, where the difference would be blatant and obvious.

  34. #59
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well then, by offering the counterexample of Mike Gravel, knowing that he was less popular than Ron, you weren't paying attention to my original argument. Also, by stating that Rand does not have tenfold the support from the GOP Base that Ron had, it demonstrates to me that you are not actively engaging Republicans out in the real world, where the difference would be blatant and obvious.
    The Republicans I know, the deep South Republicans, do not care for Rand. They will not vote for Rand, and he will only, always, be their "2nd" choice. If that. I'm not trying, or hoping, for a job with Rand in 2016. I state what I see, from the Republicans I know and interact with. Rand has no chance at South Carolina, from what I see and know.
    Michele Bachmann was said to be "top tier" at one point, and then ignored in debates and came off as annoying when she tried to pipe in on points, repeatedly. Who cared? Her base of supporters that went to Rick Santorum in Iowa? Doubt it.

    My point, again, is the media will promote and ignore candidates as they are instructed:
    http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/in...--the-top-tier

    Rand can be ignored, just as he ignores requests to do interviews with certain people now. And then, the shoe will fit and they can play that card if called out on it. "We invited Senator Paul on multiple times, and he turned down those requests."

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    The Republicans I know, the deep South Republicans, do not care for Rand. They will not vote for Rand, and he will only, always, be their "2nd" choice. If that. I'm not trying, or hoping, for a job with Rand in 2016. I state what I see, from the Republicans I know and interact with. Rand has no chance at South Carolina, from what I see and know.
    Michele Bachmann was said to be "top tier" at one point, and then ignored in debates and came off as annoying when she tried to pipe in on points, repeatedly. Who cared? Her base of supporters that went to Rick Santorum in Iowa? Doubt it.

    My point, again, is the media will promote and ignore candidates as they are instructed:
    http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/in...--the-top-tier

    Rand can be ignored, just as he ignores requests to do interviews with certain people now. And then, the shoe will fit and they can play that card if called out on it. "We invited Senator Paul on multiple times, and he turned down those requests."
    In North Carolina, Rand Paul is quite popular with mainstream Republican activists across the board, the ones who attend monthly County and District GOP meetings, and the conventions, as well as the Republican activists who interface with the Municipal Boards, County Commissions, and the State Legislature.

    Where exactly are you meeting these Republicans who don't like Rand Paul?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Jim Webb Mulling Independent Run for the White House
    By TaftFan in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-20-2015, 03:36 PM
  2. Sen. Lindsey Graham Is The White House's Favorite Republican
    By Brian4Liberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-25-2015, 10:50 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 06:39 PM
  4. Report: Paul Ryan mulling White House bid
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 12:36 PM
  5. Lindsey Graham threatens white house with terrorist attack
    By risk_reward in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-04-2010, 02:32 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •