login
CPAC 2014 (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-03-10 10:24 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Regular  5477    LHOTP |  Subject: RE: CPAC 2014Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood Amen!Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Holy Crap! Is this the "best and brightest' of the Republican Party?! Newsflash!! Obama isn't running in 2016-so you better have something to offer besides "Whatever Obama does is Baaad" Team Red better step their game up or even Joe Biden will kill them in the general election. Jeff, I'd be happy to discuss the polices of the "best and brightest" you are referring to but it doesn't look like that's the direction you want this thread to go is it? We can discuss the policies of anyone you'd like. That's why I threw the red meat out there! However, you and I rarely have much success in 'discussing' things. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, pick one of their major platforms that you disagree with and let me know why you think they are crazy. Cruz is crazy because he's probably one of the best legal minds in Washington and his talent would, naturally, rise to the surface of a ever-younger Republican caucus. BUT...and this is a HUGH but....He continues to associate himself with lesser-gifted politicians and less-substantial issues. Gov. Palin and Mike Lee are both political FEATHERWEIGHTS, and frankly, not very popular in the General Election voting model. And make no mistake...it IS about the General Election. Ted Cruz is staking out a far right agenda that many people think may be TOO far right. When John Boehner finally grew a pair and pushed back against the Tea Partiers, he was sending a signal that the establishment Republicans may be rethinking the ultra-Conservative movement. Cruz 'should' be smart enough to see this, but he acts like he's intent on pushing the whole party further to the Right. And Far Right isn't going to win any national elections. Plus, he's too damn smart to be (mis) reading Green Eggs and Ham-he turned a serious effort into Talk Show punch lines. He's resorted to grandstanding instead of letting his intellect speak for him. As far as platforms....well, he's a Republican, so I'm naturally against him because I believe in most of the things other Democrats believe in. (Cruz was quoted as saying "republicans are and SHOULD be the party of the 47%-I got issues with that.) I'm waaaay less pro 2A than he is (this is an area of supreme expertise for him and he discusses this issue beautifully. I.O.W.- Why is he so damn insecure. He's gotta be pragmatic enough to know that Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent are NOT gonna win him (or any Republican) a general election. And if you can't win-you can't effect change. Yet he continues to push against McCain, McConnell and the DC establishment. And while the Tea Party (and I) may think the 'establishment' isn't the best way to govern; it's going to continue to be the way it IS goverened for the forseeable future. The Tea Party movement is dead-they're just mistaking the twitching fingers and dying pulse as robust life. It's not. The pendulum is beginning to slow and will, eventually, start swinging the other way. And Ted Cruz's dad? How would that type of hate speech play out on the national stage? Not very well, I think. I don't know anything about Rand Paul except he carries himself well, seems even tempered and serious and THUMPED Cruz in the straw poll. you crack me up. ;-) I'm thinking you could come up with at least one or two people in the country that Cruz would be ahead of. lol What's funny is we sit back and complain that everyone who goes to Washington just gets absorbed into the system and votes with their party. So, no change ever comes and it's just more of the same with big spending. Then, somebody like Cruz comes to town and bucks the system, which is exactly what we say we need more of, and then everyone complains because he's bucking the system and not just going along with everyone else? lol With the discontent that people have with Washington, I feel a Libertarian leaning fiscal conservative (from either party) will be in a very strong position come election time. People were truly sick of Bush's spending and brought in a new "change" to Washington in 2008. Unfortunately the "change" was just more of the same with big spending towards special interests. So, the people have been burned by both parties. I'd truly love to see a real Libertarian versus a Republican or a Democrat, but the system is so stacked against any other party that it's likely many years away still. With the current people being brought to the front I would say Cruz and Paul are the closest to that, but I'm still not 100% sold. I'd love to see the Democrats present some fiscal conservative candidates as well. I will never vote for an anti-choice president, and I'm not alone. People who underestimate the importance of this issue to voters make a big mistake. That being said, I think our social programs need a huge overhaul. A fiscally conservative Democrat would be great. This is what I think is bad about what I generically call "single issue" voters. There are a large number of people who are just the opposite as well that will never vote for anyone who is pro-choice. I just don't understand this. If a Libertarian candidate who was "pro-choice" personally but had no intention of pushing it down my throat I have no issues with that. We need fiscally responsible adults in Washington, period. If we keep electing them purely based on social issues then we're doomed as a nation. Luckily, I have never had to vote for a Democrat solely on their pro-choice stance. What is to guarantee they don't "push it down your throat"? How many Supreme Court Justices will the next President have the opportunity to appoint? Four Justices over 75. |
