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

[nodoginnafight]

Self described conservatives made up a bigger percentage of the electorate and voted Republican moreso than ever before in 2008 and 2012.

The GOP has peaked on what they can expect to get out of the right.

They lost those elections because they got trounced by self-described moderates. No GOP candidate has ever won the presidency without getting at least 41% of the moderate vote.

So all you Fantasy Island dwellers can pretend that what the GOP really needs to do is tack farther right to win but the numbers clearly show this to be false.

I'm one of those moderates who would LOVE to have a Republican candidate I can vote for.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If your imaginings were true and Obama and Hillary are so far left, where would Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich be, off the chart?

Kucinich isn't any further left than Obama. Get real.

Really? Kucinich wanted a department of peace.

Obama, uses the military to wage war which pisses off the left.

you live in a make believe world

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

.

Hardcore right wingers say there's no such thing as the hardcore right, hardcore left wingers say there's no such thing as the hardcore left.

Commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology literally distorts perception, so it's quite possible that these people are being perfectly honest.

From their perspective.

.

AGAIN... (and I plan to keep point this out, over and over and over) It takes about two brain cells to bow up and call someone a name! What you are continuing to FAIL doing is showing something to indicate this "hardcore partisan ideology" that makes the "far right" so "extreme and fanatical" or whatever.

How about presenting some examples of "far right hardcore partisan ideology" for us? Balancing a budget? Controlling illegal immigration? Adhering to the Constitution? What exactly do you have to support your claim?

*CRICKETS*

Not sure what the "CRICKETS" thing is, I'm always more than happy to provide an opinion when asked. And when I say that someone is a "hardcore partisan ideologue", I'm not trying to engage in name-calling. I'm quite serious about each word in that phrase, and you'll never see me calling someone here a nasty name.

So, to answer your question: I am confident that you understand that political opinion lies along a spectrum, from Left to Right. So an example of this would be the use of the term RINO, which generally means a Republican who does not agree with all of the GOP platform. I'm sure you have heard that term, so no doubt I don't need to go into more detail there.

So what do I mean by "hardcore right wing partisan ideologue"? Well, there are two parts to that: Ideological and behavioral.

Ideological: Easy call here. Off the top of my head: No abortions, no gay marriage, neocon war & foreign policy, total free market healthcare, decrease federal government spending at all costs, constant push for fewer gun laws, constant push for lower personal and corporate income taxes and other taxation, constant push to abolish any number of federal government departments (from education to IRS). Surely you recognize that there are some conservatives who may not push quite as hard or might even disagree with one or two of those positions, thereby moving them toward the Left on the aforementioned "spectrum".

Behavioral: Partisan ideologues on both ends regularly engage in the same dishonest behaviors: Spin, deflection, distortion, denial, hyperbole, straw man arguments and outright lies in a transparent effort to maximize all arguments, data and information on their "side" and to minimize, avoid, ignore all contrary arguments, data and information. Ideology over everything else, from honesty to country. Further, I have become convinced that adherence to a hardcore partisan ideology literally distorts perception, making people truly believe and say things that they would not if they were in a more rational state of mind.

There. I hope that clarifies.

.

There is quite literally, no such thing an 'extreme right wing'.

The phrase is a means to discredit and isolate the left's opposition.

By the same token there is no such thing as a moderate. As moderates are merely Leftists who lack the courage to commit.

People of the Ideological right are merely people of higher average intelligence; who, by virtue of that intelligence, are capable of recognizing the laws of nature which govern human behavior... And who having observed these natural laws recognize that such are how nature works. This respect and adherence to such merely affords the individual a higher level of personal; and by extension where such individuals are summed into a collective, a higher level of collective viability.

This also boils down to behavior which is right and correct, or that which is otherwise acceptable to the adherents to natural law... known colloquially as 'Americans'... .

Where behavior which rejects those laws I'd wrong, bad and otherwise unacceptable to AMERICANS... Or to anyone whose goal is individual and/or collective viability.

There is no potential for an extreme form of this. as such is simply not possible.

Such however may appear extreme to individuals who reject the laws of nature and who blame the Americans for the consequences of their unprincipled behavior, which we are longer willing to pay for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? Kucinich wanted a department of peace.

He should be happy then, with Kerry and Obama bending knee to Iran.

Obama, uses the military to wage war which pisses off the left.

you live in a make believe world

Which is why Iraq and Afghanistan are firmly under control...

Oh, wait...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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!

