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

[JakeStarkey]

Liberalism is NOT an ideology.

Obviously it IS a religion.

Obviously you're an idiot.

Yes.

Yes.

 

[Pete7469]

I agree with most of your post. I think a real conservative like Cruz or Walker could win. I even think Paul would do well, though I do question what he would do with our military. In fact I think Cruz would smoke every democrook in a debate, as well as "moderators" like Candyass Cowley. Cruz would have rammed it down her throat if she falsely corrected him the way she did to Romney.

I also like Walker because he has fought the bed wetters and won every time. He has a record of not just slowing down regressive policy, but rolling it back. That is exactly what needs to be done. Regressive moonbat policy must be repealed from obozocare all the way to the 16th Amendment. Once this oppression has been thrown out, and the bed wetters "escape" to places like Cuba and North Korea the country will once again flourish.

 

[Pete7469]

ok so he's soviet, kenyan, muslim, communist, terrorist sympathizer ???

No get it right, he's a soviet, athiest, communist, terrorist enabling Hawaian bastard.

 

[Pete7469]

Liberalism is NOT an ideology.

Obviously it IS a religion.

It's more of a cult.

 

[Skylar]

I agree with most of your post. I think a real conservative like Cruz or Walker could win.

Walker is a possibility. I don't think a likely one, but he's a scrapper and has the financial resources available to him. I don't know that Walker could craft a platform that would appeal to most Americans. But its the realm of plausibility. Name recognition would be an issue. He's also not a particularly good speaker.

But Cruz? Nope. They guy is very intelligent but also very foolish. He lacks the political wisdom to be a viable candidate. As his one and only political tool in his own party is threats. He's already alienated vast swaths of the GOP. And his proposals are very far right. His history with Dominion Christianity will also hurt him outside Texas.


Plus, there's the government shut down. It was his baby. He insisted that defunding Obamacare was going to be easy. He threatened members of congress with primary PAC opposition if they didn't tow the line.

And he lost, driving the GOP's approval rating to the lowest recorded level for any major party in US polling history. If you're going to piss on party leadership, threaten members of another House, point at the upper deck and call your own home run and shut down the US government, you damn well better win.

I also like Walker because he has fought the bed wetters and won every time.

This is actually a factor in his favor. Walker is a brawler. And a winner. I think he'd make a much better attack dog than president. A chief of staff, for example. But as an executive, he's middling. The economic growth of his state has trailed national averages. And lower than the regional average. Violent Crime is up under Walker in the same years that national crime is down.

His record is middling at best. And there's plenty that can be spun. His deep, deep cuts to public schools won't play well. Especially when revenue bounced back he didn't restore the cuts to education....but offered tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and drove the state back into a deficit of 2 billion over the next 2 years.

That was just stupid. And the optics blow goats.

 

[edthecynic]

Cruz would smoke every democrook in a debate

Baloney!

Cruz tries to bluff his debate opponents with his pet BS line, "the data don't support it," when the data NEVER supports his lies.

 

[Skylar]

The Democrats are only worried about Bush and possibly Paul. The rest of the GOP candidates would be easy pickings for a Dem candidate.

If Kasich got in the race, he could be formidable. He's a non-ideologue conservative. Someone pushing conservative fiscal policy tempered with a willingness to compromise could be effective. Hes also a superb communicator.

And his optics are much, much better than Walker. He cut funding to schools when times were lean...but has restored it when revenue was better. Ohio under Kasich has matched national averages in employment, crime, poverty and wages. The results are unremarkable, demonstrating that Kasich may not have been able to help the economy, but he apparently knew enough to stay out of its way. Kasich also funded a 'rainy day fund' that's got an estimated 1.5 billion. And has invested heavily in infrastructure.

That plays well to pretty much every demo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz's opposition will be going through his stuff with data. He is going to look very, very foolish.

If he ends up debating Kasich, K will rip him a new asshole.

 

[Boss]

If Republicans keep losing because they keep losing moderates by big numbers, why do conservatives think that an even more conservative candidate that is less appealing to moderates is a winning formula?

