# Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?



## JimH52 (Nov 6, 2013)

Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com



> (CNN) -- Virginia is a cautionary tale for conservatives this year. And those Republicans who always argue that their party wins when it moves further to the right are going to have a lot of explaining to do after Election Day.



This was written before the election,  but I doubt the GOP will learn a lesson.  Their call now is, "But the margin wasn't as big as......"

Actually, the GOP should have kept the Governor's mansion from all historical accounts.  And they could have if they had nominated Bill Bolling the moderate Lt Gov.  But the TP fanatics and the untra-right out of state money pushed for Coooooch.  

This is just a small lesson for the national GOP.  Will they heed the warning or continue their march to the right?


----------



## USNavyVet (Nov 6, 2013)

What they should learn is that the Democrat candidates back 3rd party candidates in order to get votes away from the Republicans. Not sure what the Republicans can do on this. The green party doesn't run anymore because the DNC placated them enough that there is no incentive. 

The problem is Libertarians are fiscal conservatives but often social liberals. Not sure what the Republicans can do to absorb them into the party. Maybe being more socially liberal. That would eliminate the 3rd party vote loss for Republicans but could alienate the social conservatives.

Maybe we can just make it illegal for either major party to financially back any 3rd party candidate but I'm sure the Democrats would work around that law.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

Learn what?

That dimocraps out-spent Republicans almost two to one?

That dimocraps brought in dozens of National figures to campaign for McAuliffe?

That Cuccinelli closed a 12 point gap in a matter of days with NO MONEY?

That Cuccinelli only had 2 weeks to campaign against obamacare and the rest of the Republican party has a year until the mid-terms?

That a dimocrap scumbag and MAJOR dimocrap bundler financed a PHONY FUCKING LIBERTARIAN to siphon votes away from Cuccinelli?

From just a few days ago

McAuliffe opens up double-digit lead over Cuccinelli in Virginia governor?s race - The Washington Post



> (WaPo)  Democrat Terry McAuliffe has opened a double-digit lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli II in the race for Virginia governor, in a new poll capturing increasing dissatisfaction among voters with Cuccinellis party and his conservative views.
> 
> According to a new Washington Post/Abt SRBI poll, McAuliffe tops Cuccinelli 51&#8201;percent to 39&#8201;percent among likely voters in the Nov. 5 election. McAuliffe led by eight percentage points in a poll taken last month. Libertarian Robert Sarvis, who has capitalized on voter unrest with the two major-party candidates, is at 8 percent, according to the new poll.



From just a few hours ago

Election Day 2013: Results - CNN.com







dimocraps put everything they had in this race, complete with the usual cheating and lying.  McAuliffe is a former Party Chairman and for him to lose in a Purple State would have been crippling to dimocraps.

That he BARELY won speaks volumes.  Yeah, we learned a lot.

How'd we do in New Jersey?  One of THE bluest of blue States in the Country.....


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

If only he was more conservative, he would have won.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Learn what?
> 
> That dimocraps out-spent Republicans almost two to one?
> 
> ...



look, a win is a win, no matter how much cash the other side spends, voters eventually decide ... sometimes inspite of all the backing by the sugar daddies. 

At some point you just have to conceed the inevitable - republicans are losing ground due to tactical errors; not their message.

Their message has become a side-bar to attacking the dems and firing them up to vote against republicans.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> That he BARELY won speaks volumes.  Yeah, we learned a lot.



That in a swing state, voters would rather have a corrupt Democrat has-been than a Tea Party standard-bearer.

Reality hurts sometimes.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 6, 2013)

I am pleased to see the margin was closed 17% with only one month of the ACA stumper cluck law. With a year to digest this dung, the Americans will deliver a swift response come 2014. Unless they start handing out free stuff to the lazy, entitled, uneducated voters who are running to ACA

-Geaux


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Learn what?
> ...



He was out-spent nearly two to one.

The Republican establishment ignored him and didn't help.

He closed a 12 point gap down to ??

dimocrap scum ran a phony libertarian backed by dimocrap money against him to siphon votes

I'd say he did pretty good.

And if Patriotic Americans still hold the Assembly, they can block most of the things the dimocrap scumbag wants to do anyway.

A meaningless victory if Republicans keep the Assembly because McAuliffe will be disliked immensely for cheating


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> If only he was more conservative, he would have won.



Yup, that will be the immediate response from the GOP TP types.  I am sure the establishment GOP is looking at this and scratching their head trying to figure out how to get the TP from funding, supporting, and demanding extremist such as Cooooch.

The GOP had an easy win here and they blew it with a flawed candidate.  I know for a fact that the statewide Dems breathed a sign of relief when Boilling lost in the Primary.

*ARE YOU WATCHING KARL? * Don't let the same thing happen in the national races in 2014 and 2016.  I am not sure how you do that, but thatis not my problem....


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 6, 2013)

.

If the GOP can't let go of the social issues and concentrate on the economy, it may as well get ready to be a localized, regional party.  There are other ways to fight abortion.

There's no excuse for losing to McCauliffe. Holy crap, one of the sleaziest politicos in the country.  Yuck.  

.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> He was out-spent nearly two to one.
> 
> The Republican establishment ignored him and didn't help.
> 
> ...



What does that say about Republicans, that they allowed this type of victory to fall into the dem's lap?

He cheated, or republicans are being spoiled sports? 

It's really hard for folks to tell when they cry "foul" in every single loss.

If conservatives were dumb enough to vote for a fake libertarian, why do they deserve a victory? Blame conservatives for that one.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 6, 2013)

This might be a stupid question but I'm not from Virginia and would like someone from there to answer this. Was it Cuccinelli who was the problem or was it the Lt. Gov. candidate? What's been really turning me off about the TP (besides them being associated with the GOP) lately is all of the loudmouth religious nut jobs who seem to think that the TP is their home.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

Lessons:

(1) Obamacare is still a near winner for the Pubs: a few more days, the pendulum would have swung

(2) TeaP candidates will lose even when they have the Dems do everything so badly

(3) Libertarians are pissed and will take anybody's money in order to get the message out

Next year is not a lock for anybody but it looks much better for the GOP than it did


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

Bottom line is simple.....  Republicans lost because Tens of Thousands of new Federal Hires have moved into Northern Virginia and because Northern Virginia is home to Hundreds of Thousands of Federal Employees who are still smarting from the gubmint shutdown.

That's what was hard to overcome.

And Federal Employees....  Union scum to the core, vote overwhelmingly dimocrap.  Why not?  They make double what the same job pays in the Private Sector

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

The demographics in Virginia have changed dramatically due to the massive influx of new Federal Employees and may be permanently gone as a Republican State.  We'll have to see.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Learn what? That it is going to be increasingly tougher to win in Virginia unless you out Dem. the Dems? That a state with so many dependent on their livelihoods coming from Mordor on the Potomac is going to increasingly support statist pols?
Pretty sure they got that.


----------



## Euroconservativ (Nov 6, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> If the GOP can't let go of the social issues and concentrate on the economy, it may as well get ready to be a localized, regional party.  There are other ways to fight abortion.
> 
> .



Gender gap:

* Virginia: 12 points
Male: Cuccinelli +3
Female: McAuliffe +9

* New Jersey: 13 points
Male: Christie +28
Female: Christie +15 

* NYC: 23 points
Male: De Blasio +36
Female: De Blasio +59


So the moderate messiah and "taliban" Ken had a similar gender gap. And both did much better than pro-choice Lhota.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/nyc-mayor/exit-polls.html


----------



## martybegan (Nov 6, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Learn what?
> ...



The conservative-libertarian vote was greater than the progressive vote. Virginia isnt a place for republicans to fall on thier sword.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Bottom line is simple.....  Republicans lost because Tens of Thousands of new Federal Hires have moved into Northern Virginia and because Northern Virginia is home to Hundreds of Thousands of Federal Employees who are still smarting from the gubmint shutdown.
> 
> That's what was hard to overcome.
> 
> ...



You see, all that tells me is that we aren't paying people in the private sector enough.  

While the Corporatists you worship have been using every trade treaty and recession to drive down the wages of private sector workers, those government workers managed to hold onto to their nice middle class salaries.  

And you want the arsonist to burn down your neighbors house instead of finding the guy who hired him to burn down yours.  

The Demagraphics of the whole country is changing as the dumb, old white people who vote against their own economic interests over silly issues like abortion and gay marriage pass on.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

martybegan said:


> The conservative-libertarian vote was greater than the progressive vote. Virginia isnt a place for republicans to fall on thier sword.



Works on the assumption that the libertarians who voted against Cuccinelli would have voted for him if htey didn't have the third party option.  

You know, some of those Libertarians were probably generally worried that Cuccinelli wanted to impose his religion on the rest of the state.  

And some merely voted for Sarvis because both of these guys were asshats...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 6, 2013)

The Tea Party has to take control of the GOP and we will by the end of 2016


----------



## martybegan (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The conservative-libertarian vote was greater than the progressive vote. Virginia isnt a place for republicans to fall on thier sword.
> ...



Those libertarians would never have voted for a gun grabber. 

At most they would have stayed home, but how many?


----------



## earlycuyler (Nov 6, 2013)

What I learned is that the two candidates were not liked and that most voters felt like their choices were a big fat douche, or giant turd sandwhich. How screwed up it is in.America when your only options are which one sucks the least. I do hope this is not an indicator of 2016, but figger it will be just like 08 and 12.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The conservative-libertarian vote was greater than the progressive vote. Virginia isnt a place for republicans to fall on thier sword.
> ...



Cooch left no doubt that he was not a friend to females.  His stance on contraceptive, his vaginal probe push, and his abortion dogma sealed his fate.  I am sure the TP types in the state rose up for Ken, but it was not enough.

I am afraid the message the estremists in the GOP will get is they must move further to the right.  The GOP establishment does not know how to control them when they insist on another RW loon in a promary.  Karl Rove has his work cut out for him....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?



Find me a libertarian who thinks all guns should be banned, or approves of gun laws that that dem asshole in virigina will try to pass.

Libertarians are about the consitution, unlike fascists such as yourself.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 6, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Tea Party has to take control of the GOP and we will by the end of 2016



AH!  I knew Frank would come up with the solution!


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?
> ...



Yawn, guy...  

They also don't want crazy people like Cho being able to walk into a gun store and buy himself a small arsenal...  

Incidently, I don't think most of those who voted for Sarvis were "Libertarians" so much as they were folks who just didn't like either of the two choices.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nice dodge of the question there, dillhole.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 6, 2013)

What should be learned, is that the system is a failure completely. The in-fighting of the republican party is the direct result of the last two national election cycles and on down into the local precincts. the 2010 and 2012 elections is showing more than ever, that the grassroots of voters agree on core libertarian issues. Civil liberties, fiscal responsibility and limited constitutional government. The problem is, that main stream republicans an democrats aren't for these cuases in anyway except rhetoric. The republicans marginalized a giant base of voters when it treated Ron Paul and his coalition like a bunch of second class k00k citizens who didn't deserve a seat at the table. The Tea Party is the organized and growing voice of that movement left behind. And yes, they are drawing some rather sketchy ideas amongst the tent.

Republicans can either get with the times, stop just preaching fiscal responsibility, and limited government and actually achieving it, or go the way of the Whigs and other party's that out grow their own pants and tried to keep wearing them.

Frankly, I'm surprised the tea party guy lost. it was a close race for sure. Unlike Lhota and the Limo LOLberal de Blahsio.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

earlycuyler said:


> What I learned is that the two candidates were not liked and that most voters felt like their choices were a big fat douche, or giant turd sandwhich. How screwed up it is in.America when your only options are which one sucks the least. I do hope this is not an indicator of 2016, but figger it will be just like 08 and 12.



Look, people.... <sigh>

You're not necessarily voting for the 'man' or the woman.  You're voting for the Party.

When a Party takes over the executive Branch of Government, they bring with them HUNDREDS of apparatchiks, bureaucrats and appointees.

THAT is what you should think about....  Do you want Professionals, people with Business experience, people with hands-on, real life experience running things or do you want educated idiots who only know theory?

Look at what we have in Washington DC right now.  A disaster waiting to happen.  Unemployment is still horrible -- Worse among Blacks now than when the Stuttering CLusterfuck took Office.

Average Income is actually DOWN compared to what it was before the Stuttering Clusterfuck took Office.

Our Foreign Policy is a fucking joke.

And the latest headlines of how incredibly stupid, dishonest and incompetent dimocrap scum are can be found on the Front Page of every Newspaper and in the Lead-In of every TV News Program in the Country.....  obamacare.

obama didn't write that bill.  He's way too stupid.  obama didn't add in the deatils.  obama didn't design the website.  obama didn't cancel all those Health Policies on people with cancer and children with Special Needs....

The people he hired did.  And those people?  Idiots.  From Academia and the bowels of the dimocrap party.

Stupid people.

You don't have to LOVE the candidate you're voting for, it's the apparatus he or she brings with them that counts.

dimocrap scum bring socialists, educated idiots and Pie-In-The-Sky theorists with them that don't know whether to shit or make a sandwich when it comes to real life.

Republicans bring Adults with them that know what they're doing.

Your choice.  You get the government you deserve

Whatever


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> 
> You're not necessarily voting for the 'man' or the woman. You're voting for the Party.
> ...



Invading the wrong country or letting a major city get washed out to see doesn't convince me that the GOP has people who know what they are doing.  

When you put the Horse Show guy in charge of FEMA, you don't know what you are doing. 

When you appoint the guy who lets his regulators watch Porn all day while Lehman and Goldman-Sacks loot the banking system is not bringing in teh "Adults".  

The GOP USED to be able to claim that even though they were heartless dicks, they could get the job done.  

That reputation ended in 2008 when it was obvious they couldn't.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm gonna ask you nicely one time....

Stop altering my quotes.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?


Most of us think ATF should be a convenience store, not a regulating agency.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



I didn't altar your quote, I just addressed the salient part because you were taking up half the page repeating yourself. But Iput it back in because gosh darn, I'm sure repeating your tiresome five minute hate of Obama that consumes every moment of your sad life is really important. 

Now how about addressing the point.  

After George W. Bush, can you really claim honestly the GOP brings in people who "know what they are doing"?

Seriously?

Because that's what you are aruging.  Bush fucked up everyone's life, which is why Obama won.  And Romney didn't promise anything better.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no matter what the lefties say 

it is not that big of a win for the democrats 

*in all essence it was a fake win *

by backing a third party candidate 

the "people" still feel the same way 

about the issues like obamacare 

and no slight of hand parlor tricks 

will change that


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

The main lesson - vet the 'independent' candidates from day one, so dimocrap shills as this'libertarian' can be uncovered sooner, not the day of the election.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> The main lesson - vet the 'independent' candidates from day one, so dimocrap shills as this'libertarian' can be uncovered sooner, not the day of the election.



yes


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 6, 2013)

What Republicans should learn is what I have said from the start that Libertarians are really just democrat plants to skim off conservative votes so the democrat candidate can win.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 6, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



Close only counts in horseshoes, my friend....


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > That he BARELY won speaks volumes.  Yeah, we learned a lot.
> ...



Is he really a Tea Party standard-bearer though? He seems more like a bible-thumping Santorum type to me.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> What Republicans should learn is what I have said from the start that Libertarians are really just democrat plants to skim off conservative votes so the democrat candidate can win.



Exactly. But that should be uncovered early, not the day of the election.
GOP recently looks like a bunch of amateurs


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



And the Walker recall defeat was a big win for the Democrats.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> The main lesson - vet the 'independent' candidates from day one, so dimocrap shills as this'libertarian' can be uncovered sooner, not the day of the election.



Sarvis was a "none of the Above" vote. 

Please don't blame him for why Cuch lost.  

Cuch lost because women turned on him with his radical views on abortion and family...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the problem the right has is they are listening to the wrong donors ... its not money the gets you elected, its the people ... the republicans haven't learn this in the last two decades ... which is who helps the people and who doesn't ... as soon as the republicans learn this, which I hope they don't, the better off they will be ...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



and hand gernades


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > The main lesson - vet the 'independent' candidates from day one, so dimocrap shills as this'libertarian' can be uncovered sooner, not the day of the election.
> ...



He is a dimocrap shill and if that would be known from the beginning he would not siphon votes.
Cuchinelli did not have any support from GOP money and coming at the end with less than 2% difference( with a dimocrap scum stealing 6%) is a pretty good result - much better than last year.

Vaginas with vocal cords did not matter in this election


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > The main lesson - vet the 'independent' candidates from day one, so dimocrap shills as this'libertarian' can be uncovered sooner, not the day of the election.
> ...



that's it in a nut shell


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > What Republicans should learn is what I have said from the start that Libertarians are really just democrat plants to skim off conservative votes so the democrat candidate can win.
> ...



What do you expect? Beck uncovered it and he a libertarian himself endorsed Romney not a real conservative.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Apples and oranges, as these off year elections only have about 30% turnout. 

Cuch lost because he was an awful candidate. Period. Blaming the GOP establishment or Sarvis is just a cop-out.  

What happened to the party of perosnal responsibility?


----------



## lakeview (Nov 6, 2013)

yeah, it's horrible that the LP can run any candidate they want to...even if the GOP doesn't approve. The obvious solution to this is to have the GOP decide who can run as third-party candidates, that should fix everything up really nice. 

Lord knows that a party whose membership runs the gamut from Fabian Socialist all the way to Constitutional Originalist should be lecturing other parties on the ideological purity of their party and their candidates.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Read the first amendment you bigot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



We have. Esepcially the establishment clause that says you can't impose your bronze age superstitions on the rest of us.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

lakeview said:


> This might be a stupid question but I'm not from Virginia and would like someone from there to answer this. Was it Cuccinelli who was the problem or was it the Lt. Gov. candidate? What's been really turning me off about the TP (besides them being associated with the GOP) lately is all of the loudmouth religious nut jobs who seem to think that the TP is their home.



I'm from Virginia...so is Old School.  We come from somewhat different sides of the political spectrum, but I think he would agree with this as well.  


1.  Both were terrible candidates.  


2.  The Lt Gov race did not make a difference.  


3.  This race has very little bearing on anything Nationally...just like New Jersey.  


4.  To cherry pick Virginia and say this means death and doom for the Republicans, and ignore the outcome in New Jersey is foolish.  


5.  Christie supersedes party in New Jersey.  McAuliffe & Cuccinelli superseded party in Virginia.  Both were terrible.  The voters picked the guy they found the least offensive.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



according to the exit polling, the people who voted for the independent, the count came out from the exit polling was 50/50 ... deal with it... 

now heres the part that will piss you off particularly ... the party that wins Virginia wins the countries election... in other words can you deal with the lost of the republicans in 2014 ???? I know I can


----------



## martybegan (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Coming from someone who wants to impose stone age methods of defending oneself on everyone except government agents, your statement is comical.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Actually you ignorant commie it doesn't say that.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





Complete and utter bullshit.  I could say there is zero evidence to support such a partisan conclusion, but that would be too obvious.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I'm all for well-regulated militias, just like it says...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



aaaaah can't stand the fact that your bible thumpers are causing the grand Old party to lose???


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 6, 2013)

GOP Gives Up Virginia To Democrats Instead Of Giving Tea Party and Social Conservatives A Win | Independent Journal Review

Pretty good sum up of what happened in Virginia 



> Finally, a libertarian third party candidate served as a spoiler, stealing a fair percentage of votes away from Cuccinelli, and diluting the conservative message.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



So is that a yes or a no? <<Rhetorical question. Obvious non sequitur fail is obvious.

Regardless, I just spent a great deal of time discussing the Tea Party with a lot of people who actually support the movement and have even attended rallies. According to them, the Tea Party doesn't care about social issues and have a laser focus on fiscal issues and restoring constitutional principles. From what I've read about this guy, that shoe doesn't fit.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 6, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Actuality they didn't. It was libertarians that caused the conservative republican candidate to lose with the help of establishment RINO's.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


the I would say to you go and read the excit polling on the election... thats where I got it .... oh wait that's something your types don't do ... go and look at the facts .... never mind my bad ...


*P.S*
*CNN Don't blame McDonnell*
If Cuccinelli loses, he can't blame his defeat on scandal-plagued outgoing GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell or third-party Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Virginia voters actually approve of McDonnell's job performance by 12 points (53%-41%). And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%).


----------



## Capstone (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> [. . .]And Federal Employees....  Union scum to the core, vote overwhelmingly dimocrap.  Why not?  They make double what the same job pays in the Private Sector. [...]



And because that's promoted by most conservatives as an indictment on unions as opposed to private sector greed, many _non-union_ laborers are compelled to vote democrat.

Oh, and while I realize that you probably _*love*_ rereading the entirety of your own posts over and over again, don't bother chastising me for excerpting the point I wished to address. That's just how adults communicate.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

I will agree with the bomb throwers that Cuccinelli's social agenda did not play well, but I would think that is obvious.  It was nuts.  

McAuliffe is a typical carpetbagging sleazeball pos that has no business in public office and will likely disgrace himself as Governor.   

Those were your choices.  If Dems want to spike the football...have fun.  You had to outspend a social conservative nutjob 10:1 to barely eck out a win.  What does that say about McAuliffe or the Democrat Party right now?


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...




Exit polls indicated a majority of Virginians do not like Obamacare, and want it repealed.  Is that the exit poll you're talking about?


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



 [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION]
 [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
 [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

If I'm wrong, please tell me why.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?



This is where _your_ side loses people like me. 

A disarmed population poses no threat to government tyranny.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



that too I can agree with ...


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...




Tea Party folks are generally not that in to social issues.  They hate Obamacare, what they see as Government intrusiveness and power, and are very concerned about the deficit.  
Tea Party people in Virginia were not overly fond of Cuccinelli.  I don't think too many people of any political position were thrilled with his social agenda.  That is why he lost the election.  He is a religious nut.   Calling Cuccinelli a Tea Party candidate is media bullshit to lull and appease the sheep.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

The Republicans may not need to learn too much from Virginia.

Given that they took the Governor's Mansion in New Jersey.

And given the devastation that ObamaCare seems likely to inflict upon the Democrats in coming months.

If I was a loyal Party Man -type Democrat, I'd be sweating my ass off over _that_ one, beginning right about now.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> I will agree with the bomb throwers that Cuccinelli's social agenda did not play well, but I would think that is obvious.  It was nuts.
> 
> McAuliffe is a typical carpetbagging sleazeball pos that has no business in public office and will likely disgrace himself as Governor.
> 
> Those were your choices.  If Dems want to spike the football...have fun.  You had to outspend a social conservative nutjob 10:1 to barely eck out a win.  What does that say about McAuliffe or the Democrat Party right now?



considered it spiked ... and as I said looks like the republicans will be losing election after election ....you my republican friend will be pissed as hell for the next 10 years ...


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > I will agree with the bomb throwers that Cuccinelli's social agenda did not play well, but I would think that is obvious.  It was nuts.
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU3zdAgiX8]All I Have To Do Is Dream - Everly Brothers - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

The third party candidate elected McAuliffe.   Thats what those on the right need to learn from this election.

Conservatives and libertarians need to wake the fuck up and realize that backing a far right candidate will always help elect the democrat.  

Yes, its always a choice between the lesser of two evils, and we saw it in 08, 12, and now in Va.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

if voters want obamacare fixed, why would the elect the idiot party that shut down the fking govt instead of fixing it?  That's the question the gop has to answer.  Hillary is old, but most consider her competent.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...





But, he would have been better than the idiot you allowed to be elected.   Thats the point.  Wake up!


----------



## WelfareQueen (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...




I voted for Cuccinelli because his social agenda is all governed by Federal Law, and he can't do a damn thing about it.  Abortion = Federal Law.  Birth Control = DEA & Federal Law.  Discriminate against Gays.  Nope, you can't...Federal Law.  Sodomy Laws.  Nope.  Supreme Court has already addressed it.  Federal Law.  

McAuliffe being a sleaze bag pos.  Nothing to stop that.  Nothing.  

I voted Democrat for Lt. Gov because the Republican candidate made Cuccinelli look sane.  So I guess you could say I split the ticket.  I personally know the Republican Attorney General.  He is a very good man.  I voted for him, and he won.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...





sounds like you based your vote on logic and reason----


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They have more to learn from New Jersey than VA.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > The main lesson - vet the 'independent' candidates from day one, so dimocrap shills as this'libertarian' can be uncovered sooner, not the day of the election.
> ...



Cuch should have lost by 12 points.

He lost by 1 point because of the weakness of Obamacare to the Dems.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



the lesson of NJ---------put an R behind the name of a liberal and he will win in a blue state,  BFD.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Do you really think that anyone that voted for the 3rd party would have voted for the dem if the 3rd party candidate was not on the ballot?   

Just like when Perot elected Clinton the first time,  third party candidates always help liberals and dems.   

Until the right learns that, the dems will continue to destroy this country with their socialist agenda.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> ...third party candidates always help liberals and dems.



Yup, just like when Ralph Nader cost Gore the presidency.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ...third party candidates always help liberals and dems.
> ...



LOL,   how many votes did Nader get?    how many did Perot get?  not even a close comparison.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Perot's vote split left and right.  And the libertarians hate the TPM movement as much as the Dems.

Your radical far right positions, Redfish, only guarantee GOP losses.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Christiie is only liberal to you because you are so reactionary, Redfish

We in the GOP are going to overwhelmingly support Christie over the reactionary candidates to the extreme right.

Better get used to it.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 6, 2013)

Some of us old timers remember that Obenshain's dad died in a plane crash years ago.  This may have helped him.

Richard D. Obenshain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

You think we'd be seeing crap like this is Mcauliffe had lost?

articles asking will the Democrat party learn any damn thing ever blaa blaa blaa

pathetic


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

If the republicans would of chosen someone that wasn't against birth control and gays. He or she would be governor now....

Republicans seems to be for big government.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If you're LOL'ng at your own ignorance then I'm right there with you.

Nader received over 97,000 votes in Florida, Bush won Florida by 543 votes.

If Gore won Florida he would have been president. It was so close there was a recount and everything, I'm surprised you already forgot.


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 6, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Learn what?
> ...


Actually, no.


However, the GOP should take a lesson and start running candidates that will siphon off liberal and progressive votes.  I'd run a few wack job progressive extremists in each district and siphon off at least 15% of the vote away from the Democrat.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> However, the GOP should take a lesson and start running candidates that will siphon off liberal and progressive votes.  I'd run a few wack job progressive extremists in each district and siphon off at least 15% of the vote away from the Democrat.



I fully expect the GOP to do exactly that.

Politics is like sports in that whenever something works, it's sure to get copied.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

Of the 32 Governors that have been elected since we slapped the shit out of dimocrap scum in Virginia during the Civil War, only Six (6) of them have been Republicans.

And that only started in 1970.

And since 1982, of the 9 Governors of Virginia to hold the Office, Six (6) of them were dimocraps.

Only three (3) were Republicans.

dimocraps act like it's a Big Deal&#8482; that a dimocrap with nearly THREE TIMES the money, thousands of Union goons 'volunteering' as foot soldiers, the entire DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM giving him free, positive air time, the entire dimocrap Party, including the current Stuttering Clusterfuck and the last dimocrap preezy, the rapist and his lesbian OL, the Sasquatch, campaigning like crazy.....

He SQUEAKS out a victory in a fucking Purple State and dimocraps want to do a victory lap?

Wait until next November, boys and girls.  You'll be back on the Meds.

Again.


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, they won't learn from it.  Cuccinelli thinks as he said in his concession speech, he lost by such a small margin because people hate ACA.  

VA used to be a red state, Dems swept three big races and he thinks he won something.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Or put an R behind the name of a nutjob and you lose a general election...


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Of the 32 Governors that have been elected since we slapped the shit out of dimocrap scum in Virginia during the Civil War, only Six (6) of them have been Republicans.
> 
> And that only started in 1970.
> 
> ...



yep, they are so pathetic to watch


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I expect the establishment GOP uncover this and USE it if that is uncovered by somebody else. I expect GOP apply a lie war tactics without any remorse as dimocrap scum does for the last 5 years, I expect GOP plant phony libberhoids to split the dimocrap votes, I expect them finally grow up, man up and play dirty Chicago stule as dimocrap scum does - you don't win a war with the left playing honest.
And while playing according the dimocraps rules GOP might discover to it'ssurprise that the left is actually extremely cowardly and if fit in the teeth with the same weapon as they use, will whine and ran away.

The latter one is known from experience with dealing with this scumbags.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Don't even pay attention to this leftard ignoramus. The vast majority of the votes for this 'libertarian' came from western VA and almost none from northern - last nigh watching it live - only ~15K votes for the shill came from the north.

That gives you the picture of whose votes were stolen right away


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?



Yes, indeed they will. 

They need to fully adopt the Wolf in sheep's clothing technique.

Pretend to be a Republican while actually adopting the democrats' platform.





Exhibit A

.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

If the republicans are against infrastructure, science, tech and education. Well, they're not fit to govern.

Gays and birth control are secondary. A real loser but the republicans keep missing the real issues.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


Cuch did not have ANY support from the establishment GOP and if he lost by 1% with a third candidate distraction - for anybody who knows how to analyze the data the conclusions are very obvious.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 6, 2013)

Since 1860, Republicans have won the Presidency 23 times.  dimocrap scum 16.

From 1860 to 1900....  9 of 11 races went to Republicans, including 6 wins in a row.

In the 'modern era' which is generally regarded as post-1950, Republicans have won 9 times and dimocrap scum 7 times.

Since 1960, it's tied at 7.  Since 1980, it's Patriotic American Good Guys 5 wins, and scum of the fucking Earth dimocraps 4 wins.

And you idiots are going to tell us to dig our graves?

You people really are stupid, aren't you?  Nevermind, stupid people are seldom smart enough to know how stupid they really are


----------



## martybegan (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



He won senate elections and an AG election, how come you guys keep impying this is the first time he ever faced the electorate?


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 6, 2013)

Rush says the RNC coulda and shoulda spent a lot more than the piddling $1,000,000 they spent on this race. They coulda gotten some big hitters to campaign for Cuccinelli.

The fact they didn't has to be blamed on the old timers in the GOP.

This was supposed to be a referendum on Obamacare.

He continued, 'if the GOP had won in VA they could have made it really difficult for Dems to win in the next election by campaigning on Obamacare.' 

the GOP old timers are working against the best interest of America by working against the new, ambitious warriors for our Country.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



that may apply to McCain, but Romney is not a nut job,  he would have been a great president.   But we will never know because you fools gave Barry another 4 years to continue his destruction of our economy and our culture.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Rush says the RNC coulda and shoulda spent a lot more than the piddling $1,000,000 they spent on this race. They coulda gotten some big hitters to campaign for Cuccinelli.
> 
> The fact they didn't has to be blamed on the old timers in the GOP.
> 
> ...





establishment republicans fear the tea party as much as the democrats do, if not more.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Since 1860, Republicans have won the Presidency 23 times.  dimocrap scum 16.
> 
> From 1860 to 1900....  9 of 11 races went to Republicans, including 6 wins in a row.
> 
> e



Unfortunately the brand "republican" covers very wide spectrums. They voted for for social security in 1935. 

Lindsey Graham has advocated for NATIONALIZING banks.

So to be a Republican means nothing.

.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 6, 2013)

That maybe if the GOP wants to win races, they should actually fund the candidates running instead of cutting off funding because he is a tea party backed candidate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

I don't understand why anyone would want to drive over a 40 year old bridge? Or not want their children educated.

The tea party is like electing the muslim brotherhood. Illogical and plain dumb.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

So it's the mainstream conservative's fault that they find the guy's positions electorally toxic and bad for buisiness?


He has hardly soft-pedaled his principles. "For all the criticism of me, there's one thing you won't hear anybody say, and that's that I've pulled the wool over anyone's eyes," Cuccinelli tells TIME. "One of my unique features as a politician is that I am so blunt and so forthright, and I put my cards on the table to such a degree people aren't used to that there's nothing left to hide." 

Cuccinelli, 42, was born in New Jersey and moved as a toddler to northern Virginia. He attended college at the University of Virginia and earned law and master's degrees at George Mason University before going into private practice as an attorney. In 2002 he won what had seemed to be a long-shot bid for the state senate, where he worked to curb abortions and crack down on illegal immigration, pushing measures to change the 14th Amendment's birthright-citizenship clause, allow business to sue competitors who employed undocumented aliens and rescind unemployment compensation for employees unable to speak English. 
(Read "The Party Crashers: Behind the New Republican Revival.")


"A few years ago, people were dismissive of him as an out-there legislator who was close to losing his seat, which he almost did [in 2007]," says Mark Rozell, a public-policy professor at George Mason. "This guy was Tea Party before anybody came up with the idea. He's the real deal. He's not spouting lines to mobilize a constituency to win a caucus or a primary. He's a true believer. He doesn't back down and doesn't compromise. And his enemies consider him all the more dangerous for those reasons



Read more: Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: Tea Party Principles - TIME Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: Tea Party Principles - TIME

LOL


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

Liberals a so childish and act all high and mighty this guy squeaked out a win and now THAT should be a lesson for the Gop

you have to laugh at these children in adult bodies...that what's scary

adults acting like children


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Of the 32 Governors that have been elected since we slapped the shit out of dimocrap scum in Virginia during the Civil War, only Six (6) of them have been Republicans.
> 
> And that only started in 1970.
> 
> ...



Again.

Cuch lost because he was a TeaP.  Any normal GOP would have won handily.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

Won within a state that should  of easily been taken by republicans. A off year election...

lol
People want civilization!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

The dems did every wrong they could, including the disastrous ACA roll out.

The TeaP lost anyway.

ACA is a good tactic with which to work, but TeaP candidates will lose the major races.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Won within a state that should  of easily been taken by republicans. A off year election...
> 
> lol
> People want civilization!



yeah well, I should of won the lottery last week


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The dems did every wrong they could, including the disastrous ACA roll out.
> 
> The TeaP lost anyway.
> 
> ACA is a good tactic with which to work, but TeaP candidates will lose the major races.



Yep,

People want 
-Infrastructure
-Education
-science
-Tech
-jobs
-hope

The tea party rages like Nazis against all of them.

oh, they also want birth control and the right to fuck who they wish.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Of the 32 Governors that have been elected since we slapped the shit out of dimocrap scum in Virginia during the Civil War, only Six (6) of them have been Republicans.
> ...



Esp against McAuliffe, who oozes slime.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I don't understand why anyone would want to drive over a 40 year old bridge? Or not want their children educated.
> 
> The tea party is like electing the muslim brotherhood. Illogical and plain dumb.



give me one quote from a tea party person where he or she said that we should not maintain our bridges or not educate children.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The dems did every wrong they could, including the disastrous ACA roll out.
> 
> The TeaP lost anyway.
> 
> ACA is a good tactic with which to work, but TeaP candidates will lose the major races.



we get it, snake.   you hate the tea party, the GOP, and everything conservative.   

you want to live in a socialist state where all of your life decisions are made by the ruling elite.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The dems did every wrong they could, including the disastrous ACA roll out.
> ...



You aren't the speaker or judge of what the people want in this country

those are your wants...
you and that infrastructure...
like we are some third world country and still drive on dirt roads so we NEED infrastructure...
good grief...the tea party rages against all those.. you've become pathetic
as for hope that isn't going to happen with Obama in office...six years now of 7 to 8% unemployment, poverty up, he's raised taxes, he stuck a new government program on the people when they could least afford it with his economy...so anyway keep dreaming of hope


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Since 1860, Republicans have won the Presidency 23 times.  dimocrap scum 16.
> 
> From 1860 to 1900....  9 of 11 races went to Republicans, including 6 wins in a row.
> 
> ...



Hey don't sugarcoat it bro, tell us how you really feel.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why anyone would want to drive over a 40 year old bridge? Or not want their children educated.
> ...



You won't get one. It takes straw men to attack the Tea Party


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

The TeaPs "aren't the speaker or judge of what the people want in this country"

80% of America despise the TPM


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> *The dems did every wrong they could, including the disastrous ACA roll out.*
> 
> The TeaP lost anyway.



Parasitic Faction credo Feed me, insure me , take care of my needs and 







.

.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Won within a state that *should of* easily been taken by republicans. A off year election...
> ...



both of you...

it's should *HAVE* goddammit!


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm personally shocked and appalled buisiness would not give money to an attny general who wanted a law to make it possible for one biz to sue another biz for employing illegal aliens.  those rat bastards threw the race to the dems.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Actually, the GOP should have kept the Governor's mansion from all historical accounts



Dude, Virginia voted for Democrat in the last two elections and has two Democratic Senators.  Northern Virginia is being flooded with liberal government workers.  And leftists claim Republicans are hosed because the tea party shut down Washington.  And the Democrats spent four times as much money.

And you're gloating you won a squeaker?  How much kool-aid did you drink today?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

The TeaP candidate lost only because the TeaPs closed the government, threatened to default the American taxpayer, and wanted to stick ultra sound wands up vaginas.

Yes, a normal GOP candidate would have won handily.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



President Obama was, is, and always will be the superior choice to Mitt Romney; otherwise Romney would have won.  The voters got it correct.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The TeaP candidate lost only because the TeaPs closed the government, threatened to default the American taxpayer, and wanted to stick ultra sound wands up vaginas.
> 
> Yes, a normal GOP candidate would have won handily.



In a state that voted the last two elections for the Democrat and has two Democratic senators where the Democrats spent four times as much money and everyone hates the tea party and blames them for the gridlock?  What is your projection based on exactly?


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Voters got correct that Obama was going to give them more handouts.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



lol, he's so superior his approvals are in the toilet
now you need to kiss his picture or bow to the shine you have of him


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. They'll double down & say that they weren't Right enough again


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The TeaP candidate lost only because the TeaPs closed the government, threatened to default the American taxpayer, and wanted to stick ultra sound wands up vaginas.
> ...



Hint?  The TeaP candidate lost, a normal Republican would have won.

80% of America plus a majority of the GOP despise the TPM.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Rush says the RNC coulda and shoulda spent a lot more than the piddling $1,000,000 they spent on this race. They coulda gotten some big hitters to campaign for Cuccinelli.
> ...



yep. and the VA race proves that - they decided to "punish" Cuch 
establishment GOP feels pretty good in opposition - as all they want is "business as usual" and TP threatened to drain that swamp


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

macacca lost running for BOTh seats, but Va's gop is mainstream.  You betcha.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Repeating your claim doesn't support it.  The question was what your projection is based on in a State that has two Democratic Senators and voted Democrat in the last to elections and hates the tea party and the Democrat outspent the Republican by four times.  And then won a squeaker.

Northern Virginia is booming with liberals, Virginia is becoming a blue State again.  Do you have an argument as to why a "normal Republican" would have won?  Or are you just going to state as assumption they would again?


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> macacca lost running for BOTh seats, but Va's gop is mainstream.  You betcha.



Romney and McCain both lost Virginia too.  They are no conservatives.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 6, 2013)

jakie the one trick pony...tea party tea party tea party tea party and he never tires of repeating the same crap over and over


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Northern Virginia certainly does not help.

However, pure math and some analysis prove that if the candidate who basically does not have support from his own party loses with a 1% difference and the third candidate - an obvious shill from the left gained 90% of his votes in the precincts which were NOT northern - than there is room left.
It is the ones fooled by a "libertarian" ideas which caused this particular race to go the way it did.
However, I have to agree with Jake that if this race had one week more - Cuch would have won.

It amazes me that a man who plays a clown 99% of the time is actually able to diagnose the reality precisely when he does not, because it warrants the question - what's the purpose of the clowning?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?

No.

They're blaming everything *but* their own Front Men and Marketing Skills for their recent disasters.

They've slipped into Clueless Mode and I'm not sure they're comin' out of that coma anytime soon.

Pity.

I can't stand the idea of voting Democrat again in 2016, like I did in 2008 and 2012.

But if they run another McSame or Mittens, I may just have to.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > macacca lost running for BOTh seats, but Va's gop is mainstream.  You betcha.
> ...



they actually lost VA BECAUSE they are NOT conservatives. That is my conclusion based on the previous 2 elections and yesterday's results ( watched live)


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



The guys like you amaze me the most. I respect you and mostly agree with you.

But for the life of me I can't understand the logic - "if the GOP candidate is not conservative enough I will vote for the extreme leftard instead" - to punish exactly WHO?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



What they're going to attempt to run in 2016 is going to make McCain or Romney look good.  Any party that doesn't support maintaining their nation doesn't deserve power.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> It is the ones fooled by a "libertarian" ideas which caused this particular race to go the way it did.



And maybe the Republican party should adopt libertarian ideas instead of demanding we support theirs and blaming us when they don't get our votes?

It's pretty simple for Republicans, actually follow up on the fiscal conservative values they claim to espouse, keep our military out of other countries' business if they are not a threat to us and realize that small government includes government not owning our bodies.

If Republicans can't do that, their claim that our votes were really there's is utterly unpersuasive.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Nov 6, 2013)

Had Obama not helped out the faux libertarian in the race Ross Perot style then things would be different not that I care too much about it.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > It is the ones fooled by a "libertarian" ideas which caused this particular race to go the way it did.
> ...



They should.

But sitting out the elections or voting for a shill or unelectable person is not going to make that change happen - you can put more needed candidates into the party ranks if you VOTE and PARTICIPATE not ride your high horse and wait until the rinos will level with you.
They won't. They are happy with business as usual. If you want a change to happen - make it happen YOURSELF.
Otherwise you will be let with a leftard scum forever.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> And maybe the Republican party should adopt libertarian ideas instead of demanding we support theirs and blaming us when they don't get our votes?
> 
> .



The brand Republican is used as an umbrella by many individuals who have socialist/statist tendencies.

They will never adopt Libertarian policies. Their goal goal is to acquire power and fame by any means necessary.

.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > And maybe the Republican party should adopt libertarian ideas instead of demanding we support theirs and blaming us when they don't get our votes?
> ...



If you passively sit and wait until the body of your enemy floats down the stream - it might be YOUR body eventually 

If you want a change to happen - you make it happen yourself not wait until somebody will change for your highness tastes.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Why do you get to set the standard that we vote Republican or we're not doing anything?  He's the libertarian candidate, that Obama helped him doesn't make him a shill.

I don't have a strong opinion on the candidates.  I have lived in Virginia multiple times, I know the State, but not since the 90s so I don't know the players as well as I did.

I always vote, but I frequently vote for third party and independents.  Being actually different than the Democrats is actually pretty easy, they are left wing ideologues.  Yet Republicans struggle mightily to make it happen.

I don't see why voting for the guy standing as closed to the socialist as he can while claiming he's to the right of the socialist is that much more of a great idea than saying we're sick of it and voting to let people know we want an actual difference.

I agree totally with how much you think Obama sucks.  I'm just having a hard time with seeing clearly how Republicans are actually different.  Particularly in ways that matter to me.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Cuntomacious said:
			
		

> The brand Liberal is used as an umbrella by many individuals who have fascist/statist tendencies.



Fair point


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



That is a good policy.

Irrelevant to our discussion , but a good policy nevertheless.

.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



no, it is not. It is a policy of a loser.
If one is dealing with the leftards.

It might work in an EVEN field. Not with the enemy which is lying, deceitful and planning to murder you the moment it gets it's claws on your neck.
The enemy like that requires a different stance - not a passive going with the wind attitude.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Cuntomacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*The brand Republican, liberal , conservatives, democrats are used as an umbrella by many individuals who have fascist/statist tendencies.*

.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What's the old saying?  The most popular guy in town is the back up quarterback?  Romney isn't even that...he's not qualified.  

If Romney were superior, he would have won.  He didn't.  He got beat. Badly.

Now you need to fire up your excuse machine (if it hasn't overheated from constant use) and start the blame game.  It's your only move.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Let me re-direct you towards reality.

The "enemy" constitutes a majority, who are totally dependent on government largesse,  they vote early and often. They also control the paramilitary domestic police. You do the math.

.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Bush won by 500 votes here in Florida. 

Nader received 60,000 votes in Florida. 

Nader doesn't run, Gore is President.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So with the Democrats at some point my body will flow down the stream.  I can vote Republican and delay my body flowing down the stream just a little bit longer.

I prefer to vote for my body to not flow down the stream even if it's futile then just use my vote to slow the process down ... slightly ...


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Obama ran a superior campaign  Whether he's a better potus than Mitt would have been, that's debatable.  Mitt ran so far right he couldn't even thnk about getting to the middle.  But, he had no choice if he wanted the gop nomination


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Was that some sort of secret?  Is someone discounting Nader's impact on the election?  Oh, it was Redfish...that explains it.  NM


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



there are different republicans. and that is the main problem - as leftards are unified and behave in army style - the command came from above - they do not think - they obey.
No, I do not want the other side to behave like that but in order to be able to win with the enemy which is structured in such a way - one has to able to overstep personal dislikes. It is the question of priorities.
I think you ( and others, who think like you) still consider democrats the party as they were 23-30-40 years ago - and that is the main mistake here. They have changed. there are NO moderate, blue dog democrats anymore, or democrats, which are, mostly a social-democratic political spectrum. The only ones left are socialist or even communist ones - the marxist style. 
The enemy of this caliber and potential damage has to be treated differently - and that also includes the portion of self-sacrifice of the likes-dislikes.
Because this dimocrap party is dangerous.
To everybody.

and in order to displace the statist pubs in the republican party - one has to get involved actively, not just polemically. The TP and TP candidates was a great start - look how scared they become and how much smear they put on the small but powerful faction. Powerful not because they have the money behind them - they do not. But they still have the spirit and the will.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Gore also would have been President if he'd won his home State.  Thanks for reminding me of that, it cracks me up.  Who knew what a sell out he was better?


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



with the dimocraps as they are today parts of your body will float down the stream. I can guarantee you that. This is not the first time in the history.

and the republicans can be changed. they still have the potential. If you make that change happen - yourself.

But if you are prepared for the float down the stream you might as well bring the ax for the enemy to lighten their task


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> I think you ( and others, who think like you) still consider democrats the party as they were 23-30-40 years ago



Wrong.  I see the left moving as far as fast to the left as they can go, and the Republicans running as fast to the left behind them as they can to keep up.  The Democrats consider Republicans moving to the left slower than they do the Republicans moving to the right and the Republicans think as long as they stay behind the Democrats moving to the left, they get everyone's vote who's to the right of the Democrats.  They are both nuts.

The Republicans don't own our votes.  I can't speak for other libertarians on this, but I suspect I'm correct that Republicans informing me that I cost them the election widens the gulf between us and does not narrow it.  I don't feel respected when they spend like there is no tomorrow, I don't feel respected when they say they are for small government but want government to own our bodies, and I don't feel respected when our military is all over the world meddling in everyone's business.  They don't own my vote, I do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Repeatedly denying it doesn't support you, bub.

Only the facts count, and my facts are right on.  Enough Americans vote who will not vote for TeaPs, period, under any circumstances.  They will take a dem or a libertarian if they have to in order avoid a TeaP.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



yeah, I get it - you have already surrendered 

did you prepare the greeting bouquets for the executioners when they eventually come?


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > I think you ( and others, who think like you) still consider democrats the party as they were 23-30-40 years ago
> ...



For better or worse, evolution toward socialism became inevitable when women were granted suffrage.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



My standard I've stated is that I'll vote for Republicans in any particular election if they give me one clear reason to do that.  Sometimes they do, not very often.  Explain why if they can't clear the hurdle of the bar on the first rung and I vote for them anyway I'm going to affect any change in them.

I don't consider myself a tea partier, but I respect them.  I'm a lot more likely to vote for a tea party candidate.  In my youth I occasionally voted for Democrats, but it's been decades.  They are actually the party that purged any moderates.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > I think you ( and others, who think like you) still consider democrats the party as they were 23-30-40 years ago
> ...



whatever. sharpen the ax for the "liberators" to make their job easier.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

lies (1) Democrats are Marxists: what horse shit; (2) GOP can be turned to Libertarian or TeaP: horse shit

Christie is the symbol of what is good with America, mainstream Republicanism


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



there is no evolution towards socialism. it can occur only violently.

and women are the first ones to regret it bitterly.

the ones who experienced it will make sure none of their descendants ever have anything to do with this atrocity. ever.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



This still presents the assumption that my vote belongs to you.   By not voting for you or the other candidate, I am assisting the other candidate.  Again, my vote does not belong to you.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



what do you call Social Security then, if not a step toward socialism?

and that's just one example of many.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> lies (1) Democrats are Marxists: what horse shit; (2) GOP can be turned to Libertarian or TeaP: horse shit
> 
> Christie is the symbol of what is good with America, mainstream Republicanism



Well, your plan for two identical socialist parties does eliminate the worry about who wins on election night...


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No, I haven't.

I belong to the Laptop Militia. 

I provide the intellectual ammunition.

You do your thang.

.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Go ahead and run against social security and SSD in 2014. Watch your candidate be destroyed in the election.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Precisely.

But if only men were allowed to vote, it would be a winning platform.


----------



## blackhawk (Nov 6, 2013)

There is a lesson for Democrats as we'll opposition to Obamacare nearly flipped the election for the Republican if there had not been a third candidate it have this is speculation though. Unless Obamacare improves dramatically it will be a major drag on Democrats next year.


----------



## deltex1 (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuck the national GOP...it is the individual voter who needs to learn the lessson...get off your dead ass and vote!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...




After winning by only 3% of the vote, while outspending his republican rival (McAuliffe's $34 million to Cuccinelli's $20 million), only shows Democrats have to work a lot harder and spend a lot more just to win by the skin of his teeth. Yet the Republicans are supposed to feel threatened? Look at the voting margin in the New Jersey election, a true solid blue state, and you'll see which party has a right to be concerned.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> There is a lesson for Democrats as we'll opposition to Obamacare nearly flipped the election for the Republican if there had not been a third candidate it have this is speculation though. Unless Obamacare improves dramatically it will be a major drag on Democrats next year.



True, but there's no polling support for simply eliminating it and doing nothing, which the gop house is about.  In short, it has perils for both parties.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> what do you call Social Security then, if not a step toward socialism?
> 
> and that's just one example of many.



a ponzi scheme. has nothing to do with real socialism.

learn what socialism is, first, as you clearly have social-democratism in mind, when naming it socialism.
Nowadays dimocrap party is not social-democratic anymore. It is infested with pure marxist socialists and commies.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



and you want to be considered serious debater when you demonstrate such  a dumb leftardist brainwashed syndrome


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > what do you call Social Security then, if not a step toward socialism?
> ...



ok, communication snafu.

You're right, when I say 'socialism' i'm not actually talking about state ownership of the means of production and the complete elimination of capitalism. But then again neither is anyone else when they call democrat politicians 'socialists', except for a tiny minority of idiots that is.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I don't lose any sleep either way.

You have my sincerest condolences if this is a source of personal validation for you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

savis got 7% of liberals to 3% of conservatives. To top this off the democrat got 22% more of the moderates with 56% to 34%. Guess who got 10% of the moderates? Savis...

Not to go into the fact that he got over twice as many 18-29 year olds THEN any other age range...= slightly more likely to vote liberal ideas anyways
Virginia Governor Exit Polls - 2013 Election Results - NYTimes.com

Savis wasn't there = 5% win for the democrat.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> there is no evolution towards socialism. it can occur only violently.
> 
> r.



Previously.

But Karl Marx suggested a peaceful transition period - fascism - in the Communist Manifesto:

* "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state" *

.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> savis got 7% of liberals to 3% of conservatives. To top this off the democrat got 22% more of the moderates with 56% to 34% Republican. Guess who got 10% of the moderates? Savis...
> 
> Not to go into the fact that he got over twice as many 18-29 year olds THEN any other age range...= slightly more likely to vote liberal ideas anyways
> Virginia Governor Exit Polls - 2013 Election Results - NYTimes.com
> ...



I don't care enough to dig into this and challenge your assertion, but at face value it sure smells like a steaming pile of horseshit. No offense.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > savis got 7% of liberals to 3% of conservatives. To top this off the democrat got 22% more of the moderates with 56% to 34% Republican. Guess who got 10% of the moderates? Savis...
> ...



It's based on the exit polls. It is what it is.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I have a hard time believing a third party Libertarian candidate hurt the Democratic candidate. Seems more likely to me that the exit polls were statistically flawed (or fabricated).

But whatever.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



yes they are. and that is the danger.
they are not social-democrats anymore.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?
> ...


For me, 2008 was about the GOP needlessly taking us to war in Iraq and taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, by bungling the management of both wars, presiding over The Crash, and the prospect of a 3rd Bush term with the advent of McSame.

For me, 2012 was about the GOP foolishly using Mittens as their front-man and his 47% comments and my perception of him as disingenuous and incapable of leading the nation.

I held my nose and voted for Obumble both times; the first time, because the nation was desperate for change; the second time, because the Alternative was entirely uninspiring; so, better the lame-ass you know than the lame-ass you don't.

I also concede quite happily and willingly that I may have been wrong both times; or not.

For me, both general elections were not so much about party ideology as they were the Past Sins of the Parties and the (perceived) relative Leadership Qualities of the job-candidates.

The field of choices in 2008 and 2012 with any chance whatsoever of winning, were awful.

So, I gave it a think-over, threw a dart at the wall, held my nose, and pulled the lever.

I'm _soooooo_ ashamed... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





My one consolation is that I've voted ever-so-slightly more Republican in my lifetime than I have Democrat, but it's a fairly close call...


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Dude, that's just silly.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > there is no evolution towards socialism. it can occur only violently.
> ...


*

Karl Marx did not live to the time when it actually was put into life. Yes, the fascist variation of socialism was elected, but it took less than three months after the election to the monster to start showing it's real face.
and violence is needed mostly not to install the socialist state but to maintain it.
And that what all types of socialism proved - violence and blood and death.

and it still didn't work *


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I am not a dude 

And it is not silly. It is scary.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No, it's silly.

Obama is not a marxist, he's a corporatist, bought and paid for in full. And the last thing those he's beholden to want is to cede their wealth to the state.


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I'm with you.  While I'm arguing that the Republicans don't own our votes, that a majority of libertarians came from the left doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



he is a marxist. he is a corporatist bought and paid for on the road to his goal. 

that is what you guys seem not to understand, even knowing that the guy is a lie, only lie and nothing but lie 

look at what he is doing in fundamentals of transforming the country.
He is actually extremely consistent.
Or his puppeteers.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I'm not so sure.  Cuc doesn't like gays, thinks discriminating against them is ok, and he thinks priv businesses should be sued for employing illegal aliens.  He also pretty much conducted a one man witch hunt against a professor supporting climate change, and in the end there was nothing there beyone a scientist with an honest opinion.  Cuc is cool with govt overreach when the overreach is aimed at stuff he doesn't like.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

What were the candidates' positions on drugs?  That could tell you who the libertarians voted for.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



well, this is a total BS. here I agree with you both.

the "libertarian" was planted to steal the voices from the right and that is what he did.
It was pretty obvious last night - if you watched the live count.

he had 131K votes before the NVA counts started coming. He gained there only 10K votes - that is less than 8% of his count.


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


*

Insofar as there is a tiny majority who are not ready to accept full blown socialism iit will be violent here in the US.

But they will be easily crushed.......ask the surviving Davidians

.*


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


*

it is violent everywhere where it is installed and maintained ( even for a short period of time)
because you can not install and maintain a regime where private property is expropriated from the citizens and not expect the resistance.

still won't work. in terms of sustainability. it did not work anywhere - the only regimes still there are on life support.*


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



If he would subvert his values to get the nomination; what does that say about his values and character?


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



First we give banks a few billion and then have the Fed Reserve pour billions into markets.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Exactly. Bailing out banks is hardly Marxist. Nationalizing the entire financial system is Marxist.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



sure. read for yourself 

_Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#8217;s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. 
_
Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Marx's central tenet was the proletariat will have to abolish private ownership and social classes will disappear.  However, Marx's views on how class warfare enables private ownership and economic disadvantage to the proletariat is not totally off the mark. But, we are a bourgoise society ... praise Jesus and pass the gravy.  LOL.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

Americans want JOBS
Americans want science
Americans want infrastructure

Americans don't want the gop telling them who they can marry or what they can put in their bodies.


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Ok, no 10 .. done that.  LOL


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



You must've misunderstood.

I'm looking for examples of things Obama has done. Not a summary of items from the Communist Manifesto that he didn't do. Unless of course your plan is to prove my point. And if that's the case, well done kemosabe, well done.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Gee, I haven't heard about any violence in Cuba, Venezuela.

The state apparatchiks can easily crush the dissenters.

.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



read the whole chapter II. The abolition of the family is much more impressive.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



oh really? you haven't heard about violence in Cuba?

where have you been for the last 50+ years?

Under the rock?

time to get to the world and learn something


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Michelle is wolf in sheep's clothing, I'm tellin ya.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



read for yourself. and if you do not see anything related to what obama has done - there is nothing to discuss as the leftards do not see. because they do not want to.

as I stated at the beginning - any discussion with a leftard is a waste of time.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



That happened early on. Now the opposition is either in Jail or Miami. Ever heard of the Mariel boatlift?

.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



what, you expected the slaughter to go on and who would work for the elite?  and pushed to jail for political values is pretty darn violent, I would say

they are all behind the barbed wire in the labor camp and surviving only because family from Miami are sending soap and sugar.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



as we all know you can't fix stupid and you can't fix the republicans ability to learn ... they're the definition of crazy ... they keep doing the same shit over and over expecting a different out come ...


----------



## bendog (Nov 6, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



I'm not so sure.  Ryan may be able to run on pricipals that can be bent to get 80% of what he wants.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > lies (1) Democrats are Marxists: what horse shit; (2) GOP can be turned to Libertarian or TeaP: horse shit
> ...



kaz can't even prove there is one socialist or socialist-type party

you TeaPs are loony


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You got me, I'm a reactionary, libertarian, neocon, Republican, far right, tea partier.  They are all just words that mean "not liberal" to you, aren't they Jake?  Even though neocons are actually liberals...


----------



## blackhawk (Nov 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lesson for Democrats as we'll opposition to Obamacare nearly flipped the election for the Republican if there had not been a third candidate it have this is speculation though. Unless Obamacare improves dramatically it will be a major drag on Democrats next year.
> ...



Agreed if the GOP runs on just repeal next year and does not offer a alternative I'm not convinced the Republicans will have to do much in regards to Obamacare if it continues as it is they can sit back and let the results speak for themselves. If I were advising them I would have alternative ready just in case.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



They are all words that mean that you are a loony reactionary


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Replace not repeal, or the American population will surely squeal


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



I'd replace it with a single payer system like in Taiwan


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Nov 6, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 McAuliffe spent 14+ million more than Cuccinelli .. most contributors were wealthy corporate interests from out of state. Then there's the Washington DC unions and payed off voters


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Of the 32 Governors that have been elected since we slapped the shit out of *dimocrap scum *in Virginia during the Civil War, only Six (6) of them have been Republicans.
> 
> And that only started in 1970.
> 
> ...



Seriously, dude, it sounds like the only one who needs meds is you.  

To help you out, I've bolded every time you thought an insult was an argument. 

Sorry, man, this is a big deal.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Nov 6, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



Sounds like that 2009 Presidential speech of spending money on infrastructure, police, and teachers. How many times have we seen that message recycled over the last 5 years? If the stimulus was effective we would see more impressive economic growth than 2% drop in unemployment at best. It's not the governments job to sustain an economy, as we have seen with a national debt increase of over 3 Trillion dollars later with not much to show for it.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Taiwan copied the Canadian system.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 6, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...


Corporations are people, remember?


----------



## manifold (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Regardless, thanks again for proving my point kemosabe.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Nov 6, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Okay..


----------



## Iceman (Nov 6, 2013)

Lesson learned: Elections are determined by easily manipulated housefraus. Solution: Roll back the 19th Amendment.


----------



## earlycuyler (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?



Nope. Not normal ones.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Iceman said:


> _Lesson learned: Elections are determined by easily manipulated housefraus. Solution: Roll back the 19th Amendment. _


That's a joke, right, new meat?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Is the Canadian system any good? I don't know a thing about it.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > _Lesson learned: Elections are determined by easily manipulated housefraus. Solution: Roll back the 19th Amendment. _
> ...



I don't joke. The video makes my point pretty clearly. One of the primary constituencies of the Democrat Party is ill-informed women.  Opposition to the Democrat Party needs to find a way to undermine the turnout of the constituency, in anyway they can, or start making enough men give a shit. Neither will happen though because: 

1. The GOP doesn't have the balls to call a spade a spade on this one 
2. And men who don't vote now know the GOP is not a viable option that represents their interests


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Canadians love their Medicare.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Iceman said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceman said:
> ...


Wow.

Very uncool.

In the 7 months I've been posting here on a regular basis, I can probably count the No. of times on the fingers of one hand, where I've been so repulsed by a post that I actually used the Negative Reputation (Neg-Rep) button on my console.

This one just made the list.

I suggest that the 21st Century may not be your cup of tea.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


You just prove a larger point, leftists act on emotion, not logic. I put the video right their, where my point is clearly stated, and all you can say is that I am uncool. The fact is, leftists who act based on emotion, have manipulated women since suffrage into supporting their platform because women are so swayed by emotion.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



if there is American system next door it is tolerable. since you go south get what you need ASAP and then sue your provincial government for reimbursement of the spent costs.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



and come to the US to be operated or diagnosed on oncology specifics


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Iceman said:


> "..._You just prove a larger point, leftists act on emotion, not logic_..."



Me? A Leftist?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha.....







Yer a funny guy, new meat...

Tell us... which resurrected sock-puppet are you, again?

I'll leave it to some of the female debaters here to undertake the necessary pest-control measures.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > "..._You just prove a larger point, leftists act on emotion, not logic_..."
> ...



More emotions. You are just further proving my point.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > "..._You just prove a larger point, leftists act on emotion, not logic_..."
> ...



you are not a leftist if one considers your views.
Still, if one considers your electoral choices, especially in 2012 

maybe he read the thread.

BTW, I think you are too harsh. he is being facetious. nobody will roll back 19th Amendment, but the cold truth that the vast majority of women are uninformed and easily swayed by stupid media - is just that - cold truth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

earlycuyler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think Libertarians are as afraid of having their kids shot by a Second Amendment Originalist as most people are?
> ...



NOrmal people worry about that all the time. 

Oh, hey guess what.  9 shot in detroit... three fatally. 

We totally don't have a gun probelm.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Iceman said:


> You just prove a larger point, leftists act on emotion, not logic. I put the video right their, where my point is clearly stated, and all you can say is that I am uncool. The fact is, leftists who act based on emotion, have manipulated women since suffrage into supporting their platform because women are so swayed by emotion.



rofl

Pubes is back.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Funny thing is, 40 states have more guns per capita than Michigan does. States like Idaho, Montana, Kentucky, North Dakota have far more guns per capita than Detroit, yet they don't seem to have a similar crime problem. 

I wonder, what is the most glaring difference between a place like Idaho or Montana and Detroit? C'mon, I think we all know the first thing that came to mind. 

States With the Most Legal Guns in 2012 - The Daily Beast


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > "..._You just prove a larger point, leftists act on emotion, not logic_..."
> ...



"There are no leftist Americans."


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> "..._you are not a leftist if one considers your views_..."



Much obliged.



> "..._Still, if one considers your electoral choices, especially in 2012  maybe he read the thread_..."



I've already thrown myself on the mercy of the court for my foolishness.



> "..._BTW, I think you are too harsh. he is being facetious. nobody will roll back 19th Amendment_..."



That much I figured-out for myself, Vox.

*MY* angst can be attributed to misogyny, which I confirmed by asking the question before I locked-in my opinion.



> "..._but the cold truth that the vast majority of women are uninformed and easily swayed by stupid media - is just that - cold truth._"



Sorry... I can't go there, and I believe you to be wrong.

But the women-folk don't need me to fight their fights, in this kind of setting, so I'll leave it to them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



The TPM so fucked up the attack on ACA, that its survival, in some form, is guaranteed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Got numbers?  Got nuance and context?

Or you just got a big mouth.


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > "..._you are not a leftist if one considers your views_..."
> ...



I am not wrong. I know my sisters all too well


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



yes, I do. But they are confidential - HIPAA


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nope. Normal people don't worry about it AT ALL.


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



It has it's positives and negatives.

It tends to have an 80%+ approval rate amongst Canadians.  

However, I don't think anything like that will come to America.  It's not in the nature of Americans.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

Iceman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



People in Detroit don't marry their cousins like they do in Idaho?


----------



## Toro (Nov 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Last numbers I saw estimated that 0.8% of Canadians came to the US for medical treatments.

I'm Canadian and have had several friends and family members who have had cancer, including my father who was recently diagnosed with melanoma.  Generally, once you've been diagnosed, you get treatment ASAP.  If you have a "lifestyle" affliction, i.e. knee replacement, you can wait for months for treatment.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 6, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> What they should learn is that the Democrat candidates back 3rd party candidates in order to get votes away from the Republicans. Not sure what the Republicans can do on this. The green party doesn't run anymore because the DNC placated them enough that there is no incentive.
> 
> The problem is Libertarians are fiscal conservatives but often social liberals. Not sure what the Republicans can do to absorb them into the party. Maybe being more socially liberal. That would eliminate the 3rd party vote loss for Republicans but could alienate the social conservatives.
> 
> Maybe we can just make it illegal for either major party to financially back any 3rd party candidate but I'm sure the Democrats would work around that law.



What about the McCain/Bush type of foreign policy today's republican party seems to have and the civil liberties issues that both the republicans and democrats voted for? How would you sway the Libertarians over to your party? As far as funding campaigns;Cuccinelli had plenty of funding from outside of our state, as well as funding from single issue groups. What's wrong with Sarvis getting the same? What's wrong with having more than two  viable parties running for office?


----------



## Vox (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



depends on the cancer. melanoma has to be treated ASAP.

knees are replaced regularly here. so are hips. but the most vulnerable are some who need gene mapping for some specific tumors - that can not wait, and they are pushed to wait.
The most often encountered ones are breast cancers.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 6, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Learn what?
> 
> That dimocraps out-spent Republicans almost two to one?
> 
> ...



Excuses, excuses, excuses..............  What's wrong with Sarvis taking votes away  from anybody? That's what he's supposed to do when running for office. What's wrong with people choosing Sarvis over Cuccinelli? 
What  a bunch of candy asses!!!! "Rock ribbed conservatives" my ass!


----------



## Iceman (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I don't think there is any proof of that. 

The demographic differences are pretty glaring, you were indirectly getting at this by taking a shot at the people of Idaho.

Also, I'll up your cousin marriage with an astronomically high illegitimacy rate, which can actually be proven, unlike your claim.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Nov 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I suspect they don't marry at all but many have many kids.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> If only he was more conservative, he would have won.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 6, 2013)

it may have took a third party supported by the dems to 

get a dem in office 

however it looks like the 

Attorney general job will be a republican 

mark obenshain(R) 49.9
mark herring    (D) 49.87

unless al franken can show up in time with a trunk of missing ballots


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> it may have took a third party supported by the dems to
> 
> get a dem in office
> 
> ...



I think your data is out of date...

Herring, Obenshain may face recount in Va. AG?s race; December outcome likely - The Washington Post



> State Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) held a 727-vote lead over state Sen. Mark R. Herring (D-Loudoun) on Wednesday evening, according to the Virginia State Board of Elections. More than 2 million votes were cast in the race.
> 
> The margin widened and narrowed throughout the day, as local election boards began reviewing Tuesdays vote. Boards spent the day processing provisional ballots, votes cast by individuals who didnt have proper ID at the polls or who went to the wrong polling place. They also began to canvass returns, combing through them for human and mechanical errors.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

Who would've thought that Kondor3 would argue so passionately that liberal women are intelligent, informed voters, so much that it even required neg repping someone who said otherwise.

Damn, I definitely didn't see that coming.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > it may have took a third party supported by the dems to
> ...



no actually it isnt out of date 

but thanks anyhow


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> _Who would've thought that Kondor3 would argue so passionately that *liberal* women are intelligent, informed voters, so much that it even required neg repping someone who said otherwise. Damn, I definitely didn't see that coming._


It's a big universe. Plenty of room in it for hybrids like me - part Conservative, part Moderate, part Liberal - cherry-picking in Cafeteria Style on an issue-by-issue basis.

Surprise... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...good catch... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...much obliged.

But, let's be clear... I was referring to *ALL* women... not just one political inclination or another.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 7, 2013)

Pheonixops said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Learn what?
> ...



whats wrong with it is that he was funded by a democrat funding bundler,  he was never a real libertarian candidate,  he was a paid dem/lib hack who was put in the race to ensure that the clintons suck buddy would win.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > _Who would've thought that Kondor3 would argue so passionately that *liberal* women are intelligent, informed voters, so much that it even required neg repping someone who said otherwise. Damn, I definitely didn't see that coming._
> ...



Glad to meet a fellow cherry picker. 

But just so I'm clear, are you saying that ALL women are intelligent, informed voters?


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

In related news...
 [MENTION=42379]Redfish[/MENTION] struggles with considerable difficulty following along.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 7, 2013)

We need more panties in politics. The boxers and briefs have been srewing things up for long enough.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

Capstone said:


> We need more panties in politics. The boxers and briefs have been srewing things up for long enough.



I'm not sure that's the standard you want to settle on, what with the Larry Craig's of the world and all...


----------



## Redfish (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > We need more panties in politics. The boxers and briefs have been srewing things up for long enough.
> ...



maybe vaginal cigars----clinton/smoke.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> "..._But just so I'm clear, are you saying that ALL women are intelligent, informed voters?_"


Nope. I'm sure there are just as many low-info voters on the female side of the gender fence as on the male side.

My 'all' was intended to embrace Left, Right and Center rather than just the Left, as your original in this series might otherwise lead one to believe.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > "..._But just so I'm clear, are you saying that ALL women are intelligent, informed voters?_"
> ...



Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass.

I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> "..._Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass. I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it._"


I saw it as an attack upon the competency of women to participate in the political process.

Given the content of Post Nos. 239 and 241, it's a little difficult to deduce otherwise.

Why? Did you perceive that differently, in substance?


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass. I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it._"
> ...



Oops, I missed the rollback the 19th Amendment part. 

But from a big picture sense, I do believe that for better or worse, our civilization took a left turn at Albuquerque when woman were granted suffrage. On balance I'd definitely argue it was for the better, but I'd also argue that if women were never granted suffrage, our country would be far more reflective of conservative ideals today. Just think about it for a minute. Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK, no Clinton. Sure it's merely speculative and academic, but it's still interesting to think about.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > However, the GOP should take a lesson and start running candidates that will siphon off liberal and progressive votes.  I'd run a few wack job progressive extremists in each district and siphon off at least 15% of the vote away from the Democrat.
> ...



I'm thinking the republicans need to create a unique party for each of the different groups in the democrat party.  One party for the criminals, one party for the global warming peta faction, one party for the gays, one party for the butch women, one party for the progressives, one party for the illegals, ...


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I wouldn't expect that.

All it would take is to bankroll one Green party candidate to at the very least, cancel out the Libertarian.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > We need more panties in politics. The boxers and briefs have been screwing things up for long enough.
> ...



Hadn't thought of that. 

I suppose the standard _might_ be useless regarding some of the chicks as well.






Still, the law of averages is on my side...


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

nooice!


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Nah.  Just because the democrat party is chock filled with anti-maternal tom boys, does not mean that the majority of women do not reflect conservative ideals.  

On Hillary, she didn't create the modern progressive movement.  That was Salinsky, the weather underground, and the pony tailed marxist / communist / socialist coup of our liberal arts colleges.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Nah the dems will just come out with a return to religion party and stay one step ahead.  The way to fix our voting problem is easy.  Rank the vote like all other voting systems.  Three people running, you get to say you want candidate #1, otherwise candidate #3.   This way you can vote for the libertarian first, republican second pointing out at the voting booth who you want.  That or you have a run off election in all cases where one candidate does not get 50.00001%.    This is not rocket science, our voting system is stupid as a rock.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 7, 2013)

The GOP needs to offload the Teabaggers and the religious nutjobs if they want to start winning elections.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So are you arguing that nothing would be different today, politically speaking, if women were never allowed to vote?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with me about how it would be different? If so, please elaborate?


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 7, 2013)

You guys do know the republican did not lose the woman vote right?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I was only focused on the modern element.

Taking a look back in history... We would not have had prohibition. Course that was thrown out. 

We would not have had female hiring and promotion quotas.  Which led to racial quotas.  So we would have had less discrimination against white males.  We would have less attempts at woosification of our boys in our school systems and subsequently of our men in politics.  

We would not be murdering children in the womb by the tens of millions. 

So would there be differences? yes.

But I disagree with these points "Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK,..."  I believe all of those would still be in place, I would not blame female voting for any of those issues.


----------



## 007 (Nov 7, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

This thread has turned special.


----------



## 007 (Nov 7, 2013)

bendog said:


> This thread has turned special.



This thread was a special kind of turd from the beginning.

It's leftard propaganda, nothing more.


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

Blame the women.  You guys are fikcing (literally) nuts.  LOL



Ask yourself: How did Ken Cuccinelli (R) win on the pocketbook issue of the economy (49%-43%) and health care (49%-45%), but lose the race? Ask any political consultant worth his/her salt and that person would tell you, if you win on the economy, you win. That didn&#8217;t happen. Cuccinelli lost. And he lost on the issue of abortion by a whopping 59%-34% margin. What&#8217;s more, not only did Terry McAuliffe win female voters by nine points (51%-42%), he also won non-married women by 42 points (67%-25%). There&#8217;s also this: While just 46% said they supported the health-care law, only 34% said abortion should be ILLEGAL in all or most cases. And Republican pollster Byron Allen said the GOP shortcoming in Virginia wasn&#8217;t abortion; it was birth control. &#8220;While I&#8217;m convinced by data and experience that pro-life candidates can win in swing states, it&#8217;s becoming equally clear that we have handed Democrats an issue on a silver platter by arguing over birth-control, whether it&#8217;s government funding or mandates in Obamacare.&#8221; You can argue if the Obamacare issue tightened the race. But we know why Cuccinelli lost in purple Virginia: abortion and birth control.

First Thoughts: GOP rivals begin dishing on Christie - First Read


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



From where I'm sitting, you're agreeing and disagreeing with pretty much the same underlying point... we'd be more reflective of conservative values today if women were never given the vote. And while you have every right to think that JFK and Clinton would've been elected without women voters, it is my opinion that you couldn't be more wrong about that.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

bendog said:


> Blame the women.



One man's blame is another man's credit.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 7, 2013)

Women do not all think the same or have the same political ideas.   The are divided just like men.

the dem mantra "GOP war on women"  is nothing but a political lie.  

but I will never expect any dem to admit that.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Women do not all think the same or have the same political ideas.   The are divided just like men.



Of course they don't all think the same. But the numbers certainly suggest that in aggregate women swing left and men swing right.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



You saying they "seduced" women into voting for them with their willy ways?


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm saying that evidence suggests women voted for them a lot more than they didn't.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Women do not all think the same or have the same political ideas.   The are divided just like men.
> ...



Or... there are more black women & hispanic women voting than black and hispanic men voting and these black and hispanic women are voting 98% democrat. 

I would bet the break down between non-black & hispanic women and white & asian women would be significantly different.

Any time there is a significant disparity in a statistic, like blacks voting all one party, that statistic can be leveraged to make all kinds of false statistical assumptions.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

David C. Wilson: The Elephant in the Exit Poll Results: Most White Women Supported Romney


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No.  As shown above the "evidence" suggests nearly all blacks and most hispanics voted democrat.  The primary differentiation was race not gender.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

blame the TeaPs pure and simple for VA

any mainstream GOP could have won

another lesson (learned, unlearned) about running TeaPs for important offices.

You know exactly what you get with TeaPoCrappery


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> blame the TeaPs pure and simple for VA
> 
> any mainstream GOP could have won
> 
> ...



Yeah cause if it wasn't for the tea party blacks would suddenly vote for republicans. ROFL Fakey you are the only person that keeps PMZ from being known as the dumbest man in America.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You're citing the one election where minorities got to vote for a minority for president as evidence that women don't skew democratic? 

Go look up the historical stats and see if your argument holds water.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No, you do it. I provided enough evidence to blow out your accusation for the last election.  Now you post your proof that minorities did not vote in lock step for Clinton.  Then explain why Clinton lost to Obama.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You did no such thing.

But I did look it up and what I found is that I was wrong about FDR, but right about JFK and Clinton. It appears that prior to 1960, men were actually more likely to vote democrat than women, but since 1960 it's been the other way around and the gap was the largest for Clinton. Did you know that more men voted for Dole than Clinton in 1996? That surprised even me.

Now I'm left to wonder what happened around 1960 to cause it to flip? Television?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > blame the TeaPs pure and simple for VA
> ...



Christy got 80% of the blacks, son.  How many did cooch get?

Truth?  PMZ is an Einstein compared to you.  Read my sentence above any time you doubt that.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



You may be talking about "looks." And I would agree that folks who look the part are more likely to get elected for the part.  However, that does not say only women use looks.  

Further as I pointed out the larger difference is race not gender.  While there is a difference in how men and women vote that difference is smaller than the difference between race. 

Your argument is equivalent to making a mountain out of a mole hill while ignoring the volcano at your back. 

Change your argument to giving blacks and females the vote have forever changed American politics and I'll agree.  But when the elephant in the room is racism, and you are blaming feminism, well that's just a bit disingenuous.  For example, it could be argued the gay swing vote won Obama the election.   

However the race issue was > than the feminism issue > which was > than the sexual orientation issue.  Which to me points to how much racism, welfare, and sex plays in American politics.


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

The blacks didn't doom Cuc; the women did.  And when even Romney lost the women ... after passing his HC plan in Mass, that's very bad news for the gop.  We need to stop trying to stick our magic wants up the vaginas of women who want abortions, and we should be happy helping to pay for mamograms and birth control


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



ROFL you are truly an idiot. Chris Christie got 20% of the black vote, not 80%.


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

typos, typos, typos.  I remember the good old days, when we had female secretaries, or gay young men, to blame that shite upon.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 7, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  yea, we learned that the democrats claiming the were a heavy favorite to win barely eeked by.   on the other hand, a republican dominated a very liberal state in NJ


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Agree to disagree on the finer points.

Saying that the race gap has a greater impact than the gender gap is a subjective opinion, one I happen to disagree with, but that's just my opinion. However it's still a fact that since 1960, women have skewed democrat relative to men in presidential elections.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


Yes. However, just as income is not zero sum, in so far as your neighbor earning income does not mean you have less income,...  Just because democrats are pandering to the women, and winning that vote, does not mean if women were not voting the democrats would not pander to pansy men.  Nor does it mean women issues had no sway on their husband's vote before women had the vote.  

It's just as likely that women are voting democrat because there have been little if any viable republican candidates.  

Who in their right mind would vote for these 100year old republicans they keep trotting up?  There are only so many old white men to sway the vote for old white men.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Yes. However, just as income is not zero sum, in so far as your neighbor earning income does not mean you have less income,...  Just because democrats are pandering to the women, and winning that vote, does not mean if women were not voting the democrats would not pander to pansy men.  Nor does it mean women issues had no sway on their husband's vote before women had the vote.
> 
> It's just as likely that women are voting democrat because there have been little if any viable republican candidates.
> 
> Who in their right mind would vote for these 100year old republicans they keep trotting up?  There are only so many old white men to sway the vote for old white men.