| 2014-03-10 10:32 AM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood Amen!Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Holy Crap! Is this the "best and brightest' of the Republican Party?! Newsflash!! Obama isn't running in 2016-so you better have something to offer besides "Whatever Obama does is Baaad" Team Red better step their game up or even Joe Biden will kill them in the general election. Jeff, I'd be happy to discuss the polices of the "best and brightest" you are referring to but it doesn't look like that's the direction you want this thread to go is it? We can discuss the policies of anyone you'd like. That's why I threw the red meat out there! However, you and I rarely have much success in 'discussing' things. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, pick one of their major platforms that you disagree with and let me know why you think they are crazy. Cruz is crazy because he's probably one of the best legal minds in Washington and his talent would, naturally, rise to the surface of a ever-younger Republican caucus. BUT...and this is a HUGH but....He continues to associate himself with lesser-gifted politicians and less-substantial issues. Gov. Palin and Mike Lee are both political FEATHERWEIGHTS, and frankly, not very popular in the General Election voting model. And make no mistake...it IS about the General Election. Ted Cruz is staking out a far right agenda that many people think may be TOO far right. When John Boehner finally grew a pair and pushed back against the Tea Partiers, he was sending a signal that the establishment Republicans may be rethinking the ultra-Conservative movement. Cruz 'should' be smart enough to see this, but he acts like he's intent on pushing the whole party further to the Right. And Far Right isn't going to win any national elections. Plus, he's too damn smart to be (mis) reading Green Eggs and Ham-he turned a serious effort into Talk Show punch lines. He's resorted to grandstanding instead of letting his intellect speak for him. As far as platforms....well, he's a Republican, so I'm naturally against him because I believe in most of the things other Democrats believe in. (Cruz was quoted as saying "republicans are and SHOULD be the party of the 47%-I got issues with that.) I'm waaaay less pro 2A than he is (this is an area of supreme expertise for him and he discusses this issue beautifully. I.O.W.- Why is he so damn insecure. He's gotta be pragmatic enough to know that Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent are NOT gonna win him (or any Republican) a general election. And if you can't win-you can't effect change. Yet he continues to push against McCain, McConnell and the DC establishment. And while the Tea Party (and I) may think the 'establishment' isn't the best way to govern; it's going to continue to be the way it IS goverened for the forseeable future. The Tea Party movement is dead-they're just mistaking the twitching fingers and dying pulse as robust life. It's not. The pendulum is beginning to slow and will, eventually, start swinging the other way. And Ted Cruz's dad? How would that type of hate speech play out on the national stage? Not very well, I think. I don't know anything about Rand Paul except he carries himself well, seems even tempered and serious and THUMPED Cruz in the straw poll. you crack me up. ;-) I'm thinking you could come up with at least one or two people in the country that Cruz would be ahead of. lol What's funny is we sit back and complain that everyone who goes to Washington just gets absorbed into the system and votes with their party. So, no change ever comes and it's just more of the same with big spending. Then, somebody like Cruz comes to town and bucks the system, which is exactly what we say we need more of, and then everyone complains because he's bucking the system and not just going along with everyone else? lol With the discontent that people have with Washington, I feel a Libertarian leaning fiscal conservative (from either party) will be in a very strong position come election time. People were truly sick of Bush's spending and brought in a new "change" to Washington in 2008. Unfortunately the "change" was just more of the same with big spending towards special interests. So, the people have been burned by both parties. I'd truly love to see a real Libertarian versus a Republican or a Democrat, but the system is so stacked against any other party that it's likely many years away still. With the current people being brought to the front I would say Cruz and Paul are the closest to that, but I'm still not 100% sold. I'd love to see the Democrats present some fiscal conservative candidates as well. I will never vote for an anti-choice president, and I'm not alone. People who underestimate the importance of this issue to voters make a big mistake. That being said, I think our social programs need a huge overhaul. A fiscally conservative Democrat would be great. This is what I think is bad about what I generically call "single issue" voters. There are a large number of people who are just the opposite as well that will never vote for anyone who is pro-choice. I just don't understand this. If a Libertarian candidate who was "pro-choice" personally but had no intention of pushing it down my throat I have no issues with that. We need fiscally responsible adults in Washington, period. If we keep electing them purely based on social issues then we're doomed as a nation. Luckily, I have never had to vote for a Democrat solely on their pro-choice stance. What is to guarantee they don't "push it down your throat"? How many Supreme Court Justices will the next President have the opportunity to appoint? Four Justices over 75. There are no guarantee's. Obviously the issue is important to you, and you have every right to feel the way you do. I just hate to see a good fiscal conservative whom you may support in every way (hypothetically speaking) lose a vote because he has a different stance on issue X. You make a good point about the Supreme Court, but if a president truly nominates judges who interpret the constitution then it should be a non issue. |
