Rank in order of who you would pick as president best to worst

[Dr. Dan]

Huckabee is obviously the best...so how would you rank the other three beasts?

I think Clinton is the worst option.

The problem with Christie is that he supports and defends Muslims and is essentially a democrat playing as a republican.  He would pressure Israel like Obama and Hitlery.  On the other hand, on domestic issues, he would be better than Rand Nazi Jr. and Hitlery.

The problem with Rand Paul is that he's an out right Nazi Libertarian.  He does what his father wanted to do to legalize all drugs and all kinds of immorality, our society will fall very quickly down the drain.  On the other hand, he would leave Israel alone to fend for herself.  That's a good thing since that could me a green light for Israel to defend herself (except it will depend entirely on who the Prime Minister of Israel is).

Hitlery is as bad or possibly worse than Obama in my opinion.

[Zelhar]

It is very improbable that Huckabee would join the race let alone clinch the nomination...

I don't know how to tie break Christie and Paul, they are so awful. Yet Clinton is the worst of the lot.

[TruthSpreader]

Huckabee is the best.

Clinton is the worst, followed by Rand Paul and Chris Christie.

Huckabee probably won't get elected.

And it would be nightmare if it were Clinton vs Paul or Christie.

[muman613]

I have a feeling I will still be disenfranchised politically for the rest of my natural life.

How I wish it was the 80s again and we had Reagan. He truly seemed to be the best in my lifetime.

I can't stand any of the Republicans (maybe Huckabee, but it is doubtful he will even be the candidate)... And I definately cant stand hitlery.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Paul is the worse because he's a Neo-Nazi type. Hillary is just the usual Leftist. Both are worse than Christie. Christie would still be the lesser of the evils over outright Leftists and Nazis (Unless you want to compare him to Netanyahu who is able to carry out things because he is viewed as a Rightist.).

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

I like Huckabee. But here is the problem, we let THEM pick our candidates!

[Binyamin Yisrael]

I like Huckabee. But here is the problem, we let THEM pick our candidates!

The only way is to change the system of primaries. Why should small states like Iowa and New Hampshire decide for everyone else?

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

The only way is to change the system of primaries. Why should small states like Iowa and New Hampshire decide for everyone else?

Well, we fell for the race card. We whites had to prove we were not racist(I didn't)! So they went with the lair! Who would you like to decide? New York and California?

[mord]

What about Ted Cruz or Mike Lee

[NoMosqueHere]

I think the next election will be Rand Paul v. some democrat, not Hillary.

Paul will probably win the election. He appeals to the far left and right and the media seems to like him; republican regulars will fall in line.  And he will be marketed as "something new." Americans love new things.  Hillary will be old news: a 70 year old white woman with a blot clot in her brain.  I don't think she'll get the Dem nomination if she runs.

[Dr. Dan]

I took Huckabee off because it's quite obvious that we would want him over the other three.

[briann]

As Chaim has said numerous times.... a RINO  is WORSE than a Democrat.

Look at what all the Rinos... including Christie, Paul, and Rubio are all saying.

we NEED to give illegals citizenship... and Rubio even said... if we don't the democrats will....  What kinda warped logic is this?

I would honestly rather have Hillary than those 3... because when Chrisitie/Paul/Rubio allow amnesty... they will get conservative support... and democrats will vote that way regardless..

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Well, we fell for the race card. We whites had to prove we were not racist(I didn't)! So they went with the lair! Who would you like to decide? New York and California?

Well if you're going to put it that way, I say Texas. Texas has many electoral votes and votes Republican.

But what is really needed is for all states to have primaries at the same time, and count votes, not delegates. Hillary actually got more votes than BHO.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Can't the party pick it's own way of primaries? Where does it say in the Constitution about internal party politics? Parties should make their own rules.

I guess the party hacks who are supported by the media will always win because the people in power make the rules. So righteous people won't be able to win unless there is a big change.

[Debbie Shafer]

I would vote for Huckabee, or Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, if hes eligible.
Clinton is the worst
Christie next worst
Biden is considered Dufus.

[Dr. Dan]

Debbie...why Paul over Christie?

[briann]

On the two issues that matter most.... Amnesty and Israel...   Paul, Christie, and Hillary will all vote in unison.   So I think they are all equally evil...  I would never say Hillary is less evil... she is pure garbage.

However... at least the GOP would fight Hillary.... but with Paul or Christie... they wouldnt... and the public would be more accepting of a 'republican' passing amnesty... since they would say.... hey... if the GOP is doing it... it must not be leftist agenda.