You should take it up with this guy, you two seem to be on opposites sides of this academic debate:



RKMBrown said:


> Taking a look back in history... We would not have had prohibition. Course that was thrown out.
> 
> We would not have had female hiring and promotion quotas.  Which led to racial quotas.  So we would have had less discrimination against white males.  We would have less attempts at woosification of our boys in our school systems and subsequently of our men in politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



A republican who, in all liklihood, won't be able to win the national nomination in 16.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 7, 2013)

bendog said:


> Blame the women.  You guys are fikcing (literally) nuts.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You say I am nuts, but your own data proves my point. Women, particularly single moms, divorcees, and other assorted types of single women tipped the scales in favor of McAuliffe.


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

I say you are nuts for favoring nominees who diss mamograms at planned parenthood and insurance covering contraception.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 7, 2013)

bendog said:


> I say you are nuts for favoring nominees who diss mamograms at planned parenthood and insurance covering contraception.



I never supported Cuccinelli, I said women cost him the election and that women on the average are ill informed irrational voters. You further prove my point, they vote on issues(Abortion and Contraception in Obamacare) that are set in stone at the Federal Level, in a state election. 

A tip of the cap to the women, especially the unmarried women of Virginia, lol.


----------



## bendog (Nov 7, 2013)

Why do you say women in Va, esp unmarried women, are uniformed?  By doing so you are not only wrong, but that stance dooms you with them .... and you most likely can't win without them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. However, just as income is not zero sum, in so far as your neighbor earning income does not mean you have less income,...  Just because democrats are pandering to the women, and winning that vote, does not mean if women were not voting the democrats would not pander to pansy men.  Nor does it mean women issues had no sway on their husband's vote before women had the vote.
> ...



You are conflating single issues, with voting decisions.  Each voting decision is based on hundreds of factors.   You are continuing to make the common mistake of assuming causality in statistics.  This is a very common error.  People tend to invent reasons for what they see, when they do not have complete understanding.  

So no, my statements are not in conflict.


----------



## manifold (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh silly me, I see it now. You think that things today would be wildly different if women were never granted the right to vote, but that all the politicians and especially presidents elected along the way would have been the same.

Wow, I bow to your genius, because I certainly never would have thought of that on my own.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You fell for it, Einstein.  Christie got 20% of NJ blacks, blue-state blacks, you silly sucker.

I made you come up with figure so that you can see that Christie is viable where as the rest of America along with blacks will piss all over the far right candidates.

We can't win with TeaPoCrapic far right reactionaries, son.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Your idea of "wildly" different and mine are completely different.  But no, you are correct the world would be different if a butterfly in Africa had lost it's wings 52years ago, on Tuesday afternoon.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



HUH?  You lied on purpose, because you think 20% of the black vote is enough to make people who love liberty want to vote for a socialist dirt bag like Chris Christie?  I get it that socialists like you like it when the republicans offer up a socialist like Bush, that way you socialist scum can't loose.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> What they should learn is that the Democrat candidates back 3rd party candidates in order to get votes away from the Republicans. Not sure what the Republicans can do on this. The green party doesn't run anymore because the DNC placated them enough that there is no incentive.
> 
> The problem is Libertarians are fiscal conservatives but often social liberals. Not sure what the Republicans can do to absorb them into the party. Maybe being more socially liberal. That would eliminate the 3rd party vote loss for Republicans but could alienate the social conservatives.
> 
> Maybe we can just make it illegal for either major party to financially back any 3rd party candidate but I'm sure the Democrats would work around that law.



  Yes, it's all Sarvis's fault that Cuccinelli won.  It's not that Cuccinelli was a shit candidate with archaic ideals that mainstream voters wanted nothing to do with, right?

You'll notice Chris Christie won 60% of the vote in Democratic New Jersey, winning a majority of women, Hispanics, and 20% of blacks.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2013)

The Tea Party is a powerful pressure group in Republican politics and democrats will use any dirty trick in the book including recruiting and funding fake political candidates to syphon votes in a close race.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 7, 2013)

If there is anything to be gleaned from the Virginia race it's this:

The GOP has a long way to go, but the failure of Obamacare will be a major cache of weaponry for them in 2014 and 2016.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 7, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The Tea Party is a powerful pressure group in Republican politics and democrats will use any dirty trick in the book including recruiting and funding fake political candidates to syphon votes in a close race.



Sarvis pulled more from McAuliffe than he did from Cuccinelli, but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of your anti-democratic propaganda.



> First off, it ignores data that the Libertarian pulled more votes from the Democratic candidate than he did from the Republican onean exit poll of Sarvis voters showed that they would have voted for McAuliffe by a two-to-one margin over Cucinelli. Second, and far more important, it presumes that all potential votes somehow really belong to either Democrats or Republicans. Thats simply wrong and it does a real disservice to American politics.
> 
> Don't Blame Sarvis for the Cuccinelli Loss/McAuliffe Win in Virginia - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 7, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > This might be a stupid question but I'm not from Virginia and would like someone from there to answer this. Was it Cuccinelli who was the problem or was it the Lt. Gov. candidate? What's been really turning me off about the TP (besides them being associated with the GOP) lately is all of the loudmouth religious nut jobs who seem to think that the TP is their home.
> ...



Cherry Pick?  You are right.  Cooch is a flaming right wing loon.  Christie is a moderate, rational Republican.  Ahhhh, what is the lesson here?


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> If there is anything to be gleaned from the Virginia race it's this:
> 
> The GOP has a long way to go, but the failure of Obamacare will be a major cache of weaponry for them in 2014 and 2016.



It is yet to fail....sorry to disappoint.


----------



## Intense (Nov 7, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Utter Bullshit. Like Romney was a step to the Right? Like McCain was a step to the Right? Right what? Right Statist Progressive as opposed to Left Statist Progressive? Get a life of your own.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 7, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



I don't care who funded him as long as it's not illegal or an illegal organization. I'm not buying your other claim, because there are plenty of Libertarians or Libertarian leaning people who will not or would not vote for Cuccinelli. The exit polling facts contradict the assertions made by you and other republicans stating that Sarvis allegedly cost Cuccinelli the race.
"Finally, while it didnt change the outcome, *the third-party candidate in the race, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, may have made it closer for McAuliffe than it would have been otherwise. *Had he not been on the ballot, *a third of his voters said theyd have supported McAuliffe  slightly more than twice as many as said theyd have gone for Cuccinelli.*"

Virginia Governor Exit Polls - 2013 Election Results - NYTimes.com

The problem is that Cuccinelli didn't have a wide enough appeal to get enough votes. Those excuses blaming Sarvis and the Libertarians are pretty lame. I notice that you guys aren't complaining about the Koch brothers donating to Cuccinelli's campaign now are you?
Koch-backed governors group gives big to Cuccinelli in Virginia | Center for Public Integrity
Cuccinelli's Koch Party - Progress|VA


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Catching you in your lies is worth it, bub.

CC is not socialist, your are not mainstream American much less Republican, and we are not going to finance TeaPoCraps to run for major office.  The word went out this morning.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 7, 2013)

probably not.. the takeaway is though that the dems won by a very slim margin even after a 3rd  party spoiler, almost total RNC indifference and massive amounts of money from the dem machine...

The dems are on shaky ground... this should have been a landslide, but it was a squeaker.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


huh?  you are the stupit shit head that lied... what an idiot.  And hell no I'm not mainstream, nor republican. Nor will I ever vote for a republican socialist, not ever, never, not gonna do it.  I don't care how loud you shit heads scream but if you don't vote for our socialist that socialist will get elected.


----------



## Toro (Nov 7, 2013)

The National GOP is trying to change caucuses to primaries in some states specifically because they believe they bring out people who do not represent the mainstream of the party.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 7, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > If there is anything to be gleaned from the Virginia race it's this:
> ...



It's already failed. 

4.2 million times. 

Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Uh, yeah, it is... right now the DEMOCRAT is slightly ahead. 

Virginia elections 2013: Results of the 2013 elections | WJLA.com

Candidate Party % 
Mark Herring Democrat 49.91% 
Mark Obenshain Republican 49.88%


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 7, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm several pages behind but, in a word, yes.

They're all hating all over the one and only R who won - Christie.

All except for lame ass Mittens. After he said all the nasty stuff about Christie, all of a sudden, he did his usual flip flop and said Christie was the second coming of the R party.

But, basically, the R thinks going after the basic rights of Americans is the way to win.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



I have to call shennaningans here---

When did Romney say bad stuff about CHristie?


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



When is the last time a republican received 20% of the "Black vote"? Christie has a "crossover" appeal in my opinion, why do you think he received that high of a percentage of the "black vote"?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 7, 2013)

50%+ of the Hispanic vote

Running moderates are good for America.

Fuck extremist.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 7, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> ...



Why do you think that a Republican won easily in a very liberal state and a Democrat won in a pretty much conservative red state?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 7, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Likely the latter. 

Eventually the decision will be made for them, however; as American society becomes more inclusive and diverse, as same-sex couples and transgender persons realize their civil liberties, and as younger voters continue to reject the hate and ignorance exhibited by the right, republicans will have no other choice than to embrace diversity and dissent or cease being a National party.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



The new Halperin/Heilemann book, Double Down has been quoted for several days now. Among other things, he called Christie "Pufferfish".  

?Double Down? Campaign Book: Mitt Romney Made Fun Of Chris Christie For Being Big Gross Fatty

Double Down Book Excerpt To Detail Romney Campaign Concerns About Chris Christie | TIME.com

More News From Double Down: Obama "Luckier Than a Dog with Two Dicks"

I've heard and read more. I'm sure you can find more if you want to look.

But, today, Romney had nothing but complements for Christie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2013)

Publically, though, it was all a love fest... 

Look, we all say things about people we know behind their backs that are uncomplimentary and sound worse when someone else repeats them....

Geezus, stop making me defend Romney.  Just stop it!!!


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 7, 2013)

Both democrats and republicans learned that obamacare took an 18 point lead down to a win by 1.4 points in a few days despite being outspent by 15 million dollars and without RNC support. 

That's why democrat senators demanded that emergency meeting today.  They were shitting themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

JoeB and his bud the Mittster.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Publically, though, it was all a love fest...
> 
> Look, we all say things about people we know behind their backs that are uncomplimentary and sound worse when someone else repeats them....
> 
> Geezus, stop making me defend Romney.  Just stop it!!!



Hey, don't blame me.

Mitt's insults were reported way back when he was running for King of America. Nothing new there. 

It also stands to reason - Mitt has always been uber wealthy, hates the working class and looks the part. Christie is pretty disgusting to look at and he's got a mouth he can't control, either what goes in and what comes out. To Mittens, he would be a lower life form. 

The part I think is interesting is that Christie's history is much more conservative than Mitt's. In spite of being conservative, the Rs don't like him because he was willing to speak to Obama AND he went to jelly over Springsteen. He also took federal money for his state. Other Rs would rather see their constituents starve than take federal money.

Mostly, its fun watching them eat each other. 

Cooch lost because of what he is. McCauliffe won in spite of what he is.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 7, 2013)

Pheonixops said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



20% of the black vote would be worthless in a national election. The risk is not worth the reward as far as outreach with blacks goes for Republicans.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Iceman said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So all we have to do is convert the republican party to flaming socialist pigs and we can be assured that they will get 20% of the black vote.  ROFL  That's like saying all you have to do is hang yourself and the pain will go away.


----------



## Londoner (Nov 8, 2013)

No. They will continue to pursue supply side economics when the problem is consumer demand (which they wrongly believes trickles down by making the rich richer) 

The government boosted consumer demand for 30 years, during which we had our greatest economic growth. Then, we took everything government did for the middle class and replaced it with credit (debt). This worked for a little while, but now the consumer is too indebted to consume . . . game over.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 8, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, they are going to have to explain how., even with the shutdown totally overwhelming the debate about Obamacare, and the fact that they nominated a guy that is so crazy that he makes McCarthy look sane, being outspent by almost 2 to 1, absolutely no support from the big money donors, or the establishment of the party, they still managed to come within 60,000 votes of winning. 

Wait, I said that wrong.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 8, 2013)

Londoner said:


> No. They will continue to pursue supply side economics when the problem is consumer demand (which they wrongly believes trickles down by making the rich richer)
> 
> The government boosted consumer demand for 30 years, during which we had our greatest economic growth. Then, we took everything government did for the middle class and replaced it with credit (debt). This worked for a little while, but now the consumer is too indebted to consume . . . game over.



How gullible are you?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party is a powerful pressure group in Republican politics and democrats will use any dirty trick in the book including recruiting and funding fake political candidates to syphon votes in a close race.
> ...



 Where have you been, in a coma? The political process has always been conscious of the effect of 3rd party candidates. The fact that democrat candidates never count on votes from "libertarians" is not a "disservice" to the political process. It's a fact of life and both parties are well aware of it. Obviously the libertarian candidate syphoned votes only from the republican party. The question is whether the DNC secretly financed the libertarian campaign. The mainstream media isn't curious enough to investigate and republicans do not have the assistance of gigantic investigative (tax exempt) propaganda sources like Media Matters and it's clones. The second point is that the Tea Party is a powerful pressure group within the republican party and it is not likely to quit just because of the barrage of hate speech coming from the left.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 8, 2013)

Iceman said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Then why do so many republicans and conservatives complain about over "90% of "the Blacks voting democrat" in Presidential elections?


----------



## Iceman (Nov 8, 2013)

Pheonixops said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > Pheonixops said:
> ...



