# Why is the GOP even bothering to select a candidate for next year?



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 3, 2015)

It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country. It's just as obvious that it wouldn't matter if they did. Anyone they nominated would lose regardless. Hillary is going to win. It doesn't matter whom she runs against. It doesn't matter what scandals occur between now and her scheduled first inauguration in 2017. It doesn't matter if she loses the popular vote. It doesn't matter if she loses the electoral vote. I shouldn't think it would matter if she dispensed with the formality of actually running a campaign at all. She's going to win and literally nothing - absolutely nothing - could change that fact. I would honestly even go so far as to say that Bush will be the last GOP president for a long time, if there's ever a non-Democratic president again.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 3, 2015)

I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives


Nope. The GOP was going to win the midterms. It's going to become the party of Congress as long as it maintains its skillful use of gerrymandering.

I should probably point out that I have no loyalty to either party. I mentioned that in my first post or so here. I regard the GOP as ruthless and calculating and willing to say and do whatever it takes to win and the Democrats as corrupt demagogues more than happy to tear the country apart for their thirty pieces of silver. It's not with any conscious bias that I point out that Hillary is going to win and there's not a damn thing anyone, including the electorate as a whole, can do about it or that the GOP is either going to adapt to its new, quite possibly permanent role or whither and die.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 3, 2015)

Go ahead and run Hillary, the right wants her to run, put her ugly, lying ass out there where she can't run from the questions. She'll get murdered in the debates


----------



## Mr.Right (Apr 3, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country. It's just as obvious that it wouldn't matter if they did. Anyone they nominated would lose regardless. Hillary is going to win. It doesn't matter whom she runs against. It doesn't matter what scandals occur between now and her scheduled first inauguration in 2017. It doesn't matter if she loses the popular vote. It doesn't matter if she loses the electoral vote. I shouldn't think it would matter if she dispensed with the formality of actually running a campaign at all. She's going to win and literally nothing - absolutely nothing - could change that fact. I would honestly even go so far as to say that Bush will be the last GOP president for a long time, if there's ever a non-Democratic president again.



I was going to reply, and try to correct your erroneous thinking, but you can't fix stupid. America is fed up with Obama style politics. That's why you got your asses handed to you in the mid terms. The race hasn't even started yet, and you're declaring victory. That does not bode well for your supposed intelligence.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 3, 2015)

Mr.Right said:


> I was going to reply, and try to correct your erroneous thinking, but you can't fix stupid. America is fed up with Obama style politics. That's why you got your asses handed to you in the mid terms. The race hasn't even started yet, and you're declaring victory. That does not bode well for your supposed intelligence.


I'm actually not a Democrat, or even a leftist. I'm probably best described as a socially conservative and fiscally liberal independent. Feed the poor, secure the borders, and let gay people marry so they can adopt and keep babies from being butchered. Anyway, it really doesn't matter what America is fed up with at this point. Every citizen and non-citizen voter in this country could vote for Rep. Billy Joe Bob (R) from Kansas and Hillary is still going to be cheesing at her inauguration in 2017. You can't stop this any more than you could stop Obama. The decision's already been made and neither of us have a role in making it.


----------



## S.J. (Apr 3, 2015)

Hillary will be knocked out of the box before the primaries.  Obama will torpedo her candidacy.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives




*lol, Don't understand what a national election is huh?*



*The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans*


But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."

The Senate s 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans - Vox

*
*

*GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority*


GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives
> ...



Yeah I know what a national election is and sorry but your responses look like a clown car with all that garbage, Ignored


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Hillary will be knocked out of the box before the primaries.  Obama will torpedo her candidacy.



Says Prez Romney in a landslide right? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



OK, ANOTHER low info conservative who doesn't want FACTS to get in their way. Shocking


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives



Come on now. for them that was a fluke and we should know this whole country just love em those Progressive/democrats...

good grief. some people in the dem party just never will accept reality


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives
> ...



What they are missing is that the midterms were a clear sign people are recognizing Dem policies are not working. And now Obama has blundered Iran away and cemented his position as quite possibly the worst foreign policy president in history and guess who helped him mold that policy while Sec of State?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



It said loud and clear we don't WANT anymore of you Progressives and Obama running over us...so the time could be right for a Conservative/Republican...just like after Jimma Carter...in fact Obama has been even worse what he's brought down on us


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




After 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies? lol

Dubya lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, even stopping 2007 at his  peak, there were only 4 million. Obama has seen a NET of 8+ million in 6 years (12 after hitting Bush's bottom Feb 2010). 


Obama got US revenues back NEAR where Reagan dropped them to after Carter had nearly 20% of GDP.  He cut Bush's final F.Y deficit by 2/3rds. 

