Are Republicans "trying" to lose the 2016 presidential race?

[JakeStarkey]

Evil and immorality exists across the political spectrum, particularly in the far right.

Their members are not conservatives: they are social traditionalists, neo-cons, and corporatists.

The far right is the dark side of America, and they are not conservatives, only reactionaries.

Social conservatives are very much Conservative in everything else. if there is zero distinction between the two parties, then what's left?

Social traditionalists are reactionary, not conservative.

Look up the defs, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No man is free unless all men are free.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The %s of women's voting tell us that your point does not matter.

I'm just asking this for my own amusement, I already know the answer. Seriously, you don't follow this discussion?

kaz, the female voting %s put end to any point you have: you are fail on this.

 

[Flopper]

what they need is a charasmatic candidate who is not afraid to tell the truth to the american voters.

strategically they need to learn to use social media and "profiling" like the dems did in order to get their message to the target groups.

the conservative small govt message is a good one. but they need to overcome the corrupt left wing media and drive the message home in spite of the media lies.

I don't think many voters would disapprove of a smaller government, however a lot of voters would disapprove of a small government that doesn't give them the services they want.

A Republican will not win the white house with a message that says vote for me because you don't really want strong safety nets, strong environmental protection, national support for public schools, right to legal abortion, right to marry who you choose, strong support for anti-discrimination laws, and a path to citizenship. Unless you can come out strongly in favor of at lease some these issue, you can't win. These are issue that the public supports. If Republicans are to win, they're going to have to give voters what they want, not try to re-educate them.

You mean become Democrat-Lyte. There would be zero distinction between the two parties, hotshot. We need a strong Conservative party to counter the immoral and evil message the Democrats and the American Left are trying to force on us.

No. What I am saying is a Republican candidate can't support all conservative issues with zeal and win the presidency. Look at the Bush campaign in 2000. In his campaign he flip flopped on abortion and gay rights which won him some voters that leaned left. He never took a strong position and was never specific on reducing the size of government yet promised big tax cuts which got him support from the left and right. He infuriated environmentalist with his energy policy but gained some support from the center and left with his rejection of nation building and promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. His education policy which turned the teacher unions against him was partly nullified by some his federal educational initiates. Although I think Bush made a rotten president, Rowe designed a strong campaign that allowed a conservative to capture the while house. His campaign was definitely conservative, but it wasn't so far to the right that it couldn't capture some more moderate and Democrat votes.

It's politics not ideology that elects presidents and politics is all about compromise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flopper, I am going to amend your statement a bit to point out that the true problem is conflating "Conservative" with "Reactionary." The latter is an extreme conservative, and so "a Republican candidate can't support" many reactionary "issues with zeal and win the presidency."

The hatred and fauxrage of the reactionaries are why we lost in 2008 and 2012. We will win in 2016 if the reactionaries are generally ignored.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

On the other hand, republicans have a base which is split between moralists and non-moralists. They argue and separate over moral issues which never stand a chance of being legislated to begin with. When you come to the realization that supporting liberty is actually supporting morality, you'll break from the status quo and let the people decide, not government or elected idiots.

Don't give me this shit about republican's being moral! It was a republican President that tried to legalize torture. It was a republican legislature that stripped us of our civil rights. It's a republican party that has sold its soul to corporate bidders. And it's a republican Congress that has blocked and obstructed every jobs bill that was submitted to them.

Republican's lie too much to be moral.

^ that

1. Yes, waterboarding is torture: always has been, always will be.

2. Yes, dems voted for the patriot act and have kept it in place

3. Yes, Obama is a corporatist like Bush.

4. No, we have no idea if Obama's job wills would have worked or not.

5. Harry Reid has put the GOP Senators on notice about obstructing legislation, di'n'it 'ee?

O'bama is a moderate as far as Democrats go but the Repubs refuse to accept it. He IS the first African American President. That might have something to do w/ Righties unbridled hate

I guess the left's unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin is because she was a woman.
We can play this silly game all day long but I really don't think the hatred for Obama was worse than the hatred for Clinton or the left's hatred for Bush. People disagree with each others politics. To suggest ulterior motives is just dumb.

 

[Flopper]

Flopper, I am going to amend your statement a bit to point out that the true problem is conflating "Conservative" with "Reactionary." The latter is an extreme conservative, and so "a Republican candidate can't support" many reactionary "issues with zeal and win the presidency."

The hatred and fauxrage of the reactionaries are why we lost in 2008 and 2012. We will win in 2016 if the reactionaries are generally ignored.

It will be interesting to see the cast in the Republican Primary of of 2015.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

I don't think many voters would disapprove of a smaller government, however a lot of voters would disapprove of a small government that doesn't give them the services they want.

