Discussion:

Discussion for article #241899

By ‘disaster’ he means ‘Hillary Clinton in the White House.’

Mark your calendar - Rand was right about something for once.

And a Rand Paul nomination would be a three-day Lingerie Festival with all-you-can-eat Spaghetti Carbonara, and a Beastie Boys reunion.

d

Did they retract the “I will support the nominee, whoever he/she/it is” pledge ? Way to go, Rand !

I agree with Rand and also think Rand would be a disaster.

Just another piece of ammunition that the Donald will use when he launches his third party candidacy with the words: “This pledge is for losers!”

Nupe, his nomination would be the best thing ever for this country. By nominating Trump the GOTP insures that the Dems could nominate an orange stick and ride it to victory in 2016.

Paul said that Trump would be the “largest loser of any candidate ever in the history of the country if he were our nominee.”

True, and so would you.

Do you think women are going to nominate some guy who judges people by their appearance and calls another candidate ugly?

Are you talking about Trump or Fiorina?

Trump isn’t leading the polls in the Democratic primary race, Rand.

Maybe that will help you figure out what the problem is.

They’re all so horrible, it’s a no win situation for the Republican party.

And we go to Trump on Twitter for a reaction:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

Nothing as of 1PM ET on Monday.

Anyone who appears on Newsmax is bound to be a loser.

Haven’t all the GOP candidates (including Trump) said this same thing at one time or another?

That was…random.

Five belittling personal attack tweets from T-Rump coming in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

In light of the great tree question, I have to ask

If Paul says something on the campaign trail, does he actually make noise?

The poor dear thinks it matters which Republican is on the ticket. Bless his heart.

…as if his nomination would not be a disaster… LaughingLoudly…

Rand who??