THIS is considered failure in right wing world AS THE GOP HAS WORKED AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT WOULD HELP US FROM DAY ONE!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Progressive? Obama? lol

Second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill was better, but you claim progressive? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


----------



## Manonthestreet (Apr 3, 2015)

How many libs do we have here trying to claim they aren't.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



It took a Carter to get a Reagan and that's what we need now.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and *says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
*11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%*

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


*AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8*

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


*I THOUGHT CARTER WAS HORRIBLE? LOL*


* The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan *


A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

*This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration.*
Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 3, 2015)

If the "official" Republican Party nominates the most liberal candidate they can find then it won't matter who wins in November.  Given that Hillary is likely toast Democrats could choose a centerist candidate and be assured of not only their economically captive base voting for him/her/it but also a slew of Republicans who refuse to understand that voting for "the lesser of evils" is still voting for evil and who will cast their ballots for the Democrat, more moderate, candidate.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 3, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



that's what I'm hoping for.

Carter was at least a likeable failure...Obama has been just downright ugly and failure for us


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Obungles has a punchable face


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives
> ...





No. You haven't been listening. I know you want us to be upset about the midterms, and I will admit a little disappointment, but historical precedent said the right was going to win and it did. No surprise, no ashes and sack cloth. The right is the only one to describe it as a fluke.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 
*08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1%*

Reagan cut taxes for everybody.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Sure he  did Bubba,THAT'S why right wing Mises says this:


_*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all*. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, *rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

Mises Daily Mises Institute


YOU KNOW THE $2.7+ TRILLION THAT SS RAISED WHEN RONNIE "SAVED SS" AND WAS USED TO* HIDE THE TRUE COSTS *OF OPERATING GOV'T AND RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH?


Boy do I miss honest conservatives like Goldwater


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 
*One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets,*

And then he indexed the brackets for inflation.
So the idiotic claim here is that cutting taxes didn't cut taxes, because..............inflation.
So I guess there was no inflation, before the tax cuts. LOL!
It's hilarious to see you quoting (and agreeing with, I guess) this goofy libertarian.

*The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.*

I know, it was awful when the Social Security taxes were hiked from 5.7% all the way up to 6.2%. That totally wiped out the much, much larger drop in income tax rates. Not.

*THAT'S why right wing Mises*

LOL!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




"*One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets,*

*And then he indexed the brackets for inflation."*


*SURE HE DID BUBBA, SURE*

*History of the Alternative Minimum Tax*

In 1982, President Reagan enacted the present day Alternative Minimum Tax or AMT. The AMT is a separate tax rate that is parallel to the Federal Income Tax. Long story short, you get to pay whichever is higher. President Reagan must have forgotten about 1981, because AMT was not indexed to inflation. *This lapse trapped more and more people every year. AMT was ‘patched’ eleven times from 1986 to 2012 under presidents Bush 41, Clinton, George W, and Barack Obama.* For the record, the predecessor to AMT goes back to the prehistoric days of 1969.

Ronald Regan Archives - Taxes for Everyman - Joseph Cahill Associates WorthTax




For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes.* By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined urden was up, not down.*

For those who don’t want to do the math, Krugman’s “middle-income families with children” were paying a combined burden of 18.4 percent by 1988, up from 17.7 percent in 1980. *For these middle-class families, Reagan—who did reduce taxes overall—had actually raised their tax burden.*


*Krugman offers a useful point counteracting a decade of spinning


LOL





*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

*In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes.*

Reagan didn't raise payroll taxes from the 1980 levels. He raised them from the 1983 levels. I'm shocked your source would lie about that. 

*By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent*

See, told you he didn't just cut rates for the top 1%, as you claimed earlier.
Liar!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes.*
> 
> Reagan didn't raise payroll taxes from the 1980 levels. He raised them from the 1983 levels. I'm shocked your source would lie about that.
> 
> ...



Boy do I miss honest conservatives THE POINT IS THE MIDDLE 40% OF US SAW THEIR FEDERAL TAX BURDEN INCREASE UNDER REAGAN. Weird right?

Yes, Reagan increased SS taxes by over $2.7+ trillion the next 25 years, that Ronnie/Dubya used to hide the true costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes.*
> ...


 
*THE POINT IS THE MIDDLE 40% OF US SAW THEIR FEDERAL TAX BURDEN INCREASE UNDER REAGAN.*

The point is, Reagan didn't change payroll taxes until 1983, liar.
Weird, right?


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes agreed, Ronnie increased SS taxes AND the federal tax burden on the middle class increased under him AS HE GUTTED TAXES FOR THE RICH Bubba


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 
*Yes agreed, Ronnie increased SS taxes*

Yup, he increased them after 1983.

*AND the federal tax burden on the middle class increased under him*

As your own source showed, his income tax cuts on the middle class were larger than his SS tax hike on the middle class.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




BZZ WRONG

AGAIN:



*In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*


National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows *that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase *(or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that _did_ enjoy marginal tax cuts,* only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.*
Mises Daily Mises Institute

*OF COURSE THE SUPER WEALTHY DID GREAT*

*



*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 
*National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase*

The rates in every bracket were cut. Somehow that was a tax increase? LOL!
Liberals are stupid.....and really bad at math.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Got it. You'll continue to be a moron and willfully ignorant of the difference between tax rates and tax burden. I'm shocked, lol*


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'll note you keep swerving Bubba, when it's shown you are full of sh*t Bubs


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 
Obviously, cutting the rate raises the burden....if you're a liberal idiot.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 3, 2015)

So Reagan is alleged to have raised taxes and Democrats *don't* like that?  

