texas-senator-ted-cruz-announce-presidential-run-report

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even your God Reagan made overtures towards the middle and raised taxes when necessary, supported gun control and nuclear disarmament

Would Cruz do the same?

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "overtures toward the middle."

I predict Cruz is not going to do a damn thing you will like or appreciate... How's that?

Conservatism gets a bad rap because little militant mush-brain liberals like you get to run around distorting reality and turning Reagan into a tax-raising, gun-controlling, anti-nuke activist... and you fuckwits control the media.

What conservatives have been missing is a strong national voice who can explain conservative philosophy to the millennials and delineate for others the nuanced difference between a philosophy and ideology. Is Cruz that person? I don't know, we'll see in time.

But this "overtures toward the middle" bullshit needs to be confronted and challenged... exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds like what you want is for Cruz to turn into Lindsey Graham or John McCain and capitulate to Democrats on things while falling all over themselves to apologize for being out-of-touch conservatives. I don't think Cruz plans to do that.

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

 

[rightwinger]

Even your God Reagan made overtures towards the middle and raised taxes when necessary, supported gun control and nuclear disarmament

Would Cruz do the same?

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "overtures toward the middle."

I predict Cruz is not going to do a damn thing you will like or appreciate... How's that?

Conservatism gets a bad rap because little militant mush-brain liberals like you get to run around distorting reality and turning Reagan into a tax-raising, gun-controlling, anti-nuke activist... and you fuckwits control the media.

What conservatives have been missing is a strong national voice who can explain conservative philosophy to the millennials and delineate for others the nuanced difference between a philosophy and ideology. Is Cruz that person? I don't know, we'll see in time.

But this "overtures toward the middle" bullshit needs to be confronted and challenged... exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds like what you want is for Cruz to turn into Lindsey Graham or John McCain and capitulate to Democrats on things while falling all over themselves to apologize for being out-of-touch conservatives. I don't think Cruz plans to do that.

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because Republicans took back seats in Red States in the Senate and won seats filibustered to favor Republicans in the House

In the General Election, the entire state will vote and whoever wins gets all electoral votes

Red States will still be red and blue states will still be blue, but there are more electoral votes in the blue states

 

[Boss]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

 

[Antares]

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "overtures toward the middle."

I predict Cruz is not going to do a damn thing you will like or appreciate... How's that?

Conservatism gets a bad rap because little militant mush-brain liberals like you get to run around distorting reality and turning Reagan into a tax-raising, gun-controlling, anti-nuke activist... and you fuckwits control the media.

What conservatives have been missing is a strong national voice who can explain conservative philosophy to the millennials and delineate for others the nuanced difference between a philosophy and ideology. Is Cruz that person? I don't know, we'll see in time.

But this "overtures toward the middle" bullshit needs to be confronted and challenged... exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds like what you want is for Cruz to turn into Lindsey Graham or John McCain and capitulate to Democrats on things while falling all over themselves to apologize for being out-of-touch conservatives. I don't think Cruz plans to do that.

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Completely backwards, the Republican Party keeps shoving people we Conservatives won't vote for.

If they do it again with Bush they'll get the same result, a Dem Prez

 

[candycorn]

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

It hasn't happened yet.

If you are talking about the 2014, history tell us that the 6th year of a two term President is bad electorally for his party. Reagan lost just as many seats as Obama did.

Your ignorance is profound son.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

That part is true....very rarely does a single party hold the Oval for more than 12 years.
It really looks good for Hillary though.

When the Presidency is being judged by 3-5% difference....statistics matter:

This is why it is so crucial to have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the race. He/They is/are good for about 1/2 million votes for the other side.

Give liberally to TedCruz.org!!!

 

[candycorn]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

Yeah...that's it. Well, actually, Romney did just about everything he could to lose the election tactically. He got more votes than McCain and could have won the election but he...

• Went to Poland in the middle of the campaign....a bizarre move.
• Lost control of his convention and had an actor debate an empty chair...another bizarre move.
• Allowed his wife to make a goofy speech about how they had to sell stock to get by...a luxury nearly 1/2 of all Americans do not have...
• Let Obama and the Democrats define him from toe to tip with tax returns that he chose not to respond to.
• Totally embodied the 1% from show horses, to car elevators,to "I like to fire people"
• Gave a disastrous 47% speech
• Got no help from his running mate

I certainly hope the GOP pulls out Uncle Fester and tries to dress him up as a contender. They'll probably get someone from the mainstream and it'll end up being a close contest once more.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Completely backwards, the Republican Party keeps shoving people we Conservatives won't vote for.

