Republicans Could Lock Up 2016 If...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pack up your shit and go home, fight’s over boys. [/quote]

Can’t do it because there’s really no place on earth to emigrate.[/quote]

http://freeislandproject.com/

One last bastion of hope?!

Nah. It’ll never happen. [/quote]

Heh. I predict such an experiment would last maybe six months. And that is being charitable.[/quote]

“Leader implies a top down hierarchy that is mimicked by traditional business organizations, especially the corporate hierarchy, which is a product of the State and not a product of the free market.”

Lol, GTFO of here…

62

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pack up your shit and go home, fight’s over boys. [/quote]

Can’t do it because there’s really no place on earth to emigrate.[/quote]

http://freeislandproject.com/

One last bastion of hope?!

Nah. It’ll never happen. [/quote]

Heh. I predict such an experiment would last maybe six months. And that is being charitable.[/quote]

I can’t remember how long this idea has been “floating” (bad pun) around. I think I remember hearing about it a LONG time ago on a board that had a lot of anarcho-capitalists. It will never happen and in all likelihood they aren’t even attempting to make it happen.

Although it is correct on all those boards that statists just repeated over and over “if you don’t like government move to Somalia.” And I consider myself a statist I guess at least a limited one.

63

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way:

Fiorina “has my ear”…she just needs to lay out her vision.

Walker needs to get moving on his vision also.

I was impressed with what Paul laid out at Bowie state.

The Problem?

I see all three getting chewed up and spit out in the GOP Primary. (Even though Paul “won” the CPAC Straw Poll, for what it’s worth).

And Jeb is amassing INSANE amounts of money.

Mufasa[/quote]

The very fact that he is amassing that amount of money already is one reason I despise his candidacy. As H Factor said elsewhere, Cruz won’t win but the deciding factor shouldn’t be the amount of money he gets into his warchest–or lack thereof.

More money just means more people to pay back afterwards.[/quote]

It’s likely that same money (or lack there of) keeping an economically illiterate, falsely populous kook like Liz Warren on the sidelines.

So, I’ll take the bad with the good.

No worries on god ol’ Jeb. Dude couldn’t beat Biden in a general. [/quote]

Truth. I throw up a little in the back of my mouth every time I see a facebook post about how “Liz Warren should be president!!1!!11”.[/quote]

I’m perfectly fine with her in the Senate. Wish it was someone else’s state and not mine, but perfectly fine with her in the Senate.

Just don’t need that kind of shit in the executive.

At least the money is predictable and doesn’t lie. I’ve given up any hope of anything uttered in a campaign being rooted in truth. They are circus shows at this point. Like a slightly more intelligent version of Jersey Shore.

Obama was Ronnie, and Romney was Dina.

64

[quote]H factor wrote:

I can’t remember how long this idea has been “floating” (bad pun) around. I think I remember hearing about it a LONG time ago on a board that had a lot of anarcho-capitalists. It will never happen and in all likelihood they aren’t even attempting to make it happen.

Although it is correct on all those boards that statists just repeated over and over “if you don’t like government move to Somalia.” And I consider myself a statist I guess at least a limited one. [/quote]

But who will build the roads? I kid, I kid.

The “why don’t you just move” line is so tired, and I’m so sick of it… Everyone tosses that shit around.

Someone saying it about a state? Fine. One can move from CT to SC, it isn’t really plausible to move out of the US and have remotely close to the lifestyle you would staying.

65

No, no, no…many of you guys are missing the point. It’s not a matter of who you would prefer. It’s all about the math, all about the math all about the math (sorry that one song is stuck in my head:).

Red states will vote republican…yes even if Bush is at the top of the ticket. If they stay home that will not be enough (in red states) to elect Hillary. For example, you actually think Texas is going to go to a democrat> NO WAY BABY!

So…it’s all about the math! The electoral math.

Republicans always win with Florida and Ohio and always lose when they don’t win those two states. The other red states will vote republican regardless. Especially after 8 years of Obuma.

Kasich, Bush, Rubio…

My preference is a republican win…

66

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pack up your shit and go home, fight’s over boys. [/quote]

Can’t do it because there’s really no place on earth to emigrate.[/quote]

http://freeislandproject.com/

One last bastion of hope?!

Nah. It’ll never happen. [/quote]

Oh, yeah! GREAT idea!

Where do I sign up and send my money?

(…right…)

Mufasa

68

[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, no, no…many of you guys are missing the point. It’s not a matter of who you would prefer. It’s all about the math, all about the math all about the math (sorry that one song is stuck in my head:).

Red states will vote republican…yes even if Bush is at the top of the ticket. If they stay home that will not be enough (in red states) to elect Hillary. For example, you actually think Texas is going to go to a democrat> NO WAY BABY!

So…it’s all about the math! The electoral math.

Republicans always win with Florida and Ohio and always lose when they don’t win those two states. The other red states will vote republican regardless. Especially after 8 years of Obuma.