Get friggin' REAL!


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 3, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> So Reagan is alleged to have raised taxes and Democrats *don't* like that?
> 
> Get friggin' REAL!


I'm loathe to agree with the hyperpartisan clown brigade on anything, but yeah. Isn't it pretty common knowledge he raised taxes?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > So Reagan is alleged to have raised taxes and Democrats *don't* like that?
> ...


 
Is it?

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History 1862-2013 Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets Tax Foundation

Can you show me?


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



When you cut the tax rate for the rich, YET increase taxes 11 times AFTER, to ATTEMPT to make up for lost revenues, and those tax increases are on the workers. YES


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> So Reagan is alleged to have raised taxes and Democrats *don't* like that?
> 
> Get friggin' REAL!




Alleged? lol

Yeah, AFTER he gutted for the rich, he increased taxes that fell on the working man!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 3, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



Sure, he gutted taxes on income, but to make up for it, he had 11 "tax increases"

Ronald Reagan "raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987."








But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

*In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.*

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

*In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.*

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

Rep. Gerry Connolly says Reagan raised taxes during five years of presidency PolitiFact Virginia


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 4, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you said the same thing about the midterms, right before the dems took the shellacking of their lives
> ...


----------



## MarathonMike (Apr 4, 2015)

So Lizzy Applecheeks is a slam dunk winner in 2016? Really? She is becoming more unappealing by the day, she is showing her age and her arrogance and the undecided vote is drifting away from her. Add to that whether she is even physically fit to run is questionable. Slam dunk winner in 2016? Not so much.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 4, 2015)

MarathonMike said:


> So Lizzy Applecheeks is a slam dunk winner in 2016? Really? She is becoming more unappealing by the day, she is showing her age and her arrogance and the undecided vote is drifting away from her. Add to that whether she is even physically fit to run is questionable. Slam dunk winner in 2016? Not so much.



YET the GOP STILL will not be able to beat the Dem candidate. Go figure! 

Just ask "slam dunk" Romney!


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 4, 2015)

MarathonMike said:


> So Lizzy Applecheeks is a slam dunk winner in 2016? Really? She is becoming more unappealing by the day, she is showing her age and her arrogance and the undecided vote is drifting away from her. Add to that whether she is even physically fit to run is questionable. Slam dunk winner in 2016? Not so much.



Yeah, because McCain was the picture of health when he ran in 2008....get real.

It's rather bizarre, honestly, how much right wingers focus on Hillary's physical aspects.    I mean talk about objectifying women....it's as if the important issue for a woman to be president is how attractive she is,   really???

Oh but that's right, look how long they stuck around with bimbo Palin,  she's got good looks!   Have her talk for 3 minutes and you won't get more than 4 complete sentences as seen in her Iowa speech.....but man, that smile!!!


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 4, 2015)

Why even have an election for president in 2016?  Hillary should be the next president because she is Hillary


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Why even have an election for president in 2016?  Hillary should be the next president because she is Hillary


 
She does have the largest cankles.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Why even have an election for president in 2016?  Hillary should be the next president because she is Hillary





I prefer to see the GOP Klown car first k?


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Why even have an election for president in 2016?  Hillary should be the next president because she is Hillary


It's a formality. That's all. The Republicans could field the best candidate ever and get 100% of the electoral votes. It just wouldn't matter. She would still become Obama's successor. I'm not really sure why this is hard for people to understand. When I said that there's absolutely nothing that could change this, I meant there's absolutely nothing. None of us here have any voice in the matter.


----------



## Maxx (Apr 5, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Hillary will be knocked out of the box before the primaries.  Obama will torpedo her candidacy.



I agree, Obama and his activist pals aren't going to step aside and hand the party back over to the Clinton establishment.
They already showed that by throwing her under the bus regarding her email scandal.
Biden and Kerry probably have Presidential aspirations of their own.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 5, 2015)




----------



## Stephanie (Apr 5, 2015)

Thank gawd the Reagan Tourette  is over. sheeeesh someone has a real hardon for him


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Why even have an election for president in 2016?  Hillary should be the next president because she is Hillary
> ...


Really?  Hillary......Really?


This is the democrat's presumed nominee!


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 5, 2015)

I can already see how this will play out....Hillary will win easily, and then the right wingers will being say for the next 4 years "only elected cause she's a girl!"   over and over.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> I can already see how this will play out....Hillary will win easily, and then the right wingers will being say for the next 4 years "only elected cause she's a girl!"   over and over.



I'll say it now.  The ONLY reason you'll vote for Hillary is because of what's between her legs.  Your kind has proven that already by voting Obama twice because he's half black and half white trash.