I think they complain about the entitlement culture in the black community. It isn't that blacks swing an election one way or another.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 8, 2013)

Black people who vote democrats are house *******


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Iceman said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> > Iceman said:
> ...



^ this... I could care less who they vote for, it's the theft of my income through re-distribution policies that anger me.  What makes it worse is doing it in a way that has been proven through the centuries to fail.  Hand-outs didn't work in the time or Rome and they still don't work.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 8, 2013)

The far right reactionaries, a small minority now in America, believe in a 1950s white entitlement culture.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right reactionaries, a small minority now in America, believe in a 1950s white entitlement culture.



Nothing you post is true.   Including this ^^^^^^.

What happened to you to fill you with so much hate?   I really feel sorry for you because you seem like you have above average intelligence.  But you destroy what credibility you might have when you post lies like the previous post.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop posting like a partisan hater.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right reactionaries, a small minority now in America, believe in a 1950s white entitlement culture.
> ...



He a POS Troll.  I don't think I've seen him post anything but...


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 8, 2013)

Iceman said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> > Iceman said:
> ...



I think it would be better and more accurately stated as; " the entitlement culture that exists in a minority of the so-called black community.". That "entitlement culture" exists in a minority of the AMERICAN COMMUNITY.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 8, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Black people who vote democrats are house *******



I don't know where you are going with that crap above. I'm sure you represent a minority of the conservative republican mindset, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The pos white reactionary entitlement TeaPoCraps are not mainstream.

They are extremists who will not serve our country in the American way


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



in the American way......in the American way........hummmmmmm

Is that where half the population feeds and insures the other?


.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 8, 2013)

Pheonixops said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Black people who vote democrats are house *******
> ...



They are the slave masters and klu Klux Klan wizards.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > No. They will continue to pursue supply side economics when the problem is consumer demand (which they wrongly believes trickles down by making the rich richer)
> ...



How about refuting his point? 

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a vibrant, unionized middle class, and the wealthy paid their fair share.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



Except we didn't . All our economic prosperity happens in the brief periods of when we don't use socialism

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Guy, put down the Obamaphone and get to a computer where you can actually do some research. 

Or better yet, read a book. 

Greatest period of American Prosperity-  1945-1975.  

Full employment
Burgeoning middle class.  
High Taxes on the Rich.
33% of the work force unionized. 
Moms could stay home if they wanted. 
Built hiways and put men in space and even fought a pointless war or two.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 8, 2013)

Interesting article that points out the utter BULLSHIT some republican conservatives were and are spewing about Sarvis.

"Am I an Obama puppet or am I a GOP puppet? I tend to think neither," he told U.S. News on Wednesday. "The GOP had a concerted effort to misrepresent my policy positions [and] this was one last-ditch effort to do so." (I agree)


"Among the negative press Sarvis received was an Election Day article in The Blaze that reported the* Libertarian Booster PAC * which *gave in-kind donations totalling $11,454 to Sarvis*, mostly for ballot petitioning  received $150,000 in January from Joe Liemandt, a wealthy Democratic donor *who also gives to Libertarians.*" (That shed's more light on the bullshit some "conservatives" and republicans were crying about, but there's more.....)

"The donor in question didn't donate to my campaign," Sarvis counters. "*He donated to a Libertarian PAC well before I got into the race.*"

"[Ron Paul] was basically spoon-fed the GOP misinformation campaign," Sarvis said, speculating he was also* "investing in the GOP infrastructure for the benefit of his son,"* Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is considering a 2016 presidential campaign." (I agree on BOTH points)

"It's easy for people outside Virginia, like Ron Paul, to not realize how *illiberal and unlibertarian Cuccinelli is,"* Sarvis said. "They only know about some big-ticket things like fighting Obamacare," and not how the Republican "wants the government in your bedroom."

"Sarvis' campaign featured support for legalizing marijuana, permitting same-sex marriage and embracing new immigrants. He also supported gun rights, school choice and undoing federal health care regulations."





Sarvis Says He Wasn't 'Obama Puppet' Bowling for Cuccinelli - US News and World Report


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 8, 2013)

Twice as many of SAVIS voters were liberal.


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 8, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Twice as many of SAVIS voters were liberal.



I'm one of them. I agree with most of his positions, he's more Second Amendment than many of the "Second Amendment types" here, he for more personal LIBerties than many who claim to be such here, if you look at his positions "On the Issues", one can see that he has many good ideas that attracted LIBerals and LIBertarians alike. Check out his tax plan, etc.:
Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart


----------



## Pheonixops (Nov 8, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Twice as many of SAVIS voters were liberal.



That fact also makes the claim by some GOP folks that Sarvis cost Cuccinelli the election pretty laughable.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh yea, and there were unicorns and lolipops as well. It is a shame Doc Brown is dead, I want to get my hands on that DeLorean.

But in all serious, after you bomb all of Europe to oblivion in WW2, you can pretty much do any hair-brained economic policy you want, and still be the Top Dog. 

We live in a different world today buddy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 9, 2013)

Iceman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You are right, we do. 

We stopped doing all the things that worked, let the wealthy have everything they want, and we discovered the same thing that we discovered before world war II. 

"The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists... they're too damned greedy." - Herbert Hoover.


----------



## Toro (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The reason why we shifted away from your mythical Worker's Paradise era is because by the end of that time period, unemployment was 9% and inflation was 12%.  A new word was created to describe it - "stagflation."

That you think the prosperity of that time period was somehow linked to high taxes on the rich and unionization, not to mention your ridiculous belief that people were better off 50 years ago than they are today, highlights your ignorance once again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 9, 2013)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Tojo, the thing was, the way Carter combatted the inflation was the same way Reagan did- keep the money encourage unemployment until the inflation got down. 

Reagan also took the time to screw unions and give huge tax breaks to the Rich Douchebags, neither of which did us any good.  

Thing is, had we not done those things, we wouldn't have been in the mess we are today with 16 trillion dollars of debt because it's easier to borrow than to get the rich to pay their fair share.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



ROFL what an idiot.  Tax revenues went up you dolt.  Do you want high tax "revenues" or high tax "rates?"  Why are libtards so damn stupid?


----------



## Trajan (Nov 9, 2013)

Toro said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > That he BARELY won speaks volumes.  Yeah, we learned a lot.
> ...



meanwhile;  he got crushed via media spending,  especially in the last 2 weeks, was down by 14 points a month earlier, and Voters today were more likely to say Cuccinelli was found to be  &#8220;too conservative&#8221; (50 percent),  McAuliffe is &#8220;too liberal&#8221; (41 percent), Cuccinelli is not very telegenic or 'personable' , etc etc etc ..... yet Cucc. won indies by 9%......

Its also obvious, due to Northern Virginians being almost wholly creatures of the beltway, no shutdown(?), ole terry would have been goner. 

If dems see this as some transformative or benchmark victory they are whistling past the graveyard. 

And no I am not looking past the fact the gop will learn anything here, they may not, *shrugs*  but,  they have  larger measure of margin of error now due to...Obamacare


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



So the Gipper's people didn't use "fuzzy math"?  Stockman, former Director of OMB under Reagan, would differ w/ you there  

David Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their GOP Demolished the Economy - David Stockman on Deficit Spending 


> Taking Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, Bush and their GOP Demolished the Economy
> 
> Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek.* The deficits were intentional all along.* They were edsigned to &#8220;starve the beast,&#8221; meaning intentionally cut revenue as a way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. &#8220;The plan,&#8221; Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, &#8221; was to have a strategic deficit that would give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren&#8217;t desired.* It got out of hand.&#8221;*



Von Hayek is quoted in the next paragraph agreeing w/ what Stockman said


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What a lying POS you are.  







We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 9, 2013)

my bad, I got "fuzzy math" confused w/ "voodoo (supply side) economics".  Here:

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003&#8211;2004 responded to the claim:
> 
> You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one


----------



## Mertex (Nov 9, 2013)

Toro said:


> If only he was more conservative, he would have won.




You really don't believe that, do you?


----------



## Iceman (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


They wouldn't work in today's world. In the 50s, there was no China, no Japan, no India, no South Korea, No Russia, no Germany, and by extension no EU to compete with as they were all leveled during World War Two(and thus rebuilding) or still third world economies. America had no competitors, so it could afford to make itself uncompetitive and feel no adverse effects. That simply wouldn't be the case in a globalized economy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You want to prove that stupidity of a comment, Contumacious?  You have facts and evidence?

Didn't think so.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Prove him wrong Fakie 

tapatalk post


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Don't have to disprove a false opinion, of which you are not very good though you try.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Can just see your fat ass communist butt sitting in front of your slobbered on keyboard, typing that.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If he is wrong prove it you dishonest hack 

tapatalk post


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



It's not my false opinion: it's his.  His burden, not mine.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You don't even know what a communist is, RKM, or communism.

You just post what you are told to post by your masters.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> [
> 
> ROFL what an idiot.  Tax revenues went up you dolt.  Do you want high tax "revenues" or high tax "rates?"  Why are libtards so damn stupid?



Tax revenues didn't go up until Reagan agreed to the "Tax Reform" act of 1986 that scaled back some of the tax cuts and eliminated a lot of tax deductions the middle class was using. 

That's why Bush had to issue his "Read My Lips" pledge that he eventually broke. Reagan raised taxes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 9, 2013)

Iceman said:


> [
> They wouldn't work in today's world. In the 50s, there was no China, no Japan, no India, no South Korea, No Russia, no Germany, and by extension no EU to compete with as they were all leveled during World War Two(and thus rebuilding) or still third world economies. America had no competitors, so it could afford to make itself uncompetitive and feel no adverse effects. That simply wouldn't be the case in a globalized economy.



Um, guess what, I checked a 1950 map, and all those countries were on it.  Except Russia was called the USSR back then.  ANd there were two Germanies.  But other than that, all those countries were on the map.  

The problem with a globalized economy is that we let people who don't play by the rules play. 

We need to dump "Free Trade" and institute "Fair Trade".  If you are being more competitive by killing your own people, we aren't going to trade with you. 

It seems kind of sensible, really.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


You dumb twat, no shit they existed. The point is they were all either bombed to hell from WW2 or still third world countries(China, South Korea and India weren't even emerging economies at the time). So high taxes and high regulation in a globalized society with free trade and multiple competing economic powers just wont work, business will go elsewhere.

It is true, you could institute tariffs to protect industry(which I agree with in certain cases), but you have to provide incentive for industry to remain in your country in the first place.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 9, 2013)

Iceman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceman said:
> ...



Here's the incentive.  Keep your factory here, or we don't let you sell in this market. 

Period. 

Get it?  The problem with "Free Trade" is that those other countries protect their industries and we don't protect ours.  

Ever try to get product into China?  I have.  It isn't as easy as getting their products into this country.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


So, you are going to institute a ban on foreign goods?

That worked really well for the Soviets and is working really well for North Korea. 

China doesn't ban foreign goods...


----------



## Trajan (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




uhmmm no sorry., that is not true.....and  I am not sure you understand the correlation between getting say 18% of 100 vs. 17.5% of 120.....








> That's why Bush had to issue his "Read My Lips" pledge that he eventually broke. Reagan raised taxes.



whatever....


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2013)

Iceman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceman said:
> ...



Actually, China does ban foreign goods.  In order to "sell" goods in China you are required to "produce" the same amount of goods in China. This is one of the major reasons corporations moved to China.  You want to sell there you have to move there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 10, 2013)

Iceman said:


> [
> So, you are going to institute a ban on foreign goods?
> 
> That worked really well for the Soviets and is working really well for North Korea.
> ...



No, they slap it with a VAT and make you fill out a ton of paperwork.  And that's for things they WANT to get into the country, like machines to make factories better.  

Trust me, I've done this. 

We should do the same.  Huge tarriffs on foreign made goods and strict inspections on what they are bringing in so we don't have the lead paint, roofies and other nonsense.


----------



## Iceman (Nov 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 So you would treat Chinese goods the same as say, British or German goods?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Should have been done a decade ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2013)

The organizaing of GOP Superpacs will crush the TeaPoCraps in the next round of primaries.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The organizaing of GOP Superpacs will crush the TeaPoCraps in the next round of primaries.



Spoken like a true Democrat

tapatalk post


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2013)

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The organizaing of GOP Superpacs will crush the TeaPoCraps in the next round of primaries.
> ...



"Spoken like a true Republican": I fixed it.

Mainstream GOP are dedicating to eliminating the small minority TeaPofCraps from office.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> > JakeStarkey said:
> >
> >
> > > The organizaing of GOP Superpacs will crush the TeaPoCraps in the next round of primaries.
> ...



Still sticking to that lie huh? 

tapatalk post


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The organizaing of GOP Superpacs will crush the TeaPoCraps in the next round of primaries.





thanatos144 said:


> Spoken like a true Democrat
> 
> tapatalk post



Two tards with but one semi-functioning brain cell between them.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 10, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The organizaing of GOP Superpacs will crush the TeaPoCraps in the next round of primaries.
> ...



Coming from a retard confederate your post means shit 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 10, 2013)

Iceman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceman said:
> ...



No, I would not. 

UK and Germany have similiar laws to what we have on fair labor wages and the environment and quality standards.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 10, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


bwahahahahahaha

Classic


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 10, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



My post is because of my cellphones spell check yours is nonsensical because your fucking stupid.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 10, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Sure thing Corky, whatever you say.
Pfffffffffffft


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 10, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



Why do you use a traitors name anyway?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 10, 2013)

> Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?



Apparently not.


----------

