Questions for Republicans, Conservatives, RINOs, Tea Partiers, et al:

[Boss]

Except that Cruz has not capitulated to the establishment and they hate him... have vowed to destroy him politically. Rubio ran and got elected on tea party promises to buck the establishment and went up there and started cutting deals with them instead.

Yes he has. Otherwise I'd be seeing dozens of bills,with his nsme on thrm being submitted to the Clerk. Simple things like..... "A Bill to Eliminate the US Department of Education". Capitulation isn't just failing to stop things from getting worse, it's also failing to correct what's already wtong.

Well you obviously don't understand how the Senate works. One man can't just write a bill and submit it to the clerk. Capitol Hill would be more of a carnival than it already is. You need at least a few people who are going to support what you're proposing, and most politicians are reluctant to support bills that have zero chance of passing or being signed into law by the president. If there isn't even enough support in their own party for it, the only result it will accomplish is giving your adversaries something to criticize you with in the next election. Look how much flack Cruz takes for "wanting to shut down the government" over Obamacare. He took a principled stand because that's what he promised to do when he was elected; and if the rest of the GOP had stood with him on that, it would have forced at least a delay in implementing the individual mandate... NOW, you have Donald Trump professing he likes the individual mandate and I don't think Rubio has even mentioned Obamacare.

 

[Correll]

This is what you did: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument. You attacked character.

From above, which you either did not read or failed to understand.

"rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I did not dismiss his argument because I suggested he was a fool or a liar.

I pointed out that it simply was NOT true. 40% is not fringe. The GOP is not a fringe party.

The GOP is one of two main parties in the US and pretty much even with the Dems for number of supporters.

Do you need a link to support that?

When you use terms like liar and fool while whining when others use them against you, you are a hypocrite.

When I use it, I am getting pissed off at people like you that you an attack on my character or motive INSTEAD OF directly addressing my point, and generally in place of any on topic response.

I pointed out that 40% of something is not fringe.

Even if the other side got the every remaining percentage point ie 60%, 40% is not fringe.
I directly addressed Bulldog's point, such as it was.

Then I pointed out CORRECTLY that only a fool or a liar would have made such claims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your fringe candidate is getting 40% of a fringe party.

40% is not fringe.

THe GOP is not Fringe.

Only a liar or a fool would claim that Trump or the GOP was.

That's odd, because the GOP has been claiming Trump is fringe from the beginning.

Oh! YOu always believe everything the GOP establishment tells you?

I don't.

Just another example of how the right is fractured into many different pieces.

Says the far left drone that has the only choice of an old white person!

You mean Trump who is old as your HRC?

 

[Correll]

This is what you did: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument. You attacked character.

From above, which you either did not read or failed to understand.

"rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I did not dismiss his argument because I suggested he was a fool or a liar.

I pointed out that it simply was NOT true. 40% is not fringe. The GOP is not a fringe party.

The GOP is one of two main parties in the US and pretty much even with the Dems for number of supporters.

Do you need a link to support that?

When you use terms like liar and fool while whining when others use them against you, you are a hypocrite.

You could easily make your argument without being hypocritical.

YOu have completely failed to understand what I have been screaming at you for months.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is what you did: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument. You attacked character.

From above, which you either did not read or failed to understand.

"rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I did not dismiss his argument because I suggested he was a fool or a liar.

I pointed out that it simply was NOT true. 40% is not fringe. The GOP is not a fringe party.

The GOP is one of two main parties in the US and pretty much even with the Dems for number of supporters.

Do you need a link to support that?

When you use terms like liar and fool while whining when others use them against you, you are a hypocrite.

When I use it, I am getting pissed off at people like you that you an attack on my character or motive INSTEAD OF directly addressing my point, and generally in place of any on topic response.

I pointed out that 40% of something is not fringe.

Even if the other side got the every remaining percentage point ie 60%, 40% is not fringe.
I directly addressed Bulldog's point, such as it was.

Then I pointed out CORRECTLY that only a fool or a liar would have made such claims.

None of your meeching has any merit. You attacked character. Leave character out and your argument might have merit.

 

[Correll]

This is what you did: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument. You attacked character.

From above, which you either did not read or failed to understand.

"rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I did not dismiss his argument because I suggested he was a fool or a liar.

I pointed out that it simply was NOT true. 40% is not fringe. The GOP is not a fringe party.

The GOP is one of two main parties in the US and pretty much even with the Dems for number of supporters.

Do you need a link to support that?

When you use terms like liar and fool while whining when others use them against you, you are a hypocrite.

When I use it, I am getting pissed off at people like you that you an attack on my character or motive INSTEAD OF directly addressing my point, and generally in place of any on topic response.

I pointed out that 40% of something is not fringe.

Even if the other side got the every remaining percentage point ie 60%, 40% is not fringe.
I directly addressed Bulldog's point, such as it was.

Then I pointed out CORRECTLY that only a fool or a liar would have made such claims.

None of your meeching has any merit. You attacked character. Leave character out and your argument might have merit.

When you attack my character there is no additional argument.

That is all you have.

You do that instead of directly addressing my argument.

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

 

[washamericom]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

i disagree that cruz isn't establishment.

oh honey... lol

he might still be establishment in canada though. heh

well, at least you're consistent lol

i am j. but i'm a little nervous about going to Cpac next week, with all that unrulyness going on at the supreme court.

 

[washamericom]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

i disagree that cruz isn't establishment.

oh honey... lol

he might still be establishment in canada though. heh

thanks harper.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is what you did: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument. You attacked character.

From above, which you either did not read or failed to understand.

"rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I did not dismiss his argument because I suggested he was a fool or a liar.

I pointed out that it simply was NOT true. 40% is not fringe. The GOP is not a fringe party.

The GOP is one of two main parties in the US and pretty much even with the Dems for number of supporters.

Do you need a link to support that?

When you use terms like liar and fool while whining when others use them against you, you are a hypocrite.

When I use it, I am getting pissed off at people like you that you an attack on my character or motive INSTEAD OF directly addressing my point, and generally in place of any on topic response.

I pointed out that 40% of something is not fringe.

Even if the other side got the every remaining percentage point ie 60%, 40% is not fringe.
I directly addressed Bulldog's point, such as it was.

Then I pointed out CORRECTLY that only a fool or a liar would have made such claims.

None of your meeching has any merit. You attacked character. Leave character out and your argument might have merit.

When you attack my character there is no additional argument. That is all you have. You do that instead of directly addressing my argument. CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

You are projecting again.

Do you hear me?

You will never get away with doing what you accuse others.

Clean up your act.

Do you hear me?

This will never change for you, Correll.

 

[jillian]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

i disagree that cruz isn't establishment.

oh honey... lol

he might still be establishment in canada though. heh

well, at least you're consistent lol

i am j. but i'm a little nervous about going to Cpac next week, with all that unrulyness going on at the supreme court.

you should probably hang with a better class of human being.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your fringe candidate is getting 40% of a fringe party.

40% is not fringe.

THe GOP is not Fringe.

Only a liar or a fool would claim that Trump or the GOP was.

That's odd, because the GOP has been claiming Trump is fringe from the beginning.

Oh! YOu always believe everything the GOP establishment tells you?

I don't.

Just another example of how the right is fractured into many different pieces.

YOu didn't answer my question. Do you always believe everything the GOP establishment tells you?

I believe very little of what the GOP says since they decided integrity is not important. If you don't realize how fractured the right is, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[candycorn]

I think he's tapping into the extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers who think the Congress goes up there and does nothing, the President does nothing and the country is circling the drain and has been for the last 7 decades....

I don't think you can call 35% of the Republican party "unsophisticated NASCAR losers." He is winning big amongst blue collar Republicans with less than a college education, but that doesn't mean they're all loser hicks. He is also winning 20%-25% of Republicans with a college degree.

There are a lot of people sick and tired of Washington, with politicos and insiders getting rich while the average working class person struggles. Trump is crude, but he is offering solutions to those people - well-paying jobs by restricting immigration and slapping taxes on imports.

I don't necessarily agree with either, but they are solutions to people who are hurting.

He also eats into Hillary's blue collar support, though he may lose as many or more educated suburbanites and minorities.

Solutions? Exports will be devastated and the price of imports we rely on will be going up like gangbusters

I didn't say they were good solutions.

Which is my point. I honestly believe that if Donald Trump had wanted to, he could have told his supporters that he would see to it that there is not another legal abortion in the US if he were elected. And they would have believed him. Regardless of the workings of the court, the rulings, the State laws, etc...

Do you doubt it? He's saying that the reason you want a big military is that "nobody will mess with us". That is a quote. Manchester, NH - Trump: Nobody Will 'Mess With Us' If He Wins

Terrorists already mess with us when we have the largest, most lethal, most capable military ever fielded. There is no chance a blue blood from NY with 0.00 days in uniform will change the balance. And, no, "leadership" won't do it either.

So do you doubt that if he had said that about abortion...his worshipers would have believed it?