Kasich, Bush, Rubio…

My preference is a republican win…[/quote]

I am nit quite so certain. My heart says republican or third party, but a point raised in an earlier thread, I believe by beans, was made that the interest and QE that jave been helping us limp along are going to tank sometime. And when they do I would much rather have a democrat holding the shit sandwich than a republican.

So, I am torn.

69

ZEB, an attitude of only wanting to win, regardless of who gets elected is pretty dangerous, and I would suggest to think that through a bit more.

70

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
ZEB, an attitude of only wanting to win, regardless of who gets elected is pretty dangerous, and I would suggest to think that through a bit more. [/quote]

Yes, I will sit back and think that through, the way some did who didn’t vote for Romney because he just wasn’t conservative enough for them. A man who swore that at the top of his list was to take down Obama care. Yes…I will sit back and wait for the perfect republican candidate and only vote for him, or her when they avail themselves. And until that point in time I simply won’t vote. Because voting for someone whom you agree with perhaps half the time is exactly the same as allowing someone whom you never agree with to capture the White House.

HUH?

Know that half a loaf is far, far better than no loaf at all.

71

Zeb is right, and Obama used this to his advantage in 2008.

The message Romney should have pitched to the far right was, “you may not think I am Conservative enough, but the other guy is not Conservative at all. If you’re not thrilled about me, the other guy will piss you off even more.”

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
ZEB, an attitude of only wanting to win, regardless of who gets elected is pretty dangerous, and I would suggest to think that through a bit more. [/quote]

Yes, I will sit back and think that through, the way some did who didn’t vote for Romney because he just wasn’t conservative enough for them. A man who swore that at the top of his list was to take down Obama care. Yes…I will sit back and wait for the perfect republican candidate and only vote for him, or her when they avail themselves. And until that point in time I simply won’t vote. Because voting for someone whom you agree with perhaps half the time is exactly the same as allowing someone whom you never agree with to capture the White House.

HUH?

Know that half a loaf is far, far better than no loaf at all.[/quote]

Yeah, I see what you’re getting at.
Kind of indicative that the system in place is a shitty one, when the outcome is “less of two evils” all too often.
As an alternative, I found this video pretty interesting

Have to keep your propagandha hat on cuz China, but I did like the idea of a meritocratic system and vetting as opposed to democratic. I know some will say that getting re-elected is a vetting process, but I don’t think they’re comparable.

73

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Yes, I will sit back and think that through, the way some did who didn’t vote for Romney because he just wasn’t conservative enough for them.[/quote]

I think you’re ignoring the giant elephant in the room that, in POTUS elections, the electorate favors Democrats, by a large enough margin, that just “getting out the conservative vote” isn’t going to win.

Neither is running a shit squish like Romney, but that is besides the overall point.

Who put it in place in MA a couple years before. No thanks.

Because that is materially different than “let’s all letter vote for a guy who won’t actually fix anything, be substantially different than the dude we have now”?

[quote]Because voting for someone whom you agree with perhaps half the time is exactly the same as allowing someone whom you never agree with to capture the White House.

HUH?

Know that half a loaf is far, far better than no loaf at all.[/quote]

The republicans have more than half the loaf, they own the house, and 2010 and 2014 were two of the most historic landslides we’ve ever seen.

Seems to me that running shit squishes for POTUS and losing, not just because “true conservatives” dont’ vote (which even Rove says is utter bullshit), but because the candidate sucks, is actually working out just fine for the GOP.

74

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
ZEB wrote:MattyG35 wrote:
ZEB, an attitude of only wanting to win, regardless of who gets elected is pretty dangerous, and I would suggest to think that through a bit more.

Yes, I will sit back and think that through, the way some did who didn’t vote for Romney because he just wasn’t conservative enough for them. A man who swore that at the top of his list was to take down Obama care. Yes…I will sit back and wait for the perfect republican candidate and only vote for him, or her when they avail themselves. And until that point in time I simply won’t vote. Because voting for someone whom you agree with perhaps half the time is exactly the same as allowing someone whom you never agree with to capture the White House.

HUH?

Know that half a loaf is far, far better than no loaf at all.

Yeah, I see what you’re getting at.
Kind of indicative that the system in place is a shitty one, when the outcome is “less of two evils” all too often.[/quote]

Not a bad system. Think about it this way: If you get your ideal candidate that very same guy may only meet half of my needs. Does that make him a bad candidate?

Politics at its best is a give and take game. Those who look for purity and perfection based on their own standards will most usually be let down.

For example, I am old enough to have voted for Ronald Reagan. He was my ideal candidate and turned out to be a great President. But, if I was looking for another Ronald Reagan over the past 27 years I would have been very disillusioned. But alas I am a realist and fully understand that whomever the republicans nominate he/she is most likely not, in my opinion, going to be another Ronald Reagan. So, I simply look for someone who is closest. I don’t look at it as the lesser of two evils as that is negative. I look at it as the best of the two candidates.

In my view Romney was the obvious choice. But many on the right chose to stay home because he was just not “right enough”. Is that even logical? Now they’ve had to live with someone who is far less conservative than Romney. How is that the smart choice. Simply vote for the best candidate and then over the ensuing four years work to nominate someone even more conservative (if that be your choice).

Anyway, back to my original point. It’s all about winning. The more left wing nuts that we allow to sit in the oval office the more left wing judges that we get on the Supreme Court, the more left wing programs and on and on.

So…it’s all about the math, the electoral math. And if we have a ticket with the Governor of Ohio on it and the other spot is someone who held, or holds high office from Florida —WE WIN!

In fact, it’s a lock…even with a left wing media working against the republican ticket. Otherwise, get used to hearing “President Hillary Clinton”.

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Seems to me that running shit squishes for POTUS and losing, not just because “true conservatives” dont’ vote (which even Rove says is utter bullshit), but because the candidate sucks, is actually working out just fine for the GOP. [/quote]

Working out fine? Not when we lose two Presidential elections in a row.

76

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
ZEB wrote:MattyG35 wrote:
ZEB, an attitude of only wanting to win, regardless of who gets elected is pretty dangerous, and I would suggest to think that through a bit more.

Yes, I will sit back and think that through, the way some did who didn’t vote for Romney because he just wasn’t conservative enough for them. A man who swore that at the top of his list was to take down Obama care. Yes…I will sit back and wait for the perfect republican candidate and only vote for him, or her when they avail themselves. And until that point in time I simply won’t vote. Because voting for someone whom you agree with perhaps half the time is exactly the same as allowing someone whom you never agree with to capture the White House.

HUH?

Know that half a loaf is far, far better than no loaf at all.

Yeah, I see what you’re getting at.
Kind of indicative that the system in place is a shitty one, when the outcome is “less of two evils” all too often.[/quote]

Not a bad system. Think about it this way: If you get your ideal candidate that very same guy may only meet half of my needs. Does that make him a bad candidate?

Politics at its best is a give and take game. Those who look for purity and perfection based on their own standards will most usually be let down.

For example, I am old enough to have voted for Ronald Reagan. He was my ideal candidate and turned out to be a great President. But, if I was looking for another Ronald Reagan over the past 27 years I would have been very disillusioned. But alas I am a realist and fully understand that whomever the republicans nominate he/she is most likely not, in my opinion, going to be another Ronald Reagan. So, I simply look for someone who is closest. I don’t look at it as the lesser of two evils as that is negative. I look at it as the best of the two candidates.

In my view Romney was the obvious choice. But many on the right chose to stay home because he was just not “right enough”. Is that even logical? Now they’ve had to live with someone who is far less conservative than Romney. How is that the smart choice. Simply vote for the best candidate and then over the ensuing four years work to nominate someone even more conservative (if that be your choice).

Anyway, back to my original point. It’s all about winning. The more left wing nuts that we allow to sit in the oval office the more left wing judges that we get on the Supreme Court, the more left wing programs and on and on.

So…it’s all about the math, the electoral math. And if we have a ticket with the Governor of Ohio on it and the other spot is someone who held, or holds high office from Florida —WE WIN!

In fact, it’s a lock…even with a left wing media working against the republican ticket. Otherwise, get used to hearing “President Hillary Clinton”.

[/quote]

Good points, and good to see you around again. Exam season, so I can’t put as much time into posts as I’d like.

77

Zeb!

Glad to see you’re back, as the 2016 Campaign is starting to heat up! (Rand Paul just made it official, by the way).

(Also good to see that you’re still “fighting the good fight”!)

Mufasa

78

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pack up your shit and go home, fight’s over boys. [/quote]

Can’t do it because there’s really no place on earth to emigrate.[/quote]

There is this one country in North America where you can show up, no passport, no papers, no id, no job skills, and people will be forced accept you. Not only will they accept you, theyll refer to you as a “Citizen in waiting” despite the fact you broke many laws to get there and generally will contribute nothing positive to society. You’ll also get free medical care if you need it.

79

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Seems to me that running shit squishes for POTUS and losing, not just because “true conservatives” dont’ vote (which even Rove says is utter bullshit), but because the candidate sucks, is actually working out just fine for the GOP. [/quote]

Working out fine? Not when we lose two Presidential elections in a row. [/quote]

Long game… Yes it works out just fine. The Democrats aren’t very good at actually governing. They are great marketers and wonderful at rhetoric and bullshit. When it comes to actually functioning on any sort of higher level, they fuck up pretty bad. They happen to own the social issues right now, and people vote based on feels, social issues hit them right in the feels, so, they continue to win.

But they continue to fuck it up…

The taste will sour, and the tides will shift…

And to the point about judges… I believe it was a conservative stall worth that gave us “it’s a tax”… I’m not sold on GOP judges by default either.

80

They clearly own the economic issues, too.