[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cruz is one of the only politicians actually doing his job.
I will give you that the media does everything in its power to make it look like Cruz’s positions are “extreme.”
By those measures, however, Reagan was also a crazy extremist. And he was elected in two landslide victories with record numbers of voters from both sides turning out in his favor. The idea that moderates conservatives would stay home for someone like Cruz is a badly mistaken one, I think. I hope we have the chance to see if I’m right or not. [/quote]
Compromise is the coin of the political realm. Cruz has demonstrated that he is a maximalist ideologue. It’s his way or the highway. He cares more about principles than be does about consequences. Not exactly attributes one would want for the chief diplomat of the United States. [/quote]
Again. And again and again and again: Reagan was a “maximalist ideologue” (get over yourself, Bismark). Far from hurting him, he was the most successful Republican politician of our modern age. [/quote]
Reagan did not live and die by his principles. He was a master of the art of compromise, and I applaud him for it. He understood that the guidepost of politics is consequentialism. That distinction actually belongs to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Cruz would rather set the house on fire than have one of its rooms painted in a hue he didn’t prefer.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cruz is one of the only politicians actually doing his job.
I will give you that the media does everything in its power to make it look like Cruz’s positions are “extreme.”
By those measures, however, Reagan was also a crazy extremist. And he was elected in two landslide victories with record numbers of voters from both sides turning out in his favor. The idea that moderates conservatives would stay home for someone like Cruz is a badly mistaken one, I think. I hope we have the chance to see if I’m right or not. [/quote]
Compromise is the coin of the political realm. Cruz has demonstrated that he is a maximalist ideologue. It’s his way or the highway. He cares more about principles than be does about consequences. Not exactly attributes one would want for the chief diplomat of the United States. [/quote]
Again. And again and again and again: Reagan was a “maximalist ideologue” (get over yourself, Bismark). Far from hurting him, he was the most successful Republican politician of our modern age. [/quote]
Reagan did not live and die by his principles. He was a master of the art of compromise, and I applaud him for it. He understood that the guidepost of politics is consequentialism. That distinction actually belongs to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Cruz would rather set the house on fire than have one of its rooms painted in a hue he didn’t prefer. [/quote]
You buffoon that is exactly whom you helped elect to the Oval Office in Barack Obama the most uncompromising President in the history of our nation and a true ideologue!
I defy anyone to name a modern day President who reached out to the other party less than Barack Obama.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cruz is one of the only politicians actually doing his job.
I will give you that the media does everything in its power to make it look like Cruz’s positions are “extreme.”
By those measures, however, Reagan was also a crazy extremist. And he was elected in two landslide victories with record numbers of voters from both sides turning out in his favor. The idea that moderates conservatives would stay home for someone like Cruz is a badly mistaken one, I think. I hope we have the chance to see if I’m right or not. [/quote]
Compromise is the coin of the political realm. Cruz has demonstrated that he is a maximalist ideologue. It’s his way or the highway. He cares more about principles than be does about consequences. Not exactly attributes one would want for the chief diplomat of the United States. [/quote]
Again. And again and again and again: Reagan was a “maximalist ideologue” (get over yourself, Bismark). Far from hurting him, he was the most successful Republican politician of our modern age. [/quote]
Reagan did not live and die by his principles. He was a master of the art of compromise, and I applaud him for it. He understood that the guidepost of politics is consequentialism. That distinction actually belongs to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Cruz would rather set the house on fire than have one of its rooms painted in a hue he didn’t prefer. [/quote]
You buffoon that is exactly whom you helped elect to the Oval Office in Barack Obama the most uncompromising President in the history of our nation and a true ideologue!
I defy anyone to name a modern day President who reached out to the other party less than Barack Obama.
Is it okay to be that rigid if you are a lefty?
[/quote]
We aren’t discussing Obama, we are discussing Cruz vis-a-vis Reagan. Go fight your boogeyman elsewhere.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cruz is one of the only politicians actually doing his job.
I will give you that the media does everything in its power to make it look like Cruz’s positions are “extreme.”
