"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then, gives us a few examples of how Cruz is more "reactionary far right" than Reagan in terms of legislation he has supported that Reagan would have opposed and such?

Cruz would never have supported St Ronnie's tax, borrow and spend policies.

As though anyone on your side would object...
Reagan rescued us from Carter's shit show economy....

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cruz would never have supported St Ronnie's tax, borrow and spend policies.

As though anyone on your side would object...
Reagan rescued us from Carter's shit show economy....

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

 

[Skylar]

As though anyone on your side would object...
Reagan rescued us from Carter's shit show economy....

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

You're hamstrung by facts, evidence and history, NY. None of them are going to do you much good in a conversation with keyes. He has no use for any of them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As though anyone on your side would object...
Reagan rescued us from Carter's shit show economy....

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

Right about what? And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[Skylar]

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

Right about what? And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

And Keyes runs.

Which begs the question, why start trolling to begin with if all you planned on doing was tucking your tail between your legs and fleeing anyway?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

You're hamstrung by facts, evidence and history, NY. None of them are going to do you much good in a conversation with keyes. He has no use for any of them.

He thinks Jesus was abnormal because he was celibate. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

Right about what? And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

The worst Reagan year vs. the best Obama year.

 

[Skylar]

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

You're hamstrung by facts, evidence and history, NY. None of them are going to do you much good in a conversation with keyes. He has no use for any of them.

He thinks Jesus was abnormal because he was celibate. lol

Well, he also claimed he supports a new civil war to 'send negros back to their native land'. So really, consider the source.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

crazy thread

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The worst Reagan year vs. the best Obama year.

Which you want to define by unemployment?

LOL~

 

[Boss]

crazy thread

Yes, that often happens when someone makes a valid point which conflicts with a liberal meme. It's because liberals all have the tendency to behave like roaches in the light and try turning the thread into a discussion of anything else, the more absurd the better. We now have you clowns trying to goad people into a debate over Reagan vs. Obama policies... yes, something that totally off-the-wall insane can't be resisted and you know this. But hey, it works to camouflage any point made in the OP, and that's all you're really after... right?

 

[Boss]

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

You are still thinking in terms of all three being the same thing... ideology! They are NOT the same thing. You can be a Conservative and still have very liberal social viewpoints rooted in Conservative philosophy. In fact, most pragmatic conservatives are very much "moderate" in their social views with more of a libertarian lean than anything.

Liberal social viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy. Do you have any examples?

Read the thread, I already gave an example earlier of the libertarian vs. social conservative... both are conservatives, both have an argument for what they believe which rooted in conservative philosophy. And it's because conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology.

 

[Boss]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

Here's the truck sized hole in your reasoning:

You can't get far right candidates through the GOP primary.....one of the most receptive and sympathetic audiences you have. What makes you think you could convince moderates, independents and liberals to vote far right when you can't even convince a plurality of conservative primary voters?

You can't. We get this same silly schtick every election cycle. And its as broken this time as it was last.

Well, first of all, I already said that Conservatives lack a voice who can articulate the Conservative philosophy... you see... if they had that person, that person would have been nominated and elected in a landslide... like Reagan.

Now, the majority of primary voters are not necessarily conservatives, they are republicans. In 08 and 12, the GOP had basically one establishment ringer and several conservatives who split the conservative vote, giving the non-conservative the nomination by default. Nothing wrong with the conservative message, just too many conservatives trying to articulate it in their own way.

In the general election, you are touching on the problem the GOP has faced the past two elections... they think they need to "run to the middle" to appeal to independent voters. There are no moderates, independents and liberals waiting around to decide which way the winds are blowing. Most of these "independent voters" are Conservatives who aren't going to commit to the Republican party and whatever they throw out there to vote for. Oh, there are SOME who are staunch libertarians or third party activist types, but not very many. Not enough to swing an election.

 

[edthecynic]

I already said that Conservatives lack a voice who can articulate the Conservative philosophy... you see... if they had that person, that person would have been nominated and elected in a landslide... like Reagan.

CON$ can't "articulate" the hate religion of CON$ervoFascism because if they actually told the truth they know they would lose. So they have to lie like St Ronnie because they know they can't win in the arena of ideas. CON$ pride themselves on their ability to lie and get away with it. They believe their talent for lying, on loan from Gawwwwwd-da, makes them intellectually superior to truthful fools.

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

 

[Boss]

Wow Eddy... I knew you were stupid, I just didn't realize how much of a left-wing tool you were.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Loseretrianism won't win!
People don't want to defund our science institutions that keep our food safe, provide vaxs to fight diseases and warn us from major storms.
People don't want to defund or stop funding good science and tech!
People don't want to defund infrastructure
People don't want to defund our educational system. They may want some reforms, but they want to be able to have a education for their children.

Reagan and Bush understood this...This is why they won. I doubt even they would win today as Florida and Virgina is gone but for their time, yeah.

 

[edthecynic]

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

Wow Eddy... I knew you were stupid, I just didn't realize how much of a left-wing tool you were.

Coming from you, being a "stupid" truth-teller is a compliment.
Thank you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

 

[Boss]

Really? Where did Florida and Virginia go? Last I checked, they were still there.

Yep... everybody likes funding for everything! People in general, like a politician who promises them stuff. If money was no object and there was an endless supply, I think most conservatives would be fine with funding anything we could dream up... why not?

Problem is, we're out of money. We're having to borrow billions of dollars from the Chinese who are our enemy. Some of you just don't give a solitary shit, money isn't a concern.

Reagan and Bush (both) won for different reasons. Reagan won because he articulated a conservative philosophy well and it resonated with the masses. Bush Sr. was elected because he was Reagan's VP and he lost the next election because he wasn't a conservative. W wasn't a conservative either, he was a social conservative ideologue who appealed to social conservatives and establishment party elites.

 

[Boss]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.