The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: GOBUCKS on September 18, 2014, 08:23:43 PM
-
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 01:45 PM
big_dog (1,637 posts)
Ann Coulter: 'Idiots' Who Vote Libertarian Will Cost GOP The Senate Majoirty
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter on Wednesday laid out the strategy she thinks will help the GOP win the Senate, trying to scare Republicans into following her detailed instructions. She seemed incredibly concerned that libertarian candidates and the people that vote for them will ruin the election for everyone.
"The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections, including Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Colorado," she wrote in her column, adding that the independent candidate in the Kansas race also poses a threat to the party. "Democratic candidates don't have to put up with this crap — they're even trying to dump the official Democrat in Kansas to give the stealth Democrat a better shot."
In close races, libertarian candidates could pull votes from Republicans, helping out the Democrat, especially in states like Louisiana and North Carolina. "When we're all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we'll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians,"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025555030
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 01:49 PM
Hugabear (10,311 posts)
1. I've been telling every teabagger I know they should vote Libertarian
I tell them that the GOP doesn't represent their views, that the Libertarian party is the best fit for them.
If it helps to fracture the GOP and ensure that we take firm control, then I'm fine with it.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 05:31 PM
Star Member JHB (19,983 posts)
She was regarded as turncoat by the wingnuts during the 2012 Clown Parade
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 02:58 PM
Star Member TeamPooka (5,438 posts)
15. **** the Libertarians.
Something we can agree on!
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 03:04 PM
CJCRANE (15,700 posts)
17. If they split the GOP, works for me.
-
I have suspected that some Paulbots are leftists.
-
Their pro-drug, open-borders stance also appeals to hard-core stupid young Lefties, DUmmies, this thing could very easily backfire on you.
-
Mitch Mcconnell and Grimes are so similar, I'm thinking of sitting this one out. Better to not vote evil at all than the lesser of the two.
-
Hardcore party Libertarians are often so far around the bend that they are Siamese twins to fringe leftists.
The only difference being some fiscal issues and the fact that the leftists hold gimme economics as the sun in their political universe.
-
Mitch Mcconnell and Grimes are so similar, I'm thinking of sitting this one out. Better to not vote evil at all than the lesser of the two.
It's still important to put the seat in the R column, even if you don't see enough difference to matter between them, it's the only way to break Reid's choke-hold on the Senate and take away Obama's 'Deadlocked Congress' excuse.
-
It's still important to put the seat in the R column, even if you don't see enough difference to matter between them, it's the only way to break Reid's choke-hold on the Senate and take away Obama's 'Deadlocked Congress' excuse.
I feel the same way about Lamar Alexander. His old crusty moderate bullshit infuriates me, but neglecting to put another check in the (R) column just gives Harry Reid another chance to be the worthless shitbrick Speaker he's been since Obama was elected.
-
I have suspected that some Paulbots are leftists.
They have more in common with the DUmmies than they do Conservatives.
There's a reason they are referred to as Liberaltarians.
-
It's still important to put the seat in the R column, even if you don't see enough difference to matter between them, it's the only way to break Reid's choke-hold on the Senate and take away Obama's 'Deadlocked Congress' excuse.
I've made the case for awhile that's the ONLY reason Ron Paul got re-elected so many times in his district.
-
It's still important to put the seat in the R column, even if you don't see enough difference to matter between them, it's the only way to break Reid's choke-hold on the Senate and take away Obama's 'Deadlocked Congress' excuse.
Exactly. You do know that the majority of the judgeships on the various Federal Circuit Courts are now held by Democrat-appointed judges, right? That will make very sure that the SCOTUS is busy for a long time. More Rs in the Senate means that this will stop.
-
Not enough to convince there. Mitch voted for the bailouts, and he's simply been there far too long. We complain about term limits but we still somehow send the same old dinosaurs right back in. That might be okay for the primitives, but I hold the right to a much higher standard.
have a look at how beneficial he really is to conservative ideals:
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-ten-bad-votes-senator-mitch-mcconnell (http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-ten-bad-votes-senator-mitch-mcconnell)
-
It's still important to put the seat in the R column, even if you don't see enough difference to matter between them, it's the only way to break Reid's choke-hold on the Senate and take away Obama's 'Deadlocked Congress' excuse.
