GOP superdelegates: It's over, Romney is nominee

[JoeB131]

Your consistency in being anti-Romney, JoeB, is not a virtue, when your inconsistency of flitting from one candidate to another is much as does a whore from one customer to another.

You would have supported no Republican candidate.

However, where none of the others could possibly compete with Obama, Romney has a chance, but my party's extreme right is busy pissing in the party cheerios again.

Time will tell.

That only works on the assumption that it's about idealogy. It isn't. It's about character.

Romney doesn't have any. He's completely fucking evil. And a Mormon. But I repeat myself.

Incidently, my presidential voting record since 1980 has been Reagan twice, Bush twice (although it was close the second time) Dole, Bush twice again and McCain. This will be the first time I vote for either a third party or Democrat.

Because Romney's scum.

Methinketh my social libertarian fraud that you do not tell the truth. But, hey . . . you have been posting as least two, if not more, monikers for some months here.

Romney apparently has more character than you.

NO, I haven't. I'm more than capable of making you look retarded by myself. I noticed you hid away somewhere while your boy was twisting in the wind...

But guy, here's the problem. I'm disillusioned with the GOP for many of the same reasons you are. The religious crazys and business crazies have taken over the asylum, unfortunately. But I was open minded.

Until they nominated a Mormon, my blood enemy. Then politics became irrelevent to me. It's then becomes about squashing an enemy.

And frankly, that's always a top priority for me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you have, JoeB. You are a poseur and easily outed. Naw, you were disillusioned with the GOP decades ago. Now you run with the atheist crazies in the libertarian cause that want to unhinge inalienable rights from God's grant of them to mankind. Your kind is no more enviable than is that of bigreb and that group of nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, you have, JoeB. You are a poseur and easily outed. Naw, you were disillusioned with the GOP decades ago. Now you run with the atheist crazies in the libertarian cause that want to unhinge inalienable rights from God's grant of them to mankind. Your kind is no more enviable than is that of bigreb and that group of nuts.

Naw, only really became disillusioned a few years ago, Jake the Fake.

You'd be hard pressed to find me criticizing the Bushes or Reagan here.

I'm not even much of a libertarian, really. I'm a strict law and order type who believes in pragmatic government. Probably more of an Eisenhower/Nixon Republican than anything else. Or maybe a Reagan Democrat.

But let's be honest, you hope to get the bigrebs of the world out of control of the party, which is the only reason you support the Weird Mormon Robot. it's going to fail miserably when he loses bigger than McCain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, the refuge of name calling now? Go ahead if it makes you feel better. Now you are not a libertarian. OK. You love Reagan and the Bushes. OK. You are a gun carrying guy now. In fact, you don't know what you are, JoeB.

If MR loses because of the weirdos, then we can finally stomp them out. Watch.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, the refuge of name calling now? Go ahead if it makes you feel better. Now you are not a libertarian. OK. You love Reagan and the Bushes. OK. You are a gun carrying guy now. In fact, you don't know what you are, JoeB.

If MR loses because of the weirdos, then we can finally stomp them out. Watch.

NO.... doesn't work like that.

Never has, never will. In either party.

in fact, quite the contrary, usually a sensible party thinks, "How do we get those people back into the fold or enthusiastic again".

Incidently, I know exactly what I am. A Pragmatist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, the refuge of name calling now? Go ahead if it makes you feel better. Now you are not a libertarian. OK. You love Reagan and the Bushes. OK. You are a gun carrying guy now. In fact, you don't know what you are, JoeB.

If MR loses because of the weirdos, then we can finally stomp them out. Watch.

NO.... doesn't work like that.

Never has, never will. In either party.

in fact, quite the contrary, usually a sensible party thinks, "How do we get those people back into the fold or enthusiastic again".

Incidently, I know exactly what I am. A Pragmatist.

Naw, you are not. A pragmatist would go with MR. You are an ideologue, the worst kind of political animal. You are no different than the far righties and far lefties weirdo crowds.

And, yes, it does. Goldwater's crowd got booted after 1964, and for 16 years we avoided the weirdos, who finally got wise and hitched on to RR's star.

 

[JoeB131]

Naw, you are not. A pragmatist would go with MR. You are an ideologue, the worst kind of political animal. You are no different than the far righties and far lefties weirdo crowds..

Pragmatism pretty much discounts people who think they are wearing magic underpants and are going to be Gods in the afterlife.

And, yes, it does. Goldwater's crowd got booted after 1964, and for 16 years we avoided the weirdos, who finally got wise and hitched on to RR's star.

