# 2016 Republican primary



## American_Jihad (Feb 19, 2013)

*Chris Christie, not Marco Rubio, is the Republican's best bet for 2016 *​

2/19/13

...

After Rubio's less than impressive response to the State of the Union, a number of pundits are talking up Christie's prospects for 2016 again. The centrepiece of that argument appears to be that Republicans need to prove they can work across the aisle, and make bipartisan agreements work. Christie, who was lambasted by some Republicans over his work with President Obama after Hurricane Sandy, can certainly do that. 

...

Chris Christie, not Marco Rubio, is the Republican's best bet for 2016 - IV Drip - Voices - The Independent


----------



## American_Jihad (Feb 19, 2013)

*The Fixs first rankings of the 2016 Republican presidential field!*


by Chris Cillizza, Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan 
February 8, 2013

One of the Fixs favorite phrases is this: Its never too soon. As in, its never too soon to be thinking about the next political campaign and the next set of candidates that will populate that campaign.

10. John Thune
9. Rob Portman
8. John Kasich
7. Mike Pence
6. Rand Paul
5. Jeb Bush
4. Paul Ryan
3. Bobby Jindal
2. Chris Christie
1. Marco Rubio

The Fix?s first rankings of the 2016 Republican presidential field!


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 19, 2013)

Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 19, 2013)

The tea party would burn Christie alive and there would be a Romney 2.0


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 19, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.



yeah he is almost as experienced as Obama was when he ran for president.

Dynasitical fans suck.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4FTd-1m-o]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Rand Paul, like his father..will never ever be President.

Christie has a chance if Clinton doesn't run.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> The tea party would burn Christie alive and there would be a Romney 2.0



I'm thinking after 2014..they will be history.

Christie..or someone like Christie is going to be the Republican candidate.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 19, 2013)

But Christie said Obama did good.
Republicans cannot stand turncoats like that.


----------



## Votto (Feb 19, 2013)

The GOP should go with Ben Carsen.


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 19, 2013)

I would like to see Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as President of the United States.


----------



## konradv (Feb 19, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.



LOL!!!  Libertarians don't have a shot.  They just don't get that, like Marxism, it would take a basic shift in human nature in order to work.  Even Republicans will see through his B.S., I'll wager.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 19, 2013)

Marco Rubio is hot right now. But he is not ready for prime time and will fade under the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. Christie has the best chops but tends to shoot his mouth off

Rand Paul is a joke who will run and get his 10% for the next 20 years


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 20, 2013)

Some are anticipating hard times and half of Americans out of work by next year. Don't forget Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:

*The Right to Work Guy*


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 20, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Some are anticipating hard times and half of Americans out of work by next year. Don't forget Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:
> 
> *The Right to Work Guy*



Figuring out who the next Republican presidential candidate will be is not that hard

They are very predictable....it will be Chris Christie


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 20, 2013)

Seriously?  We just finished one election and we're already discussing the next one?

This is all entirely speculative and pointless for AT LEAST the next two years.

You want my thoughts?  I'm voting for Trump; I really think he has what it takes to go all the way this time.


----------



## Grandma (Feb 22, 2013)

My guess is that they'll run Jeb Bush. Yesterday I was hearing talk that someone wants Palin to run. Sheesh.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 22, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Some are anticipating hard times and half of Americans out of work by next year. Don't forget Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:
> ...



So far the crop of hopefuls are not distinguishing themselves with their voters.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 23, 2013)

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Republicans are not that tough to figure out

They trot out a parade of nut jobs that pander to the lunatic base and in the end they select the obvious candidate

They will take Christie. It won't be close


----------



## Rozman (Feb 23, 2013)

Hope you guys pick Joe Biden.....


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 23, 2013)

Rozman said:


> Hope you guys pick Joe Biden.....



Maybe if Hillary doesn't run

He is still better than anyone the Republicans can put up


----------



## Missourian (Feb 23, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> The tea party would burn Christie alive and there would be a Romney 2.0



McCain,  Romney,  Christie,  Paul.

Only one of these things is not like the others.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 24, 2013)

Missourian said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > The tea party would burn Christie alive and there would be a Romney 2.0
> ...



Yes, only Paul has no chance of winning a nomination


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 21, 2013)

If republicans want another Romney repeat go ahead nominate Christi...he would do worse than Willard did. I won't support Rand but he is the only republican I can see not completely hating as president...he won't get my support in any way though or my vote.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jun 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I think Christie will run on the Democratic ticket.....


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Only because he was screwed out of the nomination. The other 3 have no chance of being president!  I am glad I was a part of making sure Willard lost in November.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 21, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yep. He might even have a chance of beating Hillary out for it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 21, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


Rand Paul did not run in 2012.......try to keep up


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 21, 2013)

I was talking about Ron.I think Rand will actually be the nominee for the republicans and he has a good chance at being president..but I won't vote for him.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 21, 2013)

It will be Rand Paul and won't be much of a primary.   Christie won't run even though democrats want him to.  They see an easy win by Hillary over Christie.  Rubio knows how much damage he's doing to himself.   Aside from a few glory seekers that will drop out early it will be Rand Paul.   Demicrats are desperate for Hillary .  By 2016 Hillary could be so damaged by obama she won't run.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 21, 2013)

Unless there is someone we aren't thinking of yes it will be Rand. Maybe the governor of Wisconsin or the governor of Montana...Maybe Mark Sanford?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 21, 2013)

The 2016 GOP primary will be a replay of 2012

Too many candidates, too many meaningless debates, nobody willing to drop out because they have limitless financial backing

And an unelectable candidate


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 21, 2013)

Christie will be our best answer to a year that is going to go House and Senate to the Dems.

CC is going to tell the Republican reactionary far right and the lefties to both fuck off, and the American people will sweep him into office.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2013)

If we're stupid enough to nominate Christie, he will lose like McCain or Romney and for the same reasons, he's a Moderate and Republican Moderates can't win a national election if running unopposed.

Christie and Rubio will be the death of the Republican Party


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 21, 2013)

Comrade Frank, desperately wanting the McCarthy years back, has difficulty realizing that it has been the far right that has been losing elections since 2006 other than the blip 2010.

Frank, America hates the reactionaries and libertarians.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 22, 2013)

Ted Cruz.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 22, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



It would be exactly what the Democratic party needs and could possibly allow them to keep the Oval.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If we're stupid enough to nominate Christie, he will lose like McCain or Romney and for the same reasons, he's a Moderate and Republican Moderates can't win a national election if running unopposed.
> 
> Christie and Rubio will be the death of the Republican Party



Fact is Republicans cant win period

But Christie is their best bet


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

Comrade Frank is wrong and so is RW on this.

CC can win in 2016.  He will pull the center and quite a number of more moderate Dems.


----------



## Toro (Jun 22, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> Unless there is someone we aren't thinking of yes it will be Rand.



I hope your livelihood isn't dependent on trying to understand what will happen in the future.


----------



## Toro (Jun 22, 2013)

Missourian said:


> Ted Cruz.



... will not be the nominee.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Comrade Frank is wrong and so is RW on this.
> 
> CC can win in 2016.  He will pull the center and quite a number of more moderate Dems.



No question that Christie, as he is now, is an electable candidate

The problem with Republicans is that the process of getting through the GOP primaries causes the candidate to pander to the ultra conservatives to the point they become unelectable. It happened with Maverick John McCain and it will happen withMaverick Chris Christie


----------



## Toro (Jun 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If we're stupid enough to nominate Christie, he will lose like McCain or Romney and for the same reasons, he's a Moderate and Republican Moderates can't win a national election if running unopposed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Comrade Frank is wrong and so is RW on this.
> ...



The strategy will be to call out the reactionaries and demand they act in the best interest of America and call on their Republican neighbors to work with the recalcitrant.  There is also quiet talk of funding a drive in certain states to have Dems come out and vote in GOP primaries where they can.

That is his best shot.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 22, 2013)

Christie=Romney part 2.

The same cast of characters will support him...the moderate republicans and the democrats...and he will lose...just like Romney.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Comrade Frank, desperately wanting the McCarthy years back, has difficulty realizing that it has been the far right that has been losing elections since 2006 other than the blip 2010.
> 
> Frank, America hates the reactionaries and libertarians.


They hate shameless opportunists, liars and poseurs even worse.

Something that both Christie and you should keep in mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

The libertarians and the far right have been causing the defeats.

No more.  CC will force them to get on board or get off the bus.  No more faux rage hatred and stupidity from the outliers.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2013)

Um, it's the "moderate" neocon douchebags, like Vinnie Vitalis and Juan McLouse, who have been losing, while the likes of Cruz, Paul, Flake, etcetera have been winning.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

Sure, Oddball.  That's why we have 1/3rd of the government.  You are referring to the Senate, I believe, which our faux rage liberts and reactionaries kept Dem in 2010 and 2012.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 22, 2013)

Before finding Chris Christie electable as a democrat, wait and see what happens in 2014.  Right now it looks like a republican blow out worse than 2010.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

Katz, your statement demonstrates you have no grasp of the basics.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Katz, your statement demonstrates you have no grasp of the basics.



That's because you are a democrat and have no grasp of reality.

obama is dropping like a stone and he's taking the democrats with him.   No matter how many delusions the democrats have, they cannot overcome reality.   Democrats are now untrustworthy.  Either that gets overcome in the next year or it won't.   If it isn't, democrats have no hope.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure, Oddball.  That's why we have 1/3rd of the government.  You are referring to the Senate, I believe, which our faux rage liberts and reactionaries kept Dem in 2010 and 2012.


No, you have 2/3 of the gubmint....Your "I'm a moderate republican" bullshit story ain't flying....Hasn't since day one.

Time to quit lying out your ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

Oddball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, Oddball.  That's why we have 1/3rd of the government.  You are referring to the Senate, I believe, which our faux rage liberts and reactionaries kept Dem in 2010 and 2012.
> ...



The time, son, has come to quit fooling yourself.  The sane portion of America (97%) wants nothing to do with your folks' insanity.

You cost us the presidency and the senate, and you won't get a chance to do it again.

CC will kick your collective butt up between your ears metaphorically so you can hear him thumping on it.  Your kind are as dangerous to America as the lefties.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The libertarians and the far right have been causing the defeats.
> 
> No more.  CC will force them to get on board or get off the bus.  No more faux rage hatred and stupidity from the outliers.


No just the far right. Libertarians are the future...we are right in the middle...not far right like being against homosexual marriage and drug legalized but not far left and want to go spend crazy. Smack dab in the middle where the country is. 



Oddball said:


> Um, it's the "moderate" neocon douchebags, like Vinnie Vitalis and Juan McLouse, who have been losing, while the likes of Cruz, Paul, Flake, etcetera have been winning.



Exactly.