I have to disagree with this OP.
The GOP recruited moderates to help the win in 2014. It worked.
A large segment of the general population considered the Tea Party to far right, thus their falling popularity and rising unfavorability in all polls.
Most independent voters are moderate independents, sure there are some that lean left or right, the key word is lean.
Some links for you:
Tea Party support falls among Republicans Pew Research Center
Tea Party Support Holds at 24

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really? Kucinich wanted a department of peace.

He should be happy then, with Kerry and Obama bending knee to Iran.

Obama, uses the military to wage war which pisses off the left.

you live in a make believe world

Which is why Iraq and Afghanistan are firmly under control...

Oh, wait...

Why would America be controlling Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we an imperial power?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really? Kucinich wanted a department of peace.

He should be happy then, with Kerry and Obama bending knee to Iran.

Obama, uses the military to wage war which pisses off the left.

you live in a make believe world

Which is why Iraq and Afghanistan are firmly under control...

Oh, wait...

When Reagan Cut and Run Foreign Policy

Despite his firm stand against dealing with terrorists, in November 1986 Reagan admitted that arms had been shipped to Iran but denied that the arms were a trade for hostages.

Transcript
Narrator: Days later Reagan admitted arms had been shipped to Iran to forge a better relationship but denied they were arms for hostages.

Reagan (archival): In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.

Reagan . Bonus Video . American Experience . WGBH PBS​

 

[Uncensored2008]

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

If democrats and their media cannot convince the GOP that "moderates" are the key to victory, then the GOP will not nominate Jeb Bush. If the GOP does not nominate Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton will lose the general election. It is CRITICAL for democrats to promote the absurd fiction that voters prefer mealy-mouthed leftist wannabes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why would America be controlling Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we an imperial power?

They were both pacified when Bush left office.

Now they are falling into the hands of the terrorists.

Obama is either the biggest fucking incompetent in history, or working for the other side.

Let's face it, NO ONE is that incompetent.

 

[GHook93]

Who is your "solid conservative" for 2016?

A "Reagan" wouldn't win the 2016 GOP primary.

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who is your "solid conservative" for 2016?

A "Reagan" wouldn't win the 2016 GOP primary.

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

You will LOVE.....LOVE.....LOVE the debates. Those two will fucking tear each other apart. The "cream of the crop" will render themselves fruitless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

Paul is VERY similar to Reagan, and the leftists are treating him the same.

USMB leftists like to float the fiction that the dims were supportive of Reagan - in fact they treated him the way they treat Sarah Palin. I give BlindFool shit for being a Communist, but at least he's honest about his seething hatred of Reagan.

The American left was on the brink of realizing all of their dreams in 1979. The USSR had established an satellite nation in the North American Continent. Soviet and Cuban troops marching through Honduras, Guatemala, then Mexico, to sit on our unprotected Southern Border was something 5th column boys like Jim Wright and BlindFool were certain would happen by 85. And it would have, except Reagan. The hatred of the left was beyond anything, Reagan destroyed not only the plan to bring Communism home, but in defeating the Soviets in Nicaragua, he caused the whole house of cards to fall. Reagan ruined everything for them.

 

[Mac1958]

There is quite literally, no such thing an 'extreme right wing'.

Would you say there is such a thing as an "extreme left wing"?

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Would you say there is such a thing as an "extreme left wing"?

.

Barack Obama

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why would America be controlling Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we an imperial power?

1) They were both pacified when Bush left office.

Now they are falling into the hands of the terrorists.

Obama is either the biggest fucking incompetent in history, or working for the other side.

Let's face it, NO ONE is that incompetent.

Losing Iraq FRONTLINE PBS

The Rise of ISIS FRONTLINE PBS

1) Many of the principles involved discuss Iraq and ISIS. Your woefully ignorant and pathetic spin means nothing

ISIS grew strong in Syria, not Iraq.

Baathists and Sunni's who were pushed out of the military we left behind joined up with the al qaeda offshot to form ISIS.

Bush left a weak and sorry sack of shit in charge in Iraq even though his own advisers were saying the man was terrible. Obama came in and ignored the man in Iraq -- Bush's handpicked man.

Blame is something when looked at is nothing like you portray it

you're pathetically partisan, pukishly ignorant, and a man who doesn't mind looking like the fool he is

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology.

Dante knows where this myth comes from..It's a joke.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Your link is from a year ago - gee, nothing at all has happened since then ....

 

[Boss]

Who is your "solid conservative" for 2016?

A "Reagan" wouldn't win the 2016 GOP primary.

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

I like "North Korea of the Midwest!" ...nice!

I would add Scott Walker to your Cream list.

 

[Boss]

Bush left a weak and sorry sack of shit in charge in Iraq...

No... it was WASHINGTON!