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > I can already see how this will play out....Hillary will win easily, and then the right wingers will being say for the next 4 years "only elected cause she's a girl!"   over and over.
> ...



I rest my case.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



You have no case.  Too bad you can't accept the truth.


----------



## Maxx (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I'll say it now.  The ONLY reason you'll vote for Hillary is because of* what's between her legs*.  Your kind has proven that already by voting Obama twice because he's half black and half white trash.



This???


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Maxx said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll say it now.  The ONLY reason you'll vote for Hillary is because of* what's between her legs*.  Your kind has proven that already by voting Obama twice because he's half black and half white trash.
> ...



One has to assume she has what a female is supposed to have.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> I can already see how this will play out....Hillary will win easily, and then the right wingers will being say for the next 4 years "only elected cause she's a girl!"   over and over.




AND that the GOP didn't go far enough right, lol


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > I can already see how this will play out....Hillary will win easily, and then the right wingers will being say for the next 4 years "only elected cause she's a girl!"   over and over.
> ...



You'll vote for a vagina, regardless of who it is, then claim you voted because you believe in their policies.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I see, the typical response from a Democrat.    Guess I was correct is the only "qualification" you need to vote for Hillary.  It's probably the closest you'll ever come to one.


----------



## Anathema (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country........



I agree. Time to stop paying attention to elections and break out the rifles and explosives to change this Government.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Again:


Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba


----------



## Anathema (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba



Yes, two concepts this nation was FOUNDED ON.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Anathema said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country........
> ...





Anathema said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba
> ...



And they worked from day one to change it from within. Weird right how right wingers object to ANY change, even the change helping the least vulnerable?



No what else the Founders  had concepts about? A highly progressive tax system. Regulated Gov't economy. Corps were not people and were not allowed to act as them.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country. It's just as obvious that it wouldn't matter if they did. Anyone they nominated would lose regardless. Hillary is going to win. It doesn't matter whom she runs against. It doesn't matter what scandals occur between now and her scheduled first inauguration in 2017. It doesn't matter if she loses the popular vote. It doesn't matter if she loses the electoral vote. I shouldn't think it would matter if she dispensed with the formality of actually running a campaign at all. She's going to win and literally nothing - absolutely nothing - could change that fact. I would honestly even go so far as to say that Bush will be the last GOP president for a long time, if there's ever a non-Democratic president again.



So the valuable advice from the left wing shill department is that conservatives and Republicans ought to simply quit without even trying.

I think maybe we'll pass.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> So the valuable advice from the left wing shill department is that conservatives and Republicans ought to simply quit without even trying.
> 
> I think maybe we'll pass.





Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Nope. The GOP was going to win the midterms. It's going to become the party of Congress as long as it maintains its skillful use of gerrymandering.
> 
> I should probably point out that I have no loyalty to either party. I mentioned that in my first post or so here. I regard the GOP as ruthless and calculating and willing to say and do whatever it takes to win and the Democrats as corrupt demagogues more than happy to tear the country apart for their thirty pieces of silver. It's not with any conscious bias that I point out that Hillary is going to win and there's not a damn thing anyone, including the electorate as a whole, can do about it or that the GOP is either going to adapt to its new, quite possibly permanent role or whither and die.


I'm not saying that she's the better candidate. Personally I think she's a conniving, corrupt to the bone bitch who would happily sacrifice the nation itself and everyone in it to achieve her personal goals. Unfortunately, that doesn't matter because the outcome of next year's election is already long decided and she's the decision whether we like it or not. I've repeatedly stated that any other candidate could win by electoral vote and she'll still win by the mandate of the people who chose her, which is all that really matters in our system now anyway. Obama was chosen. Now Hillary is chosen.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > So the valuable advice from the left wing shill department is that conservatives and Republicans ought to simply quit without even trying.
> ...



Your ability and mad skillz with the quote function are noted.

But your bias is clear and your "advice" remains self serving blather.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Your ability and mad skillz with the quote function are noted.





Pedro de San Patricio said:


> I'm not saying that she's the better candidate. Personally I think she's a conniving, corrupt to the bone bitch who would happily sacrifice the nation itself and everyone in it to achieve her personal goals. Unfortunately, that doesn't matter because the outcome of next year's election is already long decided and she's the decision whether we like it or not. I've repeatedly stated that any other candidate could win by electoral vote and she'll still win by the mandate of the people who chose her, which is all that really matters in our system now anyway. Obama was chosen. Now Hillary is chosen.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

It's actually the left that had no one. Hillary can't win.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> It's actually the left that had no one. Hillary can't win.




And Prez Romney won in a landslide... lol


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually the left that had no one. Hillary can't win.
> ...



No he didn't moron.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Really? BUT everyone on the right said that would happen? Everyone on hate talk radio (Rush, Hannity, Beck,Levine, etc), the infotainment Faux, WSJ, etc? What happened?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Again, it's the only piece you'll ever come close to getting.  