By those measures, however, Reagan was also a crazy extremist. And he was elected in two landslide victories with record numbers of voters from both sides turning out in his favor. The idea that moderates conservatives would stay home for someone like Cruz is a badly mistaken one, I think. I hope we have the chance to see if I’m right or not. [/quote]
Compromise is the coin of the political realm. Cruz has demonstrated that he is a maximalist ideologue. It’s his way or the highway. He cares more about principles than be does about consequences. Not exactly attributes one would want for the chief diplomat of the United States. [/quote]
Again. And again and again and again: Reagan was a “maximalist ideologue” (get over yourself, Bismark). Far from hurting him, he was the most successful Republican politician of our modern age. [/quote]
Reagan did not live and die by his principles. He was a master of the art of compromise, and I applaud him for it. He understood that the guidepost of politics is consequentialism. That distinction actually belongs to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Cruz would rather set the house on fire than have one of its rooms painted in a hue he didn’t prefer. [/quote]
You buffoon that is exactly whom you helped elect to the Oval Office in Barack Obama the most uncompromising President in the history of our nation and a true ideologue!
I defy anyone to name a modern day President who reached out to the other party less than Barack Obama.
Is it okay to be that rigid if you are a lefty?
[/quote]
We aren’t discussing Obama, we are discussing Cruz vis-a-vis Reagan. Go fight your boogeyman elsewhere. [/quote]
You mean you don’t want to discuss Obama. But, since this is a thread about Boehner stepping down I guess I have as much of a right to discuss Obama as you do Reagan.
As for you thinking Cruz would be unyielding we already have the most unyielding President in the history of our country. And I’m sure you don’t want to talk about Obama because he hasn’t a leg to stand on regarding the rigid political positions that he has taken. Cruz would be a breath of fresh air in comparison.
As I said Obama is the biggest ideologue to ever be elected to the US Presidency. Some insiders say he hasn’t a friend in town in either party. He’s not reached across to republicans even one time!
Democrats bequeath an electoral gift leading into 2016.
House Republicans torment and cannibalize Boehner, and he steps down.
McCarthy, his likely replacement, bows out at the last second, throwing the House into a leadership crisis and fracturing the party.
No one wants the job. Paul Ryan is beinf begged to run for Speaker, but of course the former darling of theparty (and former vivice-presidential candidate) is now regarded by the Tea Party faction as a RINO-squish after compromising on a bipartisan deal with Senator Murray.
No one else wants the job, and why would they? They will be set up to fail and have any chances of advancing in public service shredded, since the cannibals haven’t gone anywhere and will be more than happy to Boehner the next apostate who serves as Speaker.
Also, related, the candidate at the top of the polls is a “populist” and is “anti-establishment”…and he is a RINO on paper, and also really, really loves to use the brute force of government (via eminent domain) to override private property rights, especially those of the Little Guy not interested in yielding to Big Real Estate. Populist and anti-establishment, indeed.
I repeat - the GOP has the monikor the Stupid Party for a reason.
In fact, things have gotten so bad Zeb now claims the GOP only has a 117% chance of winning the White House, down from 120%. Tough times.
Who will rescue the party and bring about the party unity no one wants?
In fact, things have gotten so bad Zeb now claims the GOP only has a 117% chance of winning the White House, down from 120%. Tough times.
[/quote]
Actually, that was pretty funny.
But on a serious note you’ve been mouthing off about my strong republican stance long enough. It really bothers you I know…So here is a way for you to shut me up.
How would you like to put your money where your mouth is? Of course it doesn’t have to be money. How about this, If I’m wrong and the GOP does not capture the White House in 2016 I won’t post for a one full year. If I’m right you go away for one full year.
On a side note, if you really think the GOP is in tatters compare them to the democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is falling apart to the point where they want to recruit two time loser Joe Biden. If they don’t they’re concerned that SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders might run away with it. I’ll bet on the best republican field in decades!
In fact, things have gotten so bad Zeb now claims the GOP only has a 117% chance of winning the White House, down from 120%. Tough times.
[/quote]
Actually, that was pretty funny.
But on a serious note you’ve been mouthing off about my strong republican stance long enough. It really bothers you I know…So here is a way for you to shut me up.
How would you like to put your money where your mouth is? Of course it doesn’t have to be money. How about this, If I’m wrong and the GOP does not capture the White House in 2016 I won’t post for a one full year. If I’m right you go away for one full year.
On a side note, if you really think the GOP is in tatters compare them to the democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is falling apart to the point where they want to recruit two time loser Joe Biden. If they don’t they’re concerned that SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders might run away with it. I’ll bet on the best republican field in decades!
How about it TB?
Put up or shut up![/quote]
I am not mouthing off about your “strong Republican stance” - I’m mouthing off at your uninformed, unobjective stance. And I have already stated in another thread I think Jeb wins the election, so I am not predicting a Democratic victory. Thus, at this point, there’s nothing on which to wager.