----------



## Votto (Jun 22, 2013)

Oddball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, Oddball.  That's why we have 1/3rd of the government.  You are referring to the Senate, I believe, which our faux rage liberts and reactionaries kept Dem in 2010 and 2012.
> ...



Wrong.  What the GOP is someone that will reach across the isle and help illegals become legal, help implement cap and trade, help legalize any woman to have an abortion at any time at any age under any circumstance..........my bad.....we all already there.  Or he can reach across the isle and help raise the deficit to $3 trillion.

Or someone can grow a sack and stand up to this madness.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The libertarians and the far right have been causing the defeats.
> ...



A few libertarians are exactly as you describe but never anywhere near enough to disturb the political equilibrium.

A debate on what is libertarianism last and this month on the Board realized just how splintered and sometimes outright crazy you and guys are truly.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Every libertarian I know in politics is essentially the same with a few minor differences...personally I am not a libertarian I am past libertarian I am a Anarcho-Capitalist.Lots of libertarians and ancaps,anarchists,minarchists etc disagree on the death penalty,abortion mostly. If you hadn't noticed the past 2 elections have elected more and more libertarian minded politicians...the old guard neo cons are on their way out or at least they are now morphed into the tea party or they got retired so the new battle be with an even farther right wing of the republican party in the tea party and in the liberty minded wing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

AnCapAtheist, going from 1/2% to 1 1/2% in twenty years should not make you giddy.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

I didn't say libertarian party I said liberty republicans 

Rand Paul
Thomas Massie
Justin Amash
Ron Paul
Ted Cruz
Paul Broun
Walter Jones
Tom McClintock
Mark Sanford
Mike Lee


That's just Congressmen and Senators...I haven't even started the list for the state reps and senators.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

Next year we are looking to knock out Kay Hagan-Democrat in NC she is my current senator and we have a real good shot at replacing her with a Liberty Republican
Lindsey Graham is going to be primaried have 3 contenders although none have announced yet...we are taking over....slowly but surely.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> I didn't say libertarian party I said liberty republicans
> 
> Rand Paul
> Thomas Massie
> ...



Some of them are worthy, yes, most aren't.  And ten out of 555 reflects my percentages.

Unimpressive.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

There are more than that those are the ones off the top of my head. Some vote with us 75% of the time hell go look at the RP forums for a complete list...like I said also next year we will increase our numbers..the old guard either needs to change or get retired...we are the future.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

November 2012 New Hampshire Elections Results | New Hampshire Freedom

Look here this is NH over 60 liberty candidates were elected or re elected.that's in 1 state! I wish I could move there...


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

Kane of WWE fame is considering running for senate in Tn! Against an establishment republican...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 22, 2013)

Like Pedro said in "Napoleon Dynamite," AnCapAtheist, follow your dream.

Or was it Jiminy Cricket?


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 22, 2013)

Oh my dream goes FAR FAR beyond having liberty republicans in office...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 22, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > AnCapAtheist said:
> ...


Something you should know...Jake is a poseur.

He's a leftist  Obammyzombie moonbat claiming to be  a "moderate republican".

Pay him no serious nevermind....Seriously.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 23, 2013)

Ah. Well he isn't the worst here...I have seen 2 so far that are a bit outrageous. laughner was one and the guy that keeps trying to justify the Iraq war in LARGE letters is the other lol.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 23, 2013)

I wasn't aware the GOP existed anymore. Seems like they just blended right in with the liberals after the NSA scandal.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 23, 2013)

Pretty much. Democrats/Republicans not much difference except on the extremes and right in the middle...the extreme ends ya go idiots like Santorum and his conservative christian theocracy mindset and in the middle ya got liberty republicans who are in a minority right now but represent what America is moving towards Fiscal Responsibility and Social Tolerance.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 23, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> I wasn't aware the GOP existed anymore. Seems like they just blended right in with the liberals after the NSA scandal.



You are close.....they are on the verge of being obsolete

Their death will be blamed on their unwillingness to compromise


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 23, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Something you should know...Jake is a poseur.
> 
> He's a leftist  Obammyzombie moonbat claiming to be  a "moderate republican".
> 
> Pay him no serious nevermind....Seriously.



Your nonsense merely dribbles down your mouth.  You anarcho-whatevers are the laughing stock of America.  You have no impact on the American narrative and won't even be a footnote in the histories.  Tis what tis.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 23, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> Kane of WWE fame is considering running for senate in Tn! Against an establishment republican...



I can't believe anyone would consider a WWE star as a Senator

Oh wait......you dumb asses already elected one as Governor


----------



## candycorn (Jun 23, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> November 2012 New Hampshire Elections Results | New Hampshire Freedom
> 
> Look here this is NH over 60 liberty candidates were elected or re elected.that's in 1 state! I wish I could move there...



They should elect a new webmaster; that site was jibberish.

They talked about doing this about 10 years ago.  Selecting a state and focusing on it to try to use it as a showcase for their values.  Good to see there being some movement on this.  

I think we should use the "showcase" model on some other things.  Set up 10 states as vouchers for education.   Let them run vouchers for 10 years and see who has better output 10 years down the line.  This will put to rest the debate once and for all.    

It will be interesting to see where New Hampshire is in 10 years.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > Kane of WWE fame is considering running for senate in Tn! Against an establishment republican...
> ...



Pro wrestler Kane may be next GOP senator from Tennessee | The Daily Caller
He is more than just a wrestler...you should listen to his speeches..man is brilliant.


candycorn said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > November 2012 New Hampshire Elections Results | New Hampshire Freedom
> ...


That would be interesting...if I didn't love the south so damn much New Hampshire would be my next move.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 23, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AnCapAtheist said:
> ...



Other than climate, you could stand in New Hampshire and swear you were in Georgia.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 23, 2013)

Intriguing...farthest north I have been is Upstate NY and Mass.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katz, your statement demonstrates you have no grasp of the basics.
> ...



Now where have I heard that before, and from the same source, even


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 25, 2013)

Katz is not GOP, and we in the GOP no longer listen to the nonsense of the reactionaries.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 25, 2013)

No they listen to the establishment douches that have managed to get their last 2 presidential candidates asses kicked.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 25, 2013)

The abnormal reactionary mutants got McCain and Romney beat.

America will no longer elect a candidate from the far right.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 25, 2013)

Lol...by far right you mean what? McCain and Willard were neo con idiots...both had far right/neo con foreign policies....Santorum was REALLY far right...guy scared the shit out of me. What got McCain and Willard beat was they aren't what people want even within the party...the younger folks don't want their kind anymore.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> Lol...by far right you mean what? McCain and Willard were neo con idiots...*both had far right/neo con foreign policies*....Santorum was REALLY far right...guy scared the shit out of me. What got McCain and Willard beat was they aren't what people want even within the party...the younger folks don't want their kind anymore.


International military meddling and nation building are _*leftist*_ policies, a-la, Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 25, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> Lol...by far right you mean what? McCain and Willard were neo con idiots...both had far right/neo con foreign policies....Santorum was REALLY far right...guy scared the shit out of me. What got McCain and Willard beat was they aren't what people want even within the party...the younger folks don't want their kind anymore.



Actually they are, minus the neo-conservatism.  What the younger folks don't want are the social traditionalist candidates, neither McCain nor Romney being evangelical or fundamentalists.

I am hoping the party will adopt a more libertarian view toward non-interference overseas.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 25, 2013)

Oddball said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...by far right you mean what? McCain and Willard were neo con idiots...*both had far right/neo con foreign policies*....Santorum was REALLY far right...guy scared the shit out of me. What got McCain and Willard beat was they aren't what people want even within the party...the younger folks don't want their kind anymore.
> ...


Its hard to tell anymore lol...they mix so well together...


JakeStarkey said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...by far right you mean what? McCain and Willard were neo con idiots...both had far right/neo con foreign policies....Santorum was REALLY far right...guy scared the shit out of me. What got McCain and Willard beat was they aren't what people want even within the party...the younger folks don't want their kind anymore.
> ...


Indeed...Fiscally conservative,Socially tolerant is what we need...no meddling overseas etc...Ron Paul is what we needed but I understand he was a bit farther than what a lot of people wanted but he was exactly what I wanted.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 25, 2013)

Too many racists fastened on to Paul.

Whoever wants to follow him must issue an unequivocal repudiation of all racism.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 25, 2013)

Eh. I think he did a good job of repudiating them although you can understand WHY they would latch on to him...he was for allowing business owners to allow who they wanted in their businesses. Among other things. Ron Paul wasn't allowed to win simply because it would upset the apple cart of the fascistic government we have going...big business and government don't mix well but that's what we got now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 25, 2013)

Well, that is conspiracy nonsense there, AnCapAtheist.

Some libertarians will be law abiding, some won't.  Those who want to discriminate based on race can hide behind the creed.  Those who want the age of consent for sex can hide behind the creed.

Whoever becomes the flag bearer has to be very clear and bold about such beliefs.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 25, 2013)

I don't think we need either...parents should set age of consent or at the very most states should...and I think ANYONE for any reason should be allowed to ban anyone from their business. It may be conspiracy but like a lot of them this one is true.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 25, 2013)

Won't happen, ever.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 25, 2013)

It will...it was like that before and it will happen again. Either by libertarian minded politicians voting to let it happen or by the country falling apart and people enforcing their rules of their store by gun point.


----------



## PaulieGirl (Jun 29, 2013)

Anymore, the Republicans will nominate a social conservative. It's a growing demographic, although I don't know why.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> It will...it was like that before and it will happen again. Either by libertarian minded politicians voting to let it happen or by the country falling apart and people enforcing their rules of their store by gun point.



Nope, never.  For instance, here if there is an apocalyptic event that separates us from the rest of the nation, the plans are in place to make sure their is no libertarian uprising or such to subvert lawful rule with the violence of the minority.  The Rule of Law will continue here, and if you were here, you would submit to it because you are no more entitled than anyone else.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 29, 2013)

Lol...ok jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

See, you can learn.  You are not special.  You are just you.  Glad you got it.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 29, 2013)

No I just don't feel like arguing with you. Its kind of like arguing with my 1 year old...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 29, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> Anymore, the Republicans will nominate a social conservative. It's a growing demographic, although I don't know why.



Social Conservatives are the kiss of death....never get through the primary


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 29, 2013)

If the republicans really want to lose another presidential race be my guest nominate someone like Santorum for president...I say he gets less than 40% of the vote.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> No I just don't feel like arguing with you. Its kind of like arguing with my 1 year old...



Don't ever bring family into an argument, for that opens you up to personal attacks you won't like.

No, you are wrong on this.  You simply can't accept it.  Typical of a juvenile mind like yours.


----------



## Caroljo (Jun 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Some are anticipating hard times and half of Americans out of work by next year. Don't forget Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:
> ...



I really hope you're wrong....I can't stand Christie!  And it has nothing to do with him buddying up with Obama.  He's an idiot....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

Caroljo, honest question, and no fight intended: why do you not like Christie, how is he an idiot?

