Boehner to Step Down from Congress

[Drew1411]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Were they selling baby body parts in the 70’s. No. They’ve moved along in the wrong direction and the DNC thinks that they are wonderful and Obama will veto any bill which attempts to defund them. If you don’t think the democrats have moved far to the left take a look at John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address and some of his other ideas. He would have to be a republican today! [/quote]

I agree, the dems have moved left, as I said. There is no moderate democrat running for president.

[quote]
Just as I explained in my previous post. One more time, if you have a moderate reaching out he will go further to the left if he is negotiating with someone of the extreme left. We need to bring the country back to the middle, you don’t do it when you have a far left DNC. Just look at what Hillary Clinton has to say in order to get the nomination. Things she was for four years ago she has to be against now steering further to the left to get the nomination.[/quote]

I guess I don’t agree with your belief that the only way to deal with extremism, or far-left policies, is to go radical right. I’m not saying HRC or Bernie is the solution, I’m only saying that Tea Party far-right isn’t as good of a solution as a moderate republican.

[quote]
You are naÃ???Ã??Ã?¯ve Drew I will agree with you. The current democratic party has turned so far left they are just stopping short of socialism. As a matter of fact, as you know, one of their candidates Bernie Sanders IS a socialist who is gaining momentum. That would have been unheard of even in the early 90’s. Instead the media is fixated on the three “non politicians” that are running in the republican primary. They are not at all surprised or upset that we have a socialist running as a democrat. That should tell you something about the media and which way the country is moving. As I said the democrats have drifted left and if not stopped now we will be headed toward Socialism.[/quote]

I 100% agree, and don’t want socialism to happen. That is why I want a republican put in the white house.

No one is ignoring the middle. Most people are quite conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility and other issues as well. What Obama has done by driving up our debt to 19 Trillion should be a felony! Especially when he accused GW Bush of not being patriotic because at the time the debt was around 10 trillion.

I like making predictions, so here’s one for you: If we do not defeat the democrats in 2016 you can kiss the country as you now know it goodbye. This is already a different place than it was just before Obama took over. For example do you honestly think unemployment is under 6%? They are playing with numbers Drew. 47 million on food stamps and millions who left the workforce who are no longer counted as “unemployed”. We are living in the last days of the United States of America being an exceptional land unless something happens, something dramatic to change the course we are on. A moderate republican in the White House (even if he/she could win) will not turn us around!

We are losing our country Drew and it’s happening quite fast relatively speaking. Obama promised change and he certainly brought it–all of it BAD!

We have one more chance to get it right. Do you know what happens when our debt gets to be 23 trillion or so?

I am for any of the republicans who want to bring fiscal responsibility back to our nation. That means Cruz, Rubio, yes even Trump. We cannot afford another four years of someone like Hillary Clinton

Let’s get back to common sense governing, something both parties need to grasp. But, something that is surely out of the possibility for the democrats to accomplish.

Zeb, you don’t need to convince me of the fiscal woe’s of the democratic party. I agree with you, I just don’t believe in the same way to get a fiscally responsible person in the white house. Just because Bernie and HRC are terrible candidates doesn’t mean the republicans should bring the most extreme to the table. You said you don’t believe a moderate could get things done, yet the only state where a guy like Cruz would be able to get anything done is Texas because he is so far-right. Shutting down the government with no possible way of winning is not getting things done. The republicans have a chance to not let the country get ruined with the next election (as you said), and I think conservatives might be drinking too much of their Tea Party kool-aid if the correct answer is the most conservative person they can find. If a hard-right conservative is the nominee, I will most likely still go that way as the democratic alternatives are worse, but I don’t know if a majority would do the same.

[Alrightmiami19c]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Drew, what makes you think Cruz is “radically” right?[/quote]

Push, we have become such a fucked up nation that the principles in the Constitution are not revered, they have become radical, and to speak of them is profane.

[Drew1411]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Drew, what makes you think Cruz is “radically” right?[/quote]

Maybe radical with Cruz isn’t the correct word, but I would say he’s very honest about his hard right stances. He’s a strong social and fiscal conservative, and has a record that reflects that. From what I’ve heard/read, most strong conservatives think he is the best candidate.

I do not think Cruz would win over independents who are more sympathetic to left leaning social issues. I think other candidates would do a better job of that, and therefore, would be a better option to get a republican in the white house.