This is my point...the guys who have spent 7+ years picking apart phrases like "fewer horses and boyonets" believe this douchebag who has the same amount of experience Obama had when he took office except Obama had been in the Senate for a while.

It does boggle the mind.

 

[Harry Dresden]

here is the only one who will help this country....


"IF YOUR FOR IT,I'M AGAINST IT"

 

[candycorn]

I think he's tapping into the extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers who think the Congress goes up there and does nothing, the President does nothing and the country is circling the drain and has been for the last 7 decades....

I don't think you can call 35% of the Republican party "unsophisticated NASCAR losers." He is winning big amongst blue collar Republicans with less than a college education, but that doesn't mean they're all loser hicks. He is also winning 20%-25% of Republicans with a college degree.

There are a lot of people sick and tired of Washington, with politicos and insiders getting rich while the average working class person struggles. Trump is crude, but he is offering solutions to those people - well-paying jobs by restricting immigration and slapping taxes on imports.

I don't necessarily agree with either, but they are solutions to people who are hurting.

He also eats into Hillary's blue collar support, though he may lose as many or more educated suburbanites and minorities.

Solutions? Exports will be devastated and the price of imports we rely on will be going up like gangbusters

I didn't say they were good solutions.

Candycorn is a liberal.

If she doesn't agree, then it just disagreeing isn't enough. She also has to attack the people who have the gall to disagree with her.

They can't be people who " people who are hurting". They have to be "extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers ".


Want to place a side bet on how long until she accuses them of being racist?

And you'll note the personal attack above.

Its almost like watching The Simpsons and Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby to see Donald Trump campaign. "My fellow Springfielders...I have a plan to bring back the jobs we lost to Shelbyville. We will tax the shit out of everything they try to sell here so their products will cost too much for us to buy and spur us to open factories here."

Then Carl Carlson asks, "What about the stuff we sell to Shelbyville? Won't those people lose their jobs when they start taxing the shit out of our products and they don't buy them?"

Diamond Joe--not used to being questioned--responds, "We'll just deport anyone who makes exports."

"People are hurting" is true. It would be nice if their messiah offered them a true path to salvation other than an economic theory a 3rd grader could pick a part.

 

[Boss]

Terrorists already mess with us when we have the largest, most lethal, most capable military ever fielded. There is no chance a blue blood from NY with 0.00 days in uniform will change the balance. And, no, "leadership" won't do it either.

But we really don't. Our military is in shambles compared to what it was just a decade ago. Our air force and navy have not been this small since WWII. We have ships, submarines and aircraft that are frankly obsolete. But beyond that, we have an administration who is committed to dismantling our military and not using it to it's full potential on the world stage.

I'm not a Trump supporter and I don't know how Trump would actually be on this other than what he says right now on the campaign trail... but I agree with what he is saying here. IF we went after the terrorists in a smart and effective way with the technological advantages we have, they would stand NO chance in hell and they wouldn't mess with us.

One thing you have to know about dealing with radical Islam and these terrorist elements... the thing they respect is strength and power. You must demonstrate that you're not afraid to kill them dead... every last one of them and in no uncertain terms. You can't go wobbly and start trying to appease and negotiate diplomatically... that is a recipe for disaster. Go after them with both barrels, don't let up, don't back down, kill the sons of bitches unapologetically, and be relentless in killing them... and something fascinating starts to happen there... they suddenly realize it's a losing proposition and they back down. Unfortunately, our leadership simply hasn't understood this... and that includes republican leadership as well.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers: If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

No. Not under any circumstances. We've made ut clear over the last 2 Presidential Elections that we will not support a non-Conservative candidate. The Republican Party can now stew in its own blood if they still haven't gotten the message.

that's false. conservatives voted for romney while holding their noses. but they voted. this fantasy that if an extremist is nominated that suddenly enough of "the base" will vote to carry an extremist rightwinger to the presidency is fantasy.

Actually a lot of republicans chose not to vote for Romney in the last presidential election. Put a liberal up as your nominee and you are certain to pay for it on Election Day.

 

[Toro]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

i disagree that cruz isn't establishment.

oh honey... lol

he might still be establishment in canada though. heh

thanks harper.

You're welcome!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney would not have won if all of the far right voted for him.

Some dork above wrote that our military, stronger than the next twenty combined, is in "shambles."

 

[Anathema]

The right is divided into so many factions till they are hard to keep up with.

Not really.... there are rwo actual groups Traditional Conservatives and Worthless Sack of Shit Liberals. Everything else is just semantics.

 

[my2¢]

I'll classify myself as a RINO and while I'd prefer Kasich or Rubio, I'd vote for any of the Republicans considering what the Democrats have put out there.