I have heard several other NJers who really don't like him, and they are Republicans, too.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 29, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > No I just don't feel like arguing with you. Its kind of like arguing with my 1 year old...
> ...



I am not wrong nor will I admit I am wrong. But arguing with you is completely pointless....I am starting to think you believe the drivel coming from your mouth.Arguing with you just makes us both look stupid instead of just yourself...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > AnCapAtheist said:
> ...



You are making an argument by twisting the facts to fit your philosophy.  That makes pulling your philosophy apart so easy.

Yeah, you are wrong, and you will do with it today or some day.  Flat fact.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 29, 2013)

Yawn...you just don't give up do ya dumbiecrat..


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 29, 2013)

Caroljo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



What has he done that makes him an idiot?

Reigning in the teachers unions?
Balancing the budget?
Helping his state recover from a disaster?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

AnCapAtheist said:


> Yawn...you just don't give up do ya dumbiecrat..



Ad hom won't help you at all.

You need to look at your facts and conclusions.


----------



## National Socialist (Jun 29, 2013)

I am unsubscribing from this idiot fest...you enjoy talking to yourself since you have completely taken this thread off topic.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2013)

You attacked me, AnCapAtheist, without addressing the OP.

Go back to it, and we are fine.  Just stop the personal attacks.


----------



## ModerateGOP (Jul 1, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> The tea party would burn Christie alive and there would be a Romney 2.0



I still have a hope that there's a moderate with enough balls to make it through the primary without catering to these psychos.  A moderate Republican - a TRUE Republican, not the fanatics who call themselves Republicans today - would dominate the electoral college.  There are millions of people who see the Democrats for what they are (nothing short of a joke on fiscal issues) but are scared away by the homophobic and terribly redneck base of the GOP.  They don't represent what our party was founded on, and if they took a hike and we were able to rid the Republican Party of their ignorance, it'd be totally worth a lost election or two and would be very beneficial down the line.


----------



## ModerateGOP (Jul 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PaulieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Anymore, the Republicans will nominate a social conservative. It's a growing demographic, although I don't know why.
> ...



The fact that Democrats were able to paint both McCain and Romney as far right conservatives out of touch with America and it worked shows how much the GOP's absurdly delusional base is hurting the ticket.


----------



## Toro (Jul 1, 2013)

moderategop said:


> theoldschool said:
> 
> 
> > the tea party would burn christie alive and there would be a romney 2.0
> ...



^^^^
rino


----------



## ModerateGOP (Jul 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> moderategop said:
> 
> 
> > theoldschool said:
> ...



Do you think Abraham Lincoln would be suppoting the fringe conservatives who have tried to take over the GOP today?  I'd say those idiots are the RINOs.  Who are they to define what a "real" Republican is, especially when they probably would have been right there with the Democrats being racist red necks during the civil rights era?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2013)

Indeed, the RINOs are the reactionaries, the social traditionalists, and neo-cons that dragged on to mainstream Republican coattails.  They have pulled down the ticket since 2006 minus the blip of 2010.

Don't want no RINOs messing up CC's run to the WH.


----------



## Toro (Jul 1, 2013)

ModerateGOP said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > moderategop said:
> ...



^^^^^^
Clearly, a liberal who hates America.  

Questioning adherence to strict ideological dogma is the biggest telltale sign of a RINO.  

Real Republicans are Real Americans, for instance


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2013)

"Clearly, a liberal who hates America."  *Horse crap.  A moderate right of center GOP is what is necessary to lead America.*

"Questioning adherence to strict ideological dogma is the biggest telltale sign of a RINO."  *Those who insist on strict ideology are the RINOs.*

*There is no question that right of center moderate Republicans are far, far more preferable for America's good than the extremists on the right and left.*


----------



## jgarden (Jul 8, 2013)

> In 2012 Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 4.96 million votes, and according to Latino Decisions analysis of the election returns and Latino voting data, Latinos provided Obama with a 5.8 million vote margin.  If the Republicans could have won 40% of the Latino vote in 2012 that would have erased 3.6 million net votes &#8211; or 72% of the 4.96 million they lost by.  Republican don&#8217;t need to win the Latino vote outright, they just need to stop losing it so badly.  Although Latinos are not the only demographic that Republicans need to improve their showing with, they represent the single largest bloc of voters who are movable. An estimated 11.2 million Latinos cast a ballot in 2012 according to the Census, and more than 12.5 million are likely to cast a vote in 2016, further increasing the share of all voters who are Latino, nationally and in key states.
> 
> http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog...an-have-chance-to-win-over-40-of-latino-vote/


*2016 Republican primary

Unless the Republicans support some form of the "Immigration Bill," they might as well sit out 2016 because the % of Latino American voters will be substantially greater (1.3 million) than in 2008 and 2012.*


----------



## candycorn (Jul 9, 2013)

jgarden said:


> > In 2012 Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 4.96 million votes, and according to Latino Decisions analysis of the election returns and Latino voting data, Latinos provided Obama with a 5.8 million vote margin.  If the Republicans could have won 40% of the Latino vote in 2012 that would have erased 3.6 million net votes  or 72% of the 4.96 million they lost by.  Republican dont need to win the Latino vote outright, they just need to stop losing it so badly.  Although Latinos are not the only demographic that Republicans need to improve their showing with, they represent the single largest bloc of voters who are movable. An estimated 11.2 million Latinos cast a ballot in 2012 according to the Census, and more than 12.5 million are likely to cast a vote in 2016, further increasing the share of all voters who are Latino, nationally and in key states.
> >
> > 2016 forecast: Rubio, Bush, Ryan have chance to win over 40% of Latino vote | Latino Decisions
> 
> ...



The Hispanic culture is also one that leads itself to group participation.  I know one woman who rarely goes anywhere without her sister.  She's in her 40's.  I think the GOP has a real problem on their hands regardless of this bill since it has very little to do with actually stopping illegal immigration.

BUILD THE FENCE NOW!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2013)

I agree the fence needs to be built immediately as immigration reform is introduced and economic sanctions are applied.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree the fence needs to be built immediately as immigration reform is introduced and economic sanctions are applied.



Not sure about the reasoning on your part.

My reasoning goes simply like this; just because nobody has smuggled a "pocket nuke" across the border (that we know of) (either border by the way) doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow.  The fence will, at least, provide a substantial physical barrier if we build it right.  

Is it 100% assured that it will stop illegal immigration?  No.  There is no silver bullet but to invite such an attack on our home turf is crazy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2013)

My reasoning is that the fence needs to be built now, but if we wait for the reactionaries on my side to honor an agreement for later doing immigration reform and economic sanctions while doing the fence, they will renege.

All of it now.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jul 16, 2013)

*Eye on 2016*

July 16, 2013 By Ryan Mauro







The early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign are already underway. Hillary Clinton has held a steady, arguably insurmountable lead for the Democratic nomination, while the Republican nomination is much more fluid. Senator Rand Paul is the frontrunner, thanks to a drop in support for Senator Marco Rubio in Iowa over immigration reform.

At this point, Clinton can essentially walk in and take the Democratic nomination. In Iowa, wins an incredible 71% of the vote. Of course, pundits will argue that Clinton seemed inevitable in 2008, but that was only because it was assumed that then-Senator Obama would not run. Today, there is no one with the super-stardom of Obama on the Democratic Party stage at all.

If Clinton decides not to run, the race (and the general election) becomes more interesting.

...

Eye on 2016 | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

Three years away before we really know who the candidates will be.

Rand Paul will have to move further to the center if he wants to nominated.  I suspect HRC will be the Dems.

But who really knows.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Three years away before we really know who the candidates will be.
> 
> Rand Paul will have to move further to the center if he wants to nominated.  I suspect HRC will be the Dems.
> 
> But who really knows.



Agree, Paul would have to rebrand himself to be a serious candidate. Otherwise he will just lay back and steal delegates like his father did


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 17, 2013)

Are democrats making up a republican primary this early??????


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Are democrats making up a republican primary this early??????



Here is who I have

Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Paul Ryan
Assorted conservative nutjobs

Did I leave anyone out?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Are democrats making up a republican primary this early??????
> ...



Nope, unless some governor through a great emergency rises like a shining star.

Oh.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



There will be a few rising stars who will enter the arena in the next few years. The ones I listed will be the major GOP fundraisers in 2016 and will be hard to beat in the primaries

One thing about Republicans is that they are predictable. While Democrats will run a candidate who shows up out of the blue (Obama, Clinton, Carter), Republicans, by definition are conservative and stick with the familiar


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 17, 2013)

Hillary will be savaged by Biden in the primary.  Crazy Uncle Joe wants to be POTUS and he's going to unload on Hillary.

The Conservatives will pick a candidate for the Republicans. The RINOS gave us McCain and Romney and 2 big, unnecessary country-killing losses


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hillary will be savaged by Biden in the primary.  Crazy Uncle Joe wants to be POTUS and he's going to unload on Hillary.
> 
> The Conservatives will pick a candidate for the Republicans. The RINOS gave us McCain and Romney and 2 big, unnecessary country-killing losses



The crazy reactionary RINOs will no more pick a Republican candidate that they did in 2008 and 2012.  The reactionaries' time has end for a good while.  The Republican mainstream will pick the candidate.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary will be savaged by Biden in the primary.  Crazy Uncle Joe wants to be POTUS and he's going to unload on Hillary.
> ...



RINOs are  currently the Republican mainstream. It is the Conservative reactionaries who are the true RINOs


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 17, 2013)

Chris Christie, popular only among democrats.
Marco Rubio, ruined himself with amnesty
Ted Cruz, not eligible due to citizenship
Rand Paul the only one listed who might be a contender
Paul Ryan, became unpopular due to being in the gang of 8 and supports amnesty.

We have to wait and see who emerges, otherwise it will be Stand With Rand.  I would bet that some others come forward.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Chris Christie, popular only among democrats.
> Marco Rubio, ruined himself with amnesty
> Ted Cruz, not eligible due to citizenship
> Rand Paul the only one listed who might be a contender
> ...



If Republicans use opposition to immigration reform as their bellwether issue in 2016 they will not only lose the White House but the Senate, House and Supreme Court


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Chris Christie, popular only among democrats.
> Marco Rubio, ruined himself with amnesty
> Ted Cruz, not eligible due to citizenship
> Rand Paul the only one listed who might be a contender
> ...



Christie very popular with mainstream GOP, very unpopular with reactionaries.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Christie, popular only among democrats.
> ...