If they do it again with Bush they'll get the same result, a Dem Prez

If they run a Cruz or Paul they will end up with a Dem Congress

 

[candycorn]

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Completely backwards, the Republican Party keeps shoving people we Conservatives won't vote for.

If they do it again with Bush they'll get the same result, a Dem Prez

If they run a Cruz or Paul they will end up with a Dem Congress

The Dems are re-taking the Senate in 2016 anyway.

 

[protectionist]

Reagan was a liberal.

You've been huffing glue.

I gave my reasons and they are indisputable. You gave nothing but hot air.

No, they are very disputable. They're borderline lies, actually. But I see absolutely no reason to sit here and argue something so totally irrelevant. If you want to believe Reagan was a liberal, that's your problem not mine. If you convince other idiots to believe that, more power to you and the idiots. You didn't convince me of anything except that you are an idiot at best and at worst, a dishonest player.

Looks like maybe YOU are telling the lies right here.

1. Are you saying Reagan didn't give amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens ?

2. Are you saying he didn't oppose the Briggs initiative ?

We could start with just those 2. Note: a yes answer to either, makes you the laughingstock of this forum (if you aren't already) Or maybe you could just pack it in, and admit you're too much of a dumbass to be in this forum.

Regan's Amnesty ; He agreed to a one-time amnesty in a bipartisan gesture to a Democrat congress in order to resolve our illegal immigration problem. The amnesty was granted and the rest of the legislation was simply ignored and not enforced. When it came time for future congresses to appropriate the funding for more border security and such, they balked.

Briggs Initiative: Was a 1978 Proposition in California that would have BANNED GAYS from teaching in public schools. Reagan was opposed... is there something fucking wrong with a conservative being opposed to a ban on people based on perceived sexuality? Sorry... I never got that memo!

Neither of these prove Reagan was a Liberal. They do prove that Conservatism is not ideologically driven like Liberalism.

BOTH of them show Reagan's liberalism, and this post shows you to be a BA artist, and not a very good one. Oh, so Reagan's amnesty was a "one-time" amnesty, huh ? HA HA HA! Well, lucky for us. He gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, you dolt! Which quickly grew to millions more as the original ones had babies. Pheeeeww! (high-pitched whistle) Somebody please help this guy.

And on the Briggs Initiative >> YEAH, there's something (a whole lot) wrong with opposing a ban on queers teaching in public schools. So NOW you got the memo.

Something tells me this forum isn't your forte. Maybe fishing, blues guitar, or baton twirling would fit you better.

 

[protectionist]

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "overtures toward the middle."

I predict Cruz is not going to do a damn thing you will like or appreciate... How's that?

Conservatism gets a bad rap because little militant mush-brain liberals like you get to run around distorting reality and turning Reagan into a tax-raising, gun-controlling, anti-nuke activist... and you fuckwits control the media.

What conservatives have been missing is a strong national voice who can explain conservative philosophy to the millennials and delineate for others the nuanced difference between a philosophy and ideology. Is Cruz that person? I don't know, we'll see in time.

But this "overtures toward the middle" bullshit needs to be confronted and challenged... exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds like what you want is for Cruz to turn into Lindsey Graham or John McCain and capitulate to Democrats on things while falling all over themselves to apologize for being out-of-touch conservatives. I don't think Cruz plans to do that.

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Sounds like you've been watching a little too much MSNBC. There is every reason to conclude that in 2016, there will be a turnout not one vote larger than 2014. The reason Democrats didn't show up to vote, is because they are disillusioned with the way their screwball party has been going >> on immigration (ie. disregard for the American worker), on race hustling and cop hating, on affirmative action, on crime, and especially on Islamization, the worldwide jihad and national security. And just like I deserted the Democratic party and Green Party, after voting for Democrats for president 8 times, they are doing the same. A little late, but better late than never.

As for HRC, she's done. Dems would be better nominating Bernie Sanders, O'Malley or Jim Webb. By the time November 2016 gets here, she will be a forgotten race horse. She may have popularity IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but nationwide she's a joke for 2016. And most Americans are tired of these stupid dynasties. No more Clintons and Bushes. Please!

 

[candycorn]

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Sounds like you been watching a little too much MSNBC. There is every reason to conclude that in 2016, there will be a turnout one vote larger than 2014. The reason Democrats didn't show up to vote, is because they are disillusioned with the way their screwball party has been going >> on immigration (ie. disregard for the American worker), on race hustling and cop hating, on affirmative action, on crime, and especially on Islamization, the worldwide jihad and national security. And just like I deserted the Democratic party and Green Party, after voting for Democrats for president 8 times, they are doing the same. A little late, but better late than never.

