How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics to win the WH in 2016?

[bendog]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

Edward Morfin, a 57-year-old maintenance worker, speaks fluent Spanish. His surname is common in Mexico.
But when Donald Trump made headlines last month for saying that Mexico sends immigrants to this country who are criminals, including rapists, Morfin wasn't outraged — he was glad.
"Finally somebody got up there and said what needed to be said," said Morfin, who was relaxing on a recent night at an Albuquerque festival that featured cumbia and salsa bands and a parade of classic cars. "He said what everybody's thinking but is afraid to say out loud."

Morfin is hardly typical of Latino public opinion. Nationwide, nearly 80% of Latino voters consider Trump's comments offensive, according to a recent survey commissioned by Univision, the Spanish-language entertainment and news network.
Donald Trump's comments offend many U.S. Latinos, but not all

Indeed, a new poll of GOP primary voters in Nevada by One America News Networkshows Trump in first place among Hispanics.
He was the choice of 27.7% of respondents overall.
But, among Hispanics, the figure jumped to 31.4%. That showing did not escape Trump, who mentions the poll often.
Trump on track to win GOP Hispanic vote: Column

The question is whether you lie, or simply didn't notice, your links refer to gop primary elections. It's 69-24 Hillary amongst Hispanics.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/

 

[Unkotare]

Bush filtered the intel and only forwarded the intel that supported his case

Slam dunk my ass

That is a lie. The congress had the exact same intel and came to the exact same erroneous conclusions. Go back and look at the statements of prominent dems at the time, they all said exactly the same things that Bush said.

We agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money, but you need to stop lying about the history for attempted political gains.

Why was saving 2 million children from starving a waste?
Now leaving Iraq before it was stabilized was stupid but who asked that to happen? Obama as a political promise!
The biggest fault I had with Bush was he was too concerned that the President shouldn't respond to the false claims by the biased MSM.
Leaving Iraqis with a GDP per person that grew from $600 to $6,000 in ten years was wrong?
No the biggest waste was when we let traitors like these make comments like these that as Obama recently said
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate."
So Obama what do you think this "rhetoric" did for recruitment???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Going into Iraq looking for WMDs that were either never there or had been moved to Syria was a waste of American lives and money.

which 2 million children did us going to war save from starving? If feeding people was the mission, that could have been done without putting American military lives at risk.

The intel was flawed and we can debate about why it was flawed and who is responsible for that. But the fact is that the entire world believed it, whether the USMB liberals believe it or not.

If the goal was to remove Saddam, that could have been done covertly with little expense and putting very few lives at risk.

It was bad policy and accomplished nothing.

Explain to me why you would believe Saddam had NO WMDs when all he had to do was certify there were none and the UN SANCTIONS that per this NYT article;
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also... you obviously don't believe in keeping your word, much less any legal agreements do you?
More important though YOU obviously don't recall or even KNEW anything about the "1991 CEASE FIRE" much less were you aware of Bill Clinton's signing the
1998 Liberation of Iraq !
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was public law that Saddam be used! And Clinton signed it!

Such a bizarre train of logic

OUR sanctions are killing 144,000 children and you blame Saddam because he does not make us happy

What possible humanitarian purpose would sanctions have that are killing 144,000 children?

You can't be that stupid, so you must be disingenuous.

 

[Unkotare]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

The democrats already have.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you wouldn't. It's been proven again and again, when it comes to elections, people are more concerned with their own lives, than of things which are on the edge of their own lives.

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

 

[Unkotare]

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

Short-sighted fools like you would have attacked Jefferson for finally taking on the Barbary pirates.

 

[ScienceRocks]

In summary on the OP. The 2016 election will not be decided by the Hispanic vote. The OP is a red herring.

It will be decided by inept Republican candidates

Everyone that wants to cut, slash and abolish everything worth the damn in this country is inept. They'd have to accept a rino and hope he kisses hispanic ass for the next 11 months to have a chance.

 

[Redfish]

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

Lets try the grapes analogy again, maybe you will get it.

You have a bowl with 100 grapes in it. You know that 10 contain poison that will kill you. Do you just randomly eat a handful of them?

Yes, most of them are good, but you have no idea which ones are bad. Most sane people would dump the entire bowl of grapes down the drain. What would you do?

 

[Redfish]

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

Lets try the grapes analogy again, maybe you will get it.

You have a bowl with 100 grapes in it. You know that 10 contain poison that will kill you. Do you just randomly eat a handful of them?

Yes, most of them are good, but you have no idea which ones are bad. Most sane people would dump the entire bowl of grapes down the drain. What would you do?

 

[Redfish]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

Edward Morfin, a 57-year-old maintenance worker, speaks fluent Spanish. His surname is common in Mexico.
But when Donald Trump made headlines last month for saying that Mexico sends immigrants to this country who are criminals, including rapists, Morfin wasn't outraged — he was glad.
"Finally somebody got up there and said what needed to be said," said Morfin, who was relaxing on a recent night at an Albuquerque festival that featured cumbia and salsa bands and a parade of classic cars. "He said what everybody's thinking but is afraid to say out loud."

Morfin is hardly typical of Latino public opinion. Nationwide, nearly 80% of Latino voters consider Trump's comments offensive, according to a recent survey commissioned by Univision, the Spanish-language entertainment and news network.
Donald Trump's comments offend many U.S. Latinos, but not all

Indeed, a new poll of GOP primary voters in Nevada by One America News Networkshows Trump in first place among Hispanics.
He was the choice of 27.7% of respondents overall.
But, among Hispanics, the figure jumped to 31.4%. That showing did not escape Trump, who mentions the poll often.
Trump on track to win GOP Hispanic vote: Column

The question is whether you lie, or simply didn't notice, your links refer to gop primary elections. It's 69-24 Hillary amongst Hispanics.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/

are Hispanics the only people who will vote in 2016? This is foolishness. Hispanics will not decide the 2016 election.