A Republican will not win the white house with a message that says vote for me because you don't really want strong safety nets, strong environmental protection, national support for public schools, right to legal abortion, right to marry who you choose, strong support for anti-discrimination laws, and a path to citizenship. Unless you can come out strongly in favor of at lease some these issue, you can't win. These are issue that the public supports. If Republicans are to win, they're going to have to give voters what they want, not try to re-educate them.

You mean become Democrat-Lyte. There would be zero distinction between the two parties, hotshot. We need a strong Conservative party to counter the immoral and evil message the Democrats and the American Left are trying to force on us.

No. What I am saying is a Republican candidate can't support all conservative issues with zeal and win the presidency. Look at the Bush campaign in 2000. In his campaign he flip flopped on abortion and gay rights which won him some voters that leaned left. He never took a strong position and was never specific on reducing the size of government yet promised big tax cuts which got him support from the left and right. He infuriated environmentalist with his energy policy but gained some support from the center and left with his rejection of nation building and promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. His education policy which turned the teacher unions against him was partly nullified by some his federal educational initiates. Although I think Bush made a rotten president, Rowe designed a strong campaign that allowed a conservative to capture the while house. His campaign was definitely conservative, but it wasn't so far to the right that it couldn't capture some more moderate and Democrat votes.

It's politics not ideology that elects presidents and politics is all about compromise.

Remember the last two elections when your "ideal" Republicans ran? Limpwristed pussy "moderates" both. You have to remember that Social conservatives still make up a HUGE voting block of the GOP. Piss them off and it's Sayonara.

 

[expatriate]

Boris... has anyone ever explained to you the bell curve of American political thought? Both parties face the same dilemma: they need to motivate and energize their bases - the far left and far right of that bell curve - and at the same time, they need to try to grab as much of the middle as they can. The middle are those moderates from both parties and the independents who don't really see themselves fitting into either party enough to permanently identify with them. The winner of the presidential election is ALWAYS the candidate who can hold his base while grabbing the lions share of the middle.

If the republican party can't figure out how to nominate a candidate who can run a campaign that accomplishes that, then frankly, they don't DESERVE to win the White House.

 

[Billo_Really]

waterboarding is not torture

If waterboarding is not torture, then why did the Reagan DOJ send 4 Texas sheriffs to prison for doing it to an inmate?

 

[Billo_Really]

tried to keep obama from completly destroying our economy,

Obama stopped the loss of over 700,000 jobs a month when he was first elected. That's not "economic destruction". And at least he came up with about 3 or 4 jobs bills that were all derailed by the reps in Congress.

our culture, and our society.

tried to keep marxist collectivism from being our way of life

That's just make-believe criticisms.

 

[EriktheRed]

You mean become Democrat-Lyte. There would be zero distinction between the two parties, hotshot. We need a strong Conservative party to counter the immoral and evil message the Democrats and the American Left are trying to force on us.

No. What I am saying is a Republican candidate can't support all conservative issues with zeal and win the presidency. Look at the Bush campaign in 2000. In his campaign he flip flopped on abortion and gay rights which won him some voters that leaned left. He never took a strong position and was never specific on reducing the size of government yet promised big tax cuts which got him support from the left and right. He infuriated environmentalist with his energy policy but gained some support from the center and left with his rejection of nation building and promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. His education policy which turned the teacher unions against him was partly nullified by some his federal educational initiates. Although I think Bush made a rotten president, Rowe designed a strong campaign that allowed a conservative to capture the while house. His campaign was definitely conservative, but it wasn't so far to the right that it couldn't capture some more moderate and Democrat votes.

It's politics not ideology that elects presidents and politics is all about compromise.

Remember the last two elections when your "ideal" Republicans ran? Limpwristed pussy "moderates" both. You have to remember that Social conservatives still make up a HUGE voting block of the GOP. Piss them off and it's Sayonara.

Yup, let the fag-bashers, forced-birthers and theo-cons nominate a guy under the GOP banner. That's the ticket!


Throw in the black helicopter crowd and you guys will have a real winner, I tell ya!

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

Boris... has anyone ever explained to you the bell curve of American political thought? Both parties face the same dilemma: they need to motivate and energize their bases - the far left and far right of that bell curve - and at the same time, they need to try to grab as much of the middle as they can. The middle are those moderates from both parties and the independents who don't really see themselves fitting into either party enough to permanently identify with them. The winner of the presidential election is ALWAYS the candidate who can hold his base while grabbing the lions share of the middle.

If the republican party can't figure out how to nominate a candidate who can run a campaign that accomplishes that, then frankly, they don't DESERVE to win the White House.

