Many Republican Presidential Possibilities Are Totally Delusional, And Need To Drop Out Or Not Enter, As They Are Harming The GOP!

Face the facts: Many of the Republican Presidential possibilities are totally delusional, and have no chance to be the Republican nominee or President of the United States!

They need to get out of the race, or not enter, as they are harming the GOP, and making the party the laughing stock of the nation and of the party’s history!

Those announced candidates who need to drop out are: Carly Fiorina and Dr. Benjamin Carson, who together have ZERO government experience, and we are not about to elect a President who has no concept of government, other than what he or she reads in the newspapers or sees on cable. Being a corporate leader or a medical doctor, with no other experience, is disqualifying on its head!

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has gone out of his way to divide the American people and promote hate in the name of religion, and has no chance to win a national election.

The following unannounced possible Presidential candidates also need to decide NOT to enter the race:

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who have governed their states in a horrific and corrupt manner, undermining the needs of the population of their states, with Perry indicted and Christie facing the threat of an indictment.

Businessman Donald Trump, who has no ability to govern, again having never served in government, and whose mouth gets him into trouble daily.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who also offers nothing positive to the race except his own nuttiness and divisiveness, and has zero chance to be the nominee.

United States Senators may be loony and extreme, but they do less harm than Governors who have failed their state populations and led corrupt governments, as is the case with Jindal, Christie and Perry.

So who is left in the race who seems legitimate to run, although most will never win a national election?

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; Senator Ted Cruz of Texas; Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Ohio Governor John Kasich; and for good measure although it seems he will not run, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman!

This makes for a reasonable number of candidates as seven to eight who have serious potential, and elimination of eight others who are going nowhere in the Presidential race, and should stop wasting our time.

And anyone else, such as Indiana Governor Mike Pence and former New York Governor George Pataki–just forget it! Do not waste our time and yours!

16 comments on “Many Republican Presidential Possibilities Are Totally Delusional, And Need To Drop Out Or Not Enter, As They Are Harming The GOP!

  1. Max May 20, 2015 2:35 pm

    An argument can be made that we have had for decades , in the various branches of government, people who have had not ZERO but 100% government experience. People who never held a private sector job in their lives and yet have run our lives through government. And what have we received in exchange from those “experienced” people, of both parties I may add. Trillions of dollars in public debt that is over 100% of our GDP, unfunded liabilities of over $100 trillion, massive bureaucratic red tape and agencies on both state and federal level that overwhelm our small and middle size businesses, the same businesses that employ the majority of Americans, and stagnant economic growth and opportunity. Not much to show for from our “experienced” politicians.

  2. Ronald May 20, 2015 3:59 pm

    A very intelligent statement,. Max! BUT we have never had a non political type run for President, other than Wendell Willkie (Republican) in 1940 and Ross Perot (third party) in 1992 and 1996.

    And I do NOT see Carson or Fiorina as Presidential material, and when one looks at the corruption of the corporate world, I DO NOT want a corporate type in the White House!

  3. Max May 20, 2015 4:08 pm

    If I recall, Abe Lincoln hardly had any government experience, just a few years as state representative in the State and US House of Representatives. I mean for the most part, his livelihood was not tied at all to government before becoming President. He was not a career politician but a lawyer who worked as a lawyer and also was involved in politics. As for Carson, I don’t see him coming from the corporate world. And if you ask me, I don’t find the corporate world more corrupt than the political world, as a matter of fact their collusion is the problem really. But the majority of small and middle size American corporations are NOT in bed with politicians. They are just trying to survive and succeed.

  4. Ronald May 20, 2015 5:03 pm

    Max, you are correct about Lincoln, and Wilson only had two years as Governor of New Jersey, but every nominee has had SOME experience in government, including one four year term as Governor for Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

    Having no political experience in government is the issue, Even a few years gives one a leg up!

  5. Max May 21, 2015 9:55 am

    I guess I am just plain tired of “career politicians”. They inevitably live in a bubble, and the “Beltway Bubble” is the worse. There must be someway to return to the “citizen politician” like before when entering into public office was taken as a service and for a limited time. Term limits would be a start , but that amendment will never arise from DC.

  6. Ronald May 21, 2015 10:05 am

    Max, you may be “tired” of career politicians, but look at the bank corruption just revealed, and the fact that career business people are just as much out of touch with reality of the normal people like us.
    They live in a “bubble” as well!

    There will never be term limits because it would require a constitutional amendment, two thirds of each house of Congress, and you and I know that will NOT happen!