 

[rightwinger]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

 

[rightwinger]

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

Lets try the grapes analogy again, maybe you will get it.

You have a bowl with 100 grapes in it. You know that 10 contain poison that will kill you. Do you just randomly eat a handful of them?

Yes, most of them are good, but you have no idea which ones are bad. Most sane people would dump the entire bowl of grapes down the drain. What would you do?

I would offer them to you

 

[Redfish]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

 

[Redfish]

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

Lets try the grapes analogy again, maybe you will get it.

You have a bowl with 100 grapes in it. You know that 10 contain poison that will kill you. Do you just randomly eat a handful of them?

Yes, most of them are good, but you have no idea which ones are bad. Most sane people would dump the entire bowl of grapes down the drain. What would you do?

I would offer them to you

nice dodge, as usual, rather than answering a legitimate question, you make a stupid post.

 

[rightwinger]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

Credible GOP candidates......Rubio, Christie, Bush, Kasich
Batshit Crazy (in order of batshit crazyness) ...TRUMP, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul

 

[Redfish]

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

Credible GOP candidates......Rubio, Christie, Bush, Kasich
Batshit Crazy (in order of batshit crazyness) ...TRUMP, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul

well that's your opinion and you have the right to state it. So here's mine

Credible dem candidates----------------------none, now that Webb has dropped out.

Batshit Crazy (in order of craziness) Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, Biden. Lets not forget plugs, he will likely be the dem candidate when Hillary is either indicted or declared insane due to dementia.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

Credible GOP candidates......Rubio, Christie, Bush, Kasich
Batshit Crazy (in order of batshit crazyness) ...TRUMP, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul

well that's your opinion and you have the right to state it. So here's mine

Credible dem candidates----------------------none, now that Webb has dropped out.

Batshit Crazy (in order of craziness) Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, Biden. Lets not forget plugs, he will likely be the dem candidate when Hillary is either indicted or declared insane due to dementia.

Nice try, but unsupportable

 

[Redfish]

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

Credible GOP candidates......Rubio, Christie, Bush, Kasich
Batshit Crazy (in order of batshit crazyness) ...TRUMP, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul

well that's your opinion and you have the right to state it. So here's mine

Credible dem candidates----------------------none, now that Webb has dropped out.

Batshit Crazy (in order of craziness) Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, Biden. Lets not forget plugs, he will likely be the dem candidate when Hillary is either indicted or declared insane due to dementia.

Nice try, but unsupportable

truth hurts, eh winger?

 

[rightwinger]

Hardly likely

Trump, Cruz, Carson appeal to Red State voters. Improving your margin of victory in Red States does not help your chances of getting to 270

The only GOP candidate I worry about is Marco Rubio. He is young and dynamic which is a good alternative to old and stale Hillary. He is Hispanic and from Florida, both of which will be key in winning swing states. Most importantly..

Unlike the rest of the GOP clown car, he is likeable and does not come off as batshit crazy

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

Credible GOP candidates......Rubio, Christie, Bush, Kasich
Batshit Crazy (in order of batshit crazyness) ...TRUMP, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul

well that's your opinion and you have the right to state it. So here's mine

Credible dem candidates----------------------none, now that Webb has dropped out.

Batshit Crazy (in order of craziness) Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, Biden. Lets not forget plugs, he will likely be the dem candidate when Hillary is either indicted or declared insane due to dementia.

Nice try, but unsupportable

truth hurts, eh winger?

Ummmm....Webb?

That is when I knew you were not serious

 

[beagle9]

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

What does this have to do with it?

How many non-extreme Muslims commit terrorist attacks? Like, none. Yet ALL MUSLIMS are being targeted.

But to get back to the point of the topic, many of the guns that end up in the hands of criminals are there because of legal guns turning illegal. Through theft, through dodgy dealers and so on.

The problem isn't any of the above. The problem is politicians willing to mess with people who will fight back. Without the Iraq War, without the absolute fuck up in the post war period, without the interference in the Middle East, and NONE OF THIS would have happened.

If you mess with people who will fight back, expect the consequences.

The US looks a lot better off than Iraq. The US messed it up, and then complains when a dozen people get killed in the US.

Lets try the grapes analogy again, maybe you will get it.

You have a bowl with 100 grapes in it. You know that 10 contain poison that will kill you. Do you just randomly eat a handful of them?

Yes, most of them are good, but you have no idea which ones are bad. Most sane people would dump the entire bowl of grapes down the drain. What would you do?

And the thing is, is that we are smart enough to not have to dump them all, and that isn't what Trump was saying that we should dump them all..

 

[Redfish]

speaking of batshit crazy, have you listened to Hillary and Bernie lately? Old, white, ugly, corrupt, lying, and yes, crazy.

No one on the GOP stage is crazy, except maybe Lindsey, gayboy, graham.

Credible GOP candidates......Rubio, Christie, Bush, Kasich
Batshit Crazy (in order of batshit crazyness) ...TRUMP, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul

well that's your opinion and you have the right to state it. So here's mine

Credible dem candidates----------------------none, now that Webb has dropped out.

Batshit Crazy (in order of craziness) Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, Biden. Lets not forget plugs, he will likely be the dem candidate when Hillary is either indicted or declared insane due to dementia.

Nice try, but unsupportable

truth hurts, eh winger?

Ummmm....Webb?

That is when I knew you were not serious

Webb is an outstanding man with a very strong background. Its no surprise that the dems dumped on him. Can't have anyone sane running as a dem, now can we?