View Full Version : Christie - The next GOP 2016 pick?
All this buzz over this guy. He is pretty Antigun and I would like to know others thoughts.
Here's mine and they are simple. I will not vote for this guy. He's morbidly obese, another bully Jersey politician, and honestly I don't believe a damn thing he says. I really hope this isn't the future of the GOP but it wouldn't surprise me either.
brickboy240
11-05-13, 14:19
Loser!
You think McCain and Romney went down in flames...if we allow the GOP establishment to force Christie or Jeb Bush at us....you can bet on either going down to Hillary with ease.
So far...Hillary has a cake walk into the Oval Office in 2016. She will also have the help of MacAuliffe in VA real soon.
The GOP establishment is doing their level best to vilify Cruz, Paul or whomever comes along as a challenger to their moderate fluff choice.
Sad days...I am afraid...are ahead.
-brickboy240
I'm calling it right now. The media is going to make sure that Christie is the GOP candidate in 2016, and Hillary the DNC candidate. After the primaries, they'll run a bunch of "newly discovered" unflattering stuff on Christie, bury Hillary's faults and heap praise upon her. Christie will lose the general election and we'll have anothe 4 years of Democratic rule. Meanwhile, the GOP will stand there and bleed.
It sucks, but that's what I see. :(
Business_Casual
11-05-13, 14:35
I'm calling it right now. The media is going to make sure that Christie is the GOP candidate in 2016, and Hillary the DNC candidate. After the primaries, they'll run a bunch of "newly discovered" unflattering stuff on Christie, bury Hillary's faults and heap praise upon her. Christie will lose the general election and we'll have anothe 4 years of Democratic rule. Meanwhile, the GOP will stand there and bleed.
It sucks, but that's what I see. :(
This is an excellent analysis. Provided Christie doesn't switch to (D), that is.
This is an excellent analysis. Provided Christie doesn't switch to (D), that is.
Thought he already had.
Consulting my crystal ball... I see... I see... Hillary by a narrow margin. Oh wait... there's something else.... Could it be another term for BHO? Never mind I seem to be getting physic interference from Tom Hanks....
I'm calling it right now. The media is going to make sure that Christie is the GOP candidate in 2016, and Hillary the DNC candidate. After the primaries, they'll run a bunch of "newly discovered" unflattering stuff on Christie, bury Hillary's faults and heap praise upon her. Christie will lose the general election and we'll have anothe 4 years of Democratic rule. Meanwhile, the GOP will stand there and bleed.
It sucks, but that's what I see. :(
This is how I see things playing oit as well. Some of tidbits coming out over the trouble Romney had vetting are likely only the tip of the ice berg.
Only difference though this would be the official end of the GOP.
I'm not looking forward to hearing from all the trolls about electability again though for sure.
Eurodriver
11-05-13, 15:24
Chris Christie Is About To Win In A Landslide, And He Wants Every Republican To Understand Why
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chris-christie-win-landslide-wants-022005963.html
The media is already grooming him...
RINOs of the forum - I will not vote for a RINO. Period. I will live with Hillary in the Whitehouse and not feel one ounce of guilt if Hillary is elected President by one vote in my state because I voted for Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/et al.
If you come at me with that "lesser of two evil" shit in November 2016, I will punch you in the face.
There are only two things that I have any reason to dislike Christie over because I know next to nothing about him. He is quite obese which is a negative aspect, but nothing on policy. The first is that while he may have vetoed some stricter gun laws, he did sign off on others. The second is because he supposedly embraced Obama. My dad brought up a good point on that though - he did so after Obama came to help him out in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Is that so wrong?
ETA - the nothing on policy comment means that while I wouldn't want some massive dude to be POTUS, that specifically doesn't relate to policy.
I'm calling it right now. The media is going to make sure that Christie is the GOP candidate in 2016, and Hillary the DNC candidate. After the primaries, they'll run a bunch of "newly discovered" unflattering stuff on Christie, bury Hillary's faults and heap praise upon her. Christie will lose the general election and we'll have anothe 4 years of Democratic rule. Meanwhile, the GOP will stand there and bleed.
It sucks, but that's what I see. :(
I see it the same way, and Christie will lose by an even bigger margin than McCain or Romney. And for the first time in decades, Texas will go BLUE, not because it is a BLUE state, but because most RED voters will stay home rather than vote for him.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chris-christie-win-landslide-wants-022005963.html
The media is already grooming him...
RINOs of the forum - I will not vote for a RINO. Period. I will live with Hillary in the Whitehouse and not feel one ounce of guilt if Hillary is elected President by one vote in my state because I voted for Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/et al.
If you come at me with that "lesser of two evil" shit in November 2016, I will punch you in the face.
Damn straight.
HackerF15E
11-05-13, 15:38
I think just like Giuliani, Christie will be DOA at the national level once primaries actually start.
He may be a "Republican", but he is a northeast authoritarian in philosophy (even more than Romney was), and that won't at all fly.
HackerF15E
11-05-13, 15:40
but nothing on policy. The first is that while he may have vetoed some stricter gun laws, he did sign off on others. The second is because he supposedly embraced Obama. My dad brought up a good point on that though - he did so after Obama came to help him out in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Is that so wrong?
He is an ardent AWB supporter -- that's not a minor point at all. It will be his undoing.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Silly%20People/ChrisChristieOnGuns.png
brickboy240
11-05-13, 15:43
I agree.
As bad as Hillary would be...after this many years of Obama...how bad could it get from here?
Christie is someone I will absolutely NOT vote for...period. I used my last "lesser of 2 evils" voting energy on Romney. I just cannot do it anymore. Besides, there is absolutely no chance Christie can win...even if Obamacare worsens and the other scandals come to light...Hillary's forces are just too mighty and Christie's supporters are too spineless.
If they DO run Christie in 2016...NOW do you believe me that the GOP does not want to lead, reform or win anything?
Right now, there are GOP establishment activists like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol that are actively working to de-rail any Tea Party/Libertarian candidate that crops up to challenge the establishment. That along with help from Hillary's side will ensure that a real change candidate will NEVER see the light of day.
This is where we find ourselves...and...as usual...it is less than lovely.
Keep prepping...keep buying guns and ammo and hang on...it will be a bumpy ride! LOL
-brickboy240
He is an ardent AWB supporter -- that's not a minor point at all. It will be his undoing.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Silly%20People/ChrisChristieOnGuns.png
I corrected my original post a little, it wasn't worded very well. And I didn't know that (like I said, I know next to nothing about him) so thanks for the info. How old is that though? Looks like its from the damn '80s.
Frankly, I don't care he's a tubba lard. So what? So's a lot of folks you love ...
The fact is: He's a democrat.
Oh sure, he says he's a Repub....
Vote against him cuz he hates you gun nut sob's....
Vote against him cuz he actually a socialist dressed up as a conservative American. Psst, he isn't...
Frankly, I don't care he's a tubba lard. So what? So's a lot of folks you love ...
The fact is: He's a democrat.
Oh sure, he says he's a Repub....
Vote against him cuz he hates you gun nut sob's....
Vote against him cuz he actually a socialist dressed up as a conservative American. Psst, he isn't...
I guess the infantry mentality is still showing itself in my opinion with the fatboy comment. Could have said a more "correct approach" stating he isn't appealing and has terrible physical attributes not flattering of his run for Chief Citizen. But tubba lard works too :)
HackerF15E
11-05-13, 16:45
How old is that though? Looks like its from the damn '80s.
Circa '95.
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 16:53
I won't vote for Christie. I said the same thing about Romney, and if he is the GOP pick Christie won't get my vote, either. They keep running further and further left. 3 times in a row for the RNC? Don't doubt it. They have been trying to kick the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian side out of the process but still expect our vote...:rolleyes:
I called McCain as the GOP nomination as a joke worst case scenario for 2008 running against Hillary a year before. The joke was on me as it became McCain vs. Obama.
I'm confident the primary with nominate the worst clown possible so it almost has to be Christie. I predict Christie vs. Clinton and as a result I will be voting for Sunny Leone. I wish I thought of voting for her years ago.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chris-christie-win-landslide-wants-022005963.html
The media is already grooming him...
RINOs of the forum - I will not vote for a RINO. Period. I will live with Hillary in the Whitehouse and not feel one ounce of guilt if Hillary is elected President by one vote in my state because I voted for Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/et al.
If you come at me with that "lesser of two evil" shit in November 2016, I will punch you in the face.
Word. :mad:
ForTehNguyen
11-05-13, 17:40
god I hope not, another RINO
The 2016 Presidency is lost. Hillary in '16.
The best we can hope for is to take the Senate in '14 and have control of Congress.
After all, would complete gridlock in DC be a bad thing?
I would vote Hillary before Christi. Just because.
BoringGuy45
11-05-13, 18:18
The thing to remember is, if Cruz or Paul were to get the nomination in 2016, the GOP would fall in behind them. The only other option would be to have a mass defection over to the Democratic party, so what could they do if the people vote in Tea Party favorites?
One thing to consider with Christie at a national office is that he'll be a lot more hamstrung in putting in liberal policies, including anti-gun laws. One of the main endorsements needed in the GOP establishment is from the NRA. Remember in the 2008 primaries, Romney was VERY vocal about reenacting the assault weapons ban and stated many times that he would do so very quickly if elected. He didn't get the nomination. Then, 2012 rolls around, he promises no new gun restrictions, the NRA backs him, and he gets nominated. Christie is not going to get nominated if he openly states his plan to do what Obama couldn't do and get a national registration and a national AWB. It's a losing battle and Christie knows this.
That said, I'm trying to find a silver lining. I still am not going to support him though. He's not going to do much of anything to change the track of this country.
The 2016 Presidency is lost. Hillary in '16.
The best we can hope for is to take the Senate in '14 and have control of Congress.
After all, would complete gridlock in DC be a bad thing?I have that feeling as well. But then there would be Hillarys stain on some womans dress fiasco to keep us entertained.No body will remember Bengahzzi by 2016.
Phillygunguy
11-05-13, 18:18
NO way will I vote for that fat lard ass Ill write in Rand Paul or Ted Cruz rather than Tony Soprano
Magic_Salad0892
11-05-13, 18:22
He has name recognition. That's it. He won't make it in the primaries.
He doesn't appeal to any Republican voter base.
He's not pro-gun, so he doesn't appeal to us.
He's not religious, so he doesn't appeal to the moral right.
He is a fat white guy, so minorities aren't going to be impressed.
He is pro union, so anybody worried about the economy won't be excited.
He's pro big government, so Libertarians won't wanna put their vote in for him.
Don't be surprised if we actually get a good candidate this time.
Allan West has no chance, because the media hates him. They're giving him the Herman Cain treatment.
Rand Paul won't make it past the primaries, because the media hates his father.
Expect Ted Cruz to run. Maybe with Rand as his vice.
Pay attention to what's going on with Benghazi. Hillary may be a non-starter.
Even if Billary gets in, I think we'll have the house, and senate in 2014 once Obamacare sinks all the way.
Phillygunguy
11-05-13, 18:28
I would love it if the Senate and House got taken over by the tea party If Hilary won. (Its a pipe dream I know) And by the looks of it its a done deal. Soros already gave $20,000 to her campaign . I think things a going to be pretty bad for a long time, If we loose the House in 2014 and don't get the Senate and Mrs Pant suit gets the WH we are sooo effed in the A.
I'm a believer in the "lesser of two evils" concept, and believe that those that aren't are the reason BHO won a second term. That said, I don't think Christie is the lesser of two evils and I won't vote for him. God help me, I'll throw my vote away on Rand Paul or Ted Cruz first.
Phillygunguy
11-05-13, 18:33
He has name recognition. That's it. He won't make it in the primaries.
He doesn't appeal to any Republican voter base.
He's not pro-gun, so he doesn't appeal to us.
He's not religious, so he doesn't appeal to the moral right.
He is a fat white guy, so minorities aren't going to be impressed.
He is pro union, so anybody worried about the economy won't be excited.
He's pro big government, so Libertarians won't wanna put their vote in for him.
Don't be surprised if we actually get a good candidate this time.
Allan West has no chance, because the media hates him. They're giving him the Herman Cain treatment.
Rand Paul won't make it past the primaries, because the media hates his father.
Expect Ted Cruz to run. Maybe with Rand as his vice.
Pay attention to what's going on with Benghazi. Hillary may be a non-starter.
Even if Billary gets in, I think we'll have the house, and senate in 2014 once Obamacare sinks all the way.
I like your optimism but I just think people will fall in line and vote democrat, because they are just too ****ing lazy and stupid to care, Look at Corey Booker winning and now Virginia is going to elect MacAuliffe. the trend of idiots continues, I don't think we need new politicians we need new voters
I like your optimism but I just think people will fall in line and vote democrat, because they are just too ****ing lazy and stupid to care, Look at Corey Booker winning and now Virginia is going to elect MacAuliffe. the trend of idiots continues, I don't think we need new politicians we need new voters
Oh, don't worry.. There's plenty of new voters showing up, coming straight from Acorn's office, many of whom will vote several times..