I did, Lindsay Graham....I'd rather have voted for a Zell Miller type democrat but they didn't run one.
-
It's still important to put the seat in the R column, even if you don't see enough difference to matter between them, it's the only way to break Reid's choke-hold on the Senate and take away Obama's 'Deadlocked Congress' excuse.
True, if there's a viable option available. However, here in California, that has not existed for a very, very long time.. That's why I don't bother with voting anymore. Way too many stupid people here that nullify my vote, making it a waste of my time to even bother to try.
-
Not enough to convince there. Mitch voted for the bailouts, and he's simply been there far too long. We complain about term limits but we still somehow send the same old dinosaurs right back in. That might be okay for the primitives, but I hold the right to a much higher standard.
have a look at how beneficial he really is to conservative ideals:
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-ten-bad-votes-senator-mitch-mcconnell (http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-ten-bad-votes-senator-mitch-mcconnell)
Y'know, that's what the primaries are for. If you want to pick up your toys and go home when your ideal guy loses in the primaries, and boycott the general election, you're going to be doomed to a life of political frustration and largely having a Congressional delegation from the other party. Apparently not enough of your fellow Kentuckians agreed with you to turn McConnell out.
-
True, if there's a viable option available. However, here in California, that has not existed for a very, very long time.. That's why I don't bother with voting anymore. Way too many stupid people here that nullify my vote, making it a waste of my time to even bother to try.
Wow.
Sun Tzu's got nothing on you when it comes to formulating a winning strategy, does he?
That almost sounds the the same strategy I've seen espoused at the DUmp vis a vis getting a job.
-
Y'know, that's what the primaries are for. If you want to pick up your toys and go home when your ideal guy loses in the primaries, and boycott the general election, you're going to be doomed to a life of political frustration and largely having a Congressional delegation from the other party. Apparently not enough of your fellow Kentuckians agreed with you to turn McConnell out.
Unfortunately not enough people actually read up on the issues and blindly pull the lever for either blue or red. I'm just tired of being expected to vote for somebody like that when he clearly has his own interests ahead of my state's. you didn't read the link, did you?
-
Not enough to convince there. Mitch voted for the bailouts, and he's simply been there far too long. We complain about term limits but we still somehow send the same old dinosaurs right back in. That might be okay for the primitives, but I hold the right to a much higher standard.
have a look at how beneficial he really is to conservative ideals:
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-ten-bad-votes-senator-mitch-mcconnell (http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-ten-bad-votes-senator-mitch-mcconnell)
Seriously? Boggles my mind when a "conservative" plays games one would expect from a DUmmie. While Romney wasn't my ideal candidate, I still voted for him. All those Republicans who sat home to "punish" the Republicans, how'd that work out? The damage the boy king has done in this term is demoralizing this country and killing the Constitution and we have no one to fight back for us. Even if the R senate isn't as conservtive as you'd like it to be, they won't be as willing to abrogate their power as the Democrats are. Those who sat home during the last presidential election are just as responsible for the state of the country now as those who voted for 0bama.
The fact is, we are responsible for putting up candidates in our district/states that can win over the RINO. It's not even a question of money. Look at the Eric Cantor loss. We win when we have a candidate willing to stand up and proudly state his/her conservative views and governing policies. When the opponents don't have a clear, strong message or the guts to stand up and shout it with a positive attitude, then the RINO incumbent will always win because they're at least familiar.
Look what we did to ourselves in the last presidential primary! We had several candidates who would've been better than 0bama or Romney and we allowed ourselves to be influenced by what ever shiny object the media threw at us. Meanwhile, the RNC/RINO/Romney bunch just waited it out. They know their base well enough to know we'll eat our own until there's only a couple of choices. Newt wouldn't have been anyone's choice for a conservative candidate, but he was what we were left with and he had no money left. We go into the voting booth, we choose primary candidates. Your guy didn't win? Well, you can either work harder next time, find a better candidate or at the very least vote for the person other members of your state/district decided was the right person knowing you'll at least help to tip the scales.
Another thing to consider: when the R's are in charge, even if they're RINO's, we have a lot more influence over them when they're in charge. How many times were we able to stop those bogus "immigration reform" bills from passing the house? There were a number of issues where we had influence, despite the lack of Ted Cruz's. How much influence did we have over a Democrat controlled senate? So thanks for not thinking things through. If it makes you feel better, take your toys and go home. Or you can deal with what you've got and the opportunities it provides.