Christie does not need the Conservatives to win the nomination. In fact, he is better off without them


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



He will need the responsible conservatives but cannot afford the reactionaries, for the latter will terrify the centrists and independents with their hatred and fauxrage.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The reactionaries will split among Paul, Cruz and various conservative nutjob cases. Christie will prevail among moderate Republicans and will sweep the major Blue States like California, New England, NJ, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 17, 2013)

There are too few moderate republicans like there are very few moderate democrats.  obama gave Christie the kiss of political death and Christie kissed him back.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 17, 2013)

None of the big money will back Christie. They've seen what happens when they back a Moderate: they lose whatever money they donate and then their business gets crushed or if they're really lucky just treads water

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> None of the big money will back Christie. They've seen what happens when they back a Moderate: they lose whatever money they donate and then their business gets crushed or if they're really lucky just treads water
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Christie will draw the big money.......money has a way of following candidates who can actually win


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> There are too few moderate republicans like there are very few moderate democrats.  obama gave Christie the kiss of political death and Christie kissed him back.



Nope, Christie says he won't put up with you folks, Katzndogz, he says you folks have nothing to say of worth and have no political power.  Your time is over.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > There are too few moderate republicans like there are very few moderate democrats.  obama gave Christie the kiss of political death and Christie kissed him back.
> ...



We saw the same thing with conservatives trashing Romney. When it turned out that nobody would support the idiots that conservatives were supporting they all came crawling back to Romney

Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum .......are you guys serious?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2013)

Trump, Palin, Perry . . . . . . . oh, please


----------



## Missourian (Jul 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary will be savaged by Biden in the primary.  Crazy Uncle Joe wants to be POTUS and he's going to unload on Hillary.
> ...



And they'll lose again...

Dole,  McCain,  Romney,  [insert name of 2016 RINO here].


----------



## Interpol (Jul 18, 2013)

I feel like people don't like Rand Paul the way they like his father, so no, I don't see him doing better than Ron. 

Rand has his little fringe of weirdos, but nobody that extreme and with hair that ridiculous will ever be President.

I think Christie would have been a shoe-in 20 years ago, but his party is so out to lunch on the big general election issues that I don't know how he would even win the primary. His party is filled with cuckoos these days so I think we'll see an even crazier Republican primary in 2016 than we did last year, which was already pretty crazy, especially if Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz are running.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 18, 2013)

Missourian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Every one was the best candidate Republicans had at the time


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2013)

Interpol said:


> I feel like people don't like Rand Paul the way they like his father, so no, I don't see him doing better than Ron.
> 
> Rand has his little fringe of weirdos, but nobody that extreme and with hair that ridiculous will ever be President.
> 
> I think Christie would have been a shoe-in 20 years ago, but his party is so out to lunch on the big general election issues that I don't know how he would even win the primary. His party is filled with cuckoos these days so I think we'll see an even crazier Republican primary in 2016 than we did last year, which was already pretty crazy, especially if Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz are running.



Ted Cruz can't run unfortunately.  

Yeah, Rick can be seen as the moderate candidate compared to those guys...LOL.  I wouldn't rule Santorum out; he won some big states although not on either coast.  He'd be the dream opponent for the Dems.

Rubio is doing his best to sabotage himself and is making some "rookie" mistakes that he shouldn't be making if he wants to elevate.  

Jindal is having trouble getting visibility and probably mortally wounded himself with the "party of stupid" comment.

Keep an eye out for Jeb Bush:

Money; check.  
Name recognition; check.  
Heavyweight credentials; check.  
Good in all time zones; check.  

Wants the job;  Wants the job; Wants the job....  we'll see.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Santorum did better than I thought he would...I wouldn't rule him out as a player in 2016 although I don't think he'll win the nomination.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

A jebbush/chrischristie or chrischristie/jebbush ticket could be a solid winner.

The others, with the possible exception of Jindall, are now non-starters.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I think Chis Christie has a problem with geography; he's not going to win the Iowa Caucus.  He may win New Hampshire but I doubt they'll be crazy about voting for him.  He'll need a blow out to turn the tide of whoever is going to win Iowa.  South Carolina is next.  No way he wins South Carolina.    So 3 weeks into the race, he'll be pretty worse for wear.  If memory serves,  Florida is one of the early races. He'll get his doors blown off there if Rubio or Bush are on the ticket.  

I agree with you that basically it will come down to Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri to determine the fate of Christie.  By that time, the contenders will be remaining and the pretenders will be dispatched; the money floating around will find it's way to the two most viable candidates.  If they run it smartly, Christie won't compete in the South at all; stress the industrial midwest and high-tech west coast.  He should be okay in his backyard since none of the serious GOP contenders are based anywhere close to his base of operations.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> A jebbush/chrischristie or chrischristie/jebbush ticket could be a solid winner.
> 
> The others, with the possible exception of Jindall, are now non-starters.



I can see a Rubio/Christie ticket or a Christie/Rubio ticket too. 

Way too early to tell.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.



He's the only one I would vote for.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

Sallow said:


> I'm thinking after 2014..they will be history.
> 
> Christie..or someone like Christie is going to be the Republican candidate.



You hope. 

If the GOP continues to put out Milquetoast RINO's - then the democrats are assured victory. Christie hands the democrats another win. We all know it.

Of course Rand Paul can actually win the election - so you'll do what you can to ensure he never runs.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

konradv said:


> LOL!!!  Libertarians don't have a shot.  They just don't get that, like Marxism, it would take a basic shift in human nature in order to work.  Even Republicans will see through his B.S., I'll wager.



Yet we have Barack Obama, so the Marxism candidate DID do well.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking after 2014..they will be history.
> ...



Rand Paul is unelectable just like his daddy

At least his daddy was likeable


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rand Paul is unelectable just like his daddy
> 
> At least his daddy was likeable



Sure.

The GOP needs to keep putting up RINO's like Mit and Open Borders McCain - the DNC is depending on it...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

McCain and Dole and Romney were the best candidates available at the time: flat fact.

America wants a right of center candidate (Bush or Christie) for the GOP, not a reactionary or a libertarian, for they simply cannot win: America has moved into the 21st century.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rand Paul is unelectable just like his daddy
> ...



Paul could not even get out of the GOP primaries. If you cannot convince Republicans to vote for you, how are you going to convince the rest of the country?


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rand Paul is unelectable just like his daddy
> ...



I think you've got the winning formula.  Americans are arrayed across the political spectrum just like a bell curve.  In nearly every instance, the candidate who's won the election was the one who was most successful at holding his base while moving towards the center to grab the lion's share of the bell curve in the middle.  But I like your chutzpah. I think you should challenge that tried and true formula and, instead, nominate someone from the FAR right so that he appears to be moonbat crazy to just about everyone else all along and up and down that bell curve of the American electorate.  It just might work.  Go for it!  Follow your dream!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Paul could not even get out of the GOP primaries. If you cannot convince Republicans to vote for you, how are you going to convince the rest of the country?



We'll see.

8 years of the most corrupt administration in history might have more of an impact on the sleeping giant than you think.

Remember, far more people didn't vote in 2012, than voted for Obama. As they lose jobs and take it up the ass over Obama's fascist care - you might see a significant backlash.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> I think you've got the winning formula.  Americans are arrayed across the political spectrum just like a bell curve.  In nearly every instance, the candidate who's won the election was the one who was most successful at holding his base while moving towards the center to grab the lion's share of the bell curve in the middle.  But I like your chutzpah. I think you should challenge that tried and true formula and, instead, nominate someone from the FAR right so that he appears to be moonbat crazy to just about everyone else all along and up and down that bell curve of the American electorate.  It just might work.  Go for it!  Follow your dream!



Yep, that's why Reagan lost in a landslide to Carter...


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Paul could not even get out of the GOP primaries. If you cannot convince Republicans to vote for you, how are you going to convince the rest of the country?
> ...



Didn't you guys just try that "4 years of the most corrupt administration in history" bullshit?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Didn't you guys just try that "4 years of the most corrupt administration in history" bullshit?



That Obama's regime is the most corrupt in American history is irrefutable. And running Romney was what saved Il Douche - which is what you're campaigning for the GOP to do yet again.

Running a RINO is the path to victory - for the DNC.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I think you've got the winning formula.  Americans are arrayed across the political spectrum just like a bell curve.  In nearly every instance, the candidate who's won the election was the one who was most successful at holding his base while moving towards the center to grab the lion's share of the bell curve in the middle.  But I like your chutzpah. I think you should challenge that tried and true formula and, instead, nominate someone from the FAR right so that he appears to be moonbat crazy to just about everyone else all along and up and down that bell curve of the American electorate.  It just might work.  Go for it!  Follow your dream!
> ...



Well... Other than the fact that Reagan was a well known actor, a former democrat, and a moderate republican by today's standards, and the fact that he was running against an unpupular incumbent who had been unable to negotiate the release of the Iranian hostages... Other than that, your analysis is spot on.  Rand Paul!  He's your guy.  He'll gobble up the middle of the bell curve with his libertarian craziness and poor Hillary won't know what hit her.  I like it!


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you guys just try that "4 years of the most corrupt administration in history" bullshit?
> ...



Irrefutable?

Grant, Harding, and Nixon ALL make Obama look like a choir boy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Well... Other than the fact that Reagan was a well known actor, a former democrat, and a moderate republican by today's standards, and the fact that he was running against an unpupular incumbent who had been unable to negotiate the release of the Iranian hostages... Other than that, your analysis is spot on.  Rand Paul!  He's your guy.  He'll gobble up the middle of the bell curve with his libertarian craziness and poor Hillary won't know what hit her.  I like it!



It's a funny thing that the far left is always so helpful in helping Republicans run their campaign. Without the left,the GOP would have never had the winning strategy of Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

Dole, McCain, and Romney were the best candidates at the time, Uncensored.

Nothing you say can change that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Irrefutable?
> 
> Grant, Harding, and Nixon ALL make Obama look like a choir boy.



Yeah, Nixon covered up bugging McGovern's office to gather proof of election fraud by the dims.

Compared to that, Obama selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, bugging the cell phone of everyone in America, and murdering a 16 year old kid from Colorado is minor......


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Well... Other than the fact that Reagan was a well known actor, a former democrat, and a moderate republican by today's standards, and the fact that he was running against an unpupular incumbent who had been unable to negotiate the release of the Iranian hostages... Other than that, your analysis is spot on.  Rand Paul!  He's your guy.  He'll gobble up the middle of the bell curve with his libertarian craziness and poor Hillary won't know what hit her.  I like it!
> ...



You miss my point.  I would dearly LOVE for the GOP to nominate Rand Paul.  I would never try to dissuade your party from making such a choice.  Seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Irrefutable?
> ...



Except that your Dear Leader did none of that.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

"Hyperbole in the pursuit of conservative domination is no vice."

Didn't AUH2O say that?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> "Hyperbole in the pursuit of conservative domination is no vice."
> 
> Didn't AUH2O say that?



Which part did you think was hype?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



At least he admits it--Romney sucked as a candidate.  There are still some here who claim it was voter fraud.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > "Hyperbole in the pursuit of conservative domination is no vice."
> ...