| 2014-03-10 11:20 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 I'm becoming more and more cynical about every level of government. While I am probably most closely aligned with some of Rand's ideas, I firmly believe that whoever gets voted in will be bought off immediately. Here in hyper-republican, small government minded Idaho, we recently had an Ag-gag bill pushed through the state legislature because someone exposed abuse at a local Dairy.They went out and did whatever it is they do to get this bill fast tracked through to a law so that now it is a felony to video agricultural operations. Not increase laws on abuse, but reporting on said abuse is a felony. Small government my behind. |
| 2014-03-10 11:20 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 If Jon Huntsman was running, I'd be a Republican again. |
| 2014-03-10 11:29 AM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Well Bush wasn't running either, but that didn't stop Obama from endless yammering for 6 straight years. |
| 2014-03-10 11:32 AM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Remember when electing a Catholic president was a big deal? Do you think a Mormon could get elected?If Jon Huntsman was running, I'd be a Republican again. |
| 2014-03-10 11:48 AM in reply to: switch |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Remember when electing a Catholic president was a big deal? Do you think a Mormon could get elected?If Jon Huntsman was running, I'd be a Republican again. As long as the candidate's religious view do not impact their policy views, I couldn't care less. I am certain that for some voters that isn't the case. When I look at Huntsman I see someone highly intelligent, experienced in foreign policy, socially moderate, fiscally conservative, and willing to reach across the aisle for the good of the country. All the things that I think we need in a President. |
| 2014-03-10 11:56 AM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Remember when electing a Catholic president was a big deal? Do you think a Mormon could get elected?If Jon Huntsman was running, I'd be a Republican again. I don't know a lot about Huntsman, but I'd say anyone who has the right message can get elected. There will of course be people who will never vote for an X, but I think those are fewer and fewer as the years go by. I'm sure there were people who would never vote for a "black guy" in 2008 and 2012, but it didn't seem to matter.
|
| 2014-03-10 12:30 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Remember when electing a Catholic president was a big deal? Do you think a Mormon could get elected?If Jon Huntsman was running, I'd be a Republican again. I don't know a lot about Huntsman, but I'd say anyone who has the right message can get elected. There will of course be people who will never vote for an X, but I think those are fewer and fewer as the years go by. I'm sure there were people who would never vote for a "black guy" in 2008 and 2012, but it didn't seem to matter.
Well, at least not for a half black guy.
|
| 2014-03-10 2:57 PM in reply to: 0 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please..... Edited by Jackemy1 2014-03-10 2:58 PM |
| 2014-03-10 3:07 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
|
| 2014-03-10 3:18 PM in reply to: switch |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
So you think another Clinton is better than another Bush. Heck, Jeb might even be the good one, but I am sick of Clinton and Bush. Of course Clinton is never tired of Bush.... but seriously... only two families can run this country? OK, well we know Obama can't... but I think there are more than 3. |
| 2014-03-10 3:35 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
I'm with you on this one Switch. No more Bush! Well, the political kind anyways. For everyone's sake I truly hope we have somebody other than Clinton/Bush fighting it out in 2016. I think the only thing Clinton could run on would be to divide the country even more. Us against them, we have to protect the women from the evil republicans... vote for me. If she were to be elected I think Washington would be every bit as divided (or more) than it is today. If you take away a few key social issues I'd say most of America is on the same page politically. Most people want our government to act fiscally responsible and stay out of our business. This was the original appeal of the Tea Party, until nut jobs tried tacking social issues onto it. |
| 2014-03-10 3:35 PM in reply to: powerman |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by powerman OK, that was funny.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
So you think another Clinton is better than another Bush. Heck, Jeb might even be the good one, but I am sick of Clinton and Bush. Of course Clinton is never tired of Bush.... but seriously... only two families can run this country? OK, well we know Obama can't... but I think there are more than 3. Yes, with the information that I have now, I would choose Hillary over Jeb. I hope I get different choices.
|
| 2014-03-10 3:36 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by powerman OK, that was funny.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
So you think another Clinton is better than another Bush. Heck, Jeb might even be the good one, but I am sick of Clinton and Bush. Of course Clinton is never tired of Bush.... but seriously... only two families can run this country? OK, well we know Obama can't... but I think there are more than 3. Yes, with the information that I have now, I would choose Hillary over Jeb. I hope I get different choices.