You don't grab the mythical "middle" by compromising your principles. Reagan knew that, knew that very well. This is why he decidedly bitchslapped Carter and Mondull in '80 and '84 respectively.

 

[expatriate]

Boris... has anyone ever explained to you the bell curve of American political thought? Both parties face the same dilemma: they need to motivate and energize their bases - the far left and far right of that bell curve - and at the same time, they need to try to grab as much of the middle as they can. The middle are those moderates from both parties and the independents who don't really see themselves fitting into either party enough to permanently identify with them. The winner of the presidential election is ALWAYS the candidate who can hold his base while grabbing the lions share of the middle.

If the republican party can't figure out how to nominate a candidate who can run a campaign that accomplishes that, then frankly, they don't DESERVE to win the White House.

You don't grab the mythical "middle" by compromising your principles. Reagan knew that, knew that very well. This is why he decidedly bitchslapped Carter and Mondull in '80 and '84 respectively.

Reagan would not be able to win the GOP primary today.

Nobody is suggesting anyone compromise their principles, only that they have policy positions that are palatable to the middle. Teabaggers, I am sorry to say, donT have that quality.


But hey... As I have said here many times... You republicans should feel free to nominate as princpled a hard core conservative as you can dredge up.

I applaud your philosophical purity, if not your pragmatism.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

Boris... has anyone ever explained to you the bell curve of American political thought? Both parties face the same dilemma: they need to motivate and energize their bases - the far left and far right of that bell curve - and at the same time, they need to try to grab as much of the middle as they can. The middle are those moderates from both parties and the independents who don't really see themselves fitting into either party enough to permanently identify with them. The winner of the presidential election is ALWAYS the candidate who can hold his base while grabbing the lions share of the middle.

If the republican party can't figure out how to nominate a candidate who can run a campaign that accomplishes that, then frankly, they don't DESERVE to win the White House.

You don't grab the mythical "middle" by compromising your principles. Reagan knew that, knew that very well. This is why he decidedly bitchslapped Carter and Mondull in '80 and '84 respectively.

Nobody is suggesting anyone compromise their principles, only that they have policy positions that are palatable to the middle. Teabaggers, I am sorry to say, donT have that quality.

Oh yes you are saying the GOP needs to compromise their principles.

But hey... As I have said here many times... You republicans should feel free to nominate as princpled a hard core conservative as you can dredge up.

I applaud your philosophical purity, if not your pragmatism.

And why not? You morons elected and reelected a confirmed Communist.

 

[Pasco08]

You mean become Democrat-Lyte. There would be zero distinction between the two parties, hotshot. We need a strong Conservative party to counter the immoral and evil message the Democrats and the American Left are trying to force on us.

No. What I am saying is a Republican candidate can't support all conservative issues with zeal and win the presidency. Look at the Bush campaign in 2000. In his campaign he flip flopped on abortion and gay rights which won him some voters that leaned left. He never took a strong position and was never specific on reducing the size of government yet promised big tax cuts which got him support from the left and right. He infuriated environmentalist with his energy policy but gained some support from the center and left with his rejection of nation building and promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. His education policy which turned the teacher unions against him was partly nullified by some his federal educational initiates. Although I think Bush made a rotten president, Rowe designed a strong campaign that allowed a conservative to capture the while house. His campaign was definitely conservative, but it wasn't so far to the right that it couldn't capture some more moderate and Democrat votes.

It's politics not ideology that elects presidents and politics is all about compromise.

Remember the last two elections when your "ideal" Republicans ran? Limpwristed pussy "moderates" both. You have to remember that Social conservatives still make up a HUGE voting block of the GOP. Piss them off and it's Sayonara.

I agree with this I am socially conservative.

 

[rightwinger]

Flopper, I am going to amend your statement a bit to point out that the true problem is conflating "Conservative" with "Reactionary." The latter is an extreme conservative, and so "a Republican candidate can't support" many reactionary "issues with zeal and win the presidency."

The hatred and fauxrage of the reactionaries are why we lost in 2008 and 2012. We will win in 2016 if the reactionaries are generally ignored.

It will be interesting to see the cast in the Republican Primary of of 2015.

It will be a bigger circus than in 2012 only more clowns

 

[rightwinger]

Boris... has anyone ever explained to you the bell curve of American political thought? Both parties face the same dilemma: they need to motivate and energize their bases - the far left and far right of that bell curve - and at the same time, they need to try to grab as much of the middle as they can. The middle are those moderates from both parties and the independents who don't really see themselves fitting into either party enough to permanently identify with them. The winner of the presidential election is ALWAYS the candidate who can hold his base while grabbing the lions share of the middle.