[Drew1411]

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Drew, what makes you think Cruz is “radically” right?[/quote]

Push, we have become such a fucked up nation that the principles in the Constitution are not revered, they have become radical, and to speak of them is profane.
[/quote]

My disagreement with Cruz’s stances are mostly on his social issues. I don’t think you can ignore the fact that the world has become more LGBT friendly and hard stances against that crowd make you seem extreme to some people. I know people who would not vote for someone because of that stance, even though they are fiscally conservative. The same could be said with Carson, Huckabee, and Santorum. I think Carson was the one who said that being gay is a choice, and used prison rapes as evidence of that. I don’t see that stance winning over socially moderate/left people.

I think the difference is with a strong conservative, Zeb says more of the ‘base’ will show up. That might happen, but how many independents and moderates will you lose? As I’ve said, I would still support Cruz if it was against HRC or Bernie, but I don’t know what the independents will do.

[ZEB]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Were they selling baby body parts in the 70’s. No. They’ve moved along in the wrong direction and the DNC thinks that they are wonderful and Obama will veto any bill which attempts to defund them. If you don’t think the democrats have moved far to the left take a look at John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address and some of his other ideas. He would have to be a republican today! [/quote]

I agree, the dems have moved left, as I said. There is no moderate democrat running for president.

[quote]
Just as I explained in my previous post. One more time, if you have a moderate reaching out he will go further to the left if he is negotiating with someone of the extreme left. We need to bring the country back to the middle, you don’t do it when you have a far left DNC. Just look at what Hillary Clinton has to say in order to get the nomination. Things she was for four years ago she has to be against now steering further to the left to get the nomination.[/quote]

I guess I don’t agree with your belief that the only way to deal with extremism, or far-left policies, is to go radical right. I’m not saying HRC or Bernie is the solution, I’m only saying that Tea Party far-right isn’t as good of a solution as a moderate republican.

You are naÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¯ve Drew I will agree with you. The current democratic party has turned so far left they are just stopping short of socialism. As a matter of fact, as you know, one of their candidates Bernie Sanders IS a socialist who is gaining momentum. That would have been unheard of even in the early 90’s. Instead the media is fixated on the three “non politicians” that are running in the republican primary. They are not at all surprised or upset that we have a socialist running as a democrat. That should tell you something about the media and which way the country is moving. As I said the democrats have drifted left and if not stopped now we will be headed toward Socialism.[/quote]

I 100% agree, and don’t want socialism to happen. That is why I want a republican put in the white house.

No one is ignoring the middle. Most people are quite conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility and other issues as well. What Obama has done by driving up our debt to 19 Trillion should be a felony! Especially when he accused GW Bush of not being patriotic because at the time the debt was around 10 trillion.

I like making predictions, so here’s one for you: If we do not defeat the democrats in 2016 you can kiss the country as you now know it goodbye. This is already a different place than it was just before Obama took over. For example do you honestly think unemployment is under 6%? They are playing with numbers Drew. 47 million on food stamps and millions who left the workforce who are no longer counted as “unemployed”. We are living in the last days of the United States of America being an exceptional land unless something happens, something dramatic to change the course we are on. A moderate republican in the White House (even if he/she could win) will not turn us around!

We are losing our country Drew and it’s happening quite fast relatively speaking. Obama promised change and he certainly brought it–all of it BAD!

We have one more chance to get it right. Do you know what happens when our debt gets to be 23 trillion or so?

I am for any of the republicans who want to bring fiscal responsibility back to our nation. That means Cruz, Rubio, yes even Trump. We cannot afford another four years of someone like Hillary Clinton

Let’s get back to common sense governing, something both parties need to grasp. But, something that is surely out of the possibility for the democrats to accomplish.

Zeb, you don’t need to convince me of the fiscal woe’s of the democratic party. I agree with you, I just don’t believe in the same way to get a fiscally responsible person in the white house. Just because Bernie and HRC are terrible candidates doesn’t mean the republicans should bring the most extreme to the table. You said you don’t believe a moderate could get things done, yet the only state where a guy like Cruz would be able to get anything done is Texas because he is so far-right. Shutting down the government with no possible way of winning is not getting things done. The republicans have a chance to not let the country get ruined with the next election (as you said), and I think conservatives might be drinking too much of their Tea Party kool-aid if the correct answer is the most conservative person they can find. If a hard-right conservative is the nominee, I will most likely still go that way as the democratic alternatives are worse, but I don’t know if a majority would do the same.