Uh, no, they didn't. After Goldwater, Nixon ran as a much more conservative candidate than he did in 1960, where he let JFK get to his right. The same people who slapped down Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 slapped him down again in 1968.

He came in FOURTH in the primary vote.

Yup, here's how the votes turned out.


Ronald Reagan: 1,696,632 (37.93%)
Richard Nixon: 1,679,443 (37.54%)
James A. Rhodes: 614,492 (13.74%)
Nelson Rockefeller: 164,340 (3.67%)

Now, Nixon had more delegates, because Reagan's votes were mostly in California and he got in late.

 

[JoeB131]

OH, yeah, and Fakey, you forgot to answer my question, again. Where were all those anti-TEA candidates you insisted were going to displace TEA congressmen in the primaries?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Naw, you are not. A pragmatist would go with MR. You are an ideologue, the worst kind of political animal. You are no different than the far righties and far lefties weirdo crowds..

Pragmatism pretty much discounts people who think they are wearing magic underpants and are going to be Gods in the afterlife.

And, yes, it does. Goldwater's crowd got booted after 1964, and for 16 years we avoided the weirdos, who finally got wise and hitched on to RR's star.

Uh, no, they didn't. After Goldwater, Nixon ran as a much more conservative candidate than he did in 1960, where he let JFK get to his right. The same people who slapped down Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 slapped him down again in 1968.

He came in FOURTH in the primary vote.

Yup, here's how the votes turned out.


Ronald Reagan: 1,696,632 (37.93%)
Richard Nixon: 1,679,443 (37.54%)
James A. Rhodes: 614,492 (13.74%)
Nelson Rockefeller: 164,340 (3.67%)

Now, Nixon had more delegates, because Reagan's votes were mostly in California and he got in late.

Uh, yes they did, because Nixon, as he moved left, they moved off to the right!

You need to know your history, JoeB, better.

 

[JoeB131]

Naw, you are not. A pragmatist would go with MR. You are an ideologue, the worst kind of political animal. You are no different than the far righties and far lefties weirdo crowds..

Pragmatism pretty much discounts people who think they are wearing magic underpants and are going to be Gods in the afterlife.

And, yes, it does. Goldwater's crowd got booted after 1964, and for 16 years we avoided the weirdos, who finally got wise and hitched on to RR's star.

Uh, no, they didn't. After Goldwater, Nixon ran as a much more conservative candidate than he did in 1960, where he let JFK get to his right. The same people who slapped down Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 slapped him down again in 1968.

He came in FOURTH in the primary vote.

Yup, here's how the votes turned out.


Ronald Reagan: 1,696,632 (37.93%)
Richard Nixon: 1,679,443 (37.54%)
James A. Rhodes: 614,492 (13.74%)
Nelson Rockefeller: 164,340 (3.67%)

Now, Nixon had more delegates, because Reagan's votes were mostly in California and he got in late.

Uh, yes they did, because Nixon, as he moved left, they moved off to the right!

You need to know your history, JoeB, better.

I've got a degree in history. All you do is run your mouth.

Fact is, Reagan picked up the banner where Goldwater left it... and Nixon won him over...
running against the hippies.

It's really only after the GOP decided that, hey, we don't need to really be conservatives, starting with George H . Bush, that they started losing elections, badly.

Romney will lose, too. Then we'll get about building a real conservative party again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You prove that having a degree in history does not mean a thing if you don't know the information and the sources.

Nixon moved steadily left from 1968, and the far right deserted him for RR. Nixon controlled the right is the point, unlike RR, who let the right control him.

You keep falling for far right extremist natterings.

Not very historic in fact, don't cha know?

 

[JoeB131]

You prove that having a degree in history does not mean a thing if you don't know the information and the sources.

Nixon moved steadily left from 1968, and the far right deserted him for RR. Nixon controlled the right is the point, unlike RR, who let the right control him.

You keep falling for far right extremist natterings.

Not very historic in fact, don't cha know?

The far right abandoned him because he got caught violating the law. Same reason the whole country abandoned him. (You did hear about that Watergate thing, didn't you, dummy?)



What you leave out is that he appointed moderate Jerry Ford as his successor, and lo and behold, Ford Lost. Really, the only time teh GOP lost between 1968 and 1988.

Run moderates, you lose.

 

[California Girl]

Your consistency in being anti-Romney, JoeB, is not a virtue, when your inconsistency of flitting from one candidate to another is much as does a whore from one customer to another.

You would have supported no Republican candidate.