[Dr. Dan]

On the two issues that matter most.... Amnesty and Israel...   Paul, Christie, and Hillary will all vote in unison.   So I think they are all equally evil...  I would never say Hillary is less evil... she is pure garbage.

However... at least the GOP would fight Hillary.... but with Paul or Christie... they wouldnt... and the public would be more accepting of a 'republican' passing amnesty... since they would say.... hey... if the GOP is doing it... it must not be leftist agenda.

You bring up good points.  But one good thing Rand Paul would do is pull aid away from Israel and hopefully all of the other countries.  So is that a reason to say he is better than clinton or christie?  Rand seems to let Israel do what it needs to do to defend itself while the other two would pressure Israel from not doing that.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

But the Pauls are closet David Dukes.

[Zelhar]

You bring up good points.  But one good thing Rand Paul would do is pull aid away from Israel and hopefully all of the other countries.  So is that a reason to say he is better than clinton or christie?  Rand seems to let Israel do what it needs to do to defend itself while the other two would pressure Israel from not doing that.

I don't believe he will implement the kind of foreign policy he says. It is more likely he will follow the counsel of  the Jew-hating state department.

[eb22]

All 3 would be horrific.      If I had to choose between the 3,   it would be Rand Paul,   only because there's a chance he would cut off foreign aid to Israel,   which of course would be the best thing for Israel.     Not to mention,  the chance that Rand Paul would also cut off aid to Israel's enemies,  which are also America's enemies.   With the other two candidates,  I can't think of anything potentially positive if either becomes President.

As for Chris Christie,   the following is yet another example of why I hope his days in public office end ASAP.   If this beast gets the Republican Presidential Nomination,   the only alternative is voting for a 3rd party candidate:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-gaytherapy-newjersey-idUSBRE97I0JC20130819

New Jersey bans gay conversion therapy



By Victoria Cavaliere

NEW YORK | Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:30pm EDT

(Reuters) - New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie on Monday signed into law a measure to prevent therapists from counseling gay and lesbian youths to change their sexual orientation, making his the second U.S. state to ban so-called conversion therapy.

The state senate approved the measure in June, putting it on the desk of Christie, who is seeking re-election this fall and also widely considered a White House contender for the Republican Party in 2016.

Citing medical and psychiatric research that sexual orientation is determined at birth, the law bans state-licensed counselors, therapists and social workers from practicing a method of talk therapy that opponents have said is deeply damaging to the self-esteem and identity of gay youths.

Christie said he was signing the legislation based on research that found "efforts to change sexual orientation can pose critical health risks, including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts."

But he said he still had "concerns about government limiting parental choice on the care and treatment of their own children."

Former New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey, who stepped down from office in 2004 in a gay sex scandal, praised the measure, saying it was based in "sound psychiatric research."

"Governor Christie should really be applauded," McGreevey told Reuters. "Whenever a governor of his stature signs a bill like this, it sends a message, not just to the nation but to the individual child that you are normal and as God made you."

New Jersey becomes the second state after California to outlaw conversion therapy for people under age 18. However, the California measure has yet to take effect because of a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

Opponents of the New Jersey law have promised a legal fight as well.

John Tomicki of the League of American Families said both the New Jersey and California laws infringed on a parent's right to decide the best treatment for his or her child.

Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group and leading proponent of the measure, said there were moves to ban the practice in Massachusetts and New York. "There's a huge push to ban this kind of abuse nationally," Stevenson added.

Conversion therapy has become increasingly controversial. In June, California-based Exodus International, a Christian group championing it, apologized for the harm it caused and said it was shutting its doors after 38 years.

[Dr. Dan]

Eb, I posted this a few hours ago as well.. I originally went with Christie, but now leaning towards Paul as the best of the three.

But then again, Paul, is a liberatarian and would allow humans to marry dogs or cats...but then again, I doubt he would make laws to ban corrective therapy.

[eb22]

Dr. Dan,   I just replied on the other thread that you started.

What you just expressed is a very good illustration of Rand Paul likely being the lesser of the evils.     

[mord]

Christie and Clinton are equally bad

[Dr. Dan]

Dr. Dan,   I just replied on the other thread that you started.

What you just expressed is a very good illustration of Rand Paul likely being the lesser of the evils.     

Well here is the deal with rand the nazi libertarian.  He would legalize everything under the sun thereby also allowing the right of religious people and therapists to help individuals susceptible to immoral sexual behavior. While hitlery and crispy lard butt will add laws to prevent good behavior and encourage bad behavior. In both instances evil wins, but in Rand's case, the righteous will still have the right to speak out rather than be thrown in jail or victimized. At least I hope that's the case.