But most importantly, I don’t do internet wagers, because they’re dumb.
In fact, things have gotten so bad Zeb now claims the GOP only has a 117% chance of winning the White House, down from 120%. Tough times.
Actually, that was pretty funny.
But on a serious note you’ve been mouthing off about my strong republican stance long enough. It really bothers you I know…So here is a way for you to shut me up.
How would you like to put your money where your mouth is? Of course it doesn’t have to be money. How about this, If I’m wrong and the GOP does not capture the White House in 2016 I won’t post for a one full year. If I’m right you go away for one full year.
On a side note, if you really think the GOP is in tatters compare them to the democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is falling apart to the point where they want to recruit two time loser Joe Biden. If they don’t they’re concerned that SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders might run away with it. I’ll bet on the best republican field in decades!
How about it TB?
Put up or shut up!
I am not mouthing off about your “strong Republican stance” - I’m mouthing off at your uninformed, unobjective stance.[/quote]
Funny thing about you TB you don’t mind calling my positions uninformed yet you never point out exactly where I am factually wrong. Since you’re quite a vocal little fellow around here I would think that if you had some facts to back up your bluster you would post them, at least that’s what you’ve done with others in the past. But with me…nothing. So go ahead and post exactly why and most importantly where I have shown that I am I uninformed relative to the 2016 Presidential race.
Oh I see. if they were not dumb well then you’d probably wager. But since they’re dumb you’d rather not. Too bad they’re dumb huh?
House Republicans torment and cannibalize Boehner, and he steps down.
McCarthy, his likely replacement, bows out at the last second, throwing the House into a leadership crisis and fracturing the party.
[/quote]
This is the standard line from the moderates. “Fracturing” and “cannibalism” and such. Maybe it’s just good ol’ fashioned politics that is actually healthy for the party in this instance.
There is a strong conservative faction, a movement that is sorely needed to pull the GOP back from its drift toward continuing to be a rather bland, tasteless, watery beer – “Democrat Lite.”
The question is whether the timing is right.
[/quote]
Politics are inherently about compromise. A middle road must be found. By adopting maximalist positions and electing maximalist representatives, the GOP is condemning itself to become an anachronism. It must evolve with the domestic and international mileu, or it will die.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Funny thing about you TB you don’t mind calling my positions uninformed yet you never point out exactly where I am factually wrong.
[/quote]
When you are active on this board, ~85 percent of its activity arises from the fact of one or more posters “pointing out exactly where [you are] factually wrong.” That you plug your ears and chant “lalala” is
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Funny thing about you TB you don’t mind calling my positions uninformed yet you never point out exactly where I am factually wrong.
[/quote]
When you are active on this board, ~85 percent of its activity arises from the fact of one or more posters “pointing out exactly where [you are] factually wrong.” That you plug your ears and chant “lalala” is
Lost on exactly nobody;
and
Your own problem entirely.[/quote]
Yes 85% is a good number to pull out of your ass–ha ha
House Republicans torment and cannibalize Boehner, and he steps down.
McCarthy, his likely replacement, bows out at the last second, throwing the House into a leadership crisis and fracturing the party.
[/quote]
This is the standard line from the moderates. “Fracturing” and “cannibalism” and such. Maybe it’s just good ol’ fashioned politics that is actually healthy for the party in this instance.
There is a strong conservative faction, a movement that is sorely needed to pull the GOP back from its drift toward continuing to be a rather bland, tasteless, watery beer – “Democrat Lite.”
The question is whether the timing is right.
[/quote]
Understanding that your new boogeyman appears to be “moderates”, I am not sure that a situation that has GOP lawmakers weeping on the floor and has party mandarins begging people who clearly do not want the job is any sign of a party or faction’s “health”, and certainly not with an election looming.
In fact, things have gotten so bad Zeb now claims the GOP only has a 117% chance of winning the White House, down from 120%. Tough times.
Actually, that was pretty funny.
But on a serious note you’ve been mouthing off about my strong republican stance long enough. It really bothers you I know…So here is a way for you to shut me up.
How would you like to put your money where your mouth is? Of course it doesn’t have to be money. How about this, If I’m wrong and the GOP does not capture the White House in 2016 I won’t post for a one full year. If I’m right you go away for one full year.