Somewhere along the lines you missed the part where the voters are actually center right. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and a few others would be great for the country. If you want Planned Parenthood defunded, lower tax rates on job creators, a strong military so that dictators like Putin and the Muslim extremists would not be so provocative. How about appointing conservative judges so that we don’t get people legislating from the bench? and hundreds of other things we need a real conservative in the White House.

The dismal 8 years of Obama must be turned around and a moderate is NOT going to be able to do it.

[ZEB]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Drew, what makes you think Cruz is “radically” right?[/quote]

Maybe radical with Cruz isn’t the correct word, but I would say he’s very honest about his hard right stances. He’s a strong social and fiscal conservative, and has a record that reflects that. From what I’ve heard/read, most strong conservatives think he is the best candidate.

I do not think Cruz would win over independents who are more sympathetic to left leaning social issues. I think other candidates would do a better job of that, and therefore, would be a better option to get a republican in the white house.

[/quote]

The problem with Cruz is not his politics, it’s his looks and lack of charisma. Marco Rubio on the other hand is almost as conservative as Cruz and is blessed with a million dollar smile.

Rubio should be the next President of the United States if the republican party, in those key primary states opens their eyes.

He is rising in the polls but not fast enough to suit me.

Do you realize what will happen if we actually put someone like Ben Carson up as our candidate? Seriously…he will get destroyed in a general election. I’m hoping he’s just a passing fancy.

[ZEB]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Drew, what makes you think Cruz is “radically” right?[/quote]

Push, we have become such a fucked up nation that the principles in the Constitution are not revered, they have become radical, and to speak of them is profane.
[/quote]

My disagreement with Cruz’s stances are mostly on his social issues. I don’t think you can ignore the fact that the world has become more LGBT friendly and hard stances against that crowd make you seem extreme to some people. I know people who would not vote for someone because of that stance, even though they are fiscally conservative. The same could be said with Carson, Huckabee, and Santorum. I think Carson was the one who said that being gay is a choice, and used prison rapes as evidence of that. I don’t see that stance winning over socially moderate/left people.

I think the difference is with a strong conservative, Zeb says more of the ‘base’ will show up. That might happen, but how many independents and moderates will you lose? As I’ve said, I would still support Cruz if it was against HRC or Bernie, but I don’t know what the independents will do. [/quote]

I’ve always found the gay rights issue to be sort of funny. Homosexuals comprise roughly 2% of the population. Seriously…most of them couldn’t care less about gay marriage, read some polls. But for some reason the democratic party is obsessed with the issue. Granted liberal Hollywood has made it a near sin to not support gay marriage. And our liberal Universities have just about brainwashed every 20 something into thinking that anyone opposing gay marriage is bad person.

My point is this, the Supreme Court has decided this issue I think it’s time we all move on to things that actually matter for the majority of our citizens, like the economy and keeping America safe.

Who do you trust with these important matters? One of the three stooges, Bernie, Biden or Hillary, or a Conservative republican?

There should be no question in your mind Drew.

[Drew1411]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The problem with Cruz is not his politics, it’s his looks and lack of charisma. Marco Rubio on the other hand is almost as conservative as Cruz and is blessed with a million dollar smile.

Rubio should be the next President of the United States if the republican party, in those key primary states opens their eyes.

He is rising in the polls but not fast enough to suit me.

Do you realize what will happen if we actually put someone like Ben Carson up as our candidate? Seriously…he will get destroyed in a general election. I’m hoping he’s just a passing fancy.
[/quote]

While we might slightly disagree on why Cruz is not ideal, I agree with your stance on Rubio. He’s conservative but does not come off harsh. I think he could sell conservatism to moderates and independents. I think the Rubio/Kasich ticket is a big winner but it is still early, so I don’t think Rubio needs to peak now.

[Drew1411]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Who do you trust with these important matters? One of the three stooges, Bernie, Biden or Hillary, or a Conservative republican?