Phillygunguy
11-05-13, 18:45
Oh, don't worry.. There's plenty of new voters showing up, coming straight from Acorn's office, many of whom will vote several times..
and dont forget South of the Border
I'm calling it right now. The media is going to make sure that Christie is the GOP candidate in 2016, and Hillary the DNC candidate. After the primaries, they'll run a bunch of "newly discovered" unflattering stuff on Christie, bury Hillary's faults and heap praise upon her. Christie will lose the general election and we'll have anothe 4 years of Democratic rule. Meanwhile, the GOP will stand there and bleed.
It sucks, but that's what I see. :(
That's pretty much what I'm seeing too. The Dems are securing VA tonight as a fully Blue State. The only thing about Christie is his nationwide appeal. I don't think the rest of the nation will buy his schtick. I know the media is already selling him but I still think he can simply end up as a flash in the pan.
I wonder what Hillary will do when she gets in? Maybe she will try to destroy the Military? I mean there's not going to be a lot left for her to do. Crack down on gun rights as the mainline and compromise the Military. I can't think of anything else she could do. What can she destroy that Obama hasn't already done?
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 19:13
That's pretty much what I'm seeing too. The Dems are securing VA tonight as a fully Blue State. The only thing about Christie is his nationwide appeal. I don't think the rest of the nation will buy his schtick. I know the media is already selling him but I still think he can simply end up as a flash in the pan.
I wonder what Hillary will do when she gets in? Maybe she will try to destroy the Military? I mean there's not going to be a lot left for her to do. Crack down on gun rights as the mainline and compromise the Military. I can't think of anything else she could do. What can she destroy that Obama hasn't already done?
A ton. Obama has not gotten any gun legislation passed, and ObamaCare is a stepping stone to single payer. They still have to be in control.
NO way will I vote for that fat lard ass Ill write in Rand Paul or Ted Cruz rather than Tony Soprano
Please don't insult Tony Soprano ;)
This fat ass won't be voting for that fat ass...
A ton. Obama has not gotten any gun legislation passed, and ObamaCare is a stepping stone to single payer. They still have to be in control.
So you're saying she will need all 8 years...... that makes sense.... I can see that happening.
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 19:25
So you're saying she will need all 8 years...... that makes sense.... I can see that happening.
Look at the states that carried Bush. They are blue states now. Not enough conservative leaning swing states left for a Republican to win 270 electoral votes. FL and VA going blue is it. Bush got in by the skin on his chin FL. Its not like a Reagan election where NY goes red.
[QUOTE=BoringGuy45;1788634
That said, I'm trying to find a silver lining. I still am not going to support him though. He's not going to do much of anything to change the track of this country.[/QUOTE]
Some things just do not have silver linings: toilet bowls, and Dem/Repub primaries and candidates for example.
Being morbidly obese, Christie is uniquely qualified to represent America on the world stage. He is highly emblematic of who we are as a culture.
Being morbidly obese, Christie is uniquely qualified to represent America on the world stage. He is highly emblematic of who we are as a culture.
That might be his only qualification :)
MountainRaven
11-05-13, 20:40
I'm a believer in the "lesser of two evils" concept, and believe that those that aren't are the reason BHO won a second term. That said, I don't think Christie is the lesser of two evils and I won't vote for him. God help me, I'll throw my vote away on Rand Paul or Ted Cruz first.
So between Stalin and Hitler, who do you vote for?
Remember: Your progeny, history, and God will judge you for your vote.
For me, I'll write-in either Churchill or Roosevelt.
So between Stalin and Hitler, who do you vote for?
Remember: Your progeny, history, and God will judge you for your vote.
Oh please....:rolleyes:
Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are at least reasonable options as president. They're better than the alternatives, but from practical standpoint, a vote for either is a complete waste of a vote since neither has even the faintest chance.
/
ForTehNguyen
11-05-13, 20:54
So between Stalin and Hitler, who do you vote for?
Remember: Your progeny, history, and God will judge you for your vote.
For me, I'll write-in either Churchill or Roosevelt.
roosevelt was a big govt progressive, obviously not as bad as Hitler/Stalin but hes no saint
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 20:57
Oh please....:rolleyes:
Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are at least reasonable options as president. They're better than the alternatives, but from practical standpoint, a vote for either is a complete waste of a vote since neither has even the faintest chance.
/
So 16 is gonna be the same as 8 or 12 since we were told the same thing then...
MountainRaven
11-05-13, 21:07
Oh please....:rolleyes:
Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are at least reasonable options as president. They're better than the alternatives, but from practical standpoint, a vote for either is a complete waste of a vote since neither has even the faintest chance.
/
And that is why things will continue to not get better in this country.
So, Hitler or Stalin? Since writing in Roosevelt or Churchill is a waste of a vote. Should we add Mannerheim and De Gaulle as potential write-ins?
roosevelt was a big govt progressive, obviously not as bad as Hitler/Stalin but hes no saint
Neither was Churchill nor Chamberlain. Nor anybody running for President or likely to be running for President in 2016. Nor Obama nor Bush 43 nor Clinton nor Bush 41 nor Reagan. Nor Kennedy nor Eisenhower nor T Roosevelt nor Wilson nor Lincoln nor Grant nor Jackson nor Jefferson nor Adams. &c., &c., &c.
It is my finding that saints rarely make it as politicians and even more rarely make it to the Presidency of the US or PM of the UK.
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 21:18
And that is why things will continue to not get better in this country.
So, Hitler or Stalin?
Neither was Churchill nor Chamberlain. Nor anybody running for President or likely to be running for President in 2016. Nor Obama nor Bush 43 nor Clinton nor Bush 41 nor Reagan. Nor Kennedy nor Eisenhower nor T Roosevelt nor Wilson nor Lincoln nor Grant nor Jackson nor Jefferson nor Adams. &c., &c., &c.
It is my finding that saints rarely make it as politicians and even more rarely make it to the Presidency of the US or PM of the UK.
I kinda disagree but agree, too. Basically they aren't gonna do a Mao cleansing or Stalin purge anytime soon but the methods are the same just with a lower punishment at the end. The CMS administer said today in the Senate hearing they expected a second wave just before the deadline, paraphrasing, but basically because people are gonna get punished if they don't have insurance. Her quote was, "because people are going to have an issue."
Well, not a direct comparison, but the Jews had an 'an issue' with the Nazis, the former White's had 'an issue' with the Red's (Stalin, et al), the educated had 'an issue' when Mao and Ho Chi Mihn cleansed their society. So now, in America, the the non-insured are going to have 'an issue' with the govt because they are non-insured. A big leap from not having health insurance to simply being killed because you were a former White officer? Yes. Is the reasoning any different based off the quotes? No.
I am just doing this for a logical XYZ type of thing because we all know, if in 1800, they had tried some of this shit the proposers woulda been shot...at best. Going to the commie revolutions, and a mix of the national socialists, having 'an issue' with the national gov because you exist in a state they don't like is a big issue.
FChen17213
11-05-13, 21:34
I really fail to see how this man can call himself a Republican. He needs to just switch parties. He's absolutely terrible.
I guess the only positive thing about him is that he's morbidly obese and that represents America very well. :lol:
So 16 is gonna be the same as 8 or 12 since we were told the same thing then...
Sad but true.
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 21:37
Sad but true.
Hmm...you said the two guys who are most likely to attract the libertarian vote are the LEAST REASONABLE, and a vote for them is a wasted vote.
So who is not a wasted vote or a reasonable candidate?
Hmm...you said the two guys who are most likely to attract the libertarian vote are the LEAST REASONABLE, and a vote for them is a wasted vote.
So who is not a wasted vote or a reasonable candidate?
Please re-read. I didn't say least reasonable. I said "at least reasonable". They just have no chance of being elected, therefore wasted vote. From a practical standpoint.
.
Belmont31R
11-05-13, 21:55
Please re-read. I didn't say least reasonable. I said "at least reasonable". They just have no chance of being elected.
lol. Sorry.
MountainRaven
11-05-13, 22:04
I kinda disagree but agree, too. Basically they aren't gonna do a Mao cleansing or Stalin purge anytime soon but the methods are the same just with a lower punishment at the end. The CMS administer said today in the Senate hearing they expected a second wave just before the deadline, paraphrasing, but basically because people are gonna get punished if they don't have insurance. Her quote was, "because people are going to have an issue."
Well, not a direct comparison, but the Jews had an 'an issue' with the Nazis, the former White's had 'an issue' with the Red's (Stalin, et al), the educated had 'an issue' when Mao and Ho Chi Mihn cleansed their society. So now, in America, the the non-insured are going to have 'an issue' with the govt because they are non-insured. A big leap from not having health insurance to simply being killed because you were a former White officer? Yes. Is the reasoning any different based off the quotes? No.
I am just doing this for a logical XYZ type of thing because we all know, if in 1800, they had tried some of this shit the proposers woulda been shot...at best. Going to the commie revolutions, and a mix of the national socialists, having 'an issue' with the national gov because you exist in a state they don't like is a big issue.
It's not perfect as a metaphor, but I think it's important to emphasize that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil, instead of choosing good.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your vote is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice."
It's not perfect as a metaphor, but I think it's important to emphasize that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil, instead of choosing good.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your vote is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice."
Very noble. I would prefer to see the least damage done to my country.
If you come at me with that "lesser of two evil" shit in November 2016, I will punch you in the face.
I like the cut of your jib.
He has name recognition. That's it. He won't make it in the primaries.
He doesn't appeal to any Republican voter base.
He's not pro-gun, so he doesn't appeal to us.
He's not religious, so he doesn't appeal to the moral right.
He is a fat white guy, so minorities aren't going to be impressed.
He is pro union, so anybody worried about the economy won't be excited.
He's pro big government, so Libertarians won't wanna put their vote in for him.
Don't be surprised if we actually get a good candidate this time.
Allan West has no chance, because the media hates him. They're giving him the Herman Cain treatment.
Rand Paul won't make it past the primaries, because the media hates his father.
Expect Ted Cruz to run. Maybe with Rand as his vice.
Pay attention to what's going on with Benghazi. Hillary may be a non-starter.
Even if Billary gets in, I think we'll have the house, and senate in 2014 once Obamacare sinks all the way.
Never underestimate the GOP's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. :(
Magic_Salad0892
11-06-13, 06:20
Never underestimate the GOP's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. :(
The tides are turning, and if we put the work in, we can make it happen.
I really fail to see how this man can call himself a Republican. He needs to just switch parties. He's absolutely terrible.
I guess the only positive thing about him is that he's morbidly obese and that represents America very well. :lol:
Have you not seen the headlines as of late? The man calls himself a conservative. :rolleyes:
If Obamacare continues to implode at it's current meteoric rate, not including the website, some Democrats may switch sides - perhaps enough to make a difference.
If so, Obamacare may have an upside.
MountainRaven
11-06-13, 09:29
Very noble. I would prefer to see the least damage done to my country.
One does not save ones country by voting for someone who thinks its best to sit around and do nothing while the ship of state burns or to throw gasoline on the fire. One of those options is Clinton, the other is Christie.
Maybe if you want to save the ship, you should try voting for someone who wants to throw water on it. It may not work, but at least it's not throwing gas on open flames.
Most people who vote really should not. Not enough studying of the issues and too much learning from the evening news and political commercials. Seems only property owner should be able to vote.
montanadave
11-06-13, 10:28
I don't want to piss in the punch bowl, but if I've learned one thing from observing the politics in this nation over the past 25-30 years, it's this: As long as the American public allows themselves to be driven by wedge issues into the partisan camps of the entrenched and moribund establishment political parties, we will continue to get ****ed at every turn by friend and foe alike.
It's about party, power and money. The life, liberty, and happiness of the American people aren't even on the radar.
I will NEVER EVER vote for Christie. I've had it the last two elections holding my nose. If lard-ass gets the nomination then I'll skip the POTUS lever and vote on the Congressional and state races.
You know, I didn't talk to or read on the websites I peruse anyone who claimed to have voted for Romney in the primaries last year. NO ONE. Now, some could be bold-faced liars and didn't have the balls to admit who they voted for. Had to be that, right? 'Cause he won the nomination and yet support for him was lukewarm at best. I strongly suspect that (obviously) many succumbed to that vilest of notions, electability :bad:, and since it's a spineless idea they too were even more spineless by not fessing up to what they'd done.
One does not save ones country by voting for someone who thinks its best to sit around and do nothing while the ship of state burns or to throw gasoline on the fire. One of those options is Clinton, the other is Christie.
Maybe if you want to save the ship, you should try voting for someone who wants to throw water on it. It may not work, but at least it's not throwing gas on open flames.
OR.....if none of the candidates are carrying any water, maybe you should consider voting for the person who is carrying the least amount of gasoline.
OR.....if none of the candidates are carrying any water, maybe you should consider voting for the person who is carrying the least amount of gasoline.
You're gonna do it, aren't you? Will you admit to it afterwards? Even in the primaries????????
platoonDaddy
11-07-13, 06:15
I will NEVER EVER vote for Christie. I've had it the last two elections holding my nose. If lard-ass gets the nomination then I'll skip the POTUS lever and vote on the Congressional and state races.
As you my days of holding my nose is over and no WAY would I vote for Christie!
You're gonna do it, aren't you? Will you admit to it afterwards? Even in the primaries????????
Certainly. I voted for Romney, not because I thought he was great, but because he was better than Obama and no one else in the race had a prayer. So here we are with Arms Trade Treaties, an assault on the Second Amendment, Obamacare, massive fiscal stupidity, and a rampantly Marxist government...all because a hefty contingent of republicans felt that Romney wasn't libertarian enough, or Tea Partyish enough, and wasted their vote on Rand Paul or some other non-viable fringe candidate.
Sounds like you might be the one that got Obama re-elected. Thanks for that.
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 08:35
Certainly. I voted for Romney, not because I thought he was great, but because he was better than Obama and no one else in the race had a prayer. So here we are with Arms Trade Treaties, an assault on the Second Amendment, Obamacare, massive fiscal stupidity, and a rampantly Marxist government...all because a hefty contingent of republicans felt that Romney wasn't libertarian enough, or Tea Partyish enough, and wasted their vote on Rand Paul or some other non-viable fringe candidate.
Sounds like you might be the one that got Obama re-elected. Thanks for that.
Between Romney and Obama, only one of them have ever signed an AWB into law. Romney signed 'Obamacare' into law in MA before Obama even knew what Obamacare was.
I still maintain if the new GOP platform is going to be based off the politics of people like Romney, McCain, and Christie (et al), theres really not much a difference to people on the far right like me. If you add up all the shit the GOP did from 2001-2007, what those 3 above have done, and the current war on conservatism and limited gov, I'd rather have a Democrat at the helm because its easier to fight someone from the other side than one of your own. Somehow it was ok for Bush to spend like a drunken sailor, sign the Patriot Act, initiate the NSA spying, NCLB, Part D, TSA, DHS, and the list can go on. Bush was horrible for the idea of limited government and liberty. I think its safe to say either party having complete control of Congress and the Executive is bad juju for Americans. The current mixed government is less dangerous than what we saw from 2001-2007 and 2009-2010.
all because a hefty contingent of republicans felt that Romney wasn't libertarian enough, or Tea Partyish enough, and wasted their vote on Rand Paul or some other non-viable fringe candidate.
Last time it was Ron, this time, it's Rand. ;)
Eurodriver
11-07-13, 10:16
Sounds like you might be the one that got Obama re-elected. Thanks for that.
No problem.
If the Republican party, the party of "conservatism" and "gun rights" and "fiscal responsibility" nominate someone who spends like Bush, bans guns like Romney, and agrees with Obama on damn near everything like McCain, I hope Hillary wins in 2016.
People like you will learn one day when you go out of business because of Obamacare, or you won't. Either way, I don't give a damn about your "lesser of two evils" shit.
No problem.
If the Republican party, the party of "conservatism" and "gun rights" and "fiscal responsibility" nominate someone who spends like Bush, bans guns like Romney, and agrees with Obama on damn near everything like McCain, I hope Hillary wins in 2016.
People like you will learn one day when you go out of business because of Obamacare, or you won't. Either way, I don't give a damn about your "lesser of two evils" shit.
Maybe people like you will learn someday that your idealistic fantasies don't work in the real world. In the meantime, keep on dreamin'. Most of us do grow up, eventually.
.
Certainly. I voted for Romney, not because I thought he was great, but because he was better than Obama and no one else in the race had a prayer. So here we are with Arms Trade Treaties, an assault on the Second Amendment, Obamacare, massive fiscal stupidity, and a rampantly Marxist government...all because a hefty contingent of republicans felt that Romney wasn't libertarian enough, or Tea Partyish enough, and wasted their vote on Rand Paul or some other non-viable fringe candidate.
Sounds like you might be the one that got Obama re-elected. Thanks for that.
Then it's all on you and those who think like you. If you don't want us to skip voting for the GOP POTUS nominee, then you have a lot of work to do. Those of us who live in free states will do our part and nominate someone besides Christie (I guarantee you my state won't vote for him). It's those purple state's fault when we have douchebags like McCain, Romney, Christie etc. on the ballot. We don't keep GOP nominees out of the White House, we simply don't support putting RINO in it. I couldn't give two shits less if that doesn't sit well with you. Don't like it? Then do something about it! :mad:
brickboy240
11-07-13, 11:17
Big media is pushing Christie because they know the RNC leaders will run him and he will be very easy to take down against Hillary.
Remember how big media pushed for McCain?
Don't let big media pick the opposition candidate....Christie will go down easier than did Romney.
-brickboy240
Big media is pushing Christie because they know the RNC leaders will run him and he will be very easy to take down against Hillary.
Remember how big media pushed for McCain?
Don't let big media pick the opposition candidate....Christie will go down easier than did Romney.
-brickboy240
Not only that but they know he is the closest thing to them and both parties can control in the unlikely event he wins.
----------------------------
I don't think bashing people for voting the lesser of two evils is a good way to convert people to our line of thinking. I'm sure most of us have voted for one or the other at some point in our lives knowing 3rd party didn't have a chance.
I wouldn't argue with my family for voting Romney. Maybe having an informed discussion with them about how Paul or Cruz is the best choice will make them reconsider.
I doubt most of you would bicker with your family over making the same choices so why do that to people that agree with us that are just as angry a socialist got elected POTUS?
Either way, I don't give a damn about your "lesser of two evils" shit.
You and many others here may not, but that doesn't mean it will get you, the other ideologues or this country as a whole anywhere further to the right in the end. Keep on wishin' and throwing tantrums as the left is strengthened. Sure it will all work out fine in the long run as long as you think it should.
And before anyone can't wait to mention that I must be a Christie lover being from NJ I'll have to disappoint you and clarify that I am simply a thinking realist. This is a war with numerous campaigns to be won, not a single battle.
How about this line of thinking. Figure it this way, the more and more we the people on the right vote for the lesser of two evils what happens? We always lose. As a result the rift between moderate and further right republicans/conservatives only serves to widen at I increasing rate as time goes on. So long term all that is going to happen is the GOP will never win another election again, period. Sure the political pendulum tends to swing back with respect to the prevailing political ideology of the present time but I don't think anyone will argue that median point of that balance is slowly moving further and further left even though it would seem the collective ideology of the country (e.g. the silent majority [less the free shit army types]) is still center right for the most part and I think this evidenced by state and local election outcomes. So there is a disconnect between the GOP establishment types (obviously) and the right leaning folks in this country. Point is this, if the GOP continues to nominate moderate rhinos because of this stupidly perceived notion of "electability" then at some point the rift on the right will be to big to over come as the national level political ideological median will also have moved to far left simultaneously overcome, and at that point this country will have reached the point of no return. Start pushing some libertarian/tea party types now and that will serve to at the very least halt this national level ideological shift to the left of the political spectrum and eventually at some point start shifting it back to the right.
If the GOP has any hopes of ever being in power again they need to get with the goddam program and stop pandering to independents who are too stupid to know let alone understand what the hell it is they want to vote for, and do so at the expense of the parties base. The FSA is going to vote blue anyway so ignore them as well. That and learn how to run a fvcking campaign for god sakes just pick up the dam liberal playbook and just copy that shit.
You and many others here may not, but that doesn't mean it will get you, the other ideologues or this country as a whole anywhere further to the right in the end. Keep on wishin' and throwing tantrums as the left is strengthened. Sure it will all work out fine in the end as long as you think it should.
Here's a better analogy. A car is rolling down an incline towards a cliff. You can grab onto the back bumper and slow it down slightly. Eventually, it will fall off the cliff and unless you let go, you'll go off with it. You recognize about halfway down that you will never stop the car by hanging onto the bumper. Decision time: Do you tighten your grip, or let go?
Personally? I'm not going to pull a hamstring trying to do something stupid. I'm not going to waste time drawing a line next to Christie's name either. Keep him in NJ where he belongs. K,thanks,bye! :)
This is what disturbs me the most. I see interviews all the time of the "reasonable" Joe voter and he's asked what he wants out of a candidate. They almost always say they're tired of the bickering...ready for the two parties to work together...ready for progress...blah blah blah
When did the public become so neutered they don't realize healthy political disagreements and standing on principle is part of the process? It's like the public wants these kumbaya moments where everything is in harmony. At least a few of the liberals and hippies of old had the balls to get in your face and disagree and there wasn't this massive pool in the middle that will vote for anybody as long as they get along with the other side. :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 12:11
You and many others here may not, but that doesn't mean it will get you, the other ideologues or this country as a whole anywhere further to the right in the end. Keep on wishin' and throwing tantrums as the left is strengthened. Sure it will all work out fine in the long run as long as you think it should.
And before anyone can't wait to mention that I must be a Christie lover being from NJ I'll have to disappoint you and clarify that I am simply a thinking realist. This is a war with numerous campaigns to be won, not a single battle.
The GOP itself is heading left, and actively work against conservatives and libertarian oriented people.
The GOP can't, morally, at the same time demand our vote then do everything they can to keep our influence out of the party. The GOP hasn't learned from either 08 or 12 that their agenda to appear more centrist and moderate doesn't sit well with the party's base voters. When they leave us the choice between a 'progressive Republican' or a progressive Democrat, it's not really hurting libertarians that much to vote for someone else.
If you look around at various local and state level GOP organizations, they have done everything they can to keep our influence out. At the GOP convention itself, they changed the rules so the leadership can override the state delegation's votes and nominate whoever they want. During the shutdown, a ton of RINO type Republicans (who control the party) were running to every microphone within 100 miles to denounce Cruz and others. There have been several cases of GOP local organizations going to great lengths to keep conservative/libertarian influence out. Everything from ignoring their rules, holding secret meetings that are supposed to be public, even calling the cops when they didn't get their way after votes, ect.
What the GOP is insisting on is two faced. They obviously need the votes, they just don't want any part of being associated with the limited government right side of the party because they think it looks bad and any of those guys are unelectable. Libertarians were blamed for the VA Governor's race loss...yet the GOP did hardly anything to support Cuccinelli because he's on the wrong side of the party divide. If the GOP won't even support a guy like that? I fail to see how its 'our' fault. And we've seen this time and time again where the GOP/RNC will only support their RINO type candidates and leave anyone else out to dry. But when the base, the people they refuse to actively support in elections, doesn't show up to vote for them we get blamed for the Democrat winning.
Most libertarians I know, or even conservatives, would love to be a part of the process and have some influence. All I've really said is to not expect our vote when the RINO/leadership types do everything they can to exclude us. A lot of people are frustrated about this, and just give up on the GOP. Thats how you end up with large amounts of 3rd party votes...when people feel left out, not listened to, and excluded.
As far as the Tea Party goes...I was enthused about that when they first started up, and went to some of the big initial rallies like at the Alamo. The TP was started to protest BOTH the RNC and DNC. We were pissed about TARP, and the bail outs. Taxes, big gov in general. It wasn't directed at any one party specifically. Im much less enthused about the TP today because it got co-opted by people like Palin, and somehow the religious nuts became synonymous as the TP. It was never meant to be about social or religious issues but fiscal. Taxed Enough Already should not equal people ranting about abortion, or social issues.
So we're stuck at an impasse because the mainline RINO GOP leaders want to distance themselves...yet they still aren't appealing to enough moderates/independents to win major elections. They are trying desperately, at the same time, to distance themselves from the social/religious TP nuts, and us libertarians. Well they can't get enough votes in the middle and they're losing votes from the base. What then? Go further left a little more each time instead of going further right. They've made a strategical decision to go after the middle/conservative 'blue dog dems'....but at the same time are whining that libertarians are costing them elections. The last two GOP presidential nominees have made it a point to talk about, repeatedly how well they work with Democrats. So thats the direction they want to go, and maybe a 3rd time will be a charm with a guy like Christie or another RINO type character. We'll see....just don't blame us for another loss because the GOP isn't even trying to appear like they care at all about a limited government platform, or even do anything to get our vote besides whine afterwards they lost again.
This is what disturbs me the most. I see interviews all the time of the "reasonable" Joe voter and he's asked what he wants out of a candidate. They almost always say they're tired of the bickering...ready for the two parties to work together...ready for progress...blah blah blah
When did the public become so neutered they don't realize healthy political disagreements and standing on principle is part of the process? It's like the public wants these kumbaya moments where everything is in harmony. At least a few of the liberals and hippies of old had the balls to get in your face and disagree and there wasn't this massive pool in the middle that will vote for anybody as long as they get along with the other side. :rolleyes:
I think it more or less depends on the particular subject matter being argued over. We can have spirited debates all we want on social issues and what not, Im fine with that. But economy, budget, and spending uses shouldn't even progress pass the stage of that which can be resolved through common sense and basic math.
Here's a better analogy. A car is rolling down an incline towards a cliff. You can grab onto the back bumper and slow it down slightly. Eventually, it will fall off the cliff and unless you let go, you'll go off with it. You recognize about halfway down that you will never stop the car by hanging onto the bumper. Decision time: Do you tighten your grip, or let go?
Personally? I'm not going to pull a hamstring trying to do something stupid. I'm not going to waste time drawing a line next to Christie's name either. Keep him in NJ where he belongs. K,thanks,bye! :)
So you let it go and then what? How do you get back home, what is the plan beyond feeling happy you didn't pull your hamstring? And how happy can you be you didn't pull a hamstring when you now are isolated and in danger?