Pretty much all ofit.  If it weren't,the GOP controlled house would be compelled to impeach.  "Murder"???  That in itself, if it were true and NOT hyperbole, would be reason enough.  The president of the USA personally ordering the murder of a teenaged boy?


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Jul 18, 2013)

konradv said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.
> ...



Rand Paul is a constitutional conservative who most assuredly does not expect  a basic shift in human nature. He wants a limited federal government and a sane foreign policy.

I see through your BS.

Nope.  You're not getting away with it this time.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Your point appears to be that anyone who doesn't toe the neocon/democrat line is some kind of nutcase.

You are very, very wrong.  

The dems will try the same bullshit they did with Sarah Palin.  No one's going to buy it, though.  

President Paul.  Has a nice ring, doesn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Pretty much all ofit.  If it weren't,the GOP controlled house would be compelled to impeach.  "Murder"???  That in itself, if it were true and NOT hyperbole, would be reason enough.  The president of the USA personally ordering the murder of a teenaged boy?



I thought that might be it, but it isn't hyperbole at all - Obama murdered a 16 year old boy from Colorado due to who his father was - documented fact.

Here, from the left wing journal "The Atlantic."

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much all ofit.  If it weren't,the GOP controlled house would be compelled to impeach.  "Murder"???  That in itself, if it were true and NOT hyperbole, would be reason enough.  The president of the USA personally ordering the murder of a teenaged boy?
> ...



You are aware that murder has a very specific meaning?  Somehow, I think not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored's fauxrage about something that did not happen (a murder) is what outrages the sensible portion of the mainstream GOP.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

expatriate said:


> You are aware that murder has a very specific meaning?  Somehow, I think not.



Yes, and this fits that meaning in every way.

In fact, it is premeditated murder. Obama didn't like his daddy - so he killed the kid. Hey, his dad was a scumbag - but I thought generational guilt went out of style about 1300...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that murder has a very specific meaning?  Somehow, I think not.
> ...



Your type of fauxrage, Uncensored, is why we lost the election and could not take the Senate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored does this every time I metaphorically boot his butt up between his ears so I can give him the pleasure of hearing as I metaphorically beat his ass.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that murder has a very specific meaning?  Somehow, I think not.
> ...



the boy was not the target of the strike.  Ibrahim al Banna was the target.  the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.

not murder.  sorry.  hyperbole.  as I stated earlier.

::yawn::


----------



## American_Jihad (Jul 19, 2013)

*Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats*

By Chris Good
@c_good
Follow on Twitter
Jul 16, 2013 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will likely press ahead with the so-called nuclear option of changing Senate rules, but will it soon come back to haunt his party?

As early as today, the Reid, D-Nev., and his Democratic caucus could enact rules changes to effectively end Republicans ability to block executive-branch nominees. For weeks, as Reid has mulled the maneuver, Republicans have cried foul.

These are dark days in the history of the Senate, Reids GOP counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Thursday. McConnell has pointed out that Republicans have approved all of Obamas Cabinet nominees, but the issue is for several significant, lower-level nominees, including those Obama has tapped to head the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The pending change would only apply to executive-branch nomineesnot legislation, and not judicial nomineesbut Republicans have threatened broader consequences anyway.

The merits of Reids move aside, it could set a precedent Democrats may regret if they lose the Senate majority in 2014, and if Republicans take control of the White House in 2016. Republicans have warned of that outcome.

McConnell has warned that Republicans could push through a bill to approve a nuclear-waste dumping site at Yucca Mountain, in Reids home state of Nevada, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele warned Reid could regret it as soon as 2015.

...

Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats - ABC News


----------



## dblack (Jul 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube
> 
> Rand Paul, like his father..will never ever be President.
> 
> Christie has a chance if Clinton doesn't run.



Well, there ya go. Christie has Sallow's seal of approval. Just doesn't get any better than that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 19, 2013)

expatriate said:


> the boy was not the target of the strike.  Ibrahim al Banna was the target.  the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.



Bullshit.

You may like it when Obama pisses on you head and tells you it's raining, but I don't.

Obama assassinated the boy's father 14 days prior, one would have to be abysmally stupid to believe that such a wild coincidence occured in such a short period. I strongly doubt you believe such idiocy - but you are a partisan hack who holds party above life, liberty, or reality.



> not murder.  sorry.  hyperbole.  as I stated earlier.
> 
> ::yawn::



It's murder - irrefutable. You support it because you hold party above all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2013)

expatriate said:


> the boy was not the target of the strike.  Ibrahim al Banna was the target.  the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.



To suggest the boy was the target is an outright lie.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > the boy was not the target of the strike.  Ibrahim al Banna was the target.  the boy was unfortunate collateral damage.
> ...



is it hard to believe that we would target a known AQ operative?  Is it hard to believe that the target might have also been acquainted with the boy's father who had worked for the same terrorist organization?  Is it hard to believe that the boy, therefore, might be in the company of the target as part of his supposed efforts to find his father?  What is wildly coincidental about that?

Again... if there were any evidence that Obama set in motion a plan whose purpose was to execute an innocent teenager, he would be impeached by now.

let me repeat:

::yawn::


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 19, 2013)

expatriate said:


> is it hard to believe that we would target a known AQ operative?



The boy was on no watch lists, had no affiliation toe AQ.

Again, you're shoveling shit because you are a partisan who holds party above the rule of law.



> Is it hard to believe that the target might have also been acquainted with the boy's father who had worked for the same terrorist organization?  Is it hard to believe that the boy, therefore, might be in the company of the target as part of his supposed efforts to find his father?  What is wildly coincidental about that?



The "target" was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was on no watch list - not on Obama's famous kill list, not even on the fucking no-fly list.

WHAT did the Obama regime say about murdering this child?

{GIBBS: *I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father* if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.} 

Fucking scumbags. Obama has a lot more in common with Pol Pot than he does George Washington or Abe Lincoln.



> Again... if there were any evidence that Obama set in motion a plan whose purpose was to execute an innocent teenager, he would be impeached by now.
> 
> let me repeat:
> 
> ::yawn::



Evidence?

It's proven.

You just hold party above all. Obama could blow the brains out of a child on network TV and you would applaud him - and we both know it.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Jul 19, 2013)

As if we need bedwetting SOCIALIST Zombies giving us advice about our candidates. LMAO

Libruls love to try and dictate EVERYTHING.. Especially our primaries.. Butt out LOSERS and worry about your criminally infested Democrat Party. 

As for the mentioned names, NONE OF THE ABOVE for me.. Rand I will give a look at.. the others, not a chance in hell.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Jul 19, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Quite frankly, Conservatives don't give a sh*t about who you would love to see run regarding the primaries.. You Zombies just don't get it.. no one needs your advice or wants it.. 

SEE DETROIT


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2013)

As if we need nail-biting reactionaries from zombie lands telling mainstream Americans what's up and down.

LGS and Uncensored can step off in synch into strangeness without us.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > is it hard to believe that we would target a known AQ operative?
> ...



show me the proof that the attack's target was the teenager and not the AQ operative.

I'll wait.


----------



## expatriate (Jul 19, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Oh... I am well aware that you don't give a shit about my opinion.  Trust me... I feel precisely the same about yours.  That doesn't stop either one of us from offering them up whenever we want to... does it?

The subtle and wonderful difference here is that you guys are wondering who you can pick to WIN the White House... we pretty much know who we will pick to KEEP the White House.  See how that works?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2013)

Uncensored and LGS continue to display the weakness of the far right, and that is why Christie et al will continue to have nothing to do with them.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 19, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats*
> 
> By Chris Good
> @c_good
> ...



Does anyone doubt for a second that Filibuster J McConnell would change the rules of filibuster the second Republicans get 51 Senators?


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 19, 2013)

*Cruz wins Values Voter Summit's 2016 straw poll*​
October 12, 2013

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz decidedly won the presidential straw poll at the 2013 Values Voter Summit, solidifying his status among religious conservatives.

Cruz, a first-term senator and Tea Party favorite, has emerged as one of the Republican Party and conservative movements most dynamic leaders   highlighted by his effort to defund ObamaCare.

Cruz, who appears to have presidential aspirations, took 42 percent of the vote, with Dr. Ben Carson and former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum each getting 13 percent.

...

Cruz wins Values Voter Summit's 2016 straw poll | Fox News


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *The Fixs first rankings of the 2016 Republican presidential field!*
> 
> 
> by Chris Cillizza, Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
> ...



10. John Thune - boring. 
9. Rob Portman - Boring
8. John Kasich - 
7. Mike Pence - Might be a good pick, but needs more exposure. 

6. Rand Paul -  Crazier than Batshit 


5. Jeb Bush -  Sorry, his name is a deal-killer.  No way anyone elects another Bush after the disasters the last two have been. 

4. Paul Ryan - Ryan lost most of his street cred when he went down in flames with the Mormon. He lost the rest when he started talking nice with Obama. 

3. Bobby Jindal - Piyush's career is over when he's term limited out. 

2. Chris Christie - I think the media will love this guy all the way until he's the nominee, and then they will turn on his fat ass.  Also, we haven't had a fat president since Taft.  

1. Marco Rubio - Sorry, Rubio's cred went down with the immigration bill.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

The sad thing is, the right is just deluded enough to think Ted Cruz is a winner.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 19, 2013)

The sad thing is, democrats still think they can choose the republican presidential candidate.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The sad thing is, democrats still think they can choose the republican presidential candidate.



What makes you think we cant?

We do a better job than conservatives do


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 19, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The sad thing is, democrats still think they can choose the republican presidential candidate.



Actually not. 

Democrats clearly have a greater objectivity concerning the matter, however. 

But its ultimately up to republicans to decide, to either take the presidents advice and win some elections, or nominate the likes of Cruz or Paul and remain in the political wilderness.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 19, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing is, democrats still think they can choose the republican presidential candidate.
> ...



The presidunce's whole problem is that republicans did win elections, and they are the ones who just gave him a migraine.  Elections have consequences and one of those consequences is a republican controlled House.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)

. . . which, if your type of bozos keep in the news, will increase the Dems by at least 100 seats in the elections next year


----------



## whitehall (Oct 19, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Chris Christie, not Marco Rubio, is the Republican's best bet for 2016 *​
> 
> 2/19/13
> 
> ...



Actually Christie would be the democrat party's best bet for 2016 but he is too honest to be a democrat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)

Christie is America's best bet and the TeaPs worst night mare.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 19, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> 7. Mike Pence - Might be a good pick, but needs more exposure.



To keep himself looking presidential, Gov Pence of Indiana has avoided doing anything crazy for the Republican base. And being I live there, that's good. Pence is currently trying to figure out how to dodge the gay marriage issue, being the conservatives want a state ban on it.

On the downside for him, he's pretty much done nothing at all as governor, good or bad. There's no Indiana miracle he can point to. 