There should be no question in your mind Drew.[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again, you don’t need to convince me against the democratic candidates. I’m on board with that, but I know I am not the only person voting. There are people who will not vote for candidates because of specific social issues, and you lose the votes based on that stance.

My point is this, the Supreme Court has decided this issue I think it’s time we all move on to things that actually matter for the majority of our citizens, like the economy and keeping America safe.

Agree. I feel a republican president presents the best option to improve the USA, which is why I want a republican elected. I do not want the party to go too far right and put a nominee who will not win a general election.

[ZEB]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Who do you trust with these important matters? One of the three stooges, Bernie, Biden or Hillary, or a Conservative republican?

There should be no question in your mind Drew.[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again, you don’t need to convince me against the democratic candidates. I’m on board with that, but I know I am not the only person voting. There are people who will not vote for candidates because of specific social issues, and you lose the votes based on that stance.

My point is this, the Supreme Court has decided this issue I think it’s time we all move on to things that actually matter for the majority of our citizens, like the economy and keeping America safe.

Agree. I feel a republican president presents the best option to improve the USA, which is why I want a republican elected. I do not want the party to go too far right and put a nominee who will not win a general election.[/quote]

The only way a republican gets elected is if that republican can stir the base to get out and vote. McCain couldn’t do it, Romney couldn’t do it. But if you look at the republicans who did do it they mostly conservative. The biggest political fallacy is that republicans have to reach out to every ethnic and special interest group in the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. As for independents they will usually vote for the person who represents fiscal common sense, not always but usually.

For the last time Drew you cannot vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Drew1411]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The only way a republican gets elected is if that republican can stir the base to get out and vote. McCain couldn’t do it, Romney couldn’t do it. But if you look at the republicans who did do it they mostly conservative. The biggest political fallacy is that republicans have to reach out to every ethnic and special interest group in the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. As for independents they will usually vote for the person who represents fiscal common sense, not always but usually.

For the last time Drew you cannot vote for Hillary Clinton.

[/quote]

haha do you not read what I say or do you just like being relentless? I will not vote for HRC, don’t worry about that.

As far as McCain and Romney, I think Obama was a unique political figure in that he got a large amount of African American voters to come out that normally wouldn’t. He is also a VERY good speaker and runs great campaigns. I don’t think it was the republicans conservative stance that lost the election.

If the republicans lose to HRC or Bernie, they will only have themselves to blame as they are both very beatable candidates. I hope that doesn’t happen.

[ZEB]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The only way a republican gets elected is if that republican can stir the base to get out and vote. McCain couldn’t do it, Romney couldn’t do it. But if you look at the republicans who did do it they mostly conservative. The biggest political fallacy is that republicans have to reach out to every ethnic and special interest group in the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. As for independents they will usually vote for the person who represents fiscal common sense, not always but usually.

For the last time Drew you cannot vote for Hillary Clinton.

[/quote]

haha do you not read what I say or do you just like being relentless? I will not vote for HRC, don’t worry about that.

As far as McCain and Romney, I think Obama was a unique political figure in that he got a large amount of African American voters to come out that normally wouldn’t. He is also a VERY good speaker and runs great campaigns. I don’t think it was the republicans conservative stance that lost the election.

If the republicans lose to HRC or Bernie, they will only have themselves to blame as they are both very beatable candidates. I hope that doesn’t happen.[/quote]

I predicted months ago that Hillary Clinton would never become President of the United States. She has nothing to offer as a political candidate, she only has her famous name. And the latest polls show that 58% of the American electorate do not trust her. No one gets elected with numbers like that. Unlike other candidates that the voters are just beginning to know, Hillary has been around 23 years and most people just don’t like her. She’s a horrible pick for the dems. Biden wouldn’t be much better. He looks good right now because he is not campaigning. But as soon as the gaffe machine goes out on the stump he will be tripping over his tongue. Besides that about half of the democratic women who would have voted for Hillary will be very ticked off. Many will stay home, but many more will vote for Rubio (should he be the nominee) over Joe Biden. And you are right about the fact that the black vote will not turn out with the numbers they did for Obama regardless of who the candidate is. There will be a combination of low turnout for the dems and high turnout for the republicans.

As I have also been saying the perfect republican ticket is Rubio/Kasich, Florida and Ohio. Two states that are must win. Republicans never lose when they win Florida and Ohio, yet they never win without them!