However, where none of the others could possibly compete with Obama, Romney has a chance, but my party's extreme right is busy pissing in the party cheerios again.

Time will tell.

That only works on the assumption that it's about idealogy. It isn't. It's about character.

Romney doesn't have any. He's completely fucking evil. And a Mormon. But I repeat myself.

Incidently, my presidential voting record since 1980 has been Reagan twice, Bush twice (although it was close the second time) Dole, Bush twice again and McCain. This will be the first time I vote for either a third party or Democrat.

Because Romney's scum.

Methinketh my social libertarian fraud that you do not tell the truth. But, hey . . . you have been posting as least two, if not more, monikers for some months here.

Romney apparently has more character than you.

That's not saying much... a houseplant has more character than JoeyBoy.... and could out debate him.

 

[JoeB131]

So you're saying that you are flailing around because you have less debating skill than a houseplant?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You prove that having a degree in history does not mean a thing if you don't know the information and the sources.

Nixon moved steadily left from 1968, and the far right deserted him for RR. Nixon controlled the right is the point, unlike RR, who let the right control him.

You keep falling for far right extremist natterings.

Not very historic in fact, don't cha know?

The far right abandoned him because he got caught violating the law. Same reason the whole country abandoned him. (You did hear about that Watergate thing, didn't you, dummy?)



What you leave out is that he appointed moderate Jerry Ford as his successor, and lo and behold, Ford Lost. Really, the only time teh GOP lost between 1968 and 1988.

Run moderates, you lose.

He tlhrew the far right out, JoeB. You are quite the revisionist. Ford would have won hands down if he had not pardoned Nixon. You sure keep rewriting history, very obviously, I might add.

 

[California Girl]

So you're saying that you are flailing around because you have less debating skill than a houseplant?

I don't debate stupid... I mock it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

MR will pick either Rubio of Florida or Martinez of NM, I am thinking. He has to shore himself up with the right, women, and hispanics. He can only get two of three from Rubio but all three from Martinez. I hope it will be enough in November, but I am beginning to wonder about that.

This election will be about Obama not about Romney as Obama is the incumbent which is good for Romney. If it was strickly about the personalities of Obama v Romney then what would even be the point of an election .

Anyway I think Rubio would be a great choice, I like rubio....I have to look into Martinez a bit more.

If he picks one of the other canidates that ran it will not help his chances IMO.

Obama will not let the election be a referendum about him is the point. He is going to challenge Romney as an out of touch wealthy man who cares nothing for the every day American and he is going to attack the do nothing GOP congress.

Romney is the weakness here, even though I will vote for him. He needs to shore up where he is weak. What we can do about our GOP jokers and jokerettes that undermined Boehner's congress is beyond me. We should win this election hands down yet BHO is the favorite.

We brought this on ourselves.

Don't let the media hype and obama dishonesty about your GOP get you down. As an independant I see right through the B.S. rhetoric and tactics you can see the Obama admin and the media outlets that are overly friendly to him put up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That the media that is friendly to Obama is continuing to hammer MR is a fact.

The GOP needs to move onto friendly ground with women and hispanics in order to win the presidency.

 

[JoeB131]

You prove that having a degree in history does not mean a thing if you don't know the information and the sources.

Nixon moved steadily left from 1968, and the far right deserted him for RR. Nixon controlled the right is the point, unlike RR, who let the right control him.

You keep falling for far right extremist natterings.

Not very historic in fact, don't cha know?

The far right abandoned him because he got caught violating the law. Same reason the whole country abandoned him. (You did hear about that Watergate thing, didn't you, dummy?)



What you leave out is that he appointed moderate Jerry Ford as his successor, and lo and behold, Ford Lost. Really, the only time teh GOP lost between 1968 and 1988.

Run moderates, you lose.

He tlhrew the far right out, JoeB. You are quite the revisionist. Ford would have won hands down if he had not pardoned Nixon. You sure keep rewriting history, very obviously, I might add.

Whose "HE"?

Nixon lost everyone support because he was a crook. But most people gave Jerry Ford the benefit of the doubt on the pardon. (Except the hard core Nixon haters, of course.)

Sorry, man. Ford lost because he was another squishy Republican trying to out Democrat them. And Jerry Falwell endorsed Carter in 1976.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Very few people at the time, JoeB, gave Ford the benefit of the doubt. I doubted but voted for him because Jack, his son, went to school with me at State. That boy was wild at university! Ford lost only because he pardoned Nixon. You saying it ain't so all day won't change the fact you are revising history.