He's also not particularly bright, basically a pretty face who mouths bland conservative platitudes. That's not a problem now, given that he avoids the spotlight, but put him on the national stage, and he'll be revealed as the worthy successor of Indiana's Dan Quayle.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 7. Mike Pence - Might be a good pick, but needs more exposure.
> ...



Christie just dodged the gay marriage issue in NJ......he let the courts handle it

Gays can marry in NJ starting monday


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)

Yup, Christie did the minimal amount of effort, referring it to the NJ Supreme Court, and dodged a bullet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Good for them, but frankly, I don't want a president who dodges the tough questions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)

You will be disappointed then because all presidents dodge whatever they can.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> You will be disappointed then because all presidents dodge whatever they can.



Oh, I find myself beyond disappointment with politicians and their gutlessness.  


But when one pre-disqualified himself like Jabba just did.... it should be noted.  

We all know Gay Marriage is inevitable for the whole country, and that the legislature voted for it in that state.  

And Jabba vetoed it knowing the courts would overrule him because he doesn't want to alienate the Whacky Christian Right.  

It's up there with your hero Romney firing a gay staffer because Bryan Fischer demanded it. 

Not someone I want to face down the Ayatollahs or Assad or Putin or whoever we have to face down in the future.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)

all you are doing is agreeing with me that "all" politicians doing it but using only Pubs as examples.

So holding up the ratings cards of 1 to 10, you get about a 3.7 for the post.

But, I will give you credit, you loved Bad Ass Bush.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> all you are doing is agreeing with me that "all" politicians doing it but using only Pubs as examples.
> 
> So holding up the ratings cards of 1 to 10, you get about a 3.7 for the post.
> 
> But, I will give you credit, you loved Bad Ass Bush.



Well, yeah, until he screwed up the economy and messed up everyone's life.  Yeah. He was awesome.  

Sorry, I know that Christie the Hutt is the latest pinup boy for the "establishment" right.  Because Romney and McCain turned out so well for you guys.  

But frankly, he's doing exactly what Romney did. Instead of standing up to the base and their unreasonable demands, he's avoiding the issue. 

That's not leadership.  

He should either support gay marriage and say why, or oppose it and say why.  Even if I disagreed with him, I'd respect him for standing by his principles.  

Wanting the courts to do his heavy lifting for him... meh, not so much.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)

JoeB, we know what you are and what you do.  So roll on, little friend, roll on.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 19, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > all you are doing is agreeing with me that "all" politicians doing it but using only Pubs as examples.
> ...



he did tell the crazies to take a hike

Christie Calls out the Crazies - The Daily Beast

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y83z552NJaw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y83z552NJaw[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, we know what you are and what you do.  So roll on, little friend, roll on.



Your lack of counter-argument is duly noted.  

The last thing the GOP needs is another squish...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2013)




----------



## Dot Com (Oct 19, 2013)

lol


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> What makes you think we cant?
> 
> We do a better job than conservatives do



After all, letting you choose the last two gave us a double-dose of Obama....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 21, 2013)

TeaPs are not yet at the neap tide but it is coming.

Tim Griffin, Ark, is the latest TeaP to not run in 2014.  He joins Michelle B in seeing the coming wash out of far right reactionaries.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 21, 2013)

Are Starkey and JoeB the same person?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 21, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are Starkey and JoeB the same person?



I doubt it.

Jakematters is busy with his *XXXXXXX* sock..


*Assertion unfounded..Kindly do not pursue this course of action.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are Starkey and JoeB the same person?
> ...



It could also be that there's a Internet Cafe run by OFA and they each take turns posting as each other, you reactionary


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 21, 2013)

It could be that Uncensored and Frank are running around in conspiracy circles.

Nothing new there.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think we cant?
> ...



Thats true......Who would Conservatives have run?

Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rich Santorum.....Trump?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Thats true......Who would Conservatives have run?



The best choice was Herman Cain, and let the racist demoKKKrats savage him for the entire nation to see.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 21, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are Starkey and JoeB the same person?



Obviously, you've ignored the dozens of knock-down, drag out fights I've had with Jake, mostly over Romney.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 21, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are Starkey and JoeB the same person?
> ...



Mostly over Joe's anti-religious stupidity, which informed his anti-Mormon tirades against Saint Mitt.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Thats true......Who would Conservatives have run?
> ...



I regret to inform you that the Democrats had nothing to do with the demise of Mr Cains campaign. Republicans used Cain as their....Look, we got a black guy too
Once he started to lead in the polls, it was Holy shit, we don't want to give the black guy the nomination. 

Democrats wanted Cain to beat Romney


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



even if we ignored his alleged NLT- like qualities, his econ #'s didn't add up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 21, 2013)

Cain was a goober when it came to economics.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2013)

jakestarkey said:


> cain was a goober when it came to economics.



9-9-9


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> > cain was a goober when it came to economics.
> ...



Which turned upside down is 6 6 6.  The mark of the Cain Beast.  Read Revelations.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 21, 2013)

2016 will be the same debacle as 2012. The GObP still doesn't have a candidate so we'll see the same _throwing spaghetti against the wall and hope something sticks_. 

I'm sick of the Rs always ducking responsibility for their own mess. Don't blame the Ds for what that band of idiots did to themselves. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Rs are working undercover for the Ds.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 21, 2013)

Luddly is A wrong again!

Christie, if he makes it clear that he can tell the TeaPs to shut up and then hurt them politically if they don't, will be the GOP nominee and beat HRC.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How did that work out for you again? 

Oh, yeah, all those "moderates" that you said couldn't wait to vote for Mitt... 

didn't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cain was a goober when it came to economics.



How's Obama on economics?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Luddly is A wrong again!
> 
> Christie, if he makes it clear that he can tell the TeaPs to shut up and then hurt them politically if they don't, will be the GOP nominee and beat HRC.



Agreed. Christie will make a fine Dem Candidate


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2013)

Frank, how does your goof TeaP philosophy work out for you?

America, including mainstream Republicanism, has no use for your small minority fanatical views.

Is what it is.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 22, 2013)

Okay, to put this thread back on track.  

Chris Christy will never be the nominee.  Even if he wins NH, he won't win Iowa or SC after the gay marriage and hugging Obama Debacles.  

Jabba is the kind of Republican Wall Street loves.  No religious crazy and willing to fuck the working man at every oppurtunity.  But he's unelectable in the primary.   Romney only won because he had weak conservative opponents who split the vote all the way up to the end.  

Christie vs. Ted Cruz.  Cruz sweeps Iowa, makes a decent showing in NH, and then nails South Carolina.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2013)

JoeB was just as wrong about MR, so give him the credit he is due: none.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 22, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, to put this thread back on track.
> 
> Chris Christy will never be the nominee.  Even if he wins NH, he won't win Iowa or SC after the gay marriage and hugging Obama Debacles.
> 
> ...



He's from Canada though.  I don't know if he'll be able to run.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 22, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> He's from Canada though.  I don't know if he'll be able to run.



You going to demand his birth certificate?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2013)

Haven't you?


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 22, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > He's from Canada though.  I don't know if he'll be able to run.
> ...



I think we're gonna have to see his full birth certificate.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 22, 2013)

Are the rw's thinking Christie will get the nomination because he worked with the president?

That's what they've been critical of in the past but rw's don't mind dumping one for another. 

That was suc fun last general election - rw's saying THIS one will be prez, then dumping him for the next one in line only to dump that one for the next one and so on. 

Lay in the popcorn cuz it will be the same next time.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 22, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I think I read he has dual citizenship but that isn't important to the average rw voter. 

All they care about is voting for the worst possible choice for the good of the country. And, right now, that would be Cruz. Now, iif only he'd tap $arah for his running mate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 22, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



There is NO hypocrisy like demopocrasy......


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



his mother was a citizen

you can make fun of the birfer movement all you want, but that is all it is


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 22, 2013)

I can't wait for the Republican primaries.  They are going to be so friggin ugly as they all cannibalize each other.  The debates should be a joy to watch with twenty of them running.  Honestly though, if Republicans want the best candidate possible and a real conservative who can't be battered for being a hypocrite, then John Thune is their best bet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 23, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB was just as wrong about MR, so give him the credit he is due: none.



I was right when I said Romney was a loser, which he was... 

He took an easily winnable election and lost it, big time.


----------



## Toro (Oct 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB was just as wrong about MR, so give him the credit he is due: none.
> ...



You also thought Gingrich was a winner.

Hate is rarely a good foundation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 23, 2013)

Toro said:


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



Gingrich would have done better against Obama than the weird Mormon Robot did.  

The worst sign in 2012 is that there were about a million less primary voters than there were in 2008.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

Right now, Chris Christie appears to be the Republicans only electable candidate.

His weight would be an issue now, but he had lap band surgery in February and should be down a hundred pounds by 2016

Unlike other Republicans, Christie can run from the middle and show cred that he is willing to work with Democrats. After the Republican shutdown debacle, the public is crying for candidates who can be bipartisan

The GOP primary can be difficult. But both Cruz and Paul will split the conservative vote leaving Christie to win the big blue states California, NY, Florida

If Republicans can lay off the Whitewater, Blowjob, Benghazi distraction, Hillary is beatable. She doesn't have the spark she used to have and appears more and more like an old lady. If Republicans will let Christie be Christie, they can have a GOP president. If they make him run as a fake TeaTard, he will lose


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Right now, Chris Christie appears to be the Republicans only electable candidate.
> 
> His weight would be an issue now, but he had lap band surgery in February and should be down a hundred pounds by 2016
> 
> ...



Lap bands are not a magic bullet. 

I would also be remiss if I failed to point out that the media LOVED McCain and Romney over 'true' conservatives, until they got the nomination.  Then the knives came out.  

I don't think that Paul and Cruz will split the conservative vote.  Paul will get the same crazies that supported his dad.  Cruz will either explode spectacularly in 2014, or he will become the defacto leader of the conservative wing.  

But the real telling issue will be, what condition will the economy be in 2016. If it's bad as it is now, Hillary will be very beatable.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, Chris Christie appears to be the Republicans only electable candidate.
> ...



By 2016, I expect the economy to be blah....just like it is now
But the public will be accustomed to blah and it will not be a major issue

If you are a TeaTard, you have to make the decision between Cruz and Paul. They draw from the same well

Christie will win the Northeast, Midwest and Western states. Cruz and Paul will split the solid red states. Now, the smart thing to do would be for one of them to drop out to allow the other to win. Do you think either one can put aside his ego?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, to put this thread back on track.
> 
> Chris Christy will never be the nominee.  Even if he wins NH, he won't win Iowa or SC after the gay marriage and hugging Obama Debacles.
> 
> ...



Back in the old days, if a candidate did not do well by South Carolina he folded up his tent and went home. His campaign reserves were dried up and no new money was coming in

Now, thanks to Citizens United, fringe candidates can keep campaigning forever. As long as your deep pockets benefactor keeps coughing up the dough

Neither Cruz nor Paul will blink and will split the TeaTard vote


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nah, you would have looked just as stupid as you did in the primaries.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 23, 2013)

rw makes jb simply blow.