Anything can happen in politics but that sure does seem like a winning ticket to me and it always has. But even if I don’t get my number one pick for either the top or bottom of the ticket I still think the republicans will win unless they do something really foolish like put up Ben Carson who has loser stamped all over his face. Yeah…I know he’s a brilliant doctor but that is a different business. He excites no one and will not pull the black vote to any large degree. Blacks will be voting democrat for a long time to come it’s like a drug to them.

[countingbeans]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The only way a republican gets elected is if that republican can stir the base to get out and vote. [/quote]

I tend to disagree, based purely on numbers.

Look at it like this. Assume this link is right for sake of argument. Voting Turnout Statistics - Statistic Brain and assume similar results in 2016, rounded up for sake of argument. 130m voters.

Well we all know 90% are already decided as they are letter voters. 45% for either side. That’s 117m people off the top, split even between the parties. That leaves just 13m people tops left to vote who aren’t already locked into whatever candidate their party tossed up.

That means, either party only needs to woo 7,500,001 people from the “middle”. (Of which I’m convinced doesn’t exist. I’d say 99.9% of “independents” are pissed off partisans that still aren’t going to vote for one of the two parties.)

Now add in the electoral college and narrow it down to swing states and suddenly you’re looking at hundreds (if not tens) of thousands of people swinging an entire election.

So why do I disagree with you, because based on the above you would still be right?

Well… Effective ground games. Democrats tend to live in higher population areas and republicans in lower. The “get out the vote” drives (assume equal fraud on both sides here, because only a fucking moron thinks people spend billions of dollars to win an election and there isn’t fraud. It’d be the first time in human history this much money was involved and there was “zero voter fraud” because of human’s good nature.) are a huge win for the D’s.

Because riled up Base in AZ of TX does jack and shit as those states are already wrapped up. Riled up base in MA and CA does jack and shit because those states would be blue if Hitler was running on the D ticket. It literally comes down to turnout in a handful of states.

The key to winning is a) have the POTUS before you be god awful or decline to run and b) get the extra couple hundred thousand votes in swing states. ANd the R’s have a built in disadvantage (outside of their politics) in relation to b to the Democrats.

[MaximusB]

Great post Beans.

But if we look at history, Republicans have the advantage. People are usually tired of the current government and president, and tend to vote the opposite.

A flaccid Carter was replaced with a strong commanding Reagan. A dopey GW Bush was replaced with a “pragmatic thinker” with Obama, who turned out to be a ditherer. A dithering politically correct Obama will be replaced with someone who is neither dithering or politically correct.

[ZEB]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The only way a republican gets elected is if that republican can stir the base to get out and vote. [/quote]

I tend to disagree, based purely on numbers.

Look at it like this. Assume this link is right for sake of argument. Voting Turnout Statistics - Statistic Brain and assume similar results in 2016, rounded up for sake of argument. 130m voters.

Well we all know 90% are already decided as they are letter voters. 45% for either side. That’s 117m people off the top, split even between the parties. That leaves just 13m people tops left to vote who aren’t already locked into whatever candidate their party tossed up.

That means, either party only needs to woo 7,500,001 people from the “middle”. (Of which I’m convinced doesn’t exist. I’d say 99.9% of “independents” are pissed off partisans that still aren’t going to vote for one of the two parties.)

Now add in the electoral college and narrow it down to swing states and suddenly you’re looking at hundreds (if not tens) of thousands of people swinging an entire election.

So why do I disagree with you, because based on the above you would still be right?

Well… Effective ground games. Democrats tend to live in higher population areas and republicans in lower. The “get out the vote” drives (assume equal fraud on both sides here, because only a fucking moron thinks people spend billions of dollars to win an election and there isn’t fraud. It’d be the first time in human history this much money was involved and there was “zero voter fraud” because of human’s good nature.) are a huge win for the D’s.

Because riled up Base in AZ of TX does jack and shit as those states are already wrapped up. Riled up base in MA and CA does jack and shit because those states would be blue if Hitler was running on the D ticket. It literally comes down to turnout in a handful of states.

The key to winning is a) have the POTUS before you be god awful or decline to run and b) get the extra couple hundred thousand votes in swing states. ANd the R’s have a built in disadvantage (outside of their politics) in relation to b to the Democrats.

[/quote]

All good points my friend.

