Trump Backed Candidates Are on Track to Get Smoked in General

[Diamondback]

Good news/Bad news from WA, we fired one of the Impeachment Turncoats. As a buddy put it on WaGuns:

"Jaime Herrera Butt-Burglar has conceded to Joe Kent. Wow, dems and RINOs must have done a ton of fraud they don't want anyone looking at, she's not requesting a recount despite it being a difference of 0.4% and within range of mandatory recount scope under WA state law.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/rec...h%20candidates
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...istered%20User

We may not have gotten Newhouse but we took out one of the RINO traitors who voted to remove Trump, now she can contact Jay-boi's unemployment office for welfare cheese."

BAD News, having seen her kind in action here all my life, and seeing what Establicuck Resuckincocks do when our side wins instead of returning "MUHPARTYLOYALTY!" as they demand when they do... she's gonna denounce Kent, or damn with faint praise, and try to flip it to the D as Plan B.

[pinzgauer]

I specifically recall the efforts of Dems calling on out-of-state people to "move" to Georgia in order to sway the election. It happened and was mentioned by pinzgauer above:

"State law is that if you were not eligible for the original election you can't vote in the runoff. Yet large numbers did. And there was some evidence that some of those were temporary out of state attempts to swing the election."

The documented ineligible voting confirmed by change of address forms occurred and was more than enough to tip the two run off elections.

While there's suspicions of ballot stuffing in some of the metro Atlanta precincts that is hard to prove, the change of address ineligible voters is hard to argue with

[nick84]

I wish people in general would stop nominating political rookies for Senate races. Senate candidates cannot hide amongst gerrymandered districts they way kookier House candidates can. Look at this cycle; winnable seats that will likely stay blue for another 6 years because primary voters picked FVCKING OPRAHS DOCTOR. He's running against a guy who's nearly dead and still losing.

Someone like Herschel Walker has a compelling story, but if he'd run a state candidacy first, we might not be finding about his SECRET CHILDREN at this most inopportune time. That may not make him a bad Senator, but it's a glaring target that wouldn't be so vulnerable if he'd already overcome it in a previous campaign.

I believed in the tea party waves of 2010, 12, and 14. Ideologically speaking. But I learned a lesson then about what happens when purists insist that the good is the enemy of the perfect.

I'm so beyond exhausted of Donald Trump and his obvious unfitness for leadership. Is there really no one else who talks about the things he originally built a campaign on, and also isn't personally detestable? I know why Trump appeals to people, I'm just saying....maybe it's time to pick someone else who has a strategy for more than picking fights. A strategy like actually winning those fights? I dunno guys. I damn sure don't want anymore lefties.

[glocktogo]

I wish people in general would stop nominating political rookies for Senate races. Senate candidates cannot hide amongst gerrymandered districts they way kookier House candidates can. Look at this cycle; winnable seats that will likely stay blue for another 6 years because primary voters picked FVCKING OPRAHS DOCTOR. He's running against a guy who's nearly dead and still losing.

Someone like Herschel Walker has a compelling story, but if he'd run a state candidacy first, we might not be finding about his SECRET CHILDREN at this most inopportune time. That may not make him a bad Senator, but it's a glaring target that wouldn't be so vulnerable if he'd already overcome it in a previous campaign.

I believed in the tea party waves of 2010, 12, and 14. Ideologically speaking. But I learned a lesson then about what happens when purists insist that the good is the enemy of the perfect.

I'm so beyond exhausted of Donald Trump and his obvious unfitness for leadership. Is there really no one else who talks about the things he originally built a campaign on, and also isn't personally detestable? I know why Trump appeals to people, I'm just saying....maybe it's time to pick someone else who has a strategy for more than picking fights. A strategy like actually winning those fights? I dunno guys. I damn sure don't want anymore lefties.

On the one hand you say you don’t want any more lefties. On the other hand you want established Republican candidates.

Don’t you think you should decide what you actually want, before asking for it?

[nick84]

On the one hand you say you don’t want any more lefties. On the other hand you want established Republican candidates.

Don’t you think you should decide what you actually want, before asking for it?

Well.... Those are two different things. If every 'establishment' Republican is also a leftist in your eyes, then I respectfully submit that you try to make a more nuanced distinction.

Politics ain't beanbag as they say. You have to campaign to win before you can even sit at the table where decisions get made. You have to be able to build some consensus and have broader appeal if you want to win (in a broader electorate, I'm still talking mainly about the Senate here). Those that are the best at telling a narrow spectrum of people what they want to hear will not win. Hence, the perfect candidate in the eyes of the purist will only serve to be good at telling you what you want to hear, but they will likely never be in a position to act on it. I hope to be rid of left wing misfeasance in government, and I also understand that there is a soft middle of persuadable voters in this country, and we need some of them on our side before we can think about getting what we want in policy.

[glocktogo]

Well.... Those are two different things. If every 'establishment' Republican is also a leftist in your eyes, then I respectfully submit that you try to make a more nuanced distinction.

Politics ain't beanbag as they say. You have to campaign to win before you can even sit at the table where decisions get made. You have to be able to build some consensus and have broader appeal if you want to win (in a broader electorate, I'm still talking mainly about the Senate here). Those that are the best at telling a narrow spectrum of people what they want to hear will not win. Hence, the perfect candidate in the eyes of the purist will only serve to be good at telling you what you want to hear, but they will likely never be in a position to act on it. I hope to be rid of left wing misfeasance in government, and I also understand that there is a soft middle of persuadable voters in this country, and we need some of them on our side before we can think about getting what we want in policy.

I watched Lindsey Graham just about wet his pants and flee the interview two days ago, rather than condemn the DoJ and FBI for being the political enforcement arm of the Democrat party. He, McConnell and all the other establishment Republicans have been unusually quiet this week. Their silence is complicity and I’m done even pretending they give a single **** what happens to us. All they care about is POWER, and the proof is in their sparse and barely above a whisper words this week.

It’s time to do the nut cutting and the establishment cuck Republicans are to weak stomached to do it. So let’s stop pretending they’re our friends. They aren’t and they never were.

[nick84]

I watched Lindsey Graham just about wet his pants and flee the interview two days ago, rather than condemn the DoJ and FBI for being the political enforcement arm of the Democrat party. He, McConnell and all the other establishment Republicans have been unusually quiet this week. Their silence is complicity and I’m done even pretending they give a single **** what happens to us. All they care about is POWER, and the proof is in their sparse and barely above a whisper words this week.

It’s time to do the nut cutting and the establishment cuck Republicans are to weak stomached to do it. So let’s stop pretending they’re our friends. They aren’t and they never were.

If I were Mitch McConnell I wouldn't be on the record issuing a condemnation of the FBI, either. Once again, nuance. Two things can be true at once. In this case: 1.) I don't trust the FBI , but also 2.)Donald Trump or someone in his inner orbit could actually be guilty of something. They haven't exactly proven to be the most ethical crowd. And so we wait to see the details come out before we come to conclusions.

As to the idea that any politician is my friend, though, I'd say not. My whole point here is though, that lots of people who agree with everything I think ain't in charge, and won't ever be. I would rather have someone in office that we exert some measure of influence over by virtue of the fact that they need our support and our vote, rather than someone who doesn't at all because they'll never get my vote.

It's also worth pointing out that nothing of any worth that was achieved during the Trump administration would have happened without Cocaine Mitch, so there's that to consider. I don't know how else to make my point here. You gotta have pieces on the board if you want to win the game.

Am I supposed to believe that Mehmet Oz, a medical hack who's the 21st century equivalent of an elixir salesman in the Wild West, is going to get to DC and do "nutcutting?" I think my point stands, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[glocktogo]

If I were Mitch McConnell I wouldn't be on the record issuing a condemnation of the FBI, either. Once again, nuance. Two things can be true at once. In this case: 1.) I don't trust the FBI , but also 2.)Donald Trump or someone in his inner orbit could actually be guilty of something. They haven't exactly proven to be the most ethical crowd. And so we wait to see the details come out before we come to conclusions.

As to the idea that any politician is my friend, though, I'd say not. My whole point here is though, that lots of people who agree with everything I think ain't in charge, and won't ever be. I would rather have someone in office that we exert some measure of influence over by virtue of the fact that they need our support and our vote, rather than someone who doesn't at all because they'll never get my vote.

It's also worth pointing out that nothing of any worth that was achieved during the Trump administration would have happened without Cocaine Mitch, so there's that to consider. I don't know how else to make my point here. You gotta have pieces on the board if you want to win the game.

Am I supposed to believe that Mehmet Oz, a medical hack who's the 21st century equivalent of an elixir salesman in the Wild West, is going to get to DC and do "nutcutting?" I think my point stands, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

We do indeed disagree!

[Todd.K]

A strategy like actually winning those fights? I dunno guys. I damn sure don't want anymore lefties.

What is your favorite thing that supposedly conservative establishment Republicans have conserved in the last decade? Last 50 years?

[nick84]

What is your favorite thing that supposedly conservative establishment Republicans have conserved in the last decade? Last 50 years?

I disagree with the premise that underlines this question. You're setting up a false choice, between the "supposedly conservative establishment" and whoever else, presumably someone deemed 'actually conservative'? Its not an either or proposition, it's all of the above because they're all going to be necessary. I'll answer the question though, if you answer mine first.

Do you think Mehmet Oz will get elected as US Senator for PA? And if so, can he reliably be counted on to support and faithfully articulate conservative values such as limited government, maximization of freedom, individual rights, free enterprise, family values, etc?