Interesting how you threw the race card in when nothing related to race was mentioned.  That discredits any claim you make ass licker.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I'm on the right and I didn't say it moron.  

Funny how you call people who tell you like it is hate.  I guess much like other terms Liberals don't understand, telling you the truth no matter how it hurts doesn't make it hateful.


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 5, 2015)

Hillary might win in 2016, but then again she might not.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



No, they didn't moron.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Hillary might win in 2016, but then again she might not.



Wow! You're a regular Nostradamus!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Bubba Conservative65  says:

"You'll vote for a *vagina*, regardless of who it is, then claim you voted because you believe in their policies."

Why is the GOP even bothering to select a candidate for next year Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

AND

"I'll say it now. The ONLY reason you'll vote for *Hillary is because of what's between her legs. * Your kind has proven that already by voting * Obama twice because he's half black and half white trash."*


Why is the GOP even bothering to select a candidate for next year Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


AGAIN:


*Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba

*


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



So, his accurate description of your stupidity is racist and misogynist? You are throwing around words that are too big for you.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Good  for you Buba, you aren't as big of a moron as I thought, lol


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You're an even bigger one that I thought.  You vote skin color and reproductive organ calling it qualifications.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...




Nice dodge Bubba, you handle his hoodie for him too?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Perhaps he can get you a bigger supply of vaseline for all ass you kiss.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




*The Romney "Landslide" That Wasn't *


• Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"

• Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."

• Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"

• Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"

• George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217

• Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"

• Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."

It didn't work out that way.

The Romney Landslide That Wasn t Blog Media Matters for America


lol


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...






AGAIN:

BUBBA CONSERVATIVE65 SAYS:


"Interesting how you threw the race card in when nothing related to race was mentioned. That discredits any claim you make ass licker"

Bubba Conservative65 says:

"You'll vote for a *vagina*, regardless of who it is, then claim you voted because you believe in their policies."

Why is the GOP even bothering to select a candidate for next year Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

AND

"I'll say it now. The ONLY reason you'll vote for *Hillary is because of what's between her legs. * Your kind has proven that already by voting * Obama twice because he's half black and half white trash."*


Why is the GOP even bothering to select a candidate for next year Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


AGAIN:


*Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba*
*
*


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



*Yes, your racists and misogynist views are noted Bubba*


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


What's racist about stating a FACT that the President is half black and half white?  That his mother was white trash has nothing to do with race but character.  

Pucker up boy.  Obama's ass and Hillary's vagina must taste good to you.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Doubling down on stupid again eh? It has worked so well for you in the past.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Your vote based on skin color and reproductive organ is noted.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I'm not real sure what the term is but his stupid is far more than doubled-down.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Eight people said it once and none of them were me dumbass.

You really are an idiot. The only question is "how big of one?"


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary will be knocked out of the box before the primaries.  Obama will torpedo her candidacy.
> ...


I see your concern.

Somebody has to feed the poor, unskilled masses.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



It's not, he's just a moron who repeats words he barely understands.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Your lies are noted Bubba

"Your kind has proven that already *by voting  Obama twice because he's half black and half white trash."*


THANKS FOR SHOWING WHY ABOUT 80% OF MINORITY'S STAY AWAY FROM THE GOP. Now if we could get the woman to smarten up!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




So YOUR earlier posit of THEM not doing it was a total right wing lie. Shocking


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Sure Bubba, sure


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yet I've continually showed you to be not only racist and misogynist, but a  liar to boot. Go figure!


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



That's not why minorities stay away from the GOP.  The GOP doesn't pander to them based on skin color like Democrats do.    Seems the 20% that stay with the GOP are the smart ones.  At least they're willing to get off the plantation and do for themselves.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Because those 400 wanting to keep what THEY'VE earned isn't greedy like you claim while those demanding a portion of what someone else earned as if it belongs to them is greedy.  You seem to think that because I earn a higher salary and want to keep it, I'm greedy yet you're perfectly OK with someone that didn't earn it getting a portion of it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Only to you and those like you.  Since none of you matter, nothing you say matters.  Go figure that someone on the left claims something and expects others to believe it simply because he claimed it.  You mean nothing in the whole scheme of things.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...




Thanks for reenforcing my posit Bubba. It helps!


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> That's not why minorities stay away from the GOP.  The GOP doesn't pander to them based on skin color like Democrats do.    Seems the 20% that stay with the GOP are the smart ones.  At least they're willing to get off the plantation and do for themselves.


You do realize that the "plantation" talking point itself makes this party seem pretty racist? There are strong reasons that, from the outside at least, it looks like a party of old, out of touch white men who just can't help saying sexist and racist things even in their attempts to recruit women and minorities. Honestly it couldn't be more blatant if you were saying "n*ggers, fags, and bitches should join us because we love and respect them!" The content of the message runs directly counter to the objective.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...





80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Yet I showed, TWICE (your own words) you are not only a racist and misogynist, but a  liar. Go figure!