If the republican party can't figure out how to nominate a candidate who can run a campaign that accomplishes that, then frankly, they don't DESERVE to win the White House.

You don't grab the mythical "middle" by compromising your principles. Reagan knew that, knew that very well. This is why he decidedly bitchslapped Carter and Mondull in '80 and '84 respectively.

Reagan knew how to compromise. He was able to work deals with Tip O'Neil that appealed to the middle. He raised taxes, increased the size of the federal government and got things done. Something today's Republicans can't

 

[JoeB131]

I guess the left's unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin is because she was a woman.
We can play this silly game all day long but I really don't think the hatred for Obama was worse than the hatred for Clinton or the left's hatred for Bush. People disagree with each others politics. To suggest ulterior motives is just dumb.

People hated Bush and Clinton for things they actually did. Sometimes they got a little nuts, but there was a basis for it.

No one ever claimed things like they weren't born in this country or a terrorist wrote their books for them or other insane shit like that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. What I am saying is a Republican candidate can't support all conservative issues with zeal and win the presidency. Look at the Bush campaign in 2000. In his campaign he flip flopped on abortion and gay rights which won him some voters that leaned left. He never took a strong position and was never specific on reducing the size of government yet promised big tax cuts which got him support from the left and right. He infuriated environmentalist with his energy policy but gained some support from the center and left with his rejection of nation building and promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. His education policy which turned the teacher unions against him was partly nullified by some his federal educational initiates. Although I think Bush made a rotten president, Rowe designed a strong campaign that allowed a conservative to capture the while house. His campaign was definitely conservative, but it wasn't so far to the right that it couldn't capture some more moderate and Democrat votes.

It's politics not ideology that elects presidents and politics is all about compromise.

Remember the last two elections when your "ideal" Republicans ran? Limpwristed pussy "moderates" both. You have to remember that Social conservatives still make up a HUGE voting block of the GOP. Piss them off and it's Sayonara.

I agree with this I am socially conservative.

The social traditionalists can no longer carry the GOP to victory. Thus, the social traditionalists are going to have to toe the line and vote for Christie.

 

[Edgetho]

I guess the left's unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin is because she was a woman.
We can play this silly game all day long but I really don't think the hatred for Obama was worse than the hatred for Clinton or the left's hatred for Bush. People disagree with each others politics. To suggest ulterior motives is just dumb.

People hated Bush and Clinton for things they actually did. Sometimes they got a little nuts, but there was a basis for it.

No one ever claimed things like they weren't born in this country or a terrorist wrote their books for them or other insane shit like that.

Because there was never any reason to suspect those things in the rapist or Bush.

The unanswered questions on the Stuttering Clusterfukk's life are legion.

There are more unanswered questions about him, there is more we don't know about him than there is things we do know.

the rapist's life was an open book. Every last minute of it. So was/is George W Bush's.

And Bush 41. Virtaully every minute of his life is documented. As was Reagan's.

We don't know shit about the Stuttering Clusterfukk's life before 1985.

Like, how did an average/poor Student transfer from an average College (Occidental) and get into one of the very best Liberal Arts Colleges on Earth?

And how did he graduate? You don't go to Columbia as a Junior, do their 160 hours of MANDATORY Core Curriculum in 2 years and graduate.

The Core Curriculum

It just isn't done. Not by an average student. Not by an exceptional Student. Actually, not by anybody short of a reincarnation of Isaac Newton

And who paid for it? Last I checked, Columbia wasn't cheap.

Then, how did he get into Hawvawd? Who paid for that?

What were his Grades? The Hawvawd Crimson sez he was an Honor Student. Bull SHIT. Know what the Hawvawd Crimson is? A FUCKING Student newspaper/blog. They got nothing to do with the University itself.

As to Ayers writing the Stuttering Clusterfukk's book (Dreams of [I wish I knew who] my father [really was)....?

You don't go from writing SHIT like this...

Under water grottos, caverns
Filled with apes
That eat figs.
Stepping on the figs
That the apes
Eat, they crunch.
The apes howl, bare
Their fangs, dance,
Tumble in the
Rushing water,
Musty, wet pelts
Glistening in the blue.

To writing a sophisticated, articulate, Homerian-style book Like Dreams.

It just doesn't happen.

It simply isn't possible.

When I am told that my Grampa's Plow Horse won the Kentucky Derby, I will believe that event is more likely than I can believe the author of that piece of shit poem wrote 'Dreams'.

It isn't that people are picking on the Stuttering Clusterfukk because he's Black.

We're picking on him because he's an asshole and you're defending him because he's Black.

Get the distinction?

Being Black doesn't make you immune to criticism, as much as you'd like it to.

Ain't gonna happen