  7. Max May 21, 2015 10:53 am

    Well there is Art. 5 of the Constitution that also allows a Convention of the States. Under Article 5 of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation’s founding document. This was specifically put there by Mason on the last day of the Convention because he was worried that if the Federal government were left to itself the power to call for an amendment that would never happen if it meant limiting its power. So this clause was added, which by-passes Congress since Article 5 says that Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments” when requested by enough states thus Congress only has the ministerial obligation, “shall” , to call a convention. So far I believe State legislatures have called for a Constitutional Convention. So who knows, something might happen after all.

  8. Ronald May 21, 2015 11:54 am

    You are correct, Max, but if that happens, a constitutional convention, with the power of big business corporations and the billionaires, we will lose our civil liberties and all reforms that have benefited the middle class and the poor.

    Such a convention could redo the entire Constitution, and destroy the good that has come out of it!

    It is far from a panacea, and be careful what you wish for, as you might be stunned and shocked at the disaster being created!

  9. Max May 21, 2015 12:30 pm

    Well, do you actually think that if those proposals you mentioned were adopted by the Convention that there would be 38 states that would ratify them? I mean you know the Convention only makes proposal for amendments, it does not have the last word. I believe term limits and a balance budget amendment are two reasonable ideas that can be ratified by 38 states. And really only once have we passed an unreasonable amendment, prohibition, ( I would also ad the income tax amendment but I digress) and it was quickly abolished. We have made several amendments before we should not be afraid of a Convention proposing amendments to the states.

  10. Ronald May 21, 2015 2:19 pm

    I find it interesting how so many say we should not have had the income tax amendment. Which, by the way, was backed by conservative Republican President William Howard Taft!

    I ask, how would we have dealt with the foreign conflicts we have had; the many domestic issues we have had; the growing population in a complex world, IF we had no reliable tax system. We cannot live on a basis of having services and security and paying no taxes, sorry to say!

  11. Max May 21, 2015 3:08 pm

    In the late 1990 we had a population of 280 million , today we have 320 million, a 40 million increase. In other words our population increased 14% since then. Our Federal Budget was in 1999 $1.7 trillion, today Obama’s 2015 budget calls for spending $3.9 trillion, that’s a 230% increase in federal spending. If we were to increase spending in relation to our increase in population, our federal spending should have only risen 14% since 1999, in other words, $240 billion. I know this isn’t in constant dollars but still adding inflation there is just no way our budget should have increased 230% since 1999! About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes. We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of federal spending we had in the late 1990s, which is an era I recall all Democrats loved.

  12. Ronald May 21, 2015 3:14 pm

    Max, you conveniently forget that the Republicans were in control of Congress except for four years since 1999; that Bush gave the top two percent outrageous tax cuts, worse than Reagan did; that we fought two wars on credit cards; that Bush Jr presided over a DOUBLING of the national debt in eight years; that his economic policies under GOP Congresses for the first six years caused the greatest collapse since Herbert Hoover and 1929; and that much of the increased debt since Obama came in is due to Bush policies and expenses that continue to affect budgets, as just because a President causes disasters and leaves, does not mean that everything starts at zero and can only be blamed on the new President.

    If McCain and or Romney had been in, the situation would NOT have been much better than it is now, and likely far worse, as they would want ever more tax cuts for the wealthy, as they still advocate in 2015!

  13. Max May 21, 2015 3:35 pm

    Where on earth have I defended Bush or the establishment Republicans? That’s why I haven’t voted for them. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I blame both parties. As for the collapse, it came after 2006, after Democrats controlled Congress and started spending even more that Bush and the Republican establishment beltway did! Also just as a clarification according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017. That’s $2.4 trillion over a period of 12 years, that’s $200 billion per year, that’s about 5% of todays proposed budget.

  14. Ronald May 21, 2015 3:53 pm

    I love how the Democrats are blamed when they hardly ever held control, but it is still GOP policies that led to this mess!

  15. Max May 21, 2015 4:19 pm

    Was the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie Mae the basis of a GOP economic policy? And was the repeal of Glass Steagall act solely voted by the GOP??? Again I am not saying establishment Republicans are innocent, but Democrats aren’t either. Democrats had there hand all over this government mandated and created housing bubble. Think Cuomo in HUD. Ring a bell?? Also Greenspan and the FED that completely ignored the inflation going on in the housing market. In effect the main culprit in this debacle is the government. You see it today, the FED is just creating another bubble in Wall Street, we see it , we know about it, yet we look the other way. Now, who are you going to blame when the Wall Street bubble burst? Wall Street or the government, the FED and QE 3, 4 , 5???

  16. Ronald May 21, 2015 5:41 pm

    Both parties, BUT Wall Street is crooked through and through, and NEEDS regulations and protection for investors. The GOP wants NO regulations, and is trying to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, because all they care about are the wealthy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.