Jpmuscle hits the mark with his concern of a slow erosion process, a concern that I share. But again this is not a battle, it is a war. If Bush hadn't helped implode the economy by refusing to oversee reckless capitalism or simply let Saddam rule his nation of animals the only way they should be run who knows where we are today conservative politician wise? That set us back and allowed the likes of an Obama to take hold and it sent tens of millions into the unemployment office while the banks were bailed out for their greed and idiocy.
Now we have some work to do to regain trust. Once that is done then we build upon that as fast as practically possible, one careful step at a time. If you have a better solution besides being horrified that a Republican governor won re-election in a blue state then I can't help you.
The GOP itself is heading left, and actively work against conservatives and libertarian oriented people.
I agree that this is occurring and I don't like it either. But man we have got to start the journey back over the mountain somewhere and like it or not we don't have the option from starting anywhere near the peak. Is what it is, now we must adapt and then conquer accordingly.
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 12:25
I think it more or less depends on the particular subject matter being argued over. We can have spirited debates all we want on social issues and what not, Im fine with that. But economy, budget, and spending uses shouldn't even progress pass the stage of that which can be resolved through common sense and basic math.
Most of that is political theatre anyways. The budget fight earlier this year was over a 1.7% difference between the two sides. This latest shutdown was over an even smaller slice of the pie. Its not like the Dems wanted to spend 4 trillion, and the Reps wanted to only spend 2 trillion being a 50% difference. Pigs enjoy mud, and we're stuck arguing about which pig we like the most. These budget fights also happen because to get a 'deal', a ton of special pork projects get used as leverage. A Rep hesitant to pass something can be thrown a couple hundred million or a billion for their district and suddenly they're a yes vote.
We've also seen bills, like the Hurricane Sandy bill, get tossed back and forth to the point where by the time they get passed the bill literally has billions of pork thrown in. But...if someone votes no on the bill because its pork laden, come election time, their challenger will show people how they voted no on Hurricane Sandy relief! The process up there is so convoluted and ****ed up that theres no changing it at this point until the Constitution itself is changed with term limits, balanced budget amendment, or something along those lines. I don't propose to have the exact answer but our political process has turned into a disaster of a circus that is far worse than most people realize. Unless someone gets paid full time to keep track of what goes on, and has some sort of 'inside' in the back room deals, most people have no chance to be made aware of how screwed up things are.
So you let it go and then what? How do you get back home, what is the plan beyond feeling happy you didn't pull your hamstring? And how happy can you be you didn't pull a hamstring when you now are isolated and in danger?
Jpmuscle hits the mark with his concern of a slow erosion process, a concern that I share. But again this is not a battle, it is a war. If Bush hadn't helped implode the economy by refusing to oversee reckless capitalism or simply let Saddam rule his nation of animals the only way they should be run who knows where we are today conservative politician wise? That set us back and allowed the likes of an Obama to take hold and it sent tens of millions into the unemployment office while the banks were bailed out for their greed and idiocy.
Now we have some work to do to regain trust. Once that is done then we build upon that as fast as practically possible, one careful step at a time. If you have a better solution besides being horrified that a Republican governor won re-election in a blue state then I can't help you.
I have NO problems with Christie being the NJ governor. I have no problems with Bloomberg being the NYC mayor either. What I DO have a problem with is when these liberals want to export their cockamamie ideals to the rest of the country. NJ deserves Christie and NYC deserves Bloomberg (or his replacement). The United States has done nothing to deserve these clowns. So you can talk about "regaining trust" all you want. Until you're chairman of the RNC and tell Christie to stay in NJ, you're pissing in the wind. So your job as one of his constituents is to convince him from your lowly position that he's exactly where he needs to be and to stay put. If not, I hope you enjoy Hillary as POTUS! :(
PatrioticDisorder
11-07-13, 14:11
Christie is someone I will absolutely NOT vote for...period. I used my last "lesser of 2 evils" voting energy on Romney. I just cannot do it anymore. [/B]Besides, there is absolutely no chance Christie can win...even if Obamacare worsens and the other scandals come to light...Hillary's forces are just too mighty and Christie's supporters are too spineless.
I'm in the same boat, WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT VOTE FOR FAT BASTARD! We're in for a fight, the problem is if Rand Paul and Ted Cruz jump into the primary the conservative/libertarian/tea-party vote is going to be split and the RINO vote will be united behind fat bastard. The primary is where 2016 will be won or lost... Unfortunately even if we "win" in 2016, I do not like the trend I see this country moving in. Even a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul will only be a speed bump toward in the statist march toward their dystopian society.
I'm in the same boat, WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT VOTE FOR FAT BASTARD! We're in for a fight, the problem is if Rand Paul and Ted Cruz jump into the primary the conservative/libertarian/tea-party vote is going to be split and the RINO vote will be united behind fat bastard. The primary is where 2016 will be won or lost... Unfortunately even if we "win" in 2016, I do not like the trend I see this country moving in. Even a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul will only be a speed bump toward in the statist march toward their dystopian society.
If they're smart, Rand & Ted will form an alliance and run as P/VP together. Announce it early on and put pressure on the GOP party elite to put up pr shut up.
If they're smart, Rand & Ted will form an alliance and run as P/VP together. Announce it early on and put pressure on the GOP party elite to put up pr shut up.
Then let the GOP and Christie smear campaign dirt digging begin!!
It is a great idea though I'm sure a lot of people could get behind.
Certainly. I voted for Romney, not because I thought he was great, but because he was better than Obama and no one else in the race had a prayer. So here we are with Arms Trade Treaties, an assault on the Second Amendment, Obamacare, massive fiscal stupidity, and a rampantly Marxist government...all because a hefty contingent of republicans felt that Romney wasn't libertarian enough, or Tea Partyish enough, and wasted their vote on Rand Paul or some other non-viable fringe candidate.
Sounds like you might be the one that got Obama re-elected. Thanks for that.
No, if you read my posts above you'd see "I held my nose the last two elections"; that would be McCain and Romney. NOT gonna do it again. Keep eating the shit that the GOP establishment feeds you and you'll keep getting shit. Why should they change? Oh, I know.....this is the most critical election in history, right? Where have I heard that before?
Are you gonna vote for fat-boy in the primaries too? If so then YOU are going to help elect the Hilldabeast. Thanks in advance. :rolleyes: See how that works?
As I've said before: if you are a Republican primary voter and you go in there with electability on your small mind then YOU (not Hmac in particular unless it's applicable) will solely shoulder the responsibility for a Republican defeat in the general election. The primaries are where you vote your CONSCIENCE. Electability, the facade that it is, is NOT a conscientious vote. If you choose to vote for that joke in the general because he won in the primaries despite your best efforts then so be it-----I won't either way.
WickedWillis
11-07-13, 15:24
Bobby Jindal will be the next big candidate in 2016.
Maybe people like you will learn someday that your idealistic fantasies don't work in the real world. In the meantime, keep on dreamin'. Most of us do grow up, eventually.
.
"....do grow up, eventually"? LOL! More like continue to gargle the establishment RINO phallus! Why should they change when they've got people like you? Oh, that's right......because your numbers a RAPIDLY dwindling. They receded in 2012 even with folks like me holding their nose. In 2016 even more of us WON'T hold our nose again, so do the math and think VERY carefully who you vote for in the primaries.
Then it's all on you and those who think like you. If you don't want us to skip voting for the GOP POTUS nominee, then you have a lot of work to do. Those of us who live in free states will do our part and nominate someone besides Christie (I guarantee you my state won't vote for him). It's those purple state's fault when we have douchebags like McCain, Romney, Christie etc. on the ballot. We don't keep GOP nominees out of the White House, we simply don't support putting RINO in it. I couldn't give two shits less if that doesn't sit well with you. Don't like it? Then do something about it! :mad:
Well put amigo!
Not only that but they know he is the closest thing to them and both parties can control in the unlikely event he wins.
Exactly, he's an excellent "Plan B" for the libtards. They could live with him as POTUS.
The United States has done nothing to deserve these clowns.
You mean the same United States that voted Obama twice? Seriously bro, you're normally on point with your posts but all I see here is blind emotion with no substance at all whatsoever.
By the way, I know you and the others can't wait to spew hate about Christie, but beyond wasting votes for candidates that won't win what other solutions can you offer? Hoping all of America starts sharing the same philosophy as the dedicated firearm owners of M4C won't cut it so you'd better have something more tangible to accompany all the rhetoric.
You...anybody...speak up and fill us in.
But again this is not a battle, it is a war.
"It's chess, not checkers", right? C'mon, you know you wanted to say it!
"....do grow up, eventually"? LOL! More like continue to gargle the establishment RINO phallus! Why should they change when they've got people like you? Oh, that's right......because your numbers a RAPIDLY dwindling. They receded in 2012 even with folks like me holding their nose. In 2016 even more of us WON'T hold our nose again, so do the math and think VERY carefully who you vote for in the primaries.
Like the others you talk a good game, but please do share with us your realistic plan all circumstances considered. The term "all circumstances" of course referring to the fact that most of this country doesn't think exactly like us here in this forum.
No, if you read my posts above you'd see "I held my nose the last two elections"; that would be McCain and Romney. NOT gonna do it again. Keep eating the shit that the GOP establishment feeds you and you'll keep getting shit. Why should they change? Oh, I know.....this is the most critical election in history, right? Where have I heard that before? \
\
Are you gonna vote for fat-boy in the primaries too? If so then YOU are going to help elect the Hilldabeast. Thanks in advance. :rolleyes: See how that works?\
\
As I've said before: if you are a Republican primary voter and you go in there with electability on your small mind then YOU (not Hmac in particular unless it's applicable) will solely shoulder the responsibility for a Republican defeat in the general election. The primaries are where you vote your CONSCIENCE. Electability, the facade that it is, is NOT a conscientious vote. If you choose to vote for that joke in the general because he won in the primaries despite your best efforts then so be it-----I won't either way.
I don't vote in the primaries since I'm registered as an Independent.
I already said here that I wouldn't vote for Christie. He can't beat Hillary anyway, so I'll probably waste my vote on Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, whom I feel more affinity for, than waste it on Christie, whom I dislike. Not much at stake in the presidential election (as it looks at this very, very preliminary point in time). The democratic candidate is far more likely to win.
"....do grow up, eventually"? LOL! More like continue to gargle the establishment RINO phallus! Why should they change when they've got people like you? Oh, that's right......because your numbers a RAPIDLY dwindling. They receded in 2012 even with folks like me holding their nose. In 2016 even more of us WON'T hold our nose again, so do the math and think VERY carefully who you vote for in the primaries.
Quite a little fantasy of your own that you've got going there.
If they're smart, Rand & Ted will form an alliance and run as P/VP together. Announce it early on and put pressure on the GOP party elite to put up pr shut up.
I like that idea a lot. Although, it sounds like there's some back and forth bickering as of late.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Rand-Paul-Ted-Cruz.png
That set us back and allowed the likes of an Obama to take hold and it sent tens of millions into the unemployment office while the banks were bailed out for their greed and idiocy.
Let's be factually correct here: while Bush's spending certainly didn't help, it was the Community Reinvestment Act that broke the economy this last time. That's right, giving loans to people who had no damn business getting them. And WHO exactly came up with that shit? (Hint: it WASN'T Republicans) You can thank Carter and Klinton for that bullshit.
You mean the same United States that voted Obama twice? Seriously bro, you're normally on point with your posts but all I see here is blind emotion with no substance at all whatsoever.
By the way, I know you and the others can't wait to spew hate about Christie, but beyond wasting votes for candidates that won't win what other solutions can you offer? Hoping all of America starts sharing the same philosophy as the dedicated firearm owners of M4C won't cut it so you'd better have something more tangible to accompany all the rhetoric.
You...anybody...speak up and fill us in.
It's simple. Start right now, today and tell everyone you know that candidates like Paul, Cruz, Jindal, etc. ARE electable. Trundling along with the rest of the lemmings toward the cliff is not helping. Not at all...
You mean the same United States that voted Obama twice? Seriously bro, you're normally on point with your posts but all I see here is blind emotion with no substance at all whatsoever.
By the way, I know you and the others can't wait to spew hate about Christie, but beyond wasting votes for candidates that won't win what other solutions can you offer? Hoping all of America starts sharing the same philosophy as the dedicated firearm owners of M4C won't cut it so you'd better have something more tangible to accompany all the rhetoric.
You...anybody...speak up and fill us in.
I'll bite. That knife cuts both ways dude. You blame us, but you're equally to blame if you nominate RINO-boy and he loses (which he will). So we've got a gun pointed at each other's heads.....who blinks?
WickedWillis
11-07-13, 15:55
I'll bite. That knife cuts both ways dude. You blame us, but you're equally to blame if you nominate RINO-boy and he loses (which he will). So we've got a gun pointed at each other's heads.....who blinks?
http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y409/Wickedwillis/MichealJacksonPopcorn_zpse916b062.gif (http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Wickedwillis/media/MichealJacksonPopcorn_zpse916b062.gif.html)
Like the others you talk a good game, but please do share with us your realistic plan all circumstances considered. The term "all circumstances" of course referring to the fact that most of this country doesn't think exactly like us here in this forum.
Yeah, I know how they "think" (if you want to call it "thinking"). I don't care. You can't deny you're kumbayah, meet-me-in-the-middle group is shrinking, enough so that you'll lose if you nominate Christie. Like I said earlier, we have guns pointed at each other's heads and no one will budge. And again, I don't care anymore 'cause I ain't moving and WILL pull the trigger (so to speak).