Because "moderate" doesn't mean "non-conservative" and it never has or will. The vast majority of "moderates" are people who have a conservative philosophy. They aren't going to vote for a Republican who doesn't have a conservative philosophy and doesn't have a clue as to what that is.

You are operating under a false assumption.. or several. Republican doesn't mean conservative, and independent or moderate doesn't mean non-conservative. Conservatism is a philosophy which crosses over numerous ideological lines. I mentioned earlier there can even be Liberal Conservatives. Some of my favorite Liberal Conservatives were Patrick Moynihan, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. When Bill Clinton won as a populist Democrat, he ran as a Conservative.

Your attempt to redefine moderate is self-serving. Moderates are not conservative. They are moderates. People self-identify as conservative, moderate or liberal. They do not identify themselves as conservative, conservative or liberal. Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe. They are neither inherently conservative or liberal.

The idea that "if only people knew what I believe, they'd support what I believe" is a narcissistic ideological trap.

Conservatives who believe that the best way to win moderates is to get even more conservative misunderstand moderates and politics.

Why does this keep happening? We keep getting "geniuses" telling us how things are but not offering examples or evidence. Here's another page reeled off by liberal lefties, inserting their unfounded opinions as facts and attempting to shut down the debate.

There are VERY few ACTUAL political moderates. I've covered this already, it's part of the human psyche. People would rather be identified as "moderate" than any form of extreme. They may view "liberal" and "conservative" as extremes and simply call themselves a "moderate" because that's what they believe they are. When you begin questioning a moderate on specific issues where a position is required, they are mostly conservatives or liberals. Likewise, the label "independent" does not mean moderate.

Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe.

Or is this what you've told yourself makes a moderate? Moderate is neither an ideology or philosophy, it is a measure of degree. Generally speaking, it is the opposite of "extremist." Aside from the fact that most people would rather identify as moderate as opposed to extreme, their political views lean left or right most of the time. For instance, how many ACTUAL people do you know who are, say... opposed to legalizing marijuana but favor gay marriage? Or they are opposed to gay marriage but they are pro-choice?

When we cut to the core and look at raw definitions, a true conservative is mostly a moderate.

Moderate: kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Most moderates are conservatives and most conservatives are moderates. It's merely a different way to describe the alternative of extremist liberalism, which is an ideology.

 

[Pete7469]

I support pot legalization, the repeal of ALL gun laws and I encourage liberals to get abortions and engage in gay marriage. I consider myself to be a conservative right wing extremist because I don't want the federal government involved with these issues, and in the matter of gun control no government entity should have the authority to disarm anyone, period. It's a Constitutional Right.


That said I think the gay lifestyle is an abomination and abortion is the most savage act a person can make. I'm not sure how we can call ourselves civilized when babies are sucked out of the womb. Since most conservatives do not engage in these acts anyway, and the people who do are bed wetting liberals for the most part who's existence disgust me I'm willing to turn my back and let them suck themselves out of the gene pool.

 

[Toro]

If Republicans keep losing because they keep losing moderates by big numbers, why do conservatives think that an even more conservative candidate that is less appealing to moderates is a winning formula?

Because "moderate" doesn't mean "non-conservative" and it never has or will. The vast majority of "moderates" are people who have a conservative philosophy. They aren't going to vote for a Republican who doesn't have a conservative philosophy and doesn't have a clue as to what that is.

You are operating under a false assumption.. or several. Republican doesn't mean conservative, and independent or moderate doesn't mean non-conservative. Conservatism is a philosophy which crosses over numerous ideological lines. I mentioned earlier there can even be Liberal Conservatives. Some of my favorite Liberal Conservatives were Patrick Moynihan, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. When Bill Clinton won as a populist Democrat, he ran as a Conservative.

Your attempt to redefine moderate is self-serving. Moderates are not conservative. They are moderates. People self-identify as conservative, moderate or liberal. They do not identify themselves as conservative, conservative or liberal. Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe. They are neither inherently conservative or liberal.