No question I'd be voting Libertarian if those were the choices. |
| 2014-03-10 3:39 PM in reply to: switch |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds.  FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.  GOP don't win election by getting Dems to vote for them and visa versa. The people who run elections don't care much about how the other side rallies because if you can't get your base out you lose no matter what. My point is that the GOP power that has run the party for 60 plus years will be testing the waters with Jeb. Just pay attention to the talking heads the next few months. You'll notice what I saying. However, It is anyone's guess who will eventually get the nomination. For full disclosure....I am not a Jeb Bush style Republican so I would rather not see him win the nomination. And as to polls.....look who were the front runners around this time in 2008. If those polls predicted the future, we would have had Giuliani/Clinton presidential election. |
| 2014-03-10 3:42 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by tuwood Yes, which is its undoing. Reasonable people in both parties who agree with the Tea Party ideals on paper are not going to align themselves with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
I'm with you on this one Switch. No more Bush! Well, the political kind anyways. For everyone's sake I truly hope we have somebody other than Clinton/Bush fighting it out in 2016. I think the only thing Clinton could run on would be to divide the country even more. Us against them, we have to protect the women from the evil republicans... vote for me. If she were to be elected I think Washington would be every bit as divided (or more) than it is today. If you take away a few key social issues I'd say most of America is on the same page politically. Most people want our government to act fiscally responsible and stay out of our business. This was the original appeal of the Tea Party, until nut jobs tried tacking social issues onto it. |
| 2014-03-10 3:52 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by switch GOP don't win election by getting Dems to vote for them and visa versa. The people who run elections don't care much about how the other side rallies because if you can't get your base out you lose no matter what. My point is that the GOP power that has run the party for 60 plus years will be testing the waters with Jeb. Just pay attention to the talking heads the next few months. You'll notice what I saying. However, It is anyone's guess who will eventually get the nomination. For full disclosure....I am not a Jeb Bush style Republican so I would rather not see him win the nomination. And as to polls.....look who were the front runners around this time in 2008. If those polls predicted the future, we would have had Giuliani/Clinton presidential election. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
Absolutely agree with the bolded. And I also agree that Jeb main gain favor. However, I think that though your assessment "GOP don't win elections by getting Dems to vote for them and visa versa" has been true historically, things may be different now. There are many people who are sick of their party's bs, especially since the shutdown fiasco, and there are people who will disregard their previous allegiance to vote for the person they really feel is best. This is one of the reasons people feel like a Libertarian may really get some traction this election. |
| 2014-03-10 4:24 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood Yes, which is its undoing. Reasonable people in both parties who agree with the Tea Party ideals on paper are not going to align themselves with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
I'm with you on this one Switch. No more Bush! Well, the political kind anyways. For everyone's sake I truly hope we have somebody other than Clinton/Bush fighting it out in 2016. I think the only thing Clinton could run on would be to divide the country even more. Us against them, we have to protect the women from the evil republicans... vote for me. If she were to be elected I think Washington would be every bit as divided (or more) than it is today. If you take away a few key social issues I'd say most of America is on the same page politically. Most people want our government to act fiscally responsible and stay out of our business. This was the original appeal of the Tea Party, until nut jobs tried tacking social issues onto it. I agree with you about Beck, but I'd disagree that anyone is aligning with him in the Republican Party. If anything I'd say most mainstream candidates distance themselves as much as they can from him. I met her in person back in 2008 and thought she was very pleasant. If anything she was quite a bit different than most politicians on that big of a stage, so I found that appealing to me. I am not a fan of her running for any big office but I don't think she ever would. |
| 2014-03-10 4:36 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by switch GOP don't win election by getting Dems to vote for them and visa versa. The people who run elections don't care much about how the other side rallies because if you can't get your base out you lose no matter what. My point is that the GOP power that has run the party for 60 plus years will be testing the waters with Jeb. Just pay attention to the talking heads the next few months. You'll notice what I saying. However, It is anyone's guess who will eventually get the nomination. For full disclosure....I am not a Jeb Bush style Republican so I would rather not see him win the nomination. And as to polls.....look who were the front runners around this time in 2008. If those polls predicted the future, we would have had Giuliani/Clinton presidential election. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