However, a President is not elected by the popular vote, as Al Gore found out back in 2000. They are elected (as you know) by the electoral vote. So a state wide strategy is far more important than simply counting up numbers for D’s an R’s. More on this later…

Also, this time around there are a few things that must be accounted for. The first is that should Hillary be the nominee I don’t believe that she will excite her base to turn out for her which changes everything. For example, she polls well with minorities. But, will minorities vote at the same numbers as they did for Obama in 2012 (much less 2008?) Most assuredly not. You may be thinking that she will certainly pull women, but not so fast. Only 23% of all women claim to be feminists. This is her greatest and most loyal group. They will march through hell to cast a vote for Hillary. But, what about the other 77%? Will they be even near as loyal? According to the polls the answer is no. In fact, there is a chance that while she will win the female vote it will not nearly be in the numbers she needs to pull off a Presidential victory. If the republicans are smart enough to give female voters a good alternative such as Rubio (yes its because of his looks-sorry ladies but you more so than men vote on looks), or Carly Fiorina the republicans will win enough female voters to prevent a democratic victory. In the case of Fiorina there is a chance that for the first time since 1988 the republicans could actually win the female vote (that could happen with Rubio).

Back to the electoral vote which is all that really matters. As I have been saying if you have a Rubio/Kasich ticket that gives a large advantage to the republicans. The last time both Ohio and Florida were won by a republican that republican won the White House…and the time before that and the time before that etc. That isn’t to say that we must have a representative from each state on the ticket to win those states, but it sure doesn’t hurt does it?

For example, Romney/Ryan lost Florida by just a tad less than 1%, and lost Ohio by only 1.9%. Neither were from either of those two important states, yet almost pulled off victories in both. Therefore, I feel that there are several winning combinations of candidates that could potentially pull it off as well.

For example, a Rubio/Fiorina ticket would pick up enough women and also win Florida probably Ohio as well and many other important voting blocks to pull off the win, such as the Hispanic vote because of Rubio’s background. The same goes for a Fiorina/Rubio ticket.

There are many combinations that would have a good chance to win based upon the electoral college and the various demographic groups that they would pull. Granted you and I may not like one or either candidate, but that is not the topic of discussion:

Fiorina/Cruz could be a winner, or the reverse Cruz/Fiorina as well. Rubio/Cruz another winner. We could even go more moderate and win. Fiorina/Bush, or Bush/Fiorina. How about Trump/Rubio? I know you hate Trump but the very powerful senior citizen demographic, the group that turns out more voters than any other group seems to love Trump. Rubio/Christie is, I believe another winning ticket. Maybe Cruz/Kasich as well. Another winning combination is Rubio/Walker and with Walker the republicans pick the important state of Wisconsin as well. The list is almost endless of the possible winning combinations that the republicans are able to offer this time around. The good part is that most of the potential VP candidates will have instant name recognition by running for President and the many debates.

Contrast all of that with Hillary’s up hill battle. Let’s say she pulls it off stays out of jail and is the nominee. Who will be her VP pick? Bernie? Highly doubtful. That means that the 20 something lazy, brainless followers of Bernie Sanders will stay home in droves. If Hillary doesn’t stay out of jail and the Joe the gaffe machine himself is the nominee how do you think he will do in a race vs. the republican nominee? He was a Senator from Delaware (won’t help) in addition to that he is immediately hung with all of Obama’s mistakes and poor decisions both domestic and abroad. He will be standing toe to toe with the republican on a debate stage defending Obama! I can’t think of a worse scenario for the democrats (67% of the people feel that Obama has led the country in the wrong direction) Lastly, do you honestly think Bernie Sanders would even come close to winning the Presidency? Can you see him on a stage debating any of the top republicans? An old bent over Socialist who looks like Orville Redenbocker the popcorn king…LOL. As I have said before if he is the nominee it will be landslide time for the republicans!

Okay Beans I know I will never convince you that this is going to be a republican year. You are going to have to see it for yourself. But just remember where you heard it and who you heard it from!

Zeb

[countingbeans]

I’m not ignoring your post ZEB… Just dont’ have time to dig into it.

[ZEB]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not ignoring your post ZEB… Just dont’ have time to dig into it. [/quote]

Well, I can understand that because I really didn’t have time to write it…