Cindie
-
Seriously? Boggles my mind when a "conservative" plays games one would expect from a DUmmie. While Romney wasn't my ideal candidate, I still voted for him. All those Republicans who sat home to "punish" the Republicans, how'd that work out? The damage the boy king has done in this term is demoralizing this country and killing the Constitution and we have no one to fight back for us. Even if the R senate isn't as conservtive as you'd like it to be, they won't be as willing to abrogate their power as the Democrats are. Those who sat home during the last presidential election are just as responsible for the state of the country now as those who voted for 0bama.
The fact is, we are responsible for putting up candidates in our district/states that can win over the RINO. It's not even a question of money. Look at the Eric Cantor loss. We win when we have a candidate willing to stand up and proudly state his/her conservative views and governing policies. When the opponents don't have a clear, strong message or the guts to stand up and shout it with a positive attitude, then the RINO incumbent will always win because they're at least familiar.
Look what we did to ourselves in the last presidential primary! We had several candidates who would've been better than 0bama or Romney and we allowed ourselves to be influenced by what ever shiny object the media threw at us. Meanwhile, the RNC/RINO/Romney bunch just waited it out. They know their base well enough to know we'll eat our own until there's only a couple of choices. Newt wouldn't have been anyone's choice for a conservative candidate, but he was what we were left with and he had no money left. We go into the voting booth, we choose primary candidates. Your guy didn't win? Well, you can either work harder next time, find a better candidate or at the very least vote for the person other members of your state/district decided was the right person knowing you'll at least help to tip the scales.
Another thing to consider: when the R's are in charge, even if they're RINO's, we have a lot more influence over them when they're in charge. How many times were we able to stop those bogus "immigration reform" bills from passing the house? There were a number of issues where we had influence, despite the lack of Ted Cruz's. How much influence did we have over a Democrat controlled senate? So thanks for not thinking things through. If it makes you feel better, take your toys and go home. Or you can deal with what you've got and the opportunities it provides.
Cindie
Nothing more to add . . . H5.
-
Wow.
Sun Tzu's got nothing on you when it comes to formulating a winning strategy, does he?
That almost sounds the the same strategy I've seen espoused at the DUmp vis a vis getting a job.
It's not up to me to form a winning strategy. That's the job of the non existant opposition party here in California. They are the ones who have failed the people. Believe me I have tried my best to vote out Dems in this state but the GOP has failed to provide and support a viable candidate to do the job. It's not worth my time and effort right now to vote in an election that's going to be won by the democrat anyway. Will my position change? Maybe, but who knows.
-
Seriously? Boggles my mind when a "conservative" plays games one would expect from a DUmmie. While Romney wasn't my ideal candidate, I still voted for him. All those Republicans who sat home to "punish" the Republicans, how'd that work out? The damage the boy king has done in this term is demoralizing this country and killing the Constitution and we have no one to fight back for us. Even if the R senate isn't as conservtive as you'd like it to be, they won't be as willing to abrogate their power as the Democrats are. Those who sat home during the last presidential election are just as responsible for the state of the country now as those who voted for 0bama.
The fact is, we are responsible for putting up candidates in our district/states that can win over the RINO. It's not even a question of money. Look at the Eric Cantor loss. We win when we have a candidate willing to stand up and proudly state his/her conservative views and governing policies. When the opponents don't have a clear, strong message or the guts to stand up and shout it with a positive attitude, then the RINO incumbent will always win because they're at least familiar.
Look what we did to ourselves in the last presidential primary! We had several candidates who would've been better than 0bama or Romney and we allowed ourselves to be influenced by what ever shiny object the media threw at us. Meanwhile, the RNC/RINO/Romney bunch just waited it out. They know their base well enough to know we'll eat our own until there's only a couple of choices. Newt wouldn't have been anyone's choice for a conservative candidate, but he was what we were left with and he had no money left. We go into the voting booth, we choose primary candidates. Your guy didn't win? Well, you can either work harder next time, find a better candidate or at the very least vote for the person other members of your state/district decided was the right person knowing you'll at least help to tip the scales.