Christie in the primaries easily, and very tough competitor with HRC.

Fun election year coming up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Right now, Chris Christie appears to be the Republicans only electable candidate.



If you can get the idiot Republicans to run Christie, then they fully deserve to die out as a viable party.



> His weight would be an issue now, but he had lap band surgery in February and should be down a hundred pounds by 2016
> 
> Unlike other Republicans, Christie can run from the middle and show cred that he is willing to work with Democrats. After the Republican shutdown debacle, the public is crying for candidates who can be bipartisan
> 
> ...



Christie is indeed significantly left of center, but what does he have to offer Republicans?

And I have a suspicion that Hillary will not run.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, Chris Christie appears to be the Republicans only electable candidate.
> ...



What policies of Christies do you consider to be left of center?

Christie offers Republicans a candidate who could actually defeat Hillary Clinton

Christie also offers the "silent majority" of Republicans a candidate that is willing to stand up to the radical rightwing that has taken over the party


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> What policies of Christies do you consider to be left of center?









He is a rabid anti-gun whackadoodle, a major proponent of late term abortion, a GAIA worshiping AGW fucktard,  shall we go on?



> Christie offers Republicans a candidate who could actually defeat Hillary Clinton



To what end? Christie may well be left of Clinton.



> Christie also offers the "silent majority" of Republicans a candidate that is willing to stand up to the radical rightwing that has taken over the party



Christie offers to leftists the long sought after dream of one party rule.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What policies of Christies do you consider to be left of center?
> ...



So thats the best you got?

That handshake is just what America is looking for. A candidate who says "I put the people of my state over my political party"  Based on the recent shutdown nonsense, the public is tired of partisan bickering. That picture is gold for Christie

He is not anti-gun and does not support abortion


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 23, 2013)

Uncensored, your type is the small minority in the GOP.

Christie is right of center, mainstream Republican, and America loves him.

TPM and libertarians and reactionaries to the rear for FEMA camp re-education.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So thats the best you got?
> 
> That handshake is just what America is looking for. A candidate who says "I put the people of my state over my political party"  Based on the recent shutdown nonsense, the public is tired of partisan bickering. That picture is gold for Christie
> 
> He is not anti-gun and does not support abortion



I don't think blatant lying is going to work for you...

Maybe it will, but I'm doubting it.

{where Governor Chris Christie has announced his support for a proposal to expand background checks for gun purchases, to require parental consent for minors to buy violent video games, to ban purchases of particular rifles, and to make it easier for courts and individuals to commit potentially dangerous people to mental health treatment against their will.

This is a significant expansion of New Jerseys already-tough gun control laws, and some provisions  like the mental health proposal  are genuinely controversial. Within his state, however, Christie is on firm ground. Large majorities of New Jersey voters support stricter gun laws, including bans on high-capacity magazines, universal background checks, and laws that would prevent people with mental illnesses from buying guns. }

What Chris Christie?s support for gun control says about GOP


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

Look Republicans...

You just shut down the Government and the country is really, really pissed at you

What do you do?  Nominate Cruz, Paul, Ryan or Rubio who pushed for and voted for the shutdown? 

Christie is your lifeline to political sanity. He condemned the shutdown and those who demanded it. He showed he is willing to work bipartisan to get things done. He showed he puts the people above politics

He is the only way out of the doghouse for Republicans.....Will they take it?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So thats the best you got?
> ...



Hate to tell you

But once again Christie is more in line with the political position of the country. The country and most of the NRA supports background checks

_Governor Chris Christie has announced his support for a proposal to expand background checks for gun purchases, to require parental consent for minors to buy violent video games, to ban purchases of particular rifles, and to make it easier for courts and individuals to commit &#8220;potentially dangerous&#8221; people to mental health treatment against their will.

_

Imagine that.......America would support it
Radical Republicans would block it


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Hate to tell you
> 
> But once again Christie is more in line with the political position of the country. The country and most of the NRA supports background checks
> 
> ...



Izzatrite?

Hmmm, wonder why he ran from his own bill, then?

{On Friday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie refused to sign three closely watched gun control bills, including a ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles similar to one Christie himself called for earlier this year. }

Chris Christie Backs Down on Gun Control | The Nation

You keep telling us how popular your war on the Constitution is, yet front liners keep falling...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 24, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> rw makes jb simply blow.
> 
> Christie in the primaries easily, and very tough competitor with HRC.
> 
> Fun election year coming up.



Not really. 

The Wingnuts will take out Jabba, and if they don't, the MSM media will.  

And after he loses, the Right Wing will announce, 'Well, if only we ran a REAL conservative!"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2013)

Really.  JoeB does not understand how GOP primary season works at all.  He could not get ONE call right last year during the primaries.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 24, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > rw makes jb simply blow.
> ...



No question the wingnuts will try, but their power within the party has diminished

Regular Republicans let them have their way in the shutdown and the wingnuts showed how irresponsible they can be

Regular Republicans will not support a candidate like Cruz or Paul.......neither will the rest of America


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2013)

rw has the right take on it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 24, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Really.  JoeB does not understand how GOP primary season works at all.  He could not get ONE call right last year during the primaries.



Only call I saw that was wrong was that they said Romney had won NH when Santorum did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


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



I'm not seeing any evidence the wingnuts power has been diminised one iota...quite the reverse, I see the guys who hate Obama insufficiently getting primaried.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


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



Democrats and independents still elect presidents; and neither will vote for the likes of Paul or Cruz. 

They will vote for someone like Christie, however. 

The TPM and radical right may infer from that fact what they will.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 24, 2013)

TeePee'ers will wail  if their guy doesn't get the nomination.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2013)

Doesn't matter, Dot Com.

The mainstream GOP leadership told the TPM this day would come if they played stupidly.

They played stupidly.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 24, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The TeaTards power has diminished

First off. Nobody is going to deliver the cash to TeaTards
Secondly. They have used up their goodwill within their own party and burned their bridges
Thirdly. The rest of the country thinks they are nutz


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 24, 2013)

Maybe the GOP should take another look at this guy?

Tom Ridge torpedoes tea party era at Log Cabin dinner - Poliglot


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 25, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Guy this is where I have to disagree.  

The GOP's two most unqualified successes were candidates who were unapologetically conserative.  Reagan and Bush-43.  

ROmney didn't lose because he was "too liberal" or "too conservative".  Romney lost at the end of the day because he was a Weird Mormon who talked smack about working folks.  

At the end of the day, 45% will always vote for the Republican and 45% will always vote for the Democrat and the 10% in the middle will vote for the guy who appeals to them on a personal level. 

And the biggest problem the Democrats have is that they are about to nominate a shrill old woman who grates on people's nerves.  

Could Cruz win?  If the economy is still doing poor and  Hillary acts like Hillary, maybe.


----------



## Toro (Oct 25, 2013)

Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ. 

Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Romney lost for a number of reasons but not because of yours.  You silly goog.

Cruz could win if we were in a super Depression, Hitler like, yes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 25, 2013)

Toro said:


> Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.
> 
> Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.



And the left STILL hated him...

A Republican trying to please the left is stupid - they'll hate him no matter what he does.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 25, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.
> ...



Why I hated Bush

Abandoned the war on terror to invade Iraq
Lied about WMDs
Engaged in Torture
Stood by while the economy collapsed


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2013)

Stupid above.

The TeaPs and the reactionaries are far on the right horizon.

Thus, anyone who disagrees with them is a "liberal" to them.  Tough that.

The reactionary far right does not win elections, it is the middle.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Oct 25, 2013)

konradv said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.
> ...



I can certainly see through your BS.  Paul is a Republican.  I realize the fact that he believes strongly in personal liberty galls liberals, but they'll just have to live with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2013)

Ryan's libertarianism cannot translate into economic values in a democratic constitutional republic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 25, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ryan's libertarianism cannot translate into economic values in a democratic constitutional republic.



Translation: my statist mentality preempts any understanding of free enterprise


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 25, 2013)

You nutters had better come you your senses soon. 

People like Huntsman, Ridge and Christie are your only hope for a WH run.  A somewhat moderate Republican who can think and speak in complete thoughts and has an aversion to spouting off empty rhetoric.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 25, 2013)

Toro said:


> Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.
> 
> Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.



Okay, I'm going to play your little game.  

Not seeing how you can't be "compassionate" and "conservative".  It's not an oxymoron. Frankly, I considered myself compassionate when I was conservative, I was just disgusted to see the plutocrats who really ran things weren't. 

Ran big deficits.  Um. Yeah. So did Reagan.  For the same reason, drinking the Supply Side Koolaid that tax cuts on the wealthy will create prosperity and revenues. (It doesn't.) 

Invaded Countries- that attacked us first or had been hostile to us for years.  Not a liberal or conservative position. (When it comes to foreign policy, there isn't a lot of variation.) 

Exanded social programs- Again, he did it the Republican way, by making the rich richer. So instead of having Medicare Part D just buy the drugs, he gave a huge giveaway to be Pharma.  Just like the rich got big giveaway on the War on Terror, which was outsourced to big corporations.  

The problem with Bush is he talked like a conservative, and acted like a Plutocrat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan's libertarianism cannot translate into economic values in a democratic constitutional republic.
> ...



Translation: Frank is still lost in McCarthyville.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 25, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> You nutters had better come you your senses soon.
> 
> People like Huntsman, Ridge and Christie are your only hope for a WH run.  A somewhat moderate Republican who can think and speak in complete thoughts and has an aversion to spouting off empty rhetoric.



True. 

It comes down to whether republicans are more interested in responsible governance or their childish, naïve TPM fantasy.


----------



## Interpol (Oct 27, 2013)

I suppose the main contenders at this point are: 

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Scott Walker
Rick Santorum

I'm not really taking Scott Brown or Rick Perry too seriously right now, but at least Brown might be interesting when it comes to how he deals with Tea Partiers in the debates. 

I think we're going to be seeing the real-world Republicans battling the fantasy/alternate universe Republicans who appear to invent their own sense of the present and of history. 

I don't know if Jeb is too late. The Bush brand is still very much in the toilet. I think Christie would be interesting, but he's not a hard right guy in a party that seems to hate anyone who is not at least practically militant about being on the hard right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2013)

The GOP establishment and George Soros will support Jeb and Christie respectively. I think Palin and Dr Ben Carson will be the GOP candidates


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The GOP establishment and George Soros will support Jeb and Christie respectively. I think Palin and Dr Ben Carson will be the GOP candidates



Now that would be fun.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 27, 2013)

Interpol said:


> I suppose the main contenders at this point are:
> 
> Jeb Bush
> Chris Christie
> ...



