Rand Paul/Chris Christie 2016

Any ticket with Christie on it needs to have Christie running for president. Running him as VP would be a bonehead move.

 

Women won't vote for him (too fat), conservatives won't vote for him (RINO), and all the left-wing liars in this thread talking about "cross over appeal" are just BS'ing. Their goal for a long time has been to pick the candidate most likely to offer no contrast whatsoever to their Democrat opponent, and it's been working very well.

 

I don't think it has a chance in hell. For one, Christie believes government has a large role to play. Paul believes the government has no role to play and is an idiot.

 

A strawman and then an ad-hominem.

The left really has nothing of substance to add to any discussion, and should not be taken seriously.

 

It seems the answer to ALL Republican issues is to throw another pretty-faced airhead at those issues. I lump Rubio in with the Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell crowd insofar as ideas are concerned.

 

I agree. As an Inde, I like some of the things Christie brings to the table, no pun intended. Rand is not appealing in any way, at all and I would vote against a ticket made up of the two. I seriously doubt you would see two Repubs that are so different on the same ticket so the whole idea is very unlikely.

 

An "inde" who would vote Democrat every time, no matter what. Who cares if you don't vote for Rand?

 

You should know by now that strawmen and ad-hominems are the keys to winning or losing elections. Issues and ideas don't mean squat. But to clarify, Paul is a minimum government libertarian so the strawman is only in your head. As for the ad-hominem, yes, "idiot" is one.

 

How convenient for the left. Thanks for being honest about your approach to politics.

Your claim is that "Paul believes the government has no role to play", which is completely false. Feel free to post one single quote from Rand where he said, or even implied, that "Government has no role to play", or admit you were just making up nonsense.

No (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Displaying that ignorance of yours that you are so proud of once again I see.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why is he in the Republican Party, seems dishonest to me, hmmmm.

 

Honesty is always the best policy, don't you agree? And you just lived through Romney's campaign so you know I am just being honest.

The man is a proud Libertarian. What more needs to be said?

 

Christie is a leftist, mainstream Republican. Paul on the other hand is a libertarian - oil and water.

The Republican leadership would love to crush Paul and flush libertarianism right down the crapper. The Republicans couldn't care less about constraining government.

We have one political party in this country - The Big Government Party. Republicans on one side of the room, dems on the other, and the pile of cash that is the public treasury in the middle. The evening news is nothing more than the food fight that is the two sides fighting over the loot they're stealing.

Interlopers and fools preaching nonsense like freedom, constitutionally limited government, diffused power, peaceful foreign policy, etc, are not welcome.

 

Christie represents a faction getting squeezed. Every sane Repub now lives in fear of some looney Tea Partyers running a challenger against them....and not only seeing their own careers ended, but a "safe" seat for the GOP lose due to the likes of a Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin, etc.

And what does Christie draw in a General Election...that Mitt Romney didn't? What "extra" does he offer....or what does he eschew that Romney had???

- - - Updated - - -

WHEN ...not "if"....Rand starts to backpedal on his calls for less aid to Israel (i.e. his and his Dad's previous positions)....to try to win Religious Righty votes in the 2016 Primaries...

why will the label of "flip-flopper" and the accusation of "pandering" not be in line and appropriate?

 

I disagree. Christie's weight is really less relevant from a marketing angle than people want to make it. Realistically, it's more of a problem from a health standpoint if he actually does get elected because of the stress of the job. Look at how grey Obama got in just 4 years time. But Christie's got charisma in spades. And charisma trumps a multitude of physical flaws. It's why you can be fat or ugly and still be a sex symbol. Mick Jagger is hideous and ancient, and he still wets panties. And while I wouldn't necessarily give the late Biggie Smalls the title of sex symbol, the man had a reputation for being very smooth with the ladies. In fact, his size only added to his appeal because it gave him presence. This is the same thing I've always seen in Christie. With his size and his attitude, he comes across like a mob boss to me. People dig that.

As for actual politics, it's true that some Republicans probably consider him a RINO and won't vote for him, but I think that is a dire partisan mistake. I actually respect the fact that he stands by his own convictions rather than blindly towing the party line. Because he never does it from a position of weakness or acquiescence. It's always from a position of power and choice. A position of doing what he thinks is right regardless of how it will be received. Sort of like what Joe Lieberman used to be to the Democrats before he left. I respect that. Because you always know where you stand with someone like that. And after the most opaque administration in U.S. history with Obama, it would be nice to have something that straight-forward.

I think moderates and independents would like Christie quite a bit, and he'd do fairly well with them. Which is the most important part. Those swing voters in the middle. They essentially decide the election. A handful of Dems might vote for him as well, but realistically, it's kind of pointless to try to reach too far across the aisle and "steal" votes from the other party anyway. How often does that even work? I mean, I'm a registered Republican at this point and even if I don't end up voting for the Republican candidate, I'm still not going to vote for the Democrat just because he represents even less of what I believe in than the guy representing my own party.

 

Rand Paul is too much of an extremist; If Chris Christie was the Presidential nominee, he might stand a chance of getting elected; he gives the impression that he can forge a working partnership with the democrats and actually get something done.

 

Obama is barred by the constitution from running again. You onlyi get two terms in office.

 

It's possible, but I can see a lot of women not voting for him simply because his weight is a turn off to them. Stupid reason to not vote for somebody, but it's been an issue ever since women started voting. Many of them vote for the best looking candidate.

Romney won independents and he still lost the election. The Republicans need someone who can fire up the base. Running moderate Republicans hasn't worked, and it will work less and less the more dire the situation becomes in the country. The Republicans need to become the party that offers a stark contrast to the socialist utopia that Democrats are currently offering, otherwise people will not see a real benefit to one side winning over the other.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama and his supporters don't care about the Constitution. The ends justify the means.

 

Maybe you hope thats what will happen, but its not going to change that fact that he'll never occupy the White House as Comander In Chief.

 

Too bad. There's a lot of damage to heal after people like you voted for someone because they wanted to prove how un-racist they were.

 

I'd be willing to vote for Christie. He's doing a fine job as governor of my state and he seems to be less of a pawn than 90% of the Republican party.

He seems to speak to you, not at you, a gift Obama has and Christie mastered.

 

Wrong. If Chrispy Cream becomes president Mayor Bloomberg of New York would have him impeached for his obesity.

 

Republican landslide win. But the extremist will not go for it. So Hillary will cake walk it.

 

What about a different idea? Red and blue seperate, voting only from their own party....
http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/294647-reps-dems-we-want-divorce.html

 

Horse hockey. They vote for the one who seems most like a real man and who understands what women care about. That's why Mittens lost.

There is nothing socalistic or utopian about what Obama has been doing. What the republicons are bringing to the table is an express line to a fascist dystopia in which corporations have more rights than actual people.

So, yeah, emphasize that difference.

Don't complain to me about the bullet hole in your foot.

 

So looks aren't included in a woman's perception of what "real man" seems like?

He lost because of many different factors. Your binary thinking and inability to understand complex issues is a common hindrance, it appears.

[video=youtube;LimTULVuawk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LimTULVuawk[/video]

Fascist? Who is trying to ban guns and large sodas, again? Certainly not Republicans.