The idea that "if only people knew what I believe, they'd support what I believe" is a narcissistic ideological trap.

Conservatives who believe that the best way to win moderates is to get even more conservative misunderstand moderates and politics.

Why does this keep happening? We keep getting "geniuses" telling us how things are but not offering examples or evidence. Here's another page reeled off by liberal lefties, inserting their unfounded opinions as facts and attempting to shut down the debate.

There are VERY few ACTUAL political moderates. I've covered this already, it's part of the human psyche. People would rather be identified as "moderate" than any form of extreme. They may view "liberal" and "conservative" as extremes and simply call themselves a "moderate" because that's what they believe they are. When you begin questioning a moderate on specific issues where a position is required, they are mostly conservatives or liberals. Likewise, the label "independent" does not mean moderate.

Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe.

Or is this what you've told yourself makes a moderate? Moderate is neither an ideology or philosophy, it is a measure of degree. Generally speaking, it is the opposite of "extremist." Aside from the fact that most people would rather identify as moderate as opposed to extreme, their political views lean left or right most of the time. For instance, how many ACTUAL people do you know who are, say... opposed to legalizing marijuana but favor gay marriage? Or they are opposed to gay marriage but they are pro-choice?

When we cut to the core and look at raw definitions, a true conservative is mostly a moderate.

Moderate: kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Most moderates are conservatives and most conservatives are moderates. It's merely a different way to describe the alternative of extremist liberalism, which is an ideology.

I'm a moderate, a Republican, and a supporter of capitalism. I voted for Romney.

And, as a moderate, you are wrong. I generally don't want a hardcore conservative as President.

Rather than make rationalizations and twist logic to make yourself feel better, why don't you just ask moderates. It's easier than making shit up, though probably not easier for you to believe because you tell yourself a lie conservatives tell themselves to make themselves feel better.

This is simple math. When Republicans are not competitive with people who consider themselves moderates, they lose.

 

[Skylar]

If Republicans keep losing because they keep losing moderates by big numbers, why do conservatives think that an even more conservative candidate that is less appealing to moderates is a winning formula?

Because "moderate" doesn't mean "non-conservative" and it never has or will. The vast majority of "moderates" are people who have a conservative philosophy. They aren't going to vote for a Republican who doesn't have a conservative philosophy and doesn't have a clue as to what that is.

You are operating under a false assumption.. or several. Republican doesn't mean conservative, and independent or moderate doesn't mean non-conservative. Conservatism is a philosophy which crosses over numerous ideological lines. I mentioned earlier there can even be Liberal Conservatives. Some of my favorite Liberal Conservatives were Patrick Moynihan, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. When Bill Clinton won as a populist Democrat, he ran as a Conservative.

Your attempt to redefine moderate is self-serving. Moderates are not conservative. They are moderates. People self-identify as conservative, moderate or liberal. They do not identify themselves as conservative, conservative or liberal. Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe. They are neither inherently conservative or liberal.

The idea that "if only people knew what I believe, they'd support what I believe" is a narcissistic ideological trap.

Conservatives who believe that the best way to win moderates is to get even more conservative misunderstand moderates and politics.

Why does this keep happening? We keep getting "geniuses" telling us how things are but not offering examples or evidence. Here's another page reeled off by liberal lefties, inserting their unfounded opinions as facts and attempting to shut down the debate.

You've offered us nothing but opinion. When I showed you Gallup demonstrating that moderates and liberals made up 58% of the electorate, you literally made up a brand new definition for moderate. Bizarrely insisting that moderates were really conservatives.

All backed by nothing.

And when it was shown that democrats and independents make up 62% of the electorate, you made up a brand new definition of independent. Insisting in yet another spasm of bizarro nonsense that independent also really meant 'conservative'.

All backed by nothing.

Your made up definition of 'moderate' and 'independent' are meaningless. While the evidence contradicting you is overwhelming.

 

[HenryBHough]

Romney lost because too many Americans were unimpressed with the choices on order so went with the "lesser of evils".

Forgetting, of course, that the lesser of evils is still evil. That in mind they just voted for Obama to get it over with. Or, worse, just stayed home when any of them could have entered a protest vote by even writing in "None of The Above".

 

[Skylar]

Romney lost because too many Americans were unimpressed with the choices on order so went with the "lesser of evils".

Romney lost for one simple and undeniable reason:

He couldn't convince a plurality of the electorate to vote for him. Obama could. And in almost every case, that's enough to win the presidency. Or lose it in Romney's case.

 

[HenryBHough]

Romney lost for one simple and undeniable reason:

He couldn't convince a plurality of the electorate to vote for him. Obama could. And in almost every case, that's enough to win the presidency. Or lose it in Romney's case.

Read that though, that wot you just wrote, and you'll see we agree.

Lemme 'spalin......

Romney could lie effectively enough to convince a sufficient number of people that he was not more leftward leaning than Obama hence a lot of people either didn't vote at all or just shrugged and voted for Obama.

By doing either they surrendered any right to bitch about how it turned out.

 

[Skylar]

Romney lost for one simple and undeniable reason:

He couldn't convince a plurality of the electorate to vote for him. Obama could. And in almost every case, that's enough to win the presidency. Or lose it in Romney's case.

Read that though, that wot you just wrote, and you'll see we agree.

Lemme 'spalin......

Romney could lie effectively enough to convince a sufficient number of people that he was not more leftward leaning than Obama hence a lot of people either didn't vote at all or just shrugged and voted for Obama.

By doing either they surrendered any right to bitch about how it turned out.

So most people thought that Romney was less conservative than Obama?

Can you back that with......anything?

 

[Boss]

And, as a moderate, you are wrong. I generally don't want a hardcore conservative as President.

But you see, the whole entire problem is this notion of "hardcore" conservatism... What do you mean by that? Social conservative ideologue? I don't want one of those either, but that's not to be confused with a conservative philosophy and it has been. The left has been able to control the dialogue for so long, conservatism has been stigmatized as something it is not.

A true conservative is not "hardcore" anything, that is what makes them a conservative. They are opposed to radical change, to non-traditional approaches... there is nothing "extreme" about that. On some issues, I am socially conservative but I am not an ideologue, I don't think the world should march to my drummer. I think most "social" issues should be left to the states to decide and not the courts or feds. I believe in smaller, less intrusive federal government across the board. Why am I called an "extremist" or "reactionary" or "radical right" and "far right"? Those labels simply don't define my viewpoints, nor do they define the views of any prominent Conservative on the national political stage.

 

[hipeter924]

To me the 'far right' on the flawed left-right spectrum is extreme nationalist/religious/anti-immigration groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis, Westboro, and parties like UKIP.

 

[Boss]

Romney lost because too many Americans were unimpressed with the choices on order so went with the "lesser of evils".

Romney lost for one simple and undeniable reason:

He couldn't convince a plurality of the electorate to vote for him. Obama could. And in almost every case, that's enough to win the presidency. Or lose it in Romney's case.

Romney was exactly the candidate the establishment GOP and liberal democrats claimed was the only kind of candidate who could have won. He did not win because Romney wasn't a conservative. He attempted to pretend he was conservative and it didn't fool true conservatives because he didn't seem to understand conservative philosophy, and neither does John McCain. Conservative votes stayed at home.

Now I hear Lindsay Graham is going to run for President, and that's great... early polling shows him in fourth place.... in his home state of South Carolina! Does that not indicate where the electorate is on so-called "moderate" candidates? They can't win because they don't stand for anything. They've abandoned conservative philosophy and flounder around between being a liberal and a fake conservative, trying to pretend they are being bipartisan.

 

[edthecynic]

We keep getting "geniuses" telling us how things are but not offering examples or evidence.

There are VERY few ACTUAL political moderates.

We've been using your very posts as examples of extremism.

The fact that you see so few moderates shows just how far to the extreme you are! You are so far Right you can't even see the middle.