As for HRC, she's done. Dems would be better nominating Bernie Sanders, O'Malley or Jim Webb. By the time November 2016 gets here, she will be a forgotten race horse. She may have popularity IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but nationwide she's a joke for 206. And most Americans are tired of these stupid dynasties. No more Clintons and Bushes. Please!

It's going to be fun citing this post in the future.

 

[protectionist]

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "overtures toward the middle."

I predict Cruz is not going to do a damn thing you will like or appreciate... How's that?

Conservatism gets a bad rap because little militant mush-brain liberals like you get to run around distorting reality and turning Reagan into a tax-raising, gun-controlling, anti-nuke activist... and you fuckwits control the media.

What conservatives have been missing is a strong national voice who can explain conservative philosophy to the millennials and delineate for others the nuanced difference between a philosophy and ideology. Is Cruz that person? I don't know, we'll see in time.

But this "overtures toward the middle" bullshit needs to be confronted and challenged... exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds like what you want is for Cruz to turn into Lindsey Graham or John McCain and capitulate to Democrats on things while falling all over themselves to apologize for being out-of-touch conservatives. I don't think Cruz plans to do that.

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because Republicans took back seats in Red States in the Senate and won seats filibustered to favor Republicans in the House

In the General Election, the entire state will vote and whoever wins gets all electoral votes

Red States will still be red and blue states will still be blue, but there are more electoral votes in the blue states

EARTH TO RW: The "Blue" states are already purple. (red violet)

 

[protectionist]

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Sounds like you been watching a little too much MSNBC. There is every reason to conclude that in 2016, there will be a turnout one vote larger than 2014. The reason Democrats didn't show up to vote, is because they are disillusioned with the way their screwball party has been going >> on immigration (ie. disregard for the American worker), on race hustling and cop hating, on affirmative action, on crime, and especially on Islamization, the worldwide jihad and national security. And just like I deserted the Democratic party and Green Party, after voting for Democrats for president 8 times, they are doing the same. A little late, but better late than never.

As for HRC, she's done. Dems would be better nominating Bernie Sanders, O'Malley or Jim Webb. By the time November 2016 gets here, she will be a forgotten race horse. She may have popularity IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but nationwide she's a joke for 206. And most Americans are tired of these stupid dynasties. No more Clintons and Bushes. Please!

It's going to be fun citing this post in the future.

Want a list of optimistic predictions by Democrats, prior to the 2014 election ?

 

[candycorn]

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Sounds like you been watching a little too much MSNBC. There is every reason to conclude that in 2016, there will be a turnout one vote larger than 2014. The reason Democrats didn't show up to vote, is because they are disillusioned with the way their screwball party has been going >> on immigration (ie. disregard for the American worker), on race hustling and cop hating, on affirmative action, on crime, and especially on Islamization, the worldwide jihad and national security. And just like I deserted the Democratic party and Green Party, after voting for Democrats for president 8 times, they are doing the same. A little late, but better late than never.

As for HRC, she's done. Dems would be better nominating Bernie Sanders, O'Malley or Jim Webb. By the time November 2016 gets here, she will be a forgotten race horse. She may have popularity IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but nationwide she's a joke for 206. And most Americans are tired of these stupid dynasties. No more Clintons and Bushes. Please!

It's going to be fun citing this post in the future.

Want a list of optimistic predictions by Democrats, prior to the 2014 election ?

No thanks...I saw those.
You and they are going to have a lot in common. Book it.

 

[protectionist]

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Completely backwards, the Republican Party keeps shoving people we Conservatives won't vote for.

If they do it again with Bush they'll get the same result, a Dem Prez

If they run a Cruz or Paul they will end up with a Dem Congress

The Dems are re-taking the Senate in 2016 anyway.

The difference between what you say and what I say is you are talking about what will happen in the future, maybe, perhaps, there just might be a chance. I'm talking about what JUST DID happen.

 

[protectionist]

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because a majority of Americans reject the conservative agenda, where those Americans live in states that will decide who the next president will be.

November 2014 was not representative of the Nation as a whole – only a third of those eligible to vote voted, republicans voting in red districts in red states is not representative of the Nation as a whole, where the larger voter turnout in General Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections. There's nothing indicating 2016 will be any different, particularly if HRC is the democratic nominee.

Completely backwards, the Republican Party keeps shoving people we Conservatives won't vote for.

If they do it again with Bush they'll get the same result, a Dem Prez

If they run a Cruz or Paul they will end up with a Dem Congress

Democrat WISH LIST.

 

[protectionist]

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

That part is true....very rarely does a single party hold the Oval for more than 12 years.
It really looks good for Hillary though.

When the Presidency is being judged by 3-5% difference....statistics matter:

This is why it is so crucial to have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the race. He/They is/are good for about 1/2 million votes for the other side.

Give liberally to TedCruz.org!!!

Spin it however you like. With sprinkles on top. Add some strawberries. Or, in your case, blueberries.

 

[candycorn]

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

That part is true....very rarely does a single party hold the Oval for more than 12 years.
It really looks good for Hillary though.

When the Presidency is being judged by 3-5% difference....statistics matter:

This is why it is so crucial to have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the race. He/They is/are good for about 1/2 million votes for the other side.

Give liberally to TedCruz.org!!!

Spin it however you like. With sprinkles on top. Add some strawberries. Or, in your case, blueberries.

Spin? Sorry, I was giving statistics--facts if you will. Obama is much more popular than Bush at this point in their 2nd terms....as part of his administration, the "baggage" that would have been there for HRC is lessened as a result; the same way it was quite heavy for Senator McCain.

 

[Boss]

You've been huffing glue.

I gave my reasons and they are indisputable. You gave nothing but hot air.

No, they are very disputable. They're borderline lies, actually. But I see absolutely no reason to sit here and argue something so totally irrelevant. If you want to believe Reagan was a liberal, that's your problem not mine. If you convince other idiots to believe that, more power to you and the idiots. You didn't convince me of anything except that you are an idiot at best and at worst, a dishonest player.

Looks like maybe YOU are telling the lies right here.

1. Are you saying Reagan didn't give amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens ?

2. Are you saying he didn't oppose the Briggs initiative ?

We could start with just those 2. Note: a yes answer to either, makes you the laughingstock of this forum (if you aren't already) Or maybe you could just pack it in, and admit you're too much of a dumbass to be in this forum.

Regan's Amnesty ; He agreed to a one-time amnesty in a bipartisan gesture to a Democrat congress in order to resolve our illegal immigration problem. The amnesty was granted and the rest of the legislation was simply ignored and not enforced. When it came time for future congresses to appropriate the funding for more border security and such, they balked.

Briggs Initiative: Was a 1978 Proposition in California that would have BANNED GAYS from teaching in public schools. Reagan was opposed... is there something fucking wrong with a conservative being opposed to a ban on people based on perceived sexuality? Sorry... I never got that memo!

Neither of these prove Reagan was a Liberal. They do prove that Conservatism is not ideologically driven like Liberalism.

BOTH of them show Reagan's liberalism, and this post shows you to be a BA artist, and not a very good one. Oh, so Reagan's amnesty was a "one-time" amnesty, huh ? HA HA HA! Well, lucky for us. He gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, you dolt! Which quickly grew to millions more as the original ones had babies. Pheeeeww! (high-pitched whistle) Somebody please help this guy.

And on the Briggs Initiative >> YEAH, there's something (a whole lot) wrong with opposing a ban on queers teaching in public schools. So NOW you got the memo.

Something tells me this forum isn't your forte. Maybe fishing, blues guitar, or baton twirling would fit you better.

Pragmatism is not Liberalism.

Glad you're on record with your bigoted and backward view of banning homosexuals from teaching but that is not a conservative position now or ever. And by the way, your punk ass isn't in charge of the Conservative memos. Best I can tell, you're a loser who isn't in charge of anything.

You and little Sister Fluke are just two more pinheads blowing your fuses over Cruz and it's hilarious as hell to me! This is what I want from you for the entire campaign! I want you to demonstrate your bigoted views toward gay people! I want you calling Cruz things like "wetback" and making fun of his Latino heritage! While you and little sister sex pants are trashing the man personally, he will be schooling America on conservative principles and how to resolve the problems facing real Americans.

And for your information, I am fine with this forum. It is indeed my forte to mop the floor with ignorant little half-wits like you and I've been doing it for nearly 20 years. I am also an exceptional fisherman, I play a wicked blues guitar and I can even teach you how to twirl a baton if that's what you really want to know.

 

[Stephanie]

More from the tolerant on the left.

Snip:
MSNBC: Race Hustler Jamilah Lemieux Says Country Music Is About “Killing Muslims”…

Jamilah Lemieux is by every definition a straight up racist, but the fact that she’s black and racist against white people means MSNBC will still have her on regularly despite saying stuff like this.

Via Mediaite:

After a guest made a disparaging comment about country music, MSNBC host Ari Melber apologized on-air Wednesday afternoon and informed his audience that the network does not condone such remarks.



all of it here. these people are sick with hate
MSNBC Race Hustler Jamilah Lemieux Says Country Music Is About Killing Muslims Weasel Zippers
Ebony Sr. Editor: Ted Cruz Likes Country Music Because He Wants to Kill Some Muslims (VIDEO)


Ebony Sr. Editor Ted Cruz Likes Country Music Because He Wants to Kill Some Muslims VIDEO The Gateway Pundit