I think the real world republicans need to be as militant in their position as the fantasy/alternative Republicans. Don't give an inch and insist on realistic solutions to our problems
It is the pandering to the nutjobs that is making it impossible to win


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2013)

Realistic candidates: Bush, Christie, Paul, Rubio

Fringe candidates: Paul, Ryan    

Flame out candidates: Cruz, Walker, Carson, Palin, Santorum, Perry


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 27, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Realistic candidates: Bush, Christie, Paul, Rubio
> 
> Fringe candidates: Paul, Ryan
> 
> Flame out candidates: Cruz, Walker, Carson, Palin, Santorum, Perry



The realistic candidates need to order the others to get back in the clown car. Stop taking them seriously. Make it clear that there are adults in the Republican Party and that they no longer tolerate the nonsense


----------



## American_Jihad (Nov 19, 2015)

November 18, 2015
*Oops! Smarter lefties realize they have a losing hand on Syrian 'refugees'*
By Thomas Lifson


Kevin Drum of Mother Jones is an old hand on the left and has seen enough politics that he realizes what a big looser of an issue the Syrian “refugee” inflow is for the Democrats and the left. He cautions his fellow progs:

Over the past 24 hours, almost half of the nation's governors — all but one of them Republicans — have said they plan to refuse to allow Syrian immigrants into their states in the wake of the Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State....That stance has been greeted with widespread ridicule and disgust by Democrats who insist that keeping people out of the U.S. is anathema to the founding principles of the country.

....Think what you will, but one thing is clear: *The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner.*



I pointed out this out a couple of days ago, in fact. And Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post agreed:

The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner.

The Pew Research Center did an in-depth poll looking into Americans' view on Islamic extremism in the the fall of 2014 — and its findings suggest that politicians like Cruz have virtually nothing to lose in this fight over how best to respond to ISIS's latest act of violence.

...

Blog: Oops! Smarter lefties realize they have a losing hand on Syrian 'refugees'


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2015)

American_Jihad said:


> November 18, 2015
> *Oops! Smarter lefties realize they have a losing hand on Syrian 'refugees'*
> By Thomas Lifson
> 
> ...



The first terrorist attack linked to one of these "refugees," and the democratic party is done forever.

Obama can lie that it's workplace violence or any other bullshit, but a couple of Tsarnaev "refugees" brought in by Obama and the democratic - socialist, and the DNC brand will never recover.


----------



## oreo (Nov 20, 2015)

American_Jihad said:


> *Chris Christie, not Marco Rubio, is the Republican's best bet for 2016 *​
> 
> 2/19/13
> 
> ...




No, I would never vote for anyone that does not support the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution--States Rights.  In 3rd debate Christie made it very clear that he doesn't give a crap about it.  He's still wearing the Prosecutor suit.

Christie is a freaking hypocrite.  _He should call the DEA into his own state of New Jersey--because the Federal Government doesn't consider medical marijuana legal either.  He's such a dumb ass._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 20, 2015)

All of the GOP nominees are progressive statists, including Cruz, who use Big Government to implement his policies.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jan 6, 2016)

*2016: Year of Decisions*
* Freedom does not mean America writes you a blank check. *
January 6, 2016
Bruce Thornton





Next November’s election will decide more than who becomes president. It will establish whether the United States has shifted from its foundational ideals of limited government, personal freedom, citizen autonomy, and a robust foreign policy that serves America’s interests and security, to the European model of quasi-pacifist internationalism abroad, and a centralized, collectivist technocratic rule at home –– exactly what 2400 years of political philosophy has feared is the infrastructure of tyranny.

Barack Obama vowed to “fundamentally transform the United States,” but for all his malign changes and erosion of the Constitutional order, “fundamentally” remains a question-begging adverb. The unique circumstances of his election and re-election ––especially the desperate and misguided yearning for racial reconciliation to be achieved merely by voting –– question whether a critical mass of Americans agrees with that goal. High disapproval numbers in polls of Obamacare, the president’s foreign policy, and the man himself suggest not. But the election of Hillary Clinton would show that despite those opinions, a majority of Americans endorse the progressive Democrats’ agenda.

That agenda has been obvious for at least a century. It is predicated on political scientism, the false idea that human nature, motivation, and behavior, along with social and political order, can be understood “scientifically,” and thus manipulated and guided toward a more egalitarian world –– the “social justice” of so much progressive rhetoric. But such a program requires a technocratic, administrative elite housed in powerful government bureaucracies and agencies, walled off from direct accountability to and scrutiny by the people. The ensuing reduction of political freedom and autonomy necessary for top-down rule is compensated for by redefining political freedom as private hedonism –– the freedom to indulge the appetites, consume products and services, abort unwanted pregnancies, and choose whatever sexual identity one fancies.

The second dimension of this agenda is the adoption of “internationalism,” the notion that nationalist particularity and interests are dangerous and immoral, and so must be marginalized. Transnational organizations and bureaucracies, manned by technocratic elites, must order the world’s peoples in order to create global “social justice.” The belief that diplomatic “engagement” and consultative processes can reduce, contain, or forestall conflict and eliminate violence as the arbiter of interstate rivalries. Our nation is no more “exceptional” than any other, as Obama once said, and so must defer to the consensus of the “global community” and pursue its interests. The West in particular is obliged to adopt this ideology. Its alleged imperialist and colonialist crimes, and its advanced capitalist economies and technologies, have fomented the disorder that has exploited and oppressed the rest of the world, and inhibited its development and improvement. Thus the West, especially the United States, apparently owes various forms of “reparations” to the Rest, and be a world “partner mindful of its own imperfections,” as Obama wrote in 2007.

The two administrations of Barack Obama, and the campaign platform of Hillary Clinton, are expressions of this agenda. Federal agencies like the EPA, the NLRB, the DOJ, and the IRS, to name a few, have aggressively intruded into the freedom of citizens and businesses in order to impose politicized investigations and regulations never sanctioned by Congress. The president has abused executive power to change laws from Obamacare to immigration, realizing Woodrow Wilson’s dream of a chief executive empowered not just to veto bad laws, but to create “good” ones. Hillary has already promised to do the same, vowing, for example, to take executive action on gun control. She also has peddled the same “social justice” rhetoric that has dominated the Obama presidency –– “fair share,” “you didn’t build that,” “income inequality,” “war on women,” all the slogans of the redistributionist federal government increasing its power in order to create “equality.”

And like Obama, Hillary supports the social changes that redefine ordered liberty as the power to do what one likes in private life –– the public square is another matter –– without hindrance from tradition or religion or even common sense. Hence the flip-flop both politicians made on same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Hillary’s husband. They both support compelling religious organizations and private businesses to violate their tenets and provide birth control and abortions in their health plans, or consumer services to same-sex couples.

...

2016: Year of Decisions


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 6, 2016)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2016)

(1) no link to Vigi's numbers of less than 700 respondents, who would total about 280 people in the entire Republican Party

(2) no distinction as to whether it is aa state or national survey

And as we learned elsewhere on the Board yesterday, Trump has the worst favorability for cross over voting among the GOP candidates.  Other than, of course, the MN democrats who can and will vote in the GOP primary to make sure Trump is the most easy target in the national election.  It is a Dem operation chaos.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jan 6, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> (1) no link to Vigi's numbers of less than 700 respondents, who would total about 280 people in the entire Republican Party
> 
> (2) no distinction as to whether it is aa state or national survey
> 
> And as we learned elsewhere on the Board yesterday, Trump has the worst favorability for cross over voting among the GOP candidates.  Other than, of course, the MN democrats who can and will vote in the GOP primary to make sure Trump is the most easy target in the national election.  It is a Dem operation chaos.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 7, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>


  How could Republicans allow this mess yet again?  Are you really this stupid?  This phony chart should be flipped, the ones on the bottom should be on the top.  At least they understand foreign and domestic policy.  

Trump knows nothing about nothing.  He's like another Ronald Reagan. Figure head.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2016)

Sarah G said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
They know what they are doing...


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 7, 2016)

If I were Carly Fiorina, I would launch an investigation to see just how Trump could possibly be the frontrunner.  It's impossible.  

Hillary wouldn't let that happen.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 7, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Oh yeah but the puppet always ends up reminding them who is actually president.  Bush did it and so did Nixon.  I AM the president...  Both of them said it.


----------



## Militants (Feb 11, 2016)

This , I hope concerning about.




1. Cruz
2. Rubio
3. Walker
4. Paul
5. Trump

Then O'Malley about Democrats.


----------



## Militants (Feb 11, 2016)

Would my will that Trump might take home this if he attacks Belarus in war or becomes Cruz if he attacks Belarus. Do Negroes to vote for Kasich . No Carson in possibly outside the South Carolina state and New Jersey district or what is it called in New Jersey or New Jersey called for real state ?


----------



## American_Jihad (Feb 11, 2016)

*



*

*W. to Campaign for Jeb! in SC*
* Former Prez sends out birthday wishes *
2.11.2016
News
Brian Lilley

Former President George W. Bush sent birthday wishes to his younger brother Jeb via Instagram on Thursday and will campaign with him come Monday.


ABC News reports that come February 15, Bush 43 will step out from the shadows to begin openly campaigning for his younger brother.

George W. Bush joins Jeb Monday night in North Charleston, South Carolina for the pair’s first public campaign event together. The former president has fundraised for Jeb before, notably appearing with their father at a major Houston event last fall.  

...

W. to Campaign for Jeb! in SC


----------



## American_Jihad (Mar 10, 2016)

*Rubio Backers Say Attacking Trump Backfired*
* Supporters in Senate worried *
3.9.2016
News
Brian Lilley





  Taking on the top dog in the race to be the GOP nominee may have helped killed Marco Rubio's campaign. That is what sources are telling CNN after Rubio's flop in Tuesday's primaries.

A growing number of Rubio supporters told CNN privately and publicly that Rubio made a strategic blunder by getting into a personal mud-slinging contest with the bombastic billionaire, arguing that he should not have raised questions about Trump's character -- on everything from criticizing the size of his hands to calling him a "con artist." They argued it only seemed to backfire and make the high-minded and substantive Rubio look petty and unpresidential, fearing it could now be fatal to his presidential aspirations.

More media outlets are now reporting that Rubio is being pressured to drop out of the race by donors. As TruthRevolt reported earlier today, CNN had made the initial report earlier in the week, and CBS and Fox have joined the chorus.

While Rubio's campaign insists their man is not dropping out despite the pressure, backers are being open in their concern:

"I don't think he needed to get down, deep and dirty," said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Rubio supporter. "I think he knows that was a mistake. It was against his personality, and I think that hurt him a little bit."


...

Rubio Backers Say Attacking Trump Backfired


----------



## Militants (Mar 10, 2016)

Rubio have his big chance in 2020 if Sanders won 2016 ....


----------



## Militants (Mar 10, 2016)

And I want Trump or Sanders win election 2016 ....


----------