Another thing to consider: when the R's are in charge, even if they're RINO's, we have a lot more influence over them when they're in charge. How many times were we able to stop those bogus "immigration reform" bills from passing the house? There were a number of issues where we had influence, despite the lack of Ted Cruz's. How much influence did we have over a Democrat controlled senate? So thanks for not thinking things through. If it makes you feel better, take your toys and go home. Or you can deal with what you've got and the opportunities it provides.
Cindie
Now see, right there. I voted for Gary Johnson. His ideals were much more in tune with what a true conservative should be. He left his state with a surplus when he was done. All MA got was Romneycare. If it feels good to just blindly vote for the red guy just because we're told to, we're no better than the primitives. Romney wasn't a good candidate, not even close. He was about as vanilla of a candidate as you could possibly imagine, shiny hair included. What should have happened was for him to concede to Johnson who had a much better conservative history to back him up. If we keep voting for squishy bland candidates like Romney and McCain, that's exactly what we'll keep getting. The only difference between that type of candidate and Obama is that Obama is headed in the same direction as them, only faster.
-
Now see, right there. I voted for Gary Johnson. His ideals were much more in tune with what a true conservative should be. He left his state with a surplus when he was done. All MA got was Romneycare. If it feels good to just blindly vote for the red guy just because we're told to, we're no better than the primitives. Romney wasn't a good candidate, not even close. He was about as vanilla of a candidate as you could possibly imagine, shiny hair included. What should have happened was for him to concede to Johnson who had a much better conservative history to back him up. If we keep voting for squishy bland candidates like Romney and McCain, that's exactly what we'll keep getting. The only difference between that type of candidate and Obama is that Obama is headed in the same direction as them, only faster.
If you read my post, you'd realize I wasn't voting blindly for anyone. I completely understand who Romney is. I like Gary Johnson too but the fact is, we have only 2 parties with any hope of winning. You don't have to like it but that's the way it is. How many times have 3rd parties gummed up the works for either party? What needs to happen (and Gary Johnson could be part of this) is to change the party from within. The looney left did this quite effectively. It didn't take that long, either. It's the one lesson we really need to learn from them. We almost learned it in 2010. Then we went backwards. Up one, back two...it's like we're playing "Mother May I". The solution lies with us, the base. We could've changed the direction of the country. We had a diverse, conservative pool of candidates to choose from in 2012. But we have too many purists...he/she doesn't think exactly like I do on every single issue, no way I'm going to accept that 95% is better than 80% and 50% is better than -200% (which is what we have now).
Oh, no, can't have this guy, somone wrote on a rock and he's an idiot, nevermind he's running one of the largest states in the union, it's doing well economically and he's fearless when standing up for his citizens.
This guy over here...okay, so he's run an entire freaking world wide corporation but he doesn't have any government experience. Everyone knows there's absolutely no politics in business. So what if he knows how to find the best people to delegate work to. And despite having the endorsement and faith of Dr. Alveda King, we're just going to allow the liberal media to turn him into some Mandingo and declare him unable to win.
Her? She's looney toons. The press calls her crazy and lazy so that's that! Of course she'd be better than 0bama. Of course she's a rock-ribbed conservative. Oh, she said a couple things in a way that made the press criticize & mock her. At least she knows we don't have 57 states. She's unelectable because we, the republican base, just assume if the press knocks someone they have to be kicked to the curb. Sheesh, it's not like we're democrats and will stand behind our candidates.
Him? Too damned socially conservative. And mild. And caring. And smart. And his kid is sick. What's gonna happen if he get's that 3am phone call and he's at the hospital with her? He might be compelled to sit with her and let a whole embassy burn or something. Everyone knows that's so much worse than being unavailable while your ambassador and a few Navy SEALs are killed. He might even have *gasp* prayed with his pastor after sending in every warmongering personnel in the area. That's so uncool compared to jetting off to party with Jay-Z and Beyonce. Another one bites the dust.
Getting towards cruch time and we've effectively allowed the liberal press and the RINOs to divide us and take out our most conservative candidates, any one of which could win with our support. The majority of the country is conservative, socially and/or financially. A positive message, love of country and common sense ideas wins the day every time...think Reagan. The RINO's thought he was as crazy as any candidate in the 2012 primary but he won the hearts and minds of the people.
Well at least we have the former speaker of the house. Maybe he's not as conservative as we'd like but he's smart & practical and has an encyclopedic knowledge of our history and the constