The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

[bedowin62]

what's propaganda leftard? is hillary not trailing several republicans in head to head matchup polls????

You want to debate polling a year out from a presidential election? Do you even for a moment realize just how ridiculously silly that whole idea is? Why don't you sit down and think about this for a moment, I'm sure you'll get it if you try really hard.

well then it isnt propaganda then moron; you just disagree with it's significance right?
thanks for playing

so hillary's polls are all meaningless too right/?????

 

[Conservative65]

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

You mean you are afraid to make your argument. I don't have to.

My argument is that if using race to deny is wrong, using race to benefit is also wrong. You're the one saying it's OK to consider race at times. I asked if you considered denying due to race was OK as you thought using it to benefit was OK. You refused to answer. That's enough to support my claim.

That is your presumption, and you give no evidence, no content, and minimal analysis. Based on your background of posting, your racialism is evidence to dismiss your argument as it is. I don't have to do anything.

And you are trolling a thread dedicated to an entirely different OP.

You provided all the evidence I need. You said using race as a consideration is OK in some situations. I asked if it was OK to deny based on race and you run like the coward your kind always turn out to be.

 

[bedowin62]

awww too bad, another wasted post where you could have rebutted any of the points made but failed to

Why would anyone rebut propaganda? Put something honest out there and we can talk otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

you rebut to set the record straight
you wont rebut any of that because you cant, it's the truth

I already demonstrated how the numbers were skewed, A reasonable person would have looked for another post not sit at his computer and throw insults.

no you havent loser. stop lying to yourself and be a man for once

Yes I did. Your silly poll was skewed to produce a predictable outcome. What makes it even sillier is that it is a poll that is supposed to show a positive result a year from an election. In any serious thinkers brain that's funny.

like i said idiot; remember you whined that polls can be skewed for a particular outcome ok/?

 

[bedowin62]

so the polls showin biden beating all the republican candidates are useless too right??????

tell your fellow LWNJs!!

 

[nuhuh]

I already demonstrated how the numbers were skewed, A reasonable person would have looked for another post not sit at his computer and throw insults.

no you havent loser. stop lying to yourself and be a man for once

Yes I did. Your silly poll was skewed to produce a predictable outcome. What makes it even sillier is that it is a poll that is supposed to show a positive result a year from an election. In any serious thinkers brain that's funny.

like i said idiot; remember you whined that polls can be skewed for a particular outcome ok/?

LOL, You guys will be so far behind in six months you won't want to discuss polling.

thank you Madam Zorba

I was pro life before I met you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see conservatard65 has derailed this thread into one about race. Surprised. I think I'll start referring to him as "Tank II"

BACK TO TOPIC:

Teapubs inability to field an electable Presidential candidate.

Discuss.....

Interesting that what you call a derailed thread began when JakeStarkey played the race card. I had mentioned nothing about race until he brought it up.

I doubt you'll address that but I do suspect you pucker up to his ass and kiss it.

I'll refer to you as Vaseline since your chapped lips need some. Pucker up.

That is a typical racialist response since he mentioned AA and race, then blames everyone else. The fact is that a successful GOP run is going to have to address minorities, including, women, to be successful.

I've already addressed how you were the first to mention race. In fact, it included that very term.

For a Democrat to be successful they have to pander to minorities, fags, freaks, and the like. Key word being pander.

You inferred race, and I pointed it out. We are not worried about how Dems will do, but how Pubs will do. We will not win your way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

You mean you are afraid to make your argument. I don't have to.

My argument is that if using race to deny is wrong, using race to benefit is also wrong. You're the one saying it's OK to consider race at times. I asked if you considered denying due to race was OK as you thought using it to benefit was OK. You refused to answer. That's enough to support my claim.

That is your presumption, and you give no evidence, no content, and minimal analysis. Based on your background of posting, your racialism is evidence to dismiss your argument as it is. I don't have to do anything.

And you are trolling a thread dedicated to an entirely different OP.

You provided all the evidence I need. You said using race as a consideration is OK in some situations. I asked if it was OK to deny based on race and you run like the coward your kind always turn out to be.

Point where I said exactly that. Or admit that is your presumption of what I think.

Now either build your case or admit you have nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see conservatard65 has derailed this thread into one about race. Surprised. I think I'll start referring to him as "Tank II"

BACK TO TOPIC:

Teapubs inability to field an electable Presidential candidate.

Discuss.....

Interesting that what you call a derailed thread began when JakeStarkey played the race card. I had mentioned nothing about race until he brought it up.

I doubt you'll address that but I do suspect you pucker up to his ass and kiss it.

I'll refer to you as Vaseline since your chapped lips need some. Pucker up.

That is a typical racialist response since he mentioned AA and race, then blames everyone else. The fact is that a successful GOP run is going to have to address minorities, including, women, to be successful.

I've already addressed how you were the first to mention race. In fact, it included that very term.

For a Democrat to be successful they have to pander to minorities, fags, freaks, and the like. Key word being pander.

You inferred race, and I pointed it out. We are not worried about how Dems will do, but how Pubs will do. We will not win your way.

If you addressed what you claim I did, you inferred retard. I can't make a statement and infer something.

If you have to try and win by pandering you're a born loser. If what you proposed was good on it's merits, you wouldn't have to pander to get people to support you. Same with Obamacare. If it was that good, people would use it on it's merits and not have to be mandated to use it.

You made a statment inferring something that I did not say. Reaching out honestly is not pandering. Pandering is what Trump is doing. Pandering to the far right will not be a winning hand for Trump.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting that what you call a derailed thread began when JakeStarkey played the race card. I had mentioned nothing about race until he brought it up.

I doubt you'll address that but I do suspect you pucker up to his ass and kiss it.

I'll refer to you as Vaseline since your chapped lips need some. Pucker up.

That is a typical racialist response since he mentioned AA and race, then blames everyone else. The fact is that a successful GOP run is going to have to address minorities, including, women, to be successful.

I've already addressed how you were the first to mention race. In fact, it included that very term.

For a Democrat to be successful they have to pander to minorities, fags, freaks, and the like. Key word being pander.

You inferred race, and I pointed it out. We are not worried about how Dems will do, but how Pubs will do. We will not win your way.

If you addressed what you claim I did, you inferred retard. I can't make a statement and infer something.

If you have to try and win by pandering you're a born loser. If what you proposed was good on it's merits, you wouldn't have to pander to get people to support you. Same with Obamacare. If it was that good, people would use it on it's merits and not have to be mandated to use it.

You made a statment inferring something that I did not say. Reaching out honestly is not pandering. Pandering is what Trump is doing.

When you use something to benefit a person that if used to deny that person the same thing would be wrong is pandering. In other words, if you use race to benefit a black but told you can't use it to deny a black, it's pandering.

 

[Dot Com]

I see conservatard65 has derailed this thread into one about race. Surprised. I think I'll start referring to him as "Tank II"

BACK TO TOPIC:

Teapubs inability to field an electable Presidential candidate.

Discuss.....

Interesting that what you call a derailed thread began when JakeStarkey played the race card. I had mentioned nothing about race until he brought it up.

I doubt you'll address that but I do suspect you pucker up to his ass and kiss it.

I'll refer to you as Vaseline since your chapped lips need some. Pucker up.

That is a typical racialist response since he mentioned AA and race, then blames everyone else. The fact is that a successful GOP run is going to have to address minorities, including, women, to be successful.

I've already addressed how you were the first to mention race. In fact, it included that very term.

For a Democrat to be successful they have to pander to minorities, fags, freaks, and the like. Key word being pander.

You inferred race, and I pointed it out. We are not worried about how Dems will do, but how Pubs will do. We will not win your way.

If you addressed what you claim I did, you inferred retard. I can't make a statement and infer something.

If you have to try and win by pandering you're a born loser. If what you proposed was good on it's merits, you wouldn't have to pander to get people to support you. Same with Obamacare. If it was that good, people would use it on it's merits and not have to be mandated to use it.

what are you yammering on about? The OP?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a typical racialist response since he mentioned AA and race, then blames everyone else. The fact is that a successful GOP run is going to have to address minorities, including, women, to be successful.

I've already addressed how you were the first to mention race. In fact, it included that very term.

For a Democrat to be successful they have to pander to minorities, fags, freaks, and the like. Key word being pander.

You inferred race, and I pointed it out. We are not worried about how Dems will do, but how Pubs will do. We will not win your way.

If you addressed what you claim I did, you inferred retard. I can't make a statement and infer something.

If you have to try and win by pandering you're a born loser. If what you proposed was good on it's merits, you wouldn't have to pander to get people to support you. Same with Obamacare. If it was that good, people would use it on it's merits and not have to be mandated to use it.

You made a statment inferring something that I did not say. Reaching out honestly is not pandering. Pandering is what Trump is doing.

When you use something to benefit a person that if used to deny that person the same thing would be wrong is pandering. In other words, if you use race to benefit a black but told you can't use it to deny a black, it's pandering.

Do you have examples of that? The FHA for example does block denying anyone by race of housing. That's fair, isn't it? A white could not be denied a place at Texas Southern, for example. You simply want to go back to the good old days of segregation. Won't happen.

 

[Conservative65]

I've already addressed how you were the first to mention race. In fact, it included that very term.

For a Democrat to be successful they have to pander to minorities, fags, freaks, and the like. Key word being pander.

You inferred race, and I pointed it out. We are not worried about how Dems will do, but how Pubs will do. We will not win your way.

If you addressed what you claim I did, you inferred retard. I can't make a statement and infer something.

If you have to try and win by pandering you're a born loser. If what you proposed was good on it's merits, you wouldn't have to pander to get people to support you. Same with Obamacare. If it was that good, people would use it on it's merits and not have to be mandated to use it.

You made a statment inferring something that I did not say. Reaching out honestly is not pandering. Pandering is what Trump is doing.

When you use something to benefit a person that if used to deny that person the same thing would be wrong is pandering. In other words, if you use race to benefit a black but told you can't use it to deny a black, it's pandering.

Do you have examples of that? The FHA for example does block denying anyone by race of housing. That's fair, isn't it? A white could not be denied a place at Texas Southern, for example. You simply want to go back to the good old days of segregation. Won't happen.

Affirmative action is a prime example. It takes race into account in a manner that benefits certain groups even when they may not be the most qualified.

I don't want segregation. I want to know the guy next to me who could be the difference between life and death is there because he was the best when hired not because some guilt ridden bleeding heart wants to make himself feel better because of something that happened in the past. Color is irrelevant.

 

[Boss]

Sounds like flippant Democratic bragging

But the current breakout of Red States/Blue States gives the Democrats a huge advantage. Bush struggled to reach 270 EVs and needed to nearly sweep swing states to make it
Both sides do not start the election with a clean slate. The Dems start with 242 EV while the Republicans only control 192. To win, Democrats only need to get 28 EVs out of the remaining swing state votes
Even the swing states are starting to lean blue.

I doubt if I will ever see another Republican President in my lifetime

Well I will say this... IF your premise is correct, there will never be another Republican president. If the current chasm in the GOP is not resolved in a way which leads to a decisive victory over the Socialists, we may not ever have another elected president. Our sovereignty is on the way to being lost due to illegal immigration.

The GOP is currently sharply divided between those who want to maintain status quo "moderatism" and avoid taking bold stands on principles and values, and those who have a clear conservative philosophy that is constantly under attack. It remains to be seen which "side" will ultimately prevail in the nomination process but if the GOP goes with another "moderate" like McCain or Romney, this will spell the demise of the GOP as a viable political party. They will simply go the way of the Whigs who suffered the same 'paralysis of thought' on the issues of the day.

Reagan said, we have to paint our message in bold colors and no pale pastels. The current top two front-runners in the GOP race are non-politician leaders who are not tied to the establishment GOP. That should be sounding alarm bells for the elite Republican establishment. The party is literally redefining itself.

Any preconceptions you have that the 2016 election will be a matter of Republicans winning over swing states from the last election, are simply goofy and ignorant of American politics and presidential election history.

The rebranding of Republicans will do even worse in the swing states which tend to go moderate. The "I'm more conservative than you" brinksmanship of the current GOP will turn off moderate voters. In the absence of a moderate Republican, a moderate Democrat will do

I disagree. I think when conservative philosophy is clearly articulated by someone who understands it, the nation resonates. True Conservatism IS the moderate view. It rejects radical extremism. The problem is, some Republicans have no clue as to what Conservative philosophy is or how to articulate it.

"Rebranding" is a specious word. It implies that someone is going to repackage the same product under a different label or brand. I assure you, this is not the case with the Republican party. Don't get me wrong, there are Republicans who would love nothing more than to "rebrand" and trot out Romney 2.0 We'll give you everything the liberals promise and cut your taxes too!

Trump and Carson clearly aren't carrying the Establishment GOP water. What you are seeing is history being made. These candidates are the direct result of a grass roots movement across this country. They do not care about your labels. This is not "rebranding" but a complete redefinition.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course you can never predict what the Republican party of the future will be like

- They could embrace a path towards citizenship for illegals
- They could modify their rhetoric towards women
- They could tell the rightwing media to stop with the racist demagoguery
- They could make inroads in minority communities and convince them of the value of Republicanism



Sorry, just kidding
The GOP is doomed

 

[NightFox]

I disagree. I think when conservative philosophy is clearly articulated by someone who understands it, the nation resonates. True Conservatism IS the moderate view. It rejects radical extremism. The problem is, some Republicans have no clue as to what Conservative philosophy is or how to articulate it.

"Rebranding" is a specious word. It implies that someone is going to repackage the same product under a different label or brand. I assure you, this is not the case with the Republican party. Don't get me wrong, there are Republicans who would love nothing more than to "rebrand" and trot out Romney 2.0 We'll give you everything the liberals promise and cut your taxes too!

Trump and Carson clearly aren't carrying the Establishment GOP water. What you are seeing is history being made. These candidates are the direct result of a grass roots movement across this country. They do not care about your labels. This is not "rebranding" but a complete redefinition.

You make some interesting points but let me throw this one at you, the problem I see is that conservatism has become a blanket label that is far too broad, for example I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, there are distinct differences in philosophy (primarily stemming from the fact that conservatives do not hold the NAP as their central tenet) but the general public, the media and a lot of talking heads in Washington don't understand the differences. It's the same way with the liberal moniker, it's so often conflated with "progressive" that it has become basically meaningless, progressivism at it's birth was distinctly different from liberalism but since they have been allowed to become interchangeable actual liberals are now lumped in with authoritarian progressives even though in the original meanings they are polar opposites.

I'd like to see a modern conservative that can really articulate what makes conservative philosophy unique but as it stands now it's hard to pin point anyone.

 

[NightFox]

Of course you can never predict what the Republican party of the future will be like

Oh yes you can, they're just like the Democrats, they get more corrupt, more self serving and less in touch with the average citizen as time goes by. What else can you expect when both parties are run by arrogant windbags who are beholden to special interests and wealthy patrons? .

Think of Rome (late Republic or Empire) where the nobility basically functioned as a patronage machine looking down their noses at the plebs as nothing more than ignorant sheep to be sheared and who required nothing more than bread and circuses to quell any rebellious instincts that might arise in them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A new GOP will arise if it does not do those things.

And the libertarian non-agression principle defines self-ownership that includes property and freedom of contract as intregal to the philosophy.

Horse shit.

We live in a society that will not tolerate libertarianism as it affects public policy and community activity. We are far too integrated to have a bunch of Little Bills running a town in Wyoming, a la Unforgiven.

The GOP cannot tolerate libertarian principles if it ever wishes to win elections.

 

[Redfish]

"the current leading GOP candidates are doing very well with minorities and women (women are not a minority by the way)" are opinions, but are not factual.

look at the most recent polls, fool. I am not a big fan of polls, but they do show what i said.

Only among the females of the far right wing, and almost every last one of them would favor Carson over Trump. In the mainstream of the party, the polls go way down. In a national election, Carson will do a bit better with both than Trump, who will do very badly.

I understand that that is your dream, but it may very well become a nightmare for you. Can you say President Trump?

 

[Redfish]

Of course you can never predict what the Republican party of the future will be like

- They could embrace a path towards citizenship for illegals
- They could modify their rhetoric towards women
- They could tell the rightwing media to stop with the racist demagoguery
- They could make inroads in minority communities and convince them of the value of Republicanism



Sorry, just kidding
The GOP is doomed

a path for making citizens of those here illegally has been offered up by the GOP. Obama would not discuss it

Women want equality and freedom, not infanticide and pandering

Who specifically are you calling racist in media? Give us names or STFU

Tim Scott, Mia Love, Alan West, Ben Carson, Dineen Borelli are all speaking to the minority communities about how the dems have patronized them and left them in the gutter.

The party that is doomed is the dem party. Obama has destroyed the party of Kennedy and Truman. Look at the old white clowns on the debate stage last night. it was pathetic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"the current leading GOP candidates are doing very well with minorities and women (women are not a minority by the way)" are opinions, but are not factual.

look at the most recent polls, fool. I am not a big fan of polls, but they do show what i said.

Only among the females of the far right wing, and almost every last one of them would favor Carson over Trump. In the mainstream of the party, the polls go way down. In a national election, Carson will do a bit better with both than Trump, who will do very badly.

I understand that that is your dream, but it may very well become a nightmare for you. Can you say President Trump?

Sure, but I don't think that will happen. If he becomes president, he is our president. Can you do the same for any of the Dems if one becomes president? Reading Redfish is like reading Alice in Wonderland. Redfish's world does not exist as he sees it.