DiscussMormonism.com

Mitt Romney? NO.

Newt? YES.

Ron? YES.

Michelle? NO.

Jon? NO.

Herman? Maybe

Tex? NO.

All the Debates are just Mumbo Jumbo. If the President Is able to comprehend his briefings and has good character that's all that matters when a person casts their ballot.

Mitt? No.

Newt? No. More baggage than a Greyhound bus.

Ron? No. Not really a Republican.

Michelle? NO. Times Ten.

Jon? Yes, but has no chance of being nominated. Too intelligent.

Herman? Is there a category beyond No? He's done now anyway.

Perry? Too dumb to be in contention. A loser.

Santorum? No! You must be kidding.

So what does it all mean? Quazi?

hatersinmyward wrote:So what does it all mean? Quazi?

:)! The ultimate question. What does it all mean?

In this case, I think it means that Mitt will be the nominee for the Republican Party. Newt is showing some strong support right now (whoda thunk it?). I think that may be because the Tea Party has no place else to go.

Bachmann is on her way to obscurity. Even the Tea party sees that she is a little slow and had no chance in a National election.

Perry is toast after his multiple displays of half-wittedness.

Cain is gone after the most recent scandal.

No one else is even in the running.

Newt may be the Republican darling at the moment, but he is such an easy target that his chances in the Nationals are below slim.

I know you have some personal issues with Hunstman (which I will skip over for now), but I think he would have the best chance of beating Obama in a National election. Smart and centrist (not too Mormon). Someone the independents could vote for.

Of course, he will never win the nomination in the first place. Just not Tea Bagger enough.

That leaves Mitt. I think he will lose the National election.

All the candidates you list obviously have a greater IQ than Obama on the issues so yes, they all have the necessary IQ. I believe they probably all have evidence of natural born citizenship, something that Obama does not have.

bcspace wrote:All the candidates you list obviously have a greater IQ than Obama on the issues so yes, they all have the necessary IQ. I believe they probably all have evidence of natural born citizenship, something that Obama does not have.

LOL!!!!!

I don't know where to start. My guess is that it would be a waste of time, anyway.

Obama does, in fact, have very good evidence of being born in Hawaii (as I'm sure you know).

The RNC candidates (for the most part) are even dimmer than George W.

Good luck in the next elections.

Ron Paul has the necessary I.Q.

He also appears, to me, to be the candidate whose ideology most closely resembles that of the Founding Fathers.

Dr. Shades wrote:He also appears, to me, to be the candidate whose ideology most closely resembles that of the Founding Fathers.

So he's in favor of slavery, and not allowing women to vote--heck only allowing land owners to vote?

asbestosman wrote:So he's in favor of slavery, and not allowing women to vote--heck only allowing land owners to vote?

No.

Dr. Shades wrote:

asbestosman wrote:So he's in favor of slavery, and not allowing women to vote--heck only allowing land owners to vote?

No.

He has no chance of winning the nomination, though. If there were some other viable third party he could run in I'm sure he would be more successful.

As it is, he's not in the equation.