On a side note, if you really think the GOP is in tatters compare them to the democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is falling apart to the point where they want to recruit two time loser Joe Biden. If they don’t they’re concerned that SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders might run away with it. I’ll bet on the best republican field in decades!
How about it TB?
Put up or shut up!
I am not mouthing off about your “strong Republican stance” - I’m mouthing off at your uninformed, unobjective stance.[/quote]
Funny thing about you TB you don’t mind calling my positions uninformed yet you never point out exactly where I am factually wrong. Since you’re quite a vocal little fellow around here I would think that if you had some facts to back up your bluster you would post them, at least that’s what you’ve done with others in the past. But with me…nothing. So go ahead and post exactly why and most importantly where I have shown that I am I uninformed relative to the 2016 Presidential race.
Oh I see. if they were not dumb well then you’d probably wager. But since they’re dumb you’d rather not. Too bad they’re dumb huh?
[/quote]
A few thoughts.
I am not little.
If I see you get a fact wrong, I am happy to tell you so - my issue is more with your uninformed analysis. Republicans do no wrong, Democrats do no right. Trump runs as a Republican, you slobbering all over his purported qualifications and awesomeness - were he running as a Democrat, you’d be attacking everything about his big government tendencies and how much he is like Obama. You’re a cheerleader, and little more - you won’t concede or admit any GOP weakness. Best! Field! Ever! And all that.
Were you more informed, you’d have a more balanced view. Since all you do is consume Kool-Aid, you don’t.
If your reading comprehension was up to par, you’d realize I have predicted a GOP win. There would be nothing on which to internet wager, if such wagers weren’t dumb.
House Republicans torment and cannibalize Boehner, and he steps down.
McCarthy, his likely replacement, bows out at the last second, throwing the House into a leadership crisis and fracturing the party.
[/quote]
This is the standard line from the moderates. “Fracturing” and “cannibalism” and such. Maybe it’s just good ol’ fashioned politics that is actually healthy for the party in this instance.
There is a strong conservative faction, a movement that is sorely needed to pull the GOP back from its drift toward continuing to be a rather bland, tasteless, watery beer – “Democrat Lite.”
The question is whether the timing is right.
[/quote]
Politics are inherently about compromise. A middle road must be found. By adopting maximalist positions and electing maximalist representatives, the GOP is condemning itself to become an anachronism. It must evolve with the domestic and international mileu, or it will die. [/quote]
The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.
Tea Partiers don’t know much about history.
Also, on this point, I’d like to reiterate a point I’ve made for years - Tea Partiers are not all that different from Obama. They are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
Oh…you thought I meant that you were “physically” little–no, no not at all.
Specifics? I see, you disagree with my analysis. Fine, but it is far from “uninformed”. But you would actually have to know more than you do (obviously) to appreciate it.
Not true. Many times I have said that the republican philosophy suits me well. BUT, I’ve also said a number of times (if you actually paid attention like you pretend to do) that the republicans in power often get it wrong. As for the current democratic party they have moved so far left there is little to like. But others have said that too. Hopefully you can see that, if not you have more problems than simply disagreeing with my (mostly good) analysis.
First of all I have said many times (please go back and check) that Trump is far from my first choice. I have in the past called him a big mouth and a bragger…is that slobbering over his greatness? You really need to start paying attention BEFORE you open your uninformed mouth. However, I was and still am impressed with his business success whether he was running for President or not. You are not…fine. As for his Presidential prowess he looks mighty good when compared to socialist Sanders, dishonest Hillary and two time loser and career politician Biden. Oh my…I forgot you like Biden. You’d send him right in to negotiate a deal according to another thread…Yeah you are all kinds of smart for saying that WOW.
As for the final comment, “best field ever” yes it certainly is. Name another Presidential year where we have had so many successful former Governors, Senators and business people running for President? Can’t can you? That’s okay just put that on your list of things that you learned from Zeb.
I know you are not well versed in Presidential politics and probably have no memory of previous elections. So, Google the previous Presidential elections and compare. Once you do, if you have an ounce of fairness in your argument you will have to give me this one. They are a great field any of 12-14 of them would certainly be qualified to hold the highest office in the land. When was the last time a GOP field had that many highly qualified candidates? And yes all of them (barring one perhaps) would be better than Hillary! And would be better than your great negotiator Joe Biden. Ha ha Joe Biden really TB? You are slipping my man. (I don’t want to make you mad like I did with the “little” comment. So, if you are actually a woman (honestly I don’t really know) forgive me. Thanks.
I walk around with far more knowledge of Presidential politics than you TB. You don’t like reading that but from reading your many posts regarding that very topic I am correct. You can call it Kool-Aid no problem. But I wonder what you are thinking?
You trash Trump on a regular basis, fine there is a lot to trash there, yet I don’t remember reading many of your posts attacking Obama. You have a soft spot for the naïve left wing President TB? I understand…maybe you can talk to some people about that problem, or if you really want to shut me up tell me why he has not been a total disaster, and why you have not mentioned it more if that’s the case? Are you up for it? Come on TB give me a nice long list of Obama’s accomplishments. For that matter why don’t you list all of the many accomplishments of the three stooges that are running on the democratic side. I am really looking forward to your response on this one–don’t dodge the question TB.
[quote]3. If your reading comprehension was up to par, you’d realize I have predicted a GOP win. There would be nothing on which to internet wager, if such wagers weren’t dumb.
[/quote]
Reading comprehension huh? That’s an odd thing for someone who has not brought any evidence of me being wrong in my political analysis. Yet, you charge me with “uninformed analysis”. Didn’t you read my previous post correctly? I want specifics and you don’t have any. “slobbering over Trump”? when I’m not doing that is hardly proof of uninformed analysis. What else you go big fella (that makes up for calling you small right?) No evidence? Odd for someone who considers themselves so very smart. You don’t like my style, you call me a cheerleader for the GOP. Yet, where have I been factually wrong? You don’t like my approach? Okay well I have a cure for that, don’t read my posts anymore I obviously irritate you (and smh:)
by the way, I read your recent prediction of Bush over Hillary. I think you said it was a 60/40 chance. Not a bad call…
If, Hillary is the candidate for the democrats instead of fighting for her freedom vs. the federal government.
And …
if Jeb Bush can continue to raise money and somehow can turn a strong debate performance into poll points. He couldn’t do that after the most recent debate. I thought he ate Trump’s lunch (slobbering?) yet it did not equate to any appreciable support. That would worry some people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.
Post back soon with that nice long list of Obama’s great accomplishments and also what qualifies either Curly, Larry and Moe to President. Critical analysis if I am wrong about the GOP then the democrats really have something going right?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Funny thing about you TB you don’t mind calling my positions uninformed yet you never point out exactly where I am factually wrong.
[/quote]
When you are active on this board, ~85 percent of its activity arises from the fact of one or more posters “pointing out exactly where [you are] factually wrong.” That you plug your ears and chant “lalala” is
Lost on exactly nobody;
and
Your own problem entirely.[/quote]
Yes 85% is a good number to pull out of your ass–ha ha
Anyway…
I knew you wouldn’t keep your word.
You were done with me remember?
That gift only lasted a little more than week.
Go away smh, or are you TB?
Who knows? It is the Internet.
[/quote]
Literacy: an important skill.
My words (followed, I might add, by a hilarious excerpt indicative of your spectacular, you-couldn’t-make-this-up ignorance):
[quote]
But I’ve thoroughly loathed corresponding with Zeb for long enough that I’d rather burn this bridge here and now so that I can continue to enjoy occasionally bouncing ideas around the board without having to hope that the resident idiot doesn’t wake up and think I’m going to humor his idiocy any longer.[/quote]
Nowhere in there did I say that I won’t be laughing at you when you deserve it. I simply have learned not to care about arguing against you, because I gain nothing from it. Anyway, totally understandable if you don’t want to deal with my occasional (and surely negative) remarks – you’re free to block me.
I wasn’t mad about you calling me little - I was merely correcting an erroneous fact.
“I walk around with far more knowledge of Presidential politics than you TB”. This was delightful.
In a predictable non-sequitur, you conclude my criticism of you as being a sycophantic cheerleader must mean I really like Obama and probably have posted how much I think he’s awesome. Clearly you don’t read my posts, but that’s really beside the point that your logic is poor. I could love Obama or hate him - you’re still a cheerleader.
Biden would have been the best negotiator among the options in the other thread. Liberals can be good negotiators, and so can conservatives. Biden happens to be good at it, and even his political opponents acknowledge this. Biden as a good negotiator is only an indefensible position if you think Only! Republicans! Are! Which is your flaw. Because you are a cheerleader.
Let me spare you some time - these lengthy, peevish posts to me aren’t worth your time. I used to read them, I really don’t anymore.