Absolutely agree with the bolded. And I also agree that Jeb main gain favor. However, I think that though your assessment "GOP don't win elections by getting Dems to vote for them and visa versa" has been true historically, things may be different now. There are many people who are sick of their party's bs, especially since the shutdown fiasco, and there are people who will disregard their previous allegiance to vote for the person they really feel is best. This is one of the reasons people feel like a Libertarian may really get some traction this election. Don't forget that more than half the country favored the shutdown initially. After it kicked in for a week or two and the various "make it hurt" cuts started kicking in the public opinion shifted. The ACA is not polling well for Democrats. Many Democrats, and almost all Republicans do not like the law and the worse the law gets the more I feel people will appreciate the GOP's attempt to stop it via the shutdown. People are genuinely upset with the washington spending. Nobody really knows how to fix it, but something has to change. You can't keep running the deficit up perpetually. If we didn't have the deficit the government could do all kinds of entitlement things including universal healthcare and everything else. However, because we're doing everything on borrowed money it doesn't matter what they do, we can't afford it. |
| 2014-03-10 4:36 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by tuwood I didn't write that clearly.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood Yes, which is its undoing. Reasonable people in both parties who agree with the Tea Party ideals on paper are not going to align themselves with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by Jackemy1 Since 1952 you have basically had two power "families" in the Republican party who ran the show - Nixon and Bush. When these names were on the ticket, the real Republican money and full force followed and the R's were very competitive or won. 52, 56, 60, 68, 72 - were Nixon years with only 60 losing out the electoral college but just about a statistical tie in the general. 64- was a nothing election with Goldwater 76 - was a stay away election because of Watergate. Bob Dole took his first one for the team with Ford. 80 - The GOP wanted a win and Bush Sr. jumped on the ticket with Reagan and stayed in 84. 88 - Bush 92 - Bush again. Perot and a couple of Bush missteps led to the loss. 96 - Bob Dole was a good soldier and took another for the team in a dead year. 00 and 04 - Bush Jr 08 and 12 - Two more throw away elections with McCain and Romney. Basically the GOP was Bush/Nixon and everyone else was just there for the cocktail party. Soon you are going to start hearing lots of Bush people name dropping Jeb Bush in the news. Like last week's hint that Barbara thinks her son is the best candidate for 2016... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0306/Jeb-Bush-in-2016-... But, in the meantime the GOP has a little power vacuum and that has created a lot of different factions presenting their ideas for the future of the Party. So seeing whatever many names being tossed around for 2016 is a good and health thing. Heck, at least the GOP is talking about the future. What do the Dems have that is comparable? Seriously, what future are the Dems offering?......a third Clinton term? please.....
please... That will make dems rally like nobody's business. The Bush legacy is currently a detriment to Jeb in voters' minds. FWIW, which may not be much, Hillary beat Jeb 47% to 33% in a recent poll.
I'm with you on this one Switch. No more Bush! Well, the political kind anyways. For everyone's sake I truly hope we have somebody other than Clinton/Bush fighting it out in 2016. I think the only thing Clinton could run on would be to divide the country even more. Us against them, we have to protect the women from the evil republicans... vote for me. If she were to be elected I think Washington would be every bit as divided (or more) than it is today. If you take away a few key social issues I'd say most of America is on the same page politically. Most people want our government to act fiscally responsible and stay out of our business. This was the original appeal of the Tea Party, until nut jobs tried tacking social issues onto it. I agree with you about Beck, but I'd disagree that anyone is aligning with him in the Republican Party. If anything I'd say most mainstream candidates distance themselves as much as they can from him. I met her in person back in 2008 and thought she was very pleasant. If anything she was quite a bit different than most politicians on that big of a stage, so I found that appealing to me. I am not a fan of her running for any big office but I don't think she ever would. What I meant was there are a number of high-profile nut-jobs that call themselves Tea Partiers and that is why people who otherwise might agree with it steer clear. You might not think Palin's out in "whackyland", but it doesn't matter because of the "level of disdain everyone seems to have for her". Here's a present for you Tony :
(SarahPalin.png) Attachments ---------------- SarahPalin.png (316KB - 9 downloads) |
| 2014-03-10 5:34 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by tuwood I'm with you on this one Switch. No more Bush!