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Thanks for admitting I'm correct and you're simply another one living on the Democrat plantation.  You must like have those Democrat messahs telling you what to do.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You claimed it and only you and those like you believe what you say.  When are you going to learn boy you don't matter so nothing you say matters?  Pucker up to the chocolate and whatever Hillary's taste like.


----------



## Papageorgio (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country. It's just as obvious that it wouldn't matter if they did. Anyone they nominated would lose regardless. Hillary is going to win. It doesn't matter whom she runs against. It doesn't matter what scandals occur between now and her scheduled first inauguration in 2017. It doesn't matter if she loses the popular vote. It doesn't matter if she loses the electoral vote. I shouldn't think it would matter if she dispensed with the formality of actually running a campaign at all. She's going to win and literally nothing - absolutely nothing - could change that fact. I would honestly even go so far as to say that Bush will be the last GOP president for a long time, if there's ever a non-Democratic president again.



I heard this in 2007, and Hillary never got out of the primaries. lol! Keep us laughing.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not why minorities stay away from the GOP.  The GOP doesn't pander to them based on skin color like Democrats do.    Seems the 20% that stay with the GOP are the smart ones.  At least they're willing to get off the plantation and do for themselves.
> ...



That's the problem.  You are on the outside looking in and think you know more about what goes on inside.  

Funny you mention old. 

Funny you use the term "n*ggers".  I've heard far more black refer to other blacks by that term than whites.  Guess it's only racist when white people do it?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country. It's just as obvious that it wouldn't matter if they did. Anyone they nominated would lose regardless. Hillary is going to win. It doesn't matter whom she runs against. It doesn't matter what scandals occur between now and her scheduled first inauguration in 2017. It doesn't matter if she loses the popular vote. It doesn't matter if she loses the electoral vote. I shouldn't think it would matter if she dispensed with the formality of actually running a campaign at all. She's going to win and literally nothing - absolutely nothing - could change that fact. I would honestly even go so far as to say that Bush will be the last GOP president for a long time, if there's ever a non-Democratic president again.
> ...



I heard that, too until someone with black skin came along and the Democrats placed skin color on a higher scale than reproductive organ.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not why minorities stay away from the GOP.  The GOP doesn't pander to them based on skin color like Democrats do.    Seems the 20% that stay with the GOP are the smart ones.  At least they're willing to get off the plantation and do for themselves.
> ...





Please don't bring facts into the conversation, this is the republican America

"we will not let facts get in our way"


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 Interesting how you call someone with an opinion agreeing with yours fact solely because they agree with you.  You call me a racist and misogynist yet say nothing about her use of age in her so called factual statement.   Typical double standard Liberal.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Know who else is on the outside looking in? Every single other person who isn't a member of your party. That includes Democrats, third party members, independents, and even foreigners. If you care about the survival of your party then you'll consider how you come across to prospective members and supporters. The Democrats are in a better position largely because they have done this. They adopted populism and political correctness and made themselves a symbol of cooperation and mutual understanding. They went out of their way to build bridges to other people because they understood that other people mean votes, money, and free PR. It especially helps their cause that the GOP has went out of its way to reject these things as signs of weakness and to focus its efforts on appealing solely to demographic groups which are shrinking in size and power every day. In doing so - in expressing the attitudes which you express here - the GOP has essentially poisoned itself and sacrificed any long term viability for short term gain.

But hey, you're a Republican. You don't need to hear anything you don't want to. Feel free to brush off everything I'm saying. Feel free to take it as "liberal bullshit" and continue to act, speak, and think exactly as you do now. Call minorities racist names. Insinuate that any minority who isn't a member of your party is stupid and worthless. Tell women to get back in the kitchen and revel in fond memories of the glory days as you watch the Republican Party fall ever deeper into the bottomless, inescapable pit of impotent irrelevancy.


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary might win in 2016, but then again she might not.
> ...


Considering the OP, I thought I would try to bring some sanity to this thread.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



If coming across the way you think means altering my principled beliefs, no thank.  There is an old Tibetan proverb that says "It's better to be a tiger for one day than a sheep for a thousand years".  The Democrats have made themselves a symbol of relative morals and those willing to modify principled beliefs.  Anyone willing to modify their principled beliefs never had them to start with.  Anyone willing to follow those people also have no principles.  Standing on one's principles isn't a sign of weakness.  It's a sign of honor.  A willingness to alter what is supposed to be a principled belief in order to get votes, money and free PR is a sign they can't be trusted.  Someone that is willing to change that easily is someone that can be trusted in the short term or long term.  You never know when it might change again.  I'd rather die knowing I held to my belief that die knowing I cowardly changed them to benefit in the ways you think are OK.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> If coming across the way you think means altering my principled beliefs, no thank.  There is an old Tibetan proverb that says "It's better to be a tiger for one day than a sheep for a thousand years".  The Democrats have made themselves a symbol of relative morals and those willing to modify principled beliefs.  Anyone willing to modify their principled beliefs never had them to start with.  Anyone willing to follow those people also have no principles.  Standing on one's principles isn't a sign of weakness.  It's a sign of honor.  A willingness to alter what is supposed to be a principled belief in order to get votes, money and free PR is a sign they can't be trusted.  Someone that is willing to change that easily is someone that can be trusted in the short term or long term.  You never know when it might change again.  I'd rather die knowing I held to my belief that die knowing I cowardly changed them to benefit in the ways you think are OK.


Then you've made your choice. Your party has made its choice. That's why your party is going to whither and die while it clings to an idealized past that never truly was and stubbornly alienates anyone who could bring it back from the brink. Have fun being completely powerless and irrelevant in fifty years...


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > If coming across the way you think means altering my principled beliefs, no thank.  There is an old Tibetan proverb that says "It's better to be a tiger for one day than a sheep for a thousand years".  The Democrats have made themselves a symbol of relative morals and those willing to modify principled beliefs.  Anyone willing to modify their principled beliefs never had them to start with.  Anyone willing to follow those people also have no principles.  Standing on one's principles isn't a sign of weakness.  It's a sign of honor.  A willingness to alter what is supposed to be a principled belief in order to get votes, money and free PR is a sign they can't be trusted.  Someone that is willing to change that easily is someone that can be trusted in the short term or long term.  You never know when it might change again.  I'd rather die knowing I held to my belief that die knowing I cowardly changed them to benefit in the ways you think are OK.
> ...



Have fun living your life as a sheep.  I'll take being a tiger for a day than an unprincipled, cowardly sheep that can't be trusted for a thousand years.  You've made your choice.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...





ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history? Just one???


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Have fun living your life as a sheep.  I'll take being a tiger for a day than an unprincipled, cowardly sheep that can't be trusted for a thousand years.  You've made your choice.


Hey guys, let's not tell him that his day is already over, and has been for six or seven years now. It's kinder that way.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Have fun living your life as a sheep.  I'll take being a tiger for a day than an unprincipled, cowardly sheep that can't be trusted for a thousand years.  You've made your choice.
> ...



Someone needs to tell you that living as a coward isn't living.  Wait, I have and you can't understand it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...


At least it's one more than your side has ever been on.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You stupid stupid jackass. I said "Hillary can't win and you claimed I said that Romney would win in a landslide. I did not, you are a moron. Go away now you are too stupid to be posting.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Again Bubba, your dodge noted. Sorry you can't think of even one policy conservatives were on the correct side of US history either!


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I get it Bubba, you are confused. I'm shocked, knowing conservatism is built on ignorance, stupidity and amnesia! 

* moron called PredFan said:

"It's actually the left that had no one. Hillary can't win."*


I SAID:

"And Prez Romney won in a landslide... lol"


*moron called PredFan said*

*"No he didn't moron."*



I SAID:

"Really? BUT everyone on the right said that would happen? Everyone on hate talk radio (Rush, Hannity, Beck,Levine, etc), the infotainment Faux, WSJ, etc? What happened?"


*
moron called PredFan said

"No, they didn't moron."*


lol,


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Like I said, if it's one, it's one more than Liberals have been correct.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Again Bubba, your dodge noted. Sorry you can't think of even one policy conservatives were on the correct side of US history either!


Abortion, the need to root out Communist agents during the Cold War, and Iraq's chemical weapons?


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Again Bubba, your dodge noted. Sorry you can't think of even one policy conservatives were on the correct side of US history either!
> ...




Don't know what policy is huh? I'm shocked


Iraq had WMD's of course, Ronnie sold it to them, of course they were to old and not in anyways the WMD's Dubya spoke of!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 5, 2015)

Clearly we should just suspend elections and revert back to a monarchy that we fought a bloody war to be free from in the first place.  Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Don't know what policy is huh? I'm shocked
> 
> 
> Iraq had WMD's of course, Ronnie sold it to them, of course they were to old and not in anyways the WMD's Dubya spoke of!


Iraq's WMDs* weren't the WMDs that Bush was talking about when he said that Iraq had WMDs?

*Weapon of Mass Destruction, commonly defined with the acronym CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear)


----------



## American Horse (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to reply, and try to correct your erroneous thinking, but you can't fix stupid. America is fed up with Obama style politics. That's why you got your asses handed to you in the mid terms. The race hasn't even started yet, and you're declaring victory. That does not bode well for your supposed intelligence.
> ...


"you and me"  and "every citizen and non citizen could vote for Rep....."  implies the voting public is to have  no substantive say in the election of Hilary.  Does that mean there is something sinister involved in her putative election?


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Clearly we should just suspend elections and revert back to a monarchy that we fought a bloody war to be free from in the first place.  Makes perfect sense.




Nah, I like that a national election AGAIN will show the GOP isn't a national party anymore myself!


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly we should just suspend elections and revert back to a monarchy that we fought a bloody war to be free from in the first place.  Makes perfect sense.
> ...


Seems the party you say isn't one of the national level handed your party an ass whipping last November.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know what policy is huh? I'm shocked
> ...




Don't understand they breakdown over time huh? I'm shocked. No really I am






*The New York Times had published a new report detailing the numerous cases of American and Iraqi soldiers accidentally exposed to chemical agents from Saddam Hussein's decaying Gulf War era weapons.*

...But as the _Times_ makes clear, far from confirming ongoing conservative claims that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD ready for use in 2003, the new revelations prove the reverse:

* The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government's invasion rationale.*


...*All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all.* Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin.* Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.*

*"And all of this was from the pre-1991 era."*

*New York Times exposes another Bush WMD deception*





*

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

REAGAN AND POPPY BUSH

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons We Sold Them Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community


Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

United States support for Iraq during the Iran Iraq war - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



*


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio (Apr 5, 2015)

American Horse said:


> "you and me"  and "every citizen and non citizen could vote for Rep....."  implies the voting public is to have  no substantive say in the election of Hilary.  Does that mean there is something sinister involved in her putative election?


I'm saying nothing more or less than that, if the GOP fielded Yeshua ben Yosef himself and received every single vote cast in the election without a single exception, then Hillary would still be smiling real pretty for the cameras as she gave her speeches and took the oath of office on the Capitol steps come January 20, 2017.


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...





There a national election last November??? Didn't think so...


*GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority*
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority


*The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans*


But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."

The Senate s 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans - Vox


----------



## Dad2three (Apr 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > "you and me"  and "every citizen and non citizen could vote for Rep....."  implies the voting public is to have  no substantive say in the election of Hilary.  Does that mean there is something sinister involved in her putative election?
> ...




Nonsense


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 6, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> It's painfully obvious that they don't have anyone competitive, or even palatable to the majority of the country. It's just as obvious that it wouldn't matter if they did. Anyone they nominated would lose regardless. Hillary is going to win. It doesn't matter whom she runs against. It doesn't matter what scandals occur between now and her scheduled first inauguration in 2017. It doesn't matter if she loses the popular vote. It doesn't matter if she loses the electoral vote. I shouldn't think it would matter if she dispensed with the formality of actually running a campaign at all. She's going to win and literally nothing - absolutely nothing - could change that fact. I would honestly even go so far as to say that Bush will be the last GOP president for a long time, if there's ever a non-Democratic president again.




I don't agree to you.

Anything can happen in a presidential election. The GOP can win in 2016. Only, statistically, it is looking unlikely, at least at this time.

We have never in the course of polling ever seen *so many big numbers* for a *Democratic* candidate like we are seeing for Hillary. As of today, there have now been 294 polls total, with almost 1,100 name-to-name matchups.  In the national polling, with 64 polls and 223 matchups to day, Hillary has won 97% of those matchups, and with large margins. Overall, she has, including deep-red states, won 79% of all matchups.

In reliably blue states, her margins are well over Obama's polling margins from both 2008 and 2012.

In very reliably red states, she is losing, but with narrow margins, sometimes unbelievably narrow margins, for instance, in Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and Kansas. Yes, Kansas. She is dead on in Kentucky, even against Paul.

In the critical battlegrounds, she is winning big and consistently in all four of the Quadrifecta states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia.

The only state of the Obama pick-up states from 2008 and Obama retentions from 2012 where Clinton is really suffering is: *Colorado*. That state is currently the ripest GOP pick-up opportunity for 2016.

In the meantime, it is entirely possibly for Clinton to open battlegrounds in KY,  AR, LA, GA, AZ, KS, ND, SD. And then there is quirky Alaska, where Obama improved his statistic by 12% in margin between 2008 and 2012. Alaska, a traditionally +25 or more RED state, when for Mitt Romney by only +13. So, the GOP may open up 1 battleground and Clinton open up 9-12 new battlegrounds. Shell-game.

And the very most important data-point is that Clinton is quite ahead in Ohio, especially against Bush.  So, in Florida, where she is well ahead of anyone but Bush, he is way behind her in Ohio. The other data point that is interesting is that for the first time perhaps ever, we see a Democrat polling with stronger winning margins in Ohio than in Pennsylvania, in spite of the fact that Ohio is a more right-leaning state in national elections, that PA tends to show a margin 2 to 5 points more to the left, quite consistently.

And you cannot have a candidate winning nationally by an average of at least 10 points over all comers without that candidate already being well above 300 EV in current polling, and that exactly the case with Clinton as of now and has been so for the last 27 months straight.

Now, naysayers will scream "early polling means nothing", but they are very wrong. In fact, Nate Silver proved more than once that very early polling is often far more predicative than people want to realize.

Is there a possibility that there is disparity between national polling and state polling? Yes: it happened in 2012. Can some state polls be wrong? Yes: but not all of them.

In order for the GOP to win in 2016, it really has it's work cut out for itself. At current, I can count only 10 states that I am pretty sure will never be won by Hillary, assuming a two-person race:

UT, WY, ID, MT, OK, AL, SC, TN, WV, MS


----------

