Why You Should Vote For 'This Candidate' In GOP Primary

[Kathianne]

Not exactly what it seems, but rather one person's ideas on each of the candidates. I'll try to update as he posts more:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/27/the-7-reasons-scott-walker-should-get-the-republican-nomination-for-president/2/


[Note from Scott Ott: The presidential primary process doesn't help us to decide who's qualified to bear the party standard, and to serve as chief executive, but rather who’s disqualified. It’s just our way of crushing the hopes and dreams of anyone who dares poke head from hole. Because you already know all of the reasons why every candidate, and potential candidate, has no right to expect the nomination, I'm going to write an utterly one-sided series on why each one should get it. If you’re concerned that I’m not providing fair and balanced analysis, I’m sure the folks in the comment section will compensate for my deficiency. So far, I've done this for Carly Fiorina (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/14/the-7-reasons-carly-fiorina-should-get-the-republican-nomination-for-president/) and Marco Rubio. (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/18/the-7-reasons-marco-rubio-should-get-the-republican-nomination-for-president/?singlepage=true)]

Today’s nominee: Governor Scott Walker (http://www.scottwalker.com/) of Wisconsin.

Pretty interesting to read about each...

[Balu]

The them was made a separate thread.

[Kathianne]

In connection to the subject of this thread and in a view of forthcoming elections I would like to learn the attitude of Americans to the following:
- There are only two Parties in the USA that permanently participate in election of your Presided. It resembles Nanai boys struggle. (*)
- Electoral College appoints the President, though the Candidate got the minority of total votes of electorate.
(The forth case in the History of the USA are elections in 2000) And this is when you all keep on proclaiming supremacy of the Rights of individual.

(*)


I would think your post should have been a new thread, the topic here really is for those who may vote in American primaries.

[Balu]

I would think your post should have been a new thread, the topic here really is for those who may vote in American primaries.

If you insist as Super Moderator, I'll obey.

[Kathianne]

If you insist as Super Moderator, I'll obey.

You are misunderstanding, I'm sorry if I wrote what you interpretated ungraciously. It seemed clearly aimed at those that were evaluating possible candidates for GOP presidential primaries.

It was to be informative, not really 'discussion.' Since most of these men and so far, 1 woman are not well known, some having problems with name recognition in crowded field it was a starting place for those interested. That was all.

BTW, moderation comments are in red member comments are regular.

[Gunny]

You are misunderstanding, I'm sorry if I wrote what you interpretated ungraciously. It seemed clearly aimed at those that were evaluating possible candidates for GOP presidential primaries.

It was to be informative, not really 'discussion.' Since most of these men and so far, 1 woman are not well known, some having problems with name recognition in crowded field it was a starting place for those interested. That was all.

BTW, moderation comments are in red member comments are regular.

The problem is the number of candidates. If THAT doesn't say "splintered GOP", nothing does. Worse, they're going to crucify one another in these stupid debates that shouldn't even happen at all.