The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

[NoNukes]

There will no one-party state, Correll, you are scared of a chimera that does not exist.

The modern GOP is not the repository of all that is good with America. We ended that in 1994 and after.

A new America is coming, and, yes, the America of the 1950s is disappearing quickly. Get used to it.

You claim there will be no One Party State.

Yet you offer no criticism of my reasoning other than to call it racialist.

Do you think that Blacks will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Do you think Hispanics will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Because otherwise, One Party State.

(And don't just say the GOP will "adapt". That's a talking point, not an answer.)

One, it is racist, because you are hiding "traditional" behind actually saying white Christian conservative values: you don't have the stones to say the truth. Two, Saying the GOP must adapt is the truth, not a talking point. Yours are the talking points: what one party state, for instance.

just jumping in here. But the GOP has adapted. Have you noticed that the GOP field includes a woman, a black, two hispanics, young people, old people, non-politicians, politicians. But what they have in common is a love of country and respect of the constitution. Unlike the dems who are have candidates that are old, white, and far left.

Like the Black man in the White house?

Obama is not a black man. He is half white/half black. you could just as accurately have said "like the white man in th white house" but that would not fit your agenda would it?

As Obama said when a Black man accused him of not being Black, 'I am just as Black as you when I am trying to get a taxi.'

 

[NoNukes]

Like I said....

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

Dream on. whats more likely is that the next liberal democrat president has not been born yet. Liberalism has failed, the people know it. Sanders and Clinton are just more of failed liberal policies. Neither of them will ever inhabit the oval office.

The point is that Republican attitudes towards our Hispanic population will prevent their getting the White House for at least a generation

The repudiation of what Marco Rubio was saying about his spanish speaking grandfather says it all about the sincerity of the Republican Party in getting the Hispanic vote

I know that you want to believe that, but its simply not true. Legal hispanics are religious and have very strong family values. They also want their piece of the american dream, not dem socialist welfare and patronizing.

Nice that you can speak for them.

I speak for no one but myself. But I know many legal hispanics who believe exactly as I said.

If they are for family values, they will never vote Republican.

 

[easyt65]

Well thats your dream, we will see how it works out. We understand that you are a dem mouthpiece whose purpose in life is to post the latest dem/lib talking points. you are fooling no one.

Redfish, you should really stick to saying what YOU believe because, like several on this board, you SUCK at trying to speak for me.

It is OBVIOUS you have not read hardly ANYTHING I have ever written. If you had you would know that you could NOT be any more wrong....but you have a nice day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not going to reply to every Redfish and easy post. Like I said, pipe dreams. Check RCP. They ALL beat Trump like a drum.

 

[Davros]

My over the top scenario is a natural possibility if your side truly believes that continued election trends are going to destroy America. It would be natural for such radicals to do anything to prevent it.

Nope. Nothing on the Right to give the slightest hint of what you suggest.

No hint? You posted rhetoric painting quite a dire situation ... the country being destroyed by inevitable one party rule. What do you intend to do to prevent it? Wouldn't it be reasonable for radical right wingers to, once in power, cement it by removing these weaknesses from the system that are allowing poor and minorities to keep Republicans out of power?

Destroyed is a strong term. Ruined would be more likely.

The Right is not the Left. The behavior you suggest is not possible.

Nice non-answer. So you intend to let the ruin of our nation just happen without doing anything about it? You're saying also that extreme rightist's would never want to establish a dictatorship?

 

[rightwinger]

I saw a great example in the last Republican debate

Trump had been criticizing Bush for answering a question in spanish. He gave the typical rightwing "This is America, speak English damn it"

Marco Rubio gave an elegant response in telling about his grandfather who was a lifelong Republican. He told how his grandfather struggled to speak and understand english but was more comfortable when getting information in spanish. Rubio told of how he would talk politics with his grandfather in spanish and how proud his grandfather was to be in America.

This needs to be the direction of the Republican party, not pandering to the crowd who screams about "Press 1 for english"

The crowd that screams about "Pressing 1 for English" knows that language is one of the few bonds that hold America together.

Losing that will reduce our social cohesion.

It is right to be against that.

Like I said....

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

Dream on. whats more likely is that the next liberal democrat president has not been born yet. Liberalism has failed, the people know it. Sanders and Clinton are just more of failed liberal policies. Neither of them will ever inhabit the oval office.

The point is that Republican attitudes towards our Hispanic population will prevent their getting the White House for at least a generation

The repudiation of what Marco Rubio was saying about his spanish speaking grandfather says it all about the sincerity of the Republican Party in getting the Hispanic vote

I know that you want to believe that, but its simply not true. Legal hispanics are religious and have very strong family values. They also want their piece of the american dream, not dem socialist welfare and patronizing.

I have already pointed out that Hispanics, like Marco Rubios grandfather, should be natural Republicans

But Republicans chose to pander to the racist element that has flocked to the party. That element hates to hear spanish spoken in public, hates brown skin and despises immigration.

That is why I am not surprised that Republicans responded better to Trump than they did towards Rubio

 

[Davros]

I'm concerned about what the far right would do if they obtained enough power in 2017 to prevent your future vision from ever happening.

Believing themselves ensured of the military having their back on far right wing positions, I imagine Cruz or Trump suspending the constitution, dissolving the Senate, packing the Supreme Court with radicals, and finishing with a major revision of the constitution before reactivating it ... all because they believed they were 100% doing the right thing to save America. And many of you would support them all the way.

Wow. That is, to borrow a phrase, completely over the top.

None of that has anything to do with what conservatives are about.

What do you hope to see if your side gets complete control?

My side is moderates who are willing to work with others to get things done (grand deals on entitlement reform, deficit reduction, immigration). It is people who don't believe they have all the answers but are willing to sit down in a truly bipartisan manner and develop solutions. My side has been losing for years now.

Mmmm, considering your overblown fears of what a Far RIght win would mean, your claim to be moderate does not have the ring of truth.

Immigration? What would the "moderate" "pragmatic" solution be?

I don't know the solution. Together, the parties could come up with one. The rabid political climate prevents that.

There are numerous ideas out there, let's get together in bipartisan manner and pick some things that a majority can agree to try.

The radicals in power believe that only their ideas should be allowed. That is the cause of this gridlock.

Bull.

YOu want amnesty. And you won't compromise on that.

P.s. Giving it another name isn't a compromise.

What? The extreme right won't compromise on its position to round up and deport all illegals and secure the border and no other changes other than perhaps clamping down on legal immigration as well.

 

[rightwinger]

Dream on. whats more likely is that the next liberal democrat president has not been born yet. Liberalism has failed, the people know it. Sanders and Clinton are just more of failed liberal policies. Neither of them will ever inhabit the oval office.

The point is that Republican attitudes towards our Hispanic population will prevent their getting the White House for at least a generation

The repudiation of what Marco Rubio was saying about his spanish speaking grandfather says it all about the sincerity of the Republican Party in getting the Hispanic vote

I know that you want to believe that, but its simply not true. Legal hispanics are religious and have very strong family values. They also want their piece of the american dream, not dem socialist welfare and patronizing.

Nice that you can speak for them.

I speak for no one but myself. But I know many legal hispanics who believe exactly as I said.

If they are for family values, they will never vote Republican.

Trump has had many families

 

[rightwinger]

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

It's remarkable that people actually start up ridiculous threads like this. The insinuation that the GOP has no more hope of having one of their own elected President in my lifetime, considering the Red State / Blue State B$ mentioned, AFTER THE MONUMEWNTAL, RECORD-SETTING HISTORICAL ASS-KICKING they just got last November is absolutely INSANE.

Yeah, I know, I've heard it - 'low voter turn-out'. Liberals cite that as a 'positive', but the low turn-out was of RECORD-SETTING numbers. That tells me, and anyone who looks at it objectively, that it wasn't just low turn-out. It was low turn-out because even Liberal voters in large numbers REJECTED what their 'Representatives' were doing.

Many Democrats I talked to were FURIOUS with how their elected Reps had OPENLY begun refusing to represent them but instead had begin imposing their own agenda / will on them. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's (or Donkey's) back for them was when Pelosi declared the American people had no RIGHT to know what was in massive legislation that was so drastically going to impact their lives until it had been forced into law...and then exempted themselves from it.

It was MORE than that, though. Liberals politicians were avoiding Obama like the plague - no one wanted him to come campaign for / with them. This infuriated the Narcissist And Chief. He could not accept that his own party candidates were shunning him, that he was somehow a detriment...so he made the entire election about HIM and HIS Policies. He declared to America that 'this election is about ME and MY policies'. Democrats may have had a better chance up until then, but when Obama made the election about him and his policies, that spurred Conservatives and even Independents on to vote against them in a sign of 'REJECTION'. Liberals, still loyal to their party, could not vote AGAINST their own party....but they would not come out to vote FOR it, either...so, in a way, was its own way of REJECTING Obama's agenda and policies.

Moronic GOP Establishment politicians WRONGLY interpreted the election results as a 'mandate' for their actions/performance/agenda - they were WAY wrong. The DNC's historic loss had nothing to do with them at all. It was all about Obama and his policies - HE himself made it so. If Liberals take the same approach as these Establishment GOP politicians and think they are unbeatable in the 2016 election...especially when their candidates are a re-tread, old, lying, deceitful, un-trustworthy (60% of Americans believe she is the most un-trustworthy candidate running), self-serving, power-hungry, scandal-plagued dinosaur and an OPENLY admitted Socialist Party Member they will be sadly surprised in 2016.

My prediction is that a GOP President will be elected, but the GOP - if something does not change - will lose either the House or Senate - or BOTH - for the same reason the Democrats were lost the House and the Senate...a rejection of bad performance and LACK of policy (whereas the DNC's/Obama's was BAD policy).

What I posted in post #132

The Realities of the 2016 election are:
1. Republicans have a death grip on the House: Gerrymandering has assured GOP control till at least 2022
2. Democrats will retake the Senate as the Republicans have to defend 24 seats with many seats in Blue States. Dems only have to defend 10 all in Blue States
3. A Democrat will win the White House based on already having 242 Electoral Votes going in

I think that by controlling the Statehouses Republicans will maintain their grip on the House well into the 2030s. That does nothing to negate the control Democrats have over the Electoral College

Unless Republicans find a way to gerrymander the Electoral College process, they will not elect another President in the foreseeable future

Well thats your dream, we will see how it works out. We understand that you are a dem mouthpiece whose purpose in life is to post the latest dem/lib talking points. you are fooling no one.

That is the political reality of 2016

Why not address the points ?

 

[Davros]

More proof of Republicans being delusional on their chances of electing another President

Actually it's just more proof that you don't understand what the word "proof" means.....

If a Republican does win the White House next year, just don't let your depression send you into a tailspin, no jumping out of windows, k?

You are welcome to your dreams. It is what makes politics fun

The Realities of the 2016 election are:

1. Republicans have a death grip on the House: Gerrymandering has assured GOP control till at least 2022
2. Democrats will retake the Senate as the Republicans have to defend 24 seats with many seats in Blue States. Dems only have to defend 10 all in Blue States
3. A Democrat will win the White House based on already having 242 Electoral Votes going in

Well, maybe. Hillary is a really weak candidate.

We might have one or two more wins in US.

DOn't despair if we win in 2016. You will get your One Party State.

When you win in 2016, why wouldn't you do something with that power to prevent the otherwise inevitable one party state that will ruin America? Do you not care about the fate of America? Why would you not change our form of government to save our nation from ruin?

 

[Davros]

To the OP. The next republican president has in fact been born and his name is Donald Trump. Watch

I hope not.

 

[Davros]

I saw a great example in the last Republican debate

Trump had been criticizing Bush for answering a question in spanish. He gave the typical rightwing "This is America, speak English damn it"

Marco Rubio gave an elegant response in telling about his grandfather who was a lifelong Republican. He told how his grandfather struggled to speak and understand english but was more comfortable when getting information in spanish. Rubio told of how he would talk politics with his grandfather in spanish and how proud his grandfather was to be in America.

This needs to be the direction of the Republican party, not pandering to the crowd who screams about "Press 1 for english"

The crowd that screams about "Pressing 1 for English" knows that language is one of the few bonds that hold America together.

Losing that will reduce our social cohesion.

It is right to be against that.

That's fascist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My over the top scenario is a natural possibility if your side truly believes that continued election trends are going to destroy America. It would be natural for such radicals to do anything to prevent it.

Nope. Nothing on the Right to give the slightest hint of what you suggest.

No hint? You posted rhetoric painting quite a dire situation ... the country being destroyed by inevitable one party rule. What do you intend to do to prevent it? Wouldn't it be reasonable for radical right wingers to, once in power, cement it by removing these weaknesses from the system that are allowing poor and minorities to keep Republicans out of power?

Destroyed is a strong term. Ruined would be more likely.

The Right is not the Left. The behavior you suggest is not possible.

Nice non-answer. So you intend to let the ruin of our nation just happen without doing anything about it? You're saying also that extreme rightist's would never want to establish a dictatorship?

The far right would "destroy" our nation if it could.

It can't, any more than times in the past it tried and failed.

 

[rightwinger]

There will no one-party state, Correll, you are scared of a chimera that does not exist.

The modern GOP is not the repository of all that is good with America. We ended that in 1994 and after.

A new America is coming, and, yes, the America of the 1950s is disappearing quickly. Get used to it.

You claim there will be no One Party State.

Yet you offer no criticism of my reasoning other than to call it racialist.

Do you think that Blacks will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Do you think Hispanics will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Because otherwise, One Party State.

(And don't just say the GOP will "adapt". That's a talking point, not an answer.)

One, it is racist, because you are hiding "traditional" behind actually saying white Christian conservative values: you don't have the stones to say the truth. Two, Saying the GOP must adapt is the truth, not a talking point. Yours are the talking points: what one party state, for instance.

just jumping in here. But the GOP has adapted. Have you noticed that the GOP field includes a woman, a black, two hispanics, young people, old people, non-politicians, politicians. But what they have in common is a love of country and respect of the constitution. Unlike the dems who are have candidates that are old, white, and far left.

Like the Black man in the White house?

Obama is not a black man. He is half white/half black. you could just as accurately have said "like the white man in th white house" but that would not fit your agenda would it?

Another example of why the next Republican President has not been born yet

 

[Correll]

There will no one-party state, Correll, you are scared of a chimera that does not exist.

The modern GOP is not the repository of all that is good with America. We ended that in 1994 and after.

A new America is coming, and, yes, the America of the 1950s is disappearing quickly. Get used to it.

You claim there will be no One Party State.

Yet you offer no criticism of my reasoning other than to call it racialist.

Do you think that Blacks will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Do you think Hispanics will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Because otherwise, One Party State.

(And don't just say the GOP will "adapt". That's a talking point, not an answer.)

One, it is racist, because you are hiding "traditional" behind actually saying white Christian conservative values: you don't have the stones to say the truth. Two, Saying the GOP must adapt is the truth, not a talking point. Yours are the talking points: what one party state, for instance.

1. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, these traditional values are rapidly fading away, new world and all of that.

I don't feel comfortable claiming them as White Values today because I don't know how many White Americans today share them.

I wish I could. And if I could, it wouldn't be racist to want my values and cultural perspective to be the foundation of policy. That is what all political speech and action attempts.

2. So, give me the biggest single policy the GOP needs to shit can to, <ahem> adapt, that will make us competitive with minority votes. That will prevent the One Party State.

 

[Correll]

You claim there will be no One Party State.

Yet you offer no criticism of my reasoning other than to call it racialist.

Do you think that Blacks will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Do you think Hispanics will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Because otherwise, One Party State.

(And don't just say the GOP will "adapt". That's a talking point, not an answer.)

One, it is racist, because you are hiding "traditional" behind actually saying white Christian conservative values: you don't have the stones to say the truth. Two, Saying the GOP must adapt is the truth, not a talking point. Yours are the talking points: what one party state, for instance.

just jumping in here. But the GOP has adapted. Have you noticed that the GOP field includes a woman, a black, two hispanics, young people, old people, non-politicians, politicians. But what they have in common is a love of country and respect of the constitution. Unlike the dems who are have candidates that are old, white, and far left.

Like the Black man in the White house?

Obama is not a black man. He is half white/half black. you could just as accurately have said "like the white man in th white house" but that would not fit your agenda would it?

Another example of why the next Republican President has not been born yet

Plenty of dems have said similar statements about various black republicans and there seems to be no backlash when they do it.

That's not the problem.

 

[Correll]

There will no one-party state, Correll, you are scared of a chimera that does not exist.

The modern GOP is not the repository of all that is good with America. We ended that in 1994 and after.

A new America is coming, and, yes, the America of the 1950s is disappearing quickly. Get used to it.

You claim there will be no One Party State.

Yet you offer no criticism of my reasoning other than to call it racialist.

Do you think that Blacks will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Do you think Hispanics will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Because otherwise, One Party State.

(And don't just say the GOP will "adapt". That's a talking point, not an answer.)

One, it is racist, because you are hiding "traditional" behind actually saying white Christian conservative values: you don't have the stones to say the truth. Two, Saying the GOP must adapt is the truth, not a talking point. Yours are the talking points: what one party state, for instance.

just jumping in here. But the GOP has adapted. Have you noticed that the GOP field includes a woman, a black, two hispanics, young people, old people, non-politicians, politicians. But what they have in common is a love of country and respect of the constitution. Unlike the dems who are have candidates that are old, white, and far left.

That's not adapting.

That's just the way the GOP is.

The way it has always been, or at least for quite some time.

But these candidates as you say, love America and respect the Constitution.

The GOP didn't have to change to welcome them.

To compete in the future, that is what has to go.

We have to realize that the US was and is bad, and needs to be "radially transformed".

Once we conform to that thinking, then we might be able to compete again.

NOt sure why anyone would care at that point.

 

[rightwinger]

There will no one-party state, Correll, you are scared of a chimera that does not exist.

The modern GOP is not the repository of all that is good with America. We ended that in 1994 and after.

A new America is coming, and, yes, the America of the 1950s is disappearing quickly. Get used to it.

You claim there will be no One Party State.

Yet you offer no criticism of my reasoning other than to call it racialist.

Do you think that Blacks will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Do you think Hispanics will suddenly stop being a voting bloc for the dems? If so why and when.

Because otherwise, One Party State.

(And don't just say the GOP will "adapt". That's a talking point, not an answer.)

One, it is racist, because you are hiding "traditional" behind actually saying white Christian conservative values: you don't have the stones to say the truth. Two, Saying the GOP must adapt is the truth, not a talking point. Yours are the talking points: what one party state, for instance.

1. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, these traditional values are rapidly fading away, new world and all of that.

I don't feel comfortable claiming them as White Values today because I don't know how many White Americans today share them.

I wish I could. And if I could, it wouldn't be racist to want my values and cultural perspective to be the foundation of policy. That is what all political speech and action attempts.

2. So, give me the biggest single policy the GOP needs to shit can to, <ahem> adapt, that will make us competitive with minority votes. That will prevent the One Party State.

2. So, give me the biggest single policy the GOP needs to shit can to, <ahem> adapt, that will make us competitive with minority votes. That will prevent the One Party State

I think Republicans already have it. It is the same thing they have been harping on for decades....Jobs

They claim to be the party that creates jobs and prosperity. If they can show it, minorities will vote for them

 

[Correll]

My over the top scenario is a natural possibility if your side truly believes that continued election trends are going to destroy America. It would be natural for such radicals to do anything to prevent it.

Nope. Nothing on the Right to give the slightest hint of what you suggest.

No hint? You posted rhetoric painting quite a dire situation ... the country being destroyed by inevitable one party rule. What do you intend to do to prevent it? Wouldn't it be reasonable for radical right wingers to, once in power, cement it by removing these weaknesses from the system that are allowing poor and minorities to keep Republicans out of power?

Destroyed is a strong term. Ruined would be more likely.

The Right is not the Left. The behavior you suggest is not possible.

Nice non-answer. So you intend to let the ruin of our nation just happen without doing anything about it? You're saying also that extreme rightist's would never want to establish a dictatorship?

I see little I can do.

ANd yes. Your fear of an extremist Right Wing dictator ship is just you showing how little you understand your enemies.

 

[Correll]

More proof of Republicans being delusional on their chances of electing another President

Actually it's just more proof that you don't understand what the word "proof" means.....

If a Republican does win the White House next year, just don't let your depression send you into a tailspin, no jumping out of windows, k?

You are welcome to your dreams. It is what makes politics fun

The Realities of the 2016 election are:

1. Republicans have a death grip on the House: Gerrymandering has assured GOP control till at least 2022
2. Democrats will retake the Senate as the Republicans have to defend 24 seats with many seats in Blue States. Dems only have to defend 10 all in Blue States
3. A Democrat will win the White House based on already having 242 Electoral Votes going in

Well, maybe. Hillary is a really weak candidate.

We might have one or two more wins in US.

DOn't despair if we win in 2016. You will get your One Party State.

When you win in 2016, why wouldn't you do something with that power to prevent the otherwise inevitable one party state that will ruin America? Do you not care about the fate of America? Why would you not change our form of government to save our nation from ruin?

THe form of government is not the problem.