Agree, in more ways than one! My apologies to the Muslin's. |
| 2014-03-10 5:51 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
| Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Holy Crap! Is this the "best and brightest' of the Republican Party?! Newsflash!! Obama isn't running in 2016-so you better have something to offer besides "Whatever Obama does is Baaad" Team Red better step their game up or even Joe Biden will kill them in the general election. Jeff, I'd be happy to discuss the polices of the "best and brightest" you are referring to but it doesn't look like that's the direction you want this thread to go is it? We can discuss the policies of anyone you'd like. That's why I threw the red meat out there! However, you and I rarely have much success in 'discussing' things. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, pick one of their major platforms that you disagree with and let me know why you think they are crazy. Cruz is crazy because he's probably one of the best legal minds in Washington and his talent would, naturally, rise to the surface of a ever-younger Republican caucus. BUT...and this is a HUGH but....He continues to associate himself with lesser-gifted politicians and less-substantial issues. Gov. Palin and Mike Lee are both political FEATHERWEIGHTS, and frankly, not very popular in the General Election voting model. And make no mistake...it IS about the General Election. Ted Cruz is staking out a far right agenda that many people think may be TOO far right. When John Boehner finally grew a pair and pushed back against the Tea Partiers, he was sending a signal that the establishment Republicans may be rethinking the ultra-Conservative movement. Cruz 'should' be smart enough to see this, but he acts like he's intent on pushing the whole party further to the Right. And Far Right isn't going to win any national elections. Plus, he's too damn smart to be (mis) reading Green Eggs and Ham-he turned a serious effort into Talk Show punch lines. He's resorted to grandstanding instead of letting his intellect speak for him. As far as platforms....well, he's a Republican, so I'm naturally against him because I believe in most of the things other Democrats believe in. (Cruz was quoted as saying "republicans are and SHOULD be the party of the 47%-I got issues with that.) I'm waaaay less pro 2A than he is (this is an area of supreme expertise for him and he discusses this issue beautifully. I.O.W.- Why is he so damn insecure. He's gotta be pragmatic enough to know that Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent are NOT gonna win him (or any Republican) a general election. And if you can't win-you can't effect change. Yet he continues to push against McCain, McConnell and the DC establishment. And while the Tea Party (and I) may think the 'establishment' isn't the best way to govern; it's going to continue to be the way it IS goverened for the forseeable future. The Tea Party movement is dead-they're just mistaking the twitching fingers and dying pulse as robust life. It's not. The pendulum is beginning to slow and will, eventually, start swinging the other way. And Ted Cruz's dad? How would that type of hate speech play out on the national stage? Not very well, I think. I don't know anything about Rand Paul except he carries himself well, seems even tempered and serious and THUMPED Cruz in the straw poll. Sorry for the delay in replying, I just got back from the ER and was diagnosed with a sever case of whiplash,,,,,, which apparently appeared right after reading your post......... I guess my summary of what you said is Ted Cruz is Crazy because he is exactly what the country needs and goes against the Republican establishment and he is ever crazier because he won't suck up to the Republican/DC establishment. You say John Boehner grew a pair I would say just the opposite but for the same reason. Boehner caved to what you say is the problem, Establishment/DC. I'm not sure how you define success in these interweb discussions but imho, or for me anyway is when I read comments that make me think about my positions, defend them or learn stuff I didn't know. It sounds like you and I agree to some extent as to what the problem is and that is the the DNC the RNC and DC are more concerned about their own power base and the ability to control the trillions of dollars that they can spend rather than what's in the best interests of the average US citizen and what's best for us as a nation. One thing I'm convinced of if we don't start voting people in who are more concerned with the nation than they are of their own political future, we're Ducked! |
| 2014-03-10 6:50 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Originally posted by switch You might not think Palin's out in "whackyland", but it doesn't matter because of the "level of disdain everyone seems to have for her". So let me ask you why everyone seems to have disdain for her? She came onto the scene as an "outsider" who was mostly unknown by everyone. She came out fairly stiff and ill prepared for the stage she was thrust onto, but that's about it. The left then began a campaign of personal destruction to make her out to be an idiot and was quite successful. Even the picture you posted was part of that process because it was completely fake and manufactured with the intent to continue destroying her image and thereby discredit her as a person. Even one of the most famous quotes that people attribute to her "stupidity" is the "I can see russia from my house". That was nothing more than a SNL skit that successfully portrayed her as an idiot. I despise the politics of personal destruction. If you disagree with somebodies politics then that's fine. Present your reasons for disagreeing and an alternate solution. |
| 2014-03-10 6:55 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: CPAC 2014 Here's the original picture of Elizabeth (22) who did it as a joke in 2004 making fun of gun toting patriots.
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK