4 GOP candidates who should run as Democrats

[dudeabides]

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

2. Chris Christie
In New Jersey, Chris Christie failed to cut taxes despite promising to do so in 2009, and he actually reduced property tax relief and tax relief for the working poor. He increased spending on education as the state increased it's debt and has seen 8 credit downgrades under his watch, he's presided over record corporate welfare that he has supported, he expanded medicaid under Obamacare, and his administration has an abysmal record of property rights. Christie says that it was a mistake to go into Iraq in 2003 despite the evidence saying otherwise.

3. Rand Paul
Perhaps more than anyone else on this list, Rand Paul has tremendous appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He wants to allow felons to vote, he has reservations about the death penalty for the worst of murderers, he has filibustered the Patriot Act and drones against terrorists, he opposed sanctions against Iran, he has flip-flopped on keeping GITMO open, and he supports the government picking winners and losers in our tax code. Paul could run as an alternative to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, to the left of her if that's even possible.

4. George Pataki
George Pataki is pro-choice, signed into law some of the toughest gun laws in America, and he increased taxes by $3 billion in his final term in office.

[RFayette]

3. Rand Paul
Perhaps more than anyone else on this list, Rand Paul has tremendous appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He wants to allow felons to vote, he has reservations about the death penalty for the worst of murderers, he has filibustered the Patriot Act and drones against terrorists, he opposed sanctions against Iran, he has flip-flopped on keeping GITMO open, and he supports the government picking winners and losers in our tax code. Paul could run as an alternative to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, to the left of her if that's even possible.

Paul supports a flat tax, which I suppose "picks winners and losers," but I don't think that's what you meant by the expression.

There are many things wrong with this post, but I'll let someone else parse all of it.  I do agree with you about Trump though, but none else.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

5. Jeb Bush

[Xing]

LOL, so any Republican who isn't extremely conservative or doesn't align perfectly with the Republican establishment should run as a Democrat? I guess Kasich should run as a Democrat too, and McCain and Romney should've as well. By the same token, Clinton, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee should all run as Republicans, since they're not as liberal as Sanders or Warren.

[RINO Tom]

This topic gave me cancer.  So you have to join another party if you disagree with the platform on anything?  Should Mike Huckabee run as a Democrat because of how he governed fiscally in Arkansas?  Should Rick Santorum run as a Democrat because of his previous moderate stances on labor?  Should YOU register with the Green Party due to the fact that you sound like Ralph Nader b*tching about "corporate welfare"?  LOL.

For the last and final time, "corporate welfare" is 1) a stupid name and 2) absolutely NOT a liberal policy.  If anything, it's conservative.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

5. Rick Perry
Former Democrat endorsed pro-choice, pro-SSM Giuliani who is basically a commie by TX standards

6. Ben Carson
he's a bit urban with his gun control support if ya know what I'm sayin'. Also a doctor. That means science. And a dove

7. Lindsey Graham
We can only admit a few gays in the party and he doesn't fit the bill thanks to his immigration plan and moderateness.

8. Jeb Bush
common core. Interracial marriage. Iffy.

9. Mike Huckabee
His love of neighbor goes too far when it comes to crime, terror, and Mexicans. And it goes way too far when he wants us to fund the fat slobs on welfare.

10. John Kasich
The left wing media loves the Ohio moderate. What a surprise.

11. Carly Fiorina
She got fired basically. Republicans do the firing! Pathetic excuse for a businesswoman.

12. Bobby Jindal
He was a bad Governor. You know who else is bad at governing? Democrars. Ivy League, pfft!

13. Rick Santorum
I know he's kinda conservative, but some of that blue collar rhetoric is scary even if it's a ploy. Plus the Democrats asked him to run for Senate!! They'd support him.

14. Marco Rubio
can we trust him on immigration? I think he's playing us.

15. Scott Walker
He would attend a gay wedding reception if invited!! Rino!

Praise Ted Cruz!!

[RINO Tom]

^ Haha, that was awesome.

[Maxwell]

Werent you the resident Christie hack for a long time on this forum?

The tax thing on Rand Paul is especially retarded, but you already know that.

[WVdemocrat]

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

2. Chris Christie
In New Jersey, Chris Christie failed to cut taxes despite promising to do so in 2009, and he actually reduced property tax relief and tax relief for the working poor. He increased spending on education as the state increased it's debt and has seen 8 credit downgrades under his watch, he's presided over record corporate welfare that he has supported, he expanded medicaid under Obamacare, and his administration has an abysmal record of property rights. Christie says that it was a mistake to go into Iraq in 2003 despite the evidence saying otherwise.

3. Rand Paul
Perhaps more than anyone else on this list, Rand Paul has tremendous appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He wants to allow felons to vote, he has reservations about the death penalty for the worst of murderers, he has filibustered the Patriot Act and drones against terrorists, he opposed sanctions against Iran, he has flip-flopped on keeping GITMO open, and he supports the government picking winners and losers in our tax code. Paul could run as an alternative to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, to the left of her if that's even possible.

4. George Pataki
George Pataki is pro-choice, signed into law some of the toughest gun laws in America, and he increased taxes by $3 billion in his final term in office.

Go away.

[Oak Hills]

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

That's a traditional Republican position, dude.

[Rockefeller GOP]

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

That's a traditional Republican position, dude.

Okay, I'm going to just assume you're being funny.

But in case not: protective tariffs were a very pro-business policy when we weren't a global power (pre-WWII).  They really didn't help (and actually hurt) the American business community in the post-WWII economic climate.  It's no coincidence that the GOP's position on free-trade changed right at that time.  It's always favored whatever would help American businesses, and free-trade most certainly is supported by the business community today.  That's why unions are so protectionist and why Democrats are killing this GOOD trade bill right now.

[dudeabides]

5. Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush's two more moderate positions are on immigration and common core. On immigration, many in the Republican Party share his views, just not the conservative base. Common Core is one issue.

3. Rand Paul
Perhaps more than anyone else on this list, Rand Paul has tremendous appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He wants to allow felons to vote, he has reservations about the death penalty for the worst of murderers, he has filibustered the Patriot Act and drones against terrorists, he opposed sanctions against Iran, he has flip-flopped on keeping GITMO open, and he supports the government picking winners and losers in our tax code. Paul could run as an alternative to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, to the left of her if that's even possible.

Paul supports a flat tax, which I suppose "picks winners and losers," but I don't think that's what you meant by the expression.

There are many things wrong with this post, but I'll let someone else parse all of it.  I do agree with you about Trump though, but none else.

I'm referring more to Paul's support for free enterprise zones.

LOL, so any Republican who isn't extremely conservative or doesn't align perfectly with the Republican establishment should run as a Democrat? I guess Kasich should run as a Democrat too, and McCain and Romney should've as well. By the same token, Clinton, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee should all run as Republicans, since they're not as liberal as Sanders or Warren.

There is enough room in the Republican Party for moderates and conservatives. The issue is, these four are so far removed from the GOP in their records and ideologies. They abandoned Republican principles - Trump is not a free market guy, that is a major contradiction to his claim to be conservative. Paul is to the left of Barack Obama on foreign policy, another huge contradiction to his claim of being a GOP purist - and he's to the left of moderate Republicans as well. Chris Christie and George Pataki did not govern like Republicans would, Scott Walker is proof Republicans can govern blue states.

This topic gave me cancer.  So you have to join another party if you disagree with the platform on anything?  Should Mike Huckabee run as a Democrat because of how he governed fiscally in Arkansas?  Should Rick Santorum run as a Democrat because of his previous moderate stances on labor?  Should YOU register with the Green Party due to the fact that you sound like Ralph Nader b*tching about "corporate welfare"?  LOL.

For the last and final time, "corporate welfare" is 1) a stupid name and 2) absolutely NOT a liberal policy.  If anything, it's conservative.

Mike Huckabee's record in Arkansas is mixed for sure, I'd argue he's more moderate than many believe, but he's still a Republican.

Santorum is also a moderate, but again, not a Democrat either.

Finally, yes, there is consensus at the grassroots level in both parties against corporate subsidies - but generally speaking, Democrats are more willing to give handouts than Republicans.  

Werent you the resident Christie hack for a long time on this forum?

The tax thing on Rand Paul is especially retarded, but you already know that.

1. I used to like Christie, yes. I was wrong.
2. So you support special tax privileges for cities, okay, I respectfully disagree.

[dudeabides]

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

That's a traditional Republican position, dude.

Okay, I'm going to just assume you're being funny.

But in case not: protective tariffs were a very pro-business policy when we weren't a global power (pre-WWII).  They really didn't help (and actually hurt) the American business community in the post-WWII economic climate.  It's no coincidence that the GOP's position on free-trade changed right at that time.  It's always favored whatever would help American businesses, and free-trade most certainly is supported by the business community today.  That's why unions are so protectionist and why Democrats are killing this GOOD trade bill right now.

The GOP has changed since 1950.

[Rockefeller GOP]

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

That's a traditional Republican position, dude.

Okay, I'm going to just assume you're being funny.

But in case not: protective tariffs were a very pro-business policy when we weren't a global power (pre-WWII).  They really didn't help (and actually hurt) the American business community in the post-WWII economic climate.  It's no coincidence that the GOP's position on free-trade changed right at that time.  It's always favored whatever would help American businesses, and free-trade most certainly is supported by the business community today.  That's why unions are so protectionist and why Democrats are killing this GOOD trade bill right now.

The GOP has changed since 1950.

What is your point?  The GOP has changed since 2008, too.  My point was that the GOP has always been a party that supports business interests, and you can't just say "protective tariffs are a traditional Republican stance."  Republicans supported protective tariffs when they were good for business and opposed them (and still do) once they weren't any longer.

[dudeabides]

OP is high.

Unlike the two men in your signature, I am neither high nor have I ever been high.

1. Donald Trump
Donald Trump has a history of supporting higher taxes, gun control, and he still stands behind his support for protective tariffs and opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Additionally, Trump is the king of corporate welfare, has donated to Hillary Clinton, and says Bill Clinton is his favorite President since 1989.

That's a traditional Republican position, dude.

Okay, I'm going to just assume you're being funny.

But in case not: protective tariffs were a very pro-business policy when we weren't a global power (pre-WWII).  They really didn't help (and actually hurt) the American business community in the post-WWII economic climate.  It's no coincidence that the GOP's position on free-trade changed right at that time.  It's always favored whatever would help American businesses, and free-trade most certainly is supported by the business community today.  That's why unions are so protectionist and why Democrats are killing this GOOD trade bill right now.

The GOP has changed since 1950.

What is your point?  The GOP has changed since 2008, too.  My point was that the GOP has always been a party that supports business interests, and you can't just say "protective tariffs are a traditional Republican stance."  Republicans supported protective tariffs when they were good for business and opposed them (and still do) once they weren't any longer.

The fact of the matter is, the United States has a choice as it relates to trade. We can either open our markets and compete in a global economy, or we can place tariffs on others and have our goods shut out of foreign markets. The truth is, on average, jobs related to exports pay 15-20% higher than do jobs in other service industries. The truth is, free trade has been beneficial to America.

There has been consensus in both parties to support free trade. President George Bush signed NAFTA, and it was a Democratic Congress and President Bill Clinton who ratified it. President George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans continued to support and expand free trade. There is also opposition in both parties to free trade,

So my point is that the Republican Party at one time was more isolationist in foreign affairs, including trade. That has since changed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Christie and Pataki are fairly orthodox Republicans. Paul obviously is a little better on civil liberties and foreign policy than most Republicans. Trump is a troll.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Christie and Pataki are fairly orthodox Republicans. Paul obviously is a little better on civil liberties and foreign policy than most Republicans. Trump is a troll.

Just because you're off-the-charts liberal doesn't mean you get to redefine what an "orthodox Republican" is, pal.  Christie is rather orthodox, I'll agree (he simply talks of being more bipartisan), but Pataki?  A Republican who passed gun control and is pro-choice is not orthodox.  I like Pataki, but he's not this GOP foot soldier who supports everything the party wants.  In fact, that's why I like him.

[Blair]

Wait, the OP says that admitting Iraq is a mistake makes you a democrat?

So does that mean Hillary is a republican?

The OP is the reason the GOP have won the PV once since 1992

[Mr. Reactionary]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

[Rockefeller GOP]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

This is one of my biggest pet peeves in politics!!  Who the  decided that being less interventionist is "liberal"?!  If anything, history shows our more liberal Presidents to be MORE interventionist, or at the very least there's no correlation between your foreign policy views and your other, standard left-right views.  Current policies of the Obama administration and how Congress is reacting (didn't more Democrats vote for action in Syria than Republicans?) enforces this, too.

Liberals simply take whatever views they like/whatever views history looks back favorably upon and decide that those views are/were the "liberal" position, regardless of who else shares them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The only reason a Republican should switch parties to run for President is if they are truly pro-choice and can't hide it anymore.  The pro-choice/pro-life issue appears to be a litmus test for both parties.  You can't be the GOP nominee for President and be openly pro-choice.  However, if you are going to switch parties and run for President, you need to do so quite a while in advance and not jump in until you have several years of adherance to the party line and can show by your voting record that your are a "loyal" Republican (or Democrat).  No one running fills this bill right now.

[dudeabides]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

[ElectionsGuy]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

[Mr. Reactionary]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

Yeah, I've always wondered about this as well. I guess saying we should try not bombing Iran before we bomb them or that maybe we shouldn't give weapons to ISIS, is a position of weakness.

[dudeabides]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

Yeah, I've always wondered about this as well. I guess saying we should try not bombing Iran before we bomb them or that maybe we shouldn't give weapons to ISIS, is a position of weakness.

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

First of all, Rand Paul opposed Iranian sanctions a few years back and has said he doesn't believe that an armed Iran is bad for the U.S.

Secondly, Rand Paul opposes the Patriot Act, which has enabled our intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks, and he has complained about droning terrorists. He also hurt the U.S. by calling for a declaration of war against ISIS because 1) we already declared a war on terror and 2) He took credibility away from our claim to have moral authority.