Please, choose carefully in the primaries.
It's simple. Start right now, today and tell everyone you know that candidates like Paul, Cruz, Jindal, etc. ARE electable. Trundling along with the rest of the lemmings toward the cliff is not helping. Not at all...
So it really is just that simple? Because we in this dedicated firearm/conservative forum say "everyone" will both believe and embrace it they will? Had no clue it could be that easy.
Can the GOP establishment do more to support them (assuming that may be what you meant), yes they could and the Cuccinelli scenario clarified that. But I would suggest that even he scale back the rhetoric a bit for now for the greater good. You see once we get the independents firmly on our side then we have additional leverage for bigger ideas down the line.
I'll bite. That knife cuts both ways dude. You blame us, but you're equally to blame if you nominate RINO-boy and he loses (which he will). So we've got a gun pointed at each other's heads.....who blinks?
If the dreaded RINO-boy, who voted down a host of state firearm restrictions just this year and also who the unions despise, runs and loses in favor of a democrat it will be who's fault again? Couldn't possibly the far-right ideologue pouters who are to blame because they stood their idealogical ground despite the facts being against them. Yet again.
No...I suppose we'll just have to find another scapegoat. It's just everyone's fu*king fault but ours.
So it really is just that simple? Because we in this dedicated firearm/conservative forum say "everyone" will both believe and embrace it they will? Had no clue it could be that easy.
Can the GOP establishment do more to support them (assuming that may be what you meant), yes they could and the Cuccinelli scenario clarified that. But I would suggest that even he scale back the rhetoric a bit for now for the greater good. You see once we get the independents firmly on our side then we have additional leverage for bigger ideas down the line.
Yes, it apparently is just that simple. At least it seems to have worked on you. The left and establishment GOP have told you that only a moderate GOP nominee is electable and you've bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Seriously, if all you do is sit there and wring your hands over GOP "electability", you're a large part of the problem.
If the dreaded RINO-boy, who voted down a host of state firearm restrictions just this year and also who the unions despise, runs and loses in favor of a democrat it will be who's fault again? Couldn't possibly the far-right ideologue pouters who are to blame because they stood their idealogical ground despite the facts being against them. Yet again.
No...I suppose we'll just have to find another scapegoat. It's just everyone's fu*king fault but ours.
He voted for gun control before he vetoed it.
Just like Romney voted for gun control and universal health care before he was against it.
Yep I totally trust Christie.
What are these facts that are against us?
The_War_Wagon
11-07-13, 16:37
Oh goody - another Hippo (I meant, "Rino" :rolleyes: ) nominee. I look forward to voting for the CONSTITUTION PARTY candidate - for the third election in a row - should this come to pass...
Yes, it apparently is just that simple. At least it seems to have worked on you. The left and establishment GOP have told you that only a moderate GOP nominee is electable and you've bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Seriously, if all you do is sit there and wring your hands over GOP "electability", you're a large part of the problem.
Have your day in the sun and make sure to pass on all the ridicule you like. Let the clueless masses soak it up because heck it's what they want to hear. When the Midwest has turned blue (and don't even try to tell me it isn't happening) due to stubborn fools who can't see the forest through the trees we'll make sure to blame New Jersey or New York or any other place people who cared were stupid enough to forever sit and talk of what things should be like.
Eurodriver
11-07-13, 16:46
Have your day in the sun and make sure to pass on all the ridicule you like. Let the clueless masses soak it up because heck it's what they want to hear. When the Midwest has turned blue (and don't even try to tell me it isn't happening) due to stubborn fools who can't see the forest through the trees we'll make sure to blame New Jersey or New York or any other place people who cared were stupid enough to forever sit and talk of what things should be like.
Why don't you vote for Hillary? She is definitely electable.
The answer to my question is why we won't vote for a RINO.
I personally don't give a **** if the whole country goes blue. Its easier to fight the Dems than it is a Republican.
brushy bill
11-07-13, 16:59
I see it the same way, and Christie will lose by an even bigger margin than McCain or Romney. And for the first time in decades, Texas will go BLUE, not because it is a BLUE state, but because most RED voters will stay home rather than vote for him.
I certainly would not waste the effort to "vote" when there is clearly no difference between Christie and Hillary. Might as well vote in a single party system...oh, wait....
After these last two elections I wouldn't be the least surprised if folks got in line behind the likes of Rob Ford if he were the GOP pick. And then later come on here to shame everyone who disagrees.
I've learned the only difference between the Mariana Trench and the GOP/Democratic party is that the Mariana Trench actually has a bottom.
brushy bill
11-07-13, 17:03
I like that idea a lot. Although, it sounds like there's some back and forth bickering as of late.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Rand-Paul-Ted-Cruz.png
I've been saying this for months. Too good to be true.
Have your day in the sun and make sure to pass on all the ridicule you like. Let the clueless masses soak it up because heck it's what they want to hear. When the Midwest has turned blue (and don't even try to tell me it isn't happening) due to stubborn fools who can't see the forest through the trees we'll make sure to blame New Jersey or New York or any other place people who cared were stupid enough to forever sit and talk of what things should be like.
Perhaps you missed the part where I blame the purple states? NJ is about as deep blue as it gets. I'll call it right now: Come 2016, Christie won't carry his home state in the general election. :D
PatrioticDisorder
11-07-13, 17:17
Why don't you vote for Hillary? She is definitely electable.
The answer to my question is why we won't vote for a RINO.
I personally don't give a **** if the whole country goes blue. Its easier to fight the Dems than it is a Republican.
Exactly! It's almost as if we have a 3 party system, tea party (libertarian/conservative), the republocrats (progressive/socialist lite) and the democrats (full fledged kommie bastard party). The problem as I see it, we have a brainwashed nation which was accomplished through the seeds planted by Soviet subversion decades ago. I realize Woodrow Wilson and FDR did a lot to set us back, but LBJ and his great society is what has promoted many people who have no business reproducing to significantly increase their percentage of the US population and this segment of the population is the easiest to brainwash.
When the Statists' control academia, media and government and have set in place countless bureaucracies that are near impossible to get rid of, I'm really not sure how the hell we're ever going to combat it. Not to be a pessimist, but I feel like we're fighting an uphill battle politically and socially.
I personally don't give a **** if the whole country goes blue. Its easier to fight the Dems than it is a Republican.
Of course you do desperately care if the country goes blue, very much so. And so do I. Are you really comfortable resorting to such empty lies in order to attempt credibility?
And yes, it is indeed easier to fight a democrat via personal opinion but do your personal opinions win elections nationwide overall?
I will NEVER EVER vote for Christie.
In 2016 if you hear Renegade voted for Christie, Two facts will be clear - Renegade is dead and someone voted in his place.
Of course you do desperately care if the country goes blue, very much so. And so do I. Are you really comfortable resorting to such empty lies in order to attempt credibility?
And yes, it is indeed easier to fight a democrat via personal opinion but do your personal opinions win elections nationwide overall?
Because we had such a great showing in last two national elections...
Sent from my DROID X2
I like that idea a lot. Although, it sounds like there's some back and forth bickering as of late.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Rand-Paul-Ted-Cruz.png
Paul/Cruz all the way. They would actually be quite a hard ticket for the Dems to beat in 2016- but only if the GOP would get it's head out of its ass and fight the good fight for candidates that are worth it instead of laying down and losing for an "electable" candidate (Which is obviously a misnomer as anyone paying atttnetion could see form the last two elections!) that is less conservative than liberal just to say you voted for the "lessor of two evils".
I know a lot of middle of the road types, a lot of libertarians, conservatives and even some liberals- all agree that a Paul/Cruz ticket would be better for the country than Clinton and better than Christie. Go out and talk to people about these politicians, strike up the conversation and see.
The only difference between Christie and Clinton is a couple hundred pounds. THAT'S IT! Clinton might actually have bigger huevos...
We don't need "electable" or the "lessor of two evils"- we know what that has gotten us and where we are because of that shit logic.
What we do need is candidates with balls, backbone, resolve, who KNOW the constitution and will not piss on it and the ability to actually LEAD the nation somewhere other than off the cliff and into oblivion!
Christie is DOA. Conservatives won't stomach another lame duck RINO and liberals won't vote for a fat white male dickhead. Libertarians & tea partiers WILL NEVER vote for any RINO again- that ship sailed.
The GOP has a good chance to recapture the voter base with a pair like Paul/Cruz. If they keep moving center left with McCain/Romney/Christie types, they will doom themselves and the rest of the nation.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who is conservative would vote for Christie and think the country would be better off for it, lessor of two evils or not- Christie won't do shit for this nation other than business as usual.
We aren't going to tip the scales back to where they need to be with McCains/Romneys/Christies/RINOS! We will by putting it all on the line with ACTUAL GOOD CANDIDATES. That and actually fighting to win again.
If you're truly a conservative or Republican- grow a freaking pair of balls and vote for a candidate that WOULD actually make a difference and do good for the country, not for some idiot who is 9/10's a liberal/democrat who will keep up business as usual.
What's the uase of winning elections if nothing will change? What's the use of getting a faux Republican in office if they won't do shit but keep up the charade until it all crashes? Just to keep the charade going for a bit longer than a liberal could before it all crashes- bullocks!
If all you "Lessor of two evils" & "electable- blah blah blah" conservatives would vote for REAL conservatives in the primaries and the election, we would have won in 2012. Enough independents and pissed off liberals would have voted Paul in 2012 to oust Obama, but instead the GOP fiddled with the primaries at the last minute and we got Obamney- er ah I mean Romney...
If you don't take actual chances with QUALITY candidates- get out on those skinny branches so to speak- we are all going to be in the same boat in 2016 as we were in 2012. Count on it.
The time to merely "survive" another 4 years of mediocre BS is over, it is time to freaking swim or sink; time to take chances that could actually benefit us all if we get behind them and fight tooth and nail.
I'm not sure how much clearer the writing on the wall could be for some of you. The last two elections we ran Christie like "republican-light" candidates and it was MORE THAN OBVIOUS that conservatives stayed home or became write in voters SPECIFICALLY because of it. It's called a ****ing clue!
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 17:44
For all the talk about electability...clearly the RINO's aren't electable, either, since they got beat pretty well the last two times. So I guess we are both ****ed, both RINO and non-RINO alike.
If the dreaded RINO-boy, who voted down a host of state firearm restrictions
While you brag about the fact he vetoed a few anti-gun bills, he also signed TEN into law just three months ago:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/christie_signs_a_number_gun_bills_but_leaves_controversial_measures_on_his_desk.html
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie signed 10 gun bills today, ranging from measures aimed at stiffening penalties for the unlawful possession and smuggling of firearms to requiring the state to submit mental health records to the federal government
The best part though is you are posting on M4 Carbine and you cannot even own an M4 Carbine because of the guy you are defending! Fatso thinks attempts to let you own an M4 Carbine are:
Dangeorous, Crazy, Radical and must be stopped.
He is doing a pretty good job over the past 20 years of stopping you! Your position is hilarious.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Silly%20People/ChrisChristieOnGuns.png (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/Silly%20People/ChrisChristieOnGuns.png.html)
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 17:50
While you brag about the fact he vetoed a few anti-gun bills, he also signed TEN into law just three months ago:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/christie_signs_a_number_gun_bills_but_leaves_controversial_measures_on_his_desk.html
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie signed 10 gun bills today, ranging from measures aimed at stiffening penalties for the unlawful possession and smuggling of firearms to requiring the state to submit mental health records to the federal government
The best part though is you are posting on M4 Carbine and you cannot even own an M4 Carbine because of the guy you are defending! Fatso thinks attempts to let you own an M4 Carbine are:
Dangeorous, Crazy, Radical and must be stopped.
Your position is hilarious.
He also signed a law that prevents you from owning a gun if you are on the no-fly list. So he's ok with taking away a person's rights without due process and simply because some bureaucrat puts you on a list. Can't even defend yourself in court or find out why you're on their little list...but no more rights for you!
Because we had such a great showing in last two national elections...
Sent from my DROID X2
Great point, but wasn't Obama directly aided to not one but two terms by the far-right voters who decided to either not vote or vote an obvious loser candidate?
If your answer is no then you're kidding neither of us.
While you brag about the fact he vetoed a few anti-gun bills...
Brag or mention factually? Did I lie or something?
Fatso thinks...
While I'm not the least bit fat this is one of several such negative references in this thread that we can do without. Several well known members here are overweight and believe it or not you don't appear any smarter making such demeaning comments.
Your position is hilarious.
You mean even more hilarious than a gun owner utilizing an avatar from a make believe movie cool guy who in real life thinks far worse of gun owners than the NJ governor? Golly, you got me there.
By the way you're welcome to offer up your workable plan for taking America back at will there Sylvester.
You mean even more hilarious than a gun owner utilizing an avatar from a make believe movie cool guy who in real life thinks far worse of gun owners than the NJ governor? Golly, you got me there.
Getting OT but please humor me by telling what make believe movie and actor you think the avatar represents. I will send you a free PMAG if you get it right.
ETA:
Oops forgot you can't own a PMAG.
Getting OT but please humor me by telling what make believe movie and actor you think the avatar represents. I will send you a free PMAG if you get it right.
ETA:
Oops forgot you can't own a PMAG.
You mean this isn't at the very least what your avatar attempts to represent?
https://www.google.com/search?q=stallone+cobra+images&client=safari&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ
And yes, I'd take the PMAG, but it would have to go to my FFL for pinning at 15 rounds. And I'm sure you'd believe I think that's just fine and dandy, hoping they'll further restrict to 10 rounds soon.
You mean this isn't at the very least what your avatar attempts to represent?
Uh No. In the interest of fairness I will send PMAG30 to anyone who gets it. This thread needs some lighter moments.
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 18:44
Great point, but wasn't Obama directly aided to not one but two terms by the far-right voters who decided to either not vote or vote an obvious loser candidate?
If your answer is no then you're kidding neither of us.
Don't know how many people decided to stay home...kind hard to prove a negative.
The amount of right leaning 3rd party voters would not have changed the outcome of the election had they ALL gone to Romney.
WickedWillis
11-07-13, 18:50
Uh No. In the interest of fairness I will send PMAG30 to anyone who gets it. This thread needs some lighter moments.
Macgruber?
Macgruber?
No.
Lets not derail the thread PM if you want to play.
Uh No. In the interest of fairness I will send PMAG30 to anyone who gets it. This thread needs some lighter moments.
You're right and I will gladly offer that lighter moment.
I am not your enemy. I am on your side and wish more were like you. I understand that I am in a minority here in NJ but rest assured that out of our 8.8 million residents one million or more are essentially just like me. And that's just in regard to gun owners because as far as conservatives there are well over three million of us here.
Like you I am looking for a better way. I am not happy with the current situation and I don't see Christie as ideal. All I'm trying to advocate is a more practical and realistic path toward our collective goal. If you still can't see this then please take a minute to re-read my posts in this thread before commenting about me any further.
If we want Cruze or Paul the time to start supporting them is now. Start contributing to their exploritory commities.
Great point, but wasn't Obama directly aided to not one but two terms by the far-right voters who decided to either not vote or vote an obvious loser candidate?
If your answer is no then you're kidding neither of us.
Once again, that knife cuts both ways: wasn't Obama directly aided to not one but two terms by the spineless, wishy-washy RINO primary voters who have to "reach across the aisle"? YOU don't frame the debate and declare who is wrong.
Like you I am looking for a better way. I am not happy with the current situation and I don't see Christie as ideal. All I'm trying to advocate is a more practical and realistic path toward our collective goal. If you still can't see this then please take a minute to re-read my posts in this thread before commenting about me any further.
If, like you claim, you really ARE wanting a conservative agenda somewhere down the road after carefully electing the "right" candidates until then then apparently our divide is the timeframe it occurs in. You seem to think it's a generational thing, maybe 20-25 years (?). I don't want it to be anywhere near that long; maybe 4-8 years. At 48yo I really don't relish the idea of pissing and shitting myself in diapers by the time things turn around in this country! I'd actually like to see it before the autumn of my life becomes winter!
Look, you and I---BOTH our sides of the conservative agenda---share joint "blame" if you step back and see it objectively. We are both dug in, not willing to compromise. Neither can honestly claim to be the "right" one. Neither of us is going to allow the other to frame the debate by pointing fingers and saying "It's people like YOU who are the reason we have Obama/Hillary/Whoever". I happen to believe my "side" is right, you believe yours is. We're at an impasse apparently, as my side has enough people sick of RINO's to derail their hopes in a general election (and are WILLING to allow it to happen), and your side has enough people to potentially nominate a RINO again.
I'm not sure there is an answer. It would take a generation for a new "conservative" third party to garner enough support to actually have an electoral chance (there I am, in diapers again!). In the meantime the Republicans would never win a national election, save for Congressional races. Guess who that makes the winner in all of this? The libtard socialists, that's who.
Compromise candidate? Meh.....Rubio, Portman, et al (baby RINO's?). I dunno. I might only have to plug one nostril in that case, but I'm not overly hip on the idea.
I dunno. Just don't know.........
Great point, but wasn't Obama directly aided to not one but two terms by the far-right voters who decided to either not vote or vote an obvious loser candidate?
If your answer is no then you're kidding neither of us.
The answer is yes. What makes you think we're going to suddenly stop doing the right thing in 2016?
In the meantime the Republicans would never win a national election, save for Congressional races. Guess who that makes the winner in all of this? The libtard socialists, that's who.
To expand on your wise commentary let's take just a moment to imagine the democrats in our situation, as well as our subsequent delight should it be the case.
Picture them split not just internally but also very publicly. Envision the DNC withholding funding for a gubernatorial candidate in a critical election we as conservatives want to win. Imagine half of them chastising Harry Reid for standing up for his principals or making jokes about how weak and unworthy DINO's ( theoretical equivalent to RINO ) are within their party.
Also foresee liberals then fighting among themselves in their private venues as a result, this to the extent that a democrat governor winning re-election in a red state is worthy of nothing but ridicule and dissent.
Would this not be a conservatives dream come true? Would we not see them as incredibly foolish and short-sighted as opposed to being respectably principled?
Why are we content to do the same to ourselves?
Belmont31R
11-07-13, 20:31
To expand on your wise commentary let's take just a moment to imagine the democrats in our situation, as well as our subsequent delight should it be the case.
Picture them split not just internally but also very publicly. Envision the DNC withholding funding for a gubernatorial candidate in a critical election we as conservatives want to win. Imagine half of them chastising Harry Reid for standing up for his principals or making jokes about how weak and unworthy DINO's ( theoretical equivalent to RINO ) are within their party.
Also foresee liberals then fighting among themselves in their private venues as a result, this to the extent that a democrat governor winning re-election in a red state is worthy of nothing but ridicule and dissent.
Would this not be a conservatives dream come true? Would we not see them as incredibly foolish and short-sighted as opposed to being respectably principled?
Why are we content to do the same to ourselves?
Thats fine, but you guys gotta include us and tear down the barriers that have been erected to keep us out.
At this point I don't see that happening. The RINO's are so scared of appearing anything less than moderate, and frankly a lot of them like McCain naturally just prefer Democrats to libertarians. Hell he almost switched parties at least once.
Theres a ton of young libertarian type people like me who'd love to have some inclusion, acknowledgment, and be allowed to participate. You're not going to get my vote by excluding us, and publicly ridicule us, something the left NEVER does towards their 'fringe'. Thats why they get their votes.
PatrioticDisorder
11-07-13, 21:15
Thats fine, but you guys gotta include us and tear down the barriers that have been erected to keep us out.
At this point I don't see that happening. The RINO's are so scared of appearing anything less than moderate, and frankly a lot of them like McCain naturally just prefer Democrats to libertarians. Hell he almost switched parties at least once.
Theres a ton of young libertarian type people like me who'd love to have some inclusion, acknowledgment, and be allowed to participate. You're not going to get my vote by excluding us, and publicly ridicule us, something the left NEVER does towards their 'fringe'. Thats why they get their votes.
I wish he would switch, him and his ilk are the reason the republican party is in shambles right now. Him and his bullshit "compromises", which always amount to statist victories. McCain is a useful idiot of the worst kind, he's a saboteur of his own party.
Thats fine, but you guys gotta include us and tear down the barriers that have been erected to keep us out.
With all due respect the "you guys" remark is off in regard to me personally. I'm not the sort you...guys need to win over because I would likely agree with 85% of your policies and would have had no objection to the likes of a Cuccinelli (but not because my last name is Cinelli ;-) winning here in NJ.
It is the truly moderate republicans as well as the independents that need to be won over. Those that choose to run in the middle often do so because they think that is the only way they can win in purple or blue states and guess what? As of today they are right.
The trick is to get past that point and have more of America embrace true conservatism via positive example and result.
Another middle of the roader. He will be as successful as Dole, McCain, and Romney were in their presidential runs.
The Gops really need to start channeling Reagan.
To expand on your wise commentary let's take just a moment to imagine the democrats in our situation, as well as our subsequent delight should it be the case.
Picture them split not just internally but also very publicly. Envision the DNC withholding funding for a gubernatorial candidate in a critical election we as conservatives want to win. Imagine half of them chastising Harry Reid for standing up for his principals or making jokes about how weak and unworthy DINO's ( theoretical equivalent to RINO ) are within their party.
Also foresee liberals then fighting among themselves in their private venues as a result, this to the extent that a democrat governor winning re-election in a red state is worthy of nothing but ridicule and dissent.
Would this not be a conservatives dream come true? Would we not see them as incredibly foolish and short-sighted as opposed to being respectably principled?
Why are we content to do the same to ourselves?
But we come down to the same question again: who gives? The conservatives/Tea Party types, or the perennial moderates? Like I said earlier we're both dug in deep. What is the answer? I'm not sure I have one EXCEPT to put up a candidate that has at least some appeal to both sides. Good luck finding that person!
Someone between Cruz and Christie. Now I'm a BIG Cruz fan but I'd entertain any suggestions you might have to garner enough votes to actually win the White House (keeping in mind I'm thinking about the base and you're thinking about the independents). It would have to be someone we both didn't exactly like but didn't exactly despise. If Cruz was a 1 and Christie was a 5, then it'd need to be about a 3. The "Impossible Candidate".
Magic_Salad0892
11-08-13, 00:50
But we come down to the same question again: who gives? The conservatives/Tea Party types, or the perennial moderates? Like I said earlier we're both dug in deep. What is the answer? I'm not sure I have one EXCEPT to put up a candidate that has at least some appeal to both sides. Good luck finding that person!
Someone between Cruz and Christie. Now I'm a BIG Cruz fan but I'd entertain any suggestions you might have to garner enough votes to actually win the White House (keeping in mind I'm thinking about the base and you're thinking about the independents). It would have to be someone we both didn't exactly like but didn't exactly despise. If Cruz was a 1 and Christie was a 5, then it'd need to be about a 3. The "Impossible Candidate".
Derrell Issa.
To expand on your wise commentary let's take just a moment to imagine the democrats in our situation, as well as our subsequent delight should it be the case.
Picture them split not just internally but also very publicly. Envision the DNC withholding funding for a gubernatorial candidate in a critical election we as conservatives want to win. Imagine half of them chastising Harry Reid for standing up for his principals or making jokes about how weak and unworthy DINO's ( theoretical equivalent to RINO ) are within their party.
Also foresee liberals then fighting among themselves in their private venues as a result, this to the extent that a democrat governor winning re-election in a red state is worthy of nothing but ridicule and dissent.
Would this not be a conservatives dream come true? Would we not see them as incredibly foolish and short-sighted as opposed to being respectably principled?
Why are we content to do the same to ourselves?
That's just it. "We" didn't abandon the GOP, the GOP abandoned us! Therefore it is "they" who need to reevaluate whether they still want out votes or not. If they don't, that's fine. They can feel free to un-invite us to the convention and we can go off and form our own party. What they've done is intentionally co-opt the small .gov conservatives who were drawn to the tea party specifically because the GOP ignored us, then they shoved us back in the closet! Of course they want to drag us back out just long enough to vote for their chosen RINO, but then it's back in the closet again!
Douchebags like John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Arlen Specter are what screwed up the GOP (and the rest of the country in the process), and then they get pissed when we've had enough of their drivel? Well tough titty! Your man in NJ is cut from the same cloth as them! I'm telling you right now that the "flyover" country is NOT going to put him in the White House, PERIOD!
But we come down to the same question again: who gives? The conservatives/Tea Party types, or the perennial moderates? Like I said earlier we're both dug in deep. What is the answer? I'm not sure I have one EXCEPT to put up a candidate that has at least some appeal to both sides. Good luck finding that person!
Someone between Cruz and Christie. Now I'm a BIG Cruz fan but I'd entertain any suggestions you might have to garner enough votes to actually win the White House (keeping in mind I'm thinking about the base and you're thinking about the independents). It would have to be someone we both didn't exactly like but didn't exactly despise. If Cruz was a 1 and Christie was a 5, then it'd need to be about a 3. The "Impossible Candidate".
My point would be this: We tried it their way for two election cycles. It's time they took a back seat and let us drive for a while. We don't need a "3". We need a 1.5-2 at the most. If the moderate/liberals can't accept that, then screw them. Let them have their Hillary, because that's EXACTLY what they deserve! :mad:
My point would be this: We tried it their way for two election cycles. It's time they took a back seat and let us drive for a while. We don't need a "3". We need a 1.5-2 at the most. If the moderate/liberals can't accept that, then screw them. Let them have their Hillary, because that's EXACTLY what they deserve! :mad:
Hey, I'm personally all for Cruz. If he runs I will vote for him in the primary (provided he still has $$$ left after the "speshul" early states and hasn't dropped out by the time it gets to lowly TN). If he doesn't make it then the general election candidate better be no more than a 3 or I'll skip the POTUS lever. That's where I was going with that.
The above is why I'm for scrapping the f***** up primary system we have now and going to "all states in one night", then let the chips fall where they may. The Establishment won't have that though.
With all due respect the "you guys" remark is off in regard to me personally. I'm not the sort you...guys need to win over because I would likely agree with 85% of your policies and would have had no objection to the likes of a Cuccinelli (but not because my last name is Cinelli ;-) winning here in NJ.
It is the truly moderate republicans as well as the independents that need to be won over. Those that choose to run in the middle often do so because they think that is the only way they can win in purple or blue states and guess what? As of today they are right.
The trick is to get past that point and have more of America embrace true conservatism via positive example and result.
Question: Would you be in favor of all states primaries in one night, or would you fear what the results would produce? Allow the candidates to campaign for a few weeks ahead of time anywhere they wanted to. Then BAM, all-in-one-night primaries.
It would definitely eliminate the running bandwagon-jumping and the perceived "electability" :bad: crap as the current primaries run down their litany of predetermined states. No candidates would be eliminated.....they'd all be in the running. Highest number of votes wins. Really simple.
Magic_Salad0892
11-08-13, 02:10
Question: Would you be in favor of all states primaries in one night, or would you fear what the results would produce? Allow the candidates to campaign for a few weeks ahead of time anywhere they wanted to. Then BAM, all-in-one-night primaries.
Absolutely.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for people to understand. If you vote for based on electability then you are part of the problem. Do the dems worry about this? No, they run lunatics and socialist liars and seem to do just fine galvanizing support across their party. The GOP fudds say you can't vote for a radical like cruz or paul, nevermind the fact that their ideologies are a better representation of the GOPs found principles, but because they can't win. Well then what the hell are we trying to accomplish if were not voting principle or conviction? Someone tell me, please. Because this lesser of two evil crap is a self-imposed delusion that is destroying this country.
Sent from my DROID X2
Derrell Issa.
If he'd do something more than just hold hearings after hearings I'd be more impressed with him. My. 02.
Sent from my DROID X2
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for people to understand. If you vote for based on electability then you are part of the problem. Do the dems worry about this? No, they run lunatics and socialist liars and seem to do just fine galvanizing support across their party. The GOP fudds say you can't vote for a radical like cruz or paul, nevermind the fact that their ideologies are a better representation of the GOPs found principles, but because they can't win. Well then what the hell are we trying to accomplish if were not voting principle or conviction? Someone tell me, please. Because this lesser of two evil crap is a self-imposed delusion that is destroying this country.
Sent from my DROID X2
Silly, it's chess not checkers.
[sarcasm off]
Question: Would you be in favor of all states primaries in one night, or would you fear what the results would produce? Allow the candidates to campaign for a few weeks ahead of time anywhere they wanted to. Then BAM, all-in-one-night primaries.
It would definitely eliminate the running bandwagon-jumping and the perceived "electability" :bad: crap as the current primaries run down their litany of predetermined states. No candidates would be eliminated.....they'd all be in the running. Highest number of votes wins. Really simple.
How stupid is that! It might let the best candidate win instead of the one the media/old guard GOP pick for us to "support". Don't they know better than we ever could what we need?**
**for those who can't/won't read between the lines, that's three sentences of pure sarcasm and disgust with the "business as usual" method of "electing" the supposed leader of the "free" world. OK, make that four sentences....
It doesn't matter who decides to run now. The MSM has already put Christie in the spotlight and pitted him against Hildawg. Mark my words, nobody that enters the ring now will matter. The media has already decided the 2016 race will be between Clinton and Christie.
It doesn't matter who decides to run now. The MSM has already put Christie in the spotlight and pitted him against Hildawg. Mark my words, nobody that enters the ring now will matter. The media has already decided the 2016 race will be between Clinton and Christie.
Maybe they'll just decide to skip the election let Hillary be POTUS and bring Christie on as VP...
I think I just died a little on the inside.
Belmont31R
11-08-13, 09:09
With all due respect the "you guys" remark is off in regard to me personally. I'm not the sort you...guys need to win over because I would likely agree with 85% of your policies and would have had no objection to the likes of a Cuccinelli (but not because my last name is Cinelli ;-) winning here in NJ.
It is the truly moderate republicans as well as the independents that need to be won over. Those that choose to run in the middle often do so because they think that is the only way they can win in purple or blue states and guess what? As of today they are right.
The trick is to get past that point and have more of America embrace true conservatism via positive example and result.
He didn't lose by that much, and the RNC basically sat this one out. He got outspent by quite a bit because of that. So I don't know how true it is that a more conservative type guy can't win in a purple state.
brickboy240
11-08-13, 10:47
The GOP is finished in major national elections without the Tea Party/Libertarian voters on their side.
Oh sure...they might keep winning Congressional seats in TX, UT, WY and ID and maybe a few other red areas but winning national elections will be over.
The GOP cannot gain a foothold with mushy moderates and Bible thumpers alone...it is just not possible.
Cuccinelli's problem is he isn't a true conservative. It's almost like he's anti-conservative on some issues. He has the issue the Tea Party has gotten lost in that they want to appear with the "Don't tread on me" attitude when government intrusion is involved but accept more government when it's principles they agree with.
This is the problem libertarians and true conservatives have now is we are lumped in with the so called conservatives of old that mostly want the federal government out of people's lives. We're lumped into the mass of so called conservatives and have the extremist label attached along the way. I'm not saying we should shun people that we mostly agree with except for a few fringe issues but people like this have to get the message. Maybe Cuccinelli could have won had he not taken on the image of the family values guy who appears anti-gay and not alienated a lot of gun rights supporters.
He helped establish Sexual Assault Facts and Education (SAFE), a student group that raises awareness about the issue, and designed a brochure on preventing sexual assault. Survivors confided in him.
So he is against campus sexual assault and that's great but then when it came time to look at the issue of allowing guns on the George Mason University campus is where he ran into the problem. It was his obligation as state AG to defend the plaintiffs position that guns shouldn't be allowed but then he took it too far going to the extent of the "for the children" argument. Not only that but he went into all the what-if scenarios typically involved in an anti-gun argument.
"Without the regulation [banning guns], the University community's
safety is seriously compromised. Unquestionably, the vast majority of
gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Nevertheless, a rejected student
applicant could walk into the Dean of Admissions office with an openly
visible sidearm to discuss why the university rejected his
application. An expelled student could do the same while he met with
the Dean of Students to discuss his appeal of his expulsion. A
disgruntled ex-boyfriend armed with a large hunting knife mounted on
his side could enter the student residences to speak to his former
girlfriend where she lived. Finally, any person who wishes to enter
Fenwick Library with a sidearm, could not only frighten students and
minors, such as preschoolers, but also expose them to unnecessary
risks, such as an accidental discharge"
How can a guy that is so gun-ho about women defending themselves from campus assaults be so against guns to protect themselves?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/virginia_gun_rights_leader_bla.html
Cuccinelli's problem is he isn't a true conservative. It's almost like he's anti-conservative on some issues. He has the issue the Tea Party has gotten lost in that they want to appear with the "Don't tread on me" attitude when government intrusion is involved but accept more government when it's principles they agree with.
This is the problem libertarians and true conservatives have now is we are lumped in with the so called conservatives of old that mostly want the federal government out of people's lives. We're lumped into the mass of so called conservatives and have the extremist label attached along the way. I'm not saying we should shun people that we mostly agree with except for a few fringe issues but people like this have to get the message. Maybe Cuccinelli could have won had he not taken on the image of the family values guy who appears anti-gay and not alienated a lot of gun rights supporters.
So he is against campus sexual assault and that's great but then when it came time to look at the issue of allowing guns on the George Mason University campus is where he ran into the problem. It was his obligation as state AG to defend the plaintiffs position that guns shouldn't be allowed but then he took it too far going to the extent of the "for the children" argument. Not only that but he went into all the what-if scenarios typically involved in an anti-gun argument.
How can a guy that is so gun-ho about women defending themselves from campus assaults be so against guns to protect themselves?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/virginia_gun_rights_leader_bla.html
Those were his arguments??? FFS....
As for Christie do you guys really want anything jersey shore anywhere near the white house? I mean really..
Those were his arguments??? FFS....
As for Christie do you guys really want anything jersey shore anywhere near the white house? I mean really..
I get so sick of the "N.J. Tony Saprano type tough talk" patting on the back of the **** wad.
He's full of talk and talking out both sides of his mouth.
"He's tough on unions" So ****ing what.
Cuccinelli's problem is he isn't a true conservative. It's almost like he's anti-conservative on some issues.
And this is what so many "conservatives" have trouble understanding. He is a Christian Conservative of the Moral Majority type - another bird all together.
His kind believe in limited govt except when they can use govt to advance their particular moral position.
While there are Christian Conservatives in the Tea Party, the Tea Party is not a monolithic block of Christian Conservatives. The biggest problem we have is convincing Christian Conservatives that this is actually the case.
And this is what so many "conservatives" have trouble understanding. He is a Christian Conservative of the Moral Majority type - another bird all together.
His kind believe in limited govt except when they can use govt to advance their particular moral position.
While there are Christian Conservatives in the Tea Party, the Tea Party is not a monolithic block of Christian Conservatives. The biggest problem we have is convincing Christian Conservatives that this is actually the case.
People go to jail in NJ for being in possession of hollow point ammunition outside specific circumstances....
I don't care if he's Jesus Christ himself he presides over a state where the above mentioned activity is criminal.
People go to jail in NJ for being in possession of hollow point ammunition outside specific circumstances....
I don't care if he's Jesus Christ himself he presides over a state where the above mentioned activity is criminal.
I think he was referring to Cuccinelli not Christie.
And this is what so many "conservatives" have trouble understanding. He is a Christian Conservative of the Moral Majority type - another bird all together.
His kind believe in limited govt except when they can use govt to advance their particular moral position.
While there are Christian Conservatives in the Tea Party, the Tea Party is not a monolithic block of Christian Conservatives. The biggest problem we have is convincing Christian Conservatives that this is actually the case.
That I think is part of the problem now. Any group remotely against federal government excess and intrusion takes on the Tea Party label. There are so many sub groups that normally would split on wedge issues but still band together. You would think it would be a good thing and easy to defeat the liberals but it isn't happening. They have succeeded at subdividing us and we need to play back at subdividing them.
It's almost like a libertarian has to accept the very few things they're against to get the whole Tea Party on board. Accepting their warts and all so to speak. Even if we could pull all of the Christian Conservatives out of the establishment GOP camp into the true Tea Party I could live with that for now.
It's a strange position we are put in. Being of an uncompromising mindset but having to compromise in our own group of friends so to speak.
All that said if we don't stop the ship from sailing off the fiscal cliff we won't have a country to argue about wedge issues. We're putting the cart before the horse with this silly arguing and letting the left instigate it. Something tells me even if Rand Paul himself was elected he'd have a hard time pulling the rudder in time. Christie or any other establishment puppet will just steer is straight for the waterfall.
And this is what so many "conservatives" have trouble understanding. He is a Christian Conservative of the Moral Majority type - another bird all together.
His kind believe in limited govt except when they can use govt to advance their particular moral position.
While there are Christian Conservatives in the Tea Party, the Tea Party is not a monolithic block of Christian Conservatives. The biggest problem we have is convincing Christian Conservatives that this is actually the case.
Yep! quite a conundrum...
As to Christie...... no way in hell...... he's a f'n clown.
Christie needs to STFU about a presidential run and enjoy his King status in NJ.
This may be an oversimplification and/or I may be just crazy, but it seems to me that unless a GOP candidate subscribes to 100% of a curtain Republican splinter group orthodoxy, that group of people will not support him or her. Meanwhile, the Dems will zealously vote for anyone running against any Republican regardless of their views.
The Republican party is splintered and divided while our opposition consolidates its stranglehold on the country.
I don't believe we will ever find a candidate that fits everyone's expectations and until we learn to be a bit more flexible we will not have a Rep. in the White House.
For instance, I am very conservative when it comes to having a smaller government, less regulation and less taxation, pro 2A, but I am very liberal on social issued like abortion and gay marriage. I find the financial aspects of my beliefs to be more important that the social issued which have less impact on me. Therefore I don't freak out when I vote for someone who will allow me to keep more money in my pocket but expresses their disapproval of gay marriage.
You guys need to be more flexible. Just my two cents. I dunno.
brickboy240
11-08-13, 14:24
I would bet that if most Americans honestly examined their views and wishes...most WOULD fall in the Libertarian camp...not hard left or hard right.
-brickboy240
Belmont31R
11-08-13, 14:43
This may be an oversimplification and/or I may be just crazy, but it seems to me that unless a GOP candidate subscribes to 100% of a curtain Republican splinter group orthodoxy, that group of people will not support him or her. Meanwhile, the Dems will zealously vote for anyone running against any Republican regardless of their views.
The Republican party is splintered and divided while our opposition consolidates its stranglehold on the country.
I don't believe we will ever find a candidate that fits everyone's expectations and until we learn to be a bit more flexible we will not have a Rep. in the White House.
For instance, I am very conservative when it comes to having a smaller government, less regulation and less taxation, pro 2A, but I am very liberal on social issued like abortion and gay marriage. I find the financial aspects of my beliefs to be more important that the social issued which have less impact on me. Therefore I don't freak out when I vote for someone who will allow me to keep more money in my pocket but expresses their disapproval of gay marriage.
You guys need to be more flexible. Just my two cents. I dunno.
I won't vote for gun banners. Period. If they can't even keep themselves from banning things in the Bill of Rights they can't be trusted to uphold their oath of office or any other aspect of what an elected official is expected to do.
I won't vote for gun banners. Period. If they can't even keep themselves from banning things in the Bill of Rights they can't be trusted to uphold their oath of office or any other aspect of what an elected official is expected to do.
Maybe if there were politicians out there that wanted to curtail the first amendment as bad as they do the 2nd then people would start to get the hint.
Sent from my DROID X2
This may be an oversimplification and/or I may be just crazy, but it seems to me that unless a GOP candidate subscribes to 100% of a curtain Republican splinter group orthodoxy, that group of people will not support him or her. Meanwhile, the Dems will zealously vote for anyone running against any Republican regardless of their views.
The Republican party is splintered and divided while our opposition consolidates its stranglehold on the country.
I don't believe we will ever find a candidate that fits everyone's expectations and until we learn to be a bit more flexible we will not have a Rep. in the White House.
For instance, I am very conservative when it comes to having a smaller government, less regulation and less taxation, pro 2A, but I am very liberal on social issued like abortion and gay marriage. I find the financial aspects of my beliefs to be more important that the social issued which have less impact on me. Therefore I don't freak out when I vote for someone who will allow me to keep more money in my pocket but expresses their disapproval of gay marriage.
You guys need to be more flexible. Just my two cents. I dunno.
Then perhaps the Republican party is not the answer you seek?
http://www.modernwhig.org/
The Modern Whig party of the United States of America is the party for the rest of us, the party of patriots, the party of equality, the party of liberty, and the party of moderates.
We, the Modern Whigs, standing on the broad and firm platform of the Constitution, united by all of its inviolable and sacred guarantees and compromises, relying upon the intelligence of the American people, with an abiding confidence in their capacity for self-government and their devotion to the Constitution and to the United States of America, pledge to go forth with integrity, open-mindedness, pragmatism, and transparency as we pursue our civic duty.
The Modern Whigs are a pragmatic, common sense, centrist-oriented party where rational solutions trump ideology and integrity trumps impunity. Our core modern Whig philosophy relies on several fundamental tenets:
1.Fiscal Responsibility -Any action of the government must respect principles of fiscal responsibility and public accountability. Most states are constitutionally bound to balance their budgets. The Federal government, however, seems to be of the mind that money is infinitely printable. We must take control of our finances as they are already beginning to control us. Neither party has been able to acheive this, near idly standing by while spending spirals nearly out-of-control.
2.Energy Independence- Develop practical domestic energy sources and economically viable alternative energy to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and strive towards energy independence. This is also a component of our inward looking economic focus. Energy independence impacts our national security, our foreign policy, as well as domestic employment.
3.Inward looking economic focus - It's about time we refocus on ourselves and discover and implement policies to grow domestic demand and our manufacturing base. Only this can provide an environment which can create the kinds of jobs that will support American families within the context of a globally interdependent world. Our Renewed American System (RAS) is a holistic and sustainable set of interdependent policies that defines America's first true industrial policy.
4.State's Responsibility- Each state can generally determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs. Whigs believe in a strong government at every level and separation of powers. Yet, strong and competent local and state governments are important, as they are the level of government where the people can get most involved. All citizens need to ensure the Federal government doesnt usurp its Constitutional authority. Over the last twenty years, Federal authority has been allowed to creep into areas where it may not be appropriate, making an open honest dialouge about what we expect from government a future necessity.
5.Social Acceptance -When the government is compelled to legislate morality (laws), every citizen should be considered as equal. Our Constitution empowers us to be the vanguard of social acceptance, and here we should be leading the world BY EXAMPLE.
6.Education and Scientific Advancement- Increase public and private emphasis on math and science to promote American innovation to compete in the global economy.
7.Veterans Affairs -Vigilant advocacy relating to the medical, financial, and overall well-being of our military families and veterans.
8.Electoral & Government Reform- Support efforts and work for governmental reform that makes the American government efficient, fair, and responsive at all levels. Support efforts and work for electoral reform to allow all Americans to have their voices heard and make it rational for citizens to participate in the government and electoral processes. To this end MWP supports the adoption of Approval Voting ballots at all levels of government, eliminating the "least bad" choice many of us face at election day while at the same time serving to un-polarize the candidates.
I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to pooh-pooh this idea, but our two-party system is utterly broken. They seem to have a long list of what is not the answer, but precious little to suggest what is a workable answer. Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils ain't it. :(
Just that that Christie tried to get rid of Keen, the Republican head of the state senate (?). His reason us that Keen wasn't willing to cave to the Democrat head in senate and Christie wants to work some deal with the Dem.
So Christie is willing to undermine a fellow Republican in order to win points with a Dem leader. What a turd. Christie is out for his own advancement. Period and he will throw his party under the bus in a heartbeat. A vote for Christie is NOT a bite for a Republican or against a Democrat. It is for a backstabbing opportunist turd.
Late night TV last night.
Leno debates Ted Cruz..... holy cow.... Leno is an idiot.... Cruz actually got some good anti-Obama applause. But Leno would make these ridicolous comments and claims, the audience would applaud and he would say,, ok, let's go to break. LOL..... but maybe a good lesson to Cruz.. he needs to stop these idiots in their tracks and say NO, that's wrong then take control of the conversation.
Up next Fallon...... Christie makes a "surprise" appearance in his best Tony Soprano imitation. Only words he said was "You're welcome". The Libs love Christie....
Late night TV last night.
Leno debates Ted Cruz..... holy cow.... Leno is an idiot.... Cruz actually got some good anti-Obama applause. But Leno would make these ridicolous comments and claims, the audience would applaud and he would say,, ok, let's go to break. LOL..... but maybe a good lesson to Cruz.. he needs to stop these idiots in their tracks and say NO, that's wrong then take control of the conversation.
Up next Fallon...... Christie makes a "surprise" appearance in his best Tony Soprano imitation. Only words he said was "You're welcome". The Libs love Christie....
Should be a good indicator. ;)
Cruz is smart, well spoken, and will NOT back down. I love it!
platoonDaddy
01-08-14, 16:07
Christie is a hoeBag!
Christie Aide: 'Time for Some Traffic Problems'
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579308331794186904
brushy bill
01-09-14, 19:27
Hillary's handlers want Christie on the opposing ticket. They get a demo either way. If this were my choice, I'd vote for Mickey Mouse. Not a dime's worth of difference between them and Mickey is preferable on all counts.
VooDoo6Actual
01-09-14, 20:27
This thread is a joke right ?
BoringGuy45
01-09-14, 21:17
I can't stand Christie, but I'll vote for him against any Democrat, period. My not voting isn't helping anything, and voting for a 3rd party is the same as not voting unless a 3rd party can get some momentum in the next two years.
But that said, the GOP has to stop their current strategy of trying to get someone the Democrats will vote for. I'm sorry, you aren't going to get liberal Democrats to vote for a Republican. It wouldn't matter if their candidate randomly flung poop at people. It wouldn't matter if he went and literally crapped on the Constitution, wiped himself with the American flag, then threw it on an orphan begging for food. It wouldn't matter if he told Holocaust jokes and saluted Hitler everywhere he went. It wouldn't matter of he sometimes ran into the audience during rallies and dismembered people with a chainsaw. Democrats would just turn their nose up at you and say, "Well, that's NOTHING compared to the stuff the Bush Administration did!" For God's sake, put in a conservative for a candidate, because the current method isn't working.
I can't stand Christie, but I'll vote for him against any Democrat, period. My not voting isn't helping anything, and voting for a 3rd party is the same as not voting unless a 3rd party can get some momentum in the next two years.
I won't, and there are enough out there who won't that it will cost the R's the election if he's nominated. I swore up and down I'd never vote for Romney after gagging doing it for McCain. I was shamed into it by my buddies. It won't happen again....and that includes those same friends who pressured me to vote for Romney. They're not voting for Christie either.
Please primary voters, choose wisely.
The elite don't care much who we vote for on election day. As long as they get progressive Dems and Repubs winning primaries using party campaign war chests against conservatives. The Repub party leaders fight harder against the Tea Party then they do against lying, cheating, treasonous, unconstitutional Dems. If we don't get conservatives, libertarians on the ticket then it dies not matter who wins in the general.
montanadave
04-02-14, 15:32
Just want to get this on the record in case there's a cash prize. The presidential race in 2016 is gonna be 1992 Redux. Bush vs. Clinton. Jeb Bush & Nikki Haley taking on Hillary Clinton & Julian Castro.
God help us all.
WickedWillis
04-02-14, 15:34
Just want to get this on the record in case there's a cash prize. The presidential race in 2016 is gonna be 1992 Redux. Bush vs. Clinton. Jeb Bush & Nikki Haley taking on Hillary Clinton & Julian Castro.
God help us all.
Uneducated voters are the ones that are killing this country. Hillary will win in a landslide because she's a Woman and you are sexist if you don't vote for her.
Uneducated voters are the ones that are killing this country. Hillary will win in a landslide because she's a Woman and you are sexist if you don't vote for her.
Yeah, 'cause voting for the first black guy has worked out so well.......:rolleyes:
In all seriousness, I don't know what I'll do if Hillary wins.
I'm currently in Australia, and although the quality of life is amazing, it is far too expensive. Not to mention there are no gun rights.
I can't imagine what she would do to America, or the 2nd Amendment. I literally hate thinking about...
FChen17213
04-02-14, 19:50
Hey, if you don't vote for Hillary in 2016, you'll be labeled a "sexist pig." In addition, all the "cool kids" are going to vote for her. After all, it is progress isn't it? It is all part of the "progressive movement."
The Democrats and liberals will not rest until they completely destroy our country, our values, take away all our rights, and obliterate what this nation was founded upon. Unfortunately, they are succeeding and I do not see much hope in reversing the trend or repairing the damage. Just look at the young people these days. Go to a public place and observe people. Spend a good hour just watching and listening. You will probably want to puke.
I sure as hell won't be voting for him. The GOP will lose once again if that's the case. Glad I left the Republican Party there heads are up there rear ends almost as much a democrats :rolleyes:
Hey, if you don't vote for Hillary in 2016, you'll be labeled a "sexist pig." In addition, all the "cool kids" are going to vote for her. After all, it is progress isn't it? It is all part of the "progressive movement."
The Democrats and liberals will not rest until they completely destroy our country, our values, take away all our rights, and obliterate what this nation was founded upon. Unfortunately, they are succeeding and I do not see much hope in reversing the trend or repairing the damage. Just look at the young people these days. Go to a public place and observe people. Spend a good hour just watching and listening. You will probably want to puke.
Truth.
I still consider myself relatively young (26). Luckily the majority of my friends are educated, and aren't completely distracted by popular culture, etc.
That doesn't mean that people my age ("Generation Y") aren't a bunch of idiots. A lot of them are worried about being "progressive" and cool, or they're too busy worrying about what the f*cking Kardashians are doing. It truly is sad.
I don't know what we can do to turn this country around.
Hey, if you don't vote for Hillary in 2016, you'll be labeled a "sexist pig." In addition, all the "cool kids" are going to vote for her. After all, it is progress isn't it? It is all part of the "progressive movement."
Of course, why do you think they keep up this entire "War on Women" charade? The next evolution is, if you dare to campaign against Hillary, you're part of the "War on Women" by attempting to keep her out of office. The entirety of America will be boiled down to those wanting "progress" vs those wanting to take the right to vote away from women by the time they're done with their spin. They can control the message because they control most of the media. It's something that they have become incredibly good at in the past thirty years. Why do you think that they hate Fox News (and to a lesser extent Drudge) with such a passion? They don't have control of the message and they can't guarantee the win when they can't control the message. So they demonize them as nothing more than the extreme right wing, and not what they are, which is the most watched news source in the nation.
This whole thing disgusts me. Listening to the flush as our country circles the bowl.
Why on earth is there no solid republican willing to run? Are those days gone forever?
I thought the past 6 years would have ignited the desire and we would've had solid candidates coming out the wood work. I'm beginning to get the idea we truly are screwed. And we haven't seen anything yet, if she gets elected. Good grief.
Belmont31R
04-03-14, 08:08
This whole thing disgusts me. Listening to the flush as our country circles the bowl.
Why on earth is there no solid republican willing to run? Are those days gone forever?
I thought the past 6 years would have ignited the desire and we would've had solid candidates coming out the wood work. I'm beginning to get the idea we truly are screwed. And we haven't seen anything yet, if she gets elected. Good grief.
The people that might do a good job get ignored by the media and never get funded. The GOP would rather lose an election than have a limited government conservative beat a democrat. Happened numerous times where they abandoned elections then blame libertarians.
brickboy240
04-03-14, 10:11
The media and establishment GOP is once again picking our candidate.
Christie or Jeb means another total loss and the Oval Office is pretty much Hillary's cake walk.
When your side controls the messaging and the other side is fighting itself (...and you are helping them fight itself)...you control the election.
The GOP leadership truly does not want to lead, reform or win a damn thing. They are not really very conservative, economically speaking, nor are they staunch on many core beliefs. They are as happy with run-away spending and big govt as the left...don't kid yourselves! I also believe that the libertarian/TEA Party types scare the GOP establishment much more than do any Democrats.
I hate to say it but history seems poised to repeat itself again.
-brickboy240
Plumber237
04-03-14, 11:18
I still don't understand how Hillary would be our first woman president...has anybody seen Barack throw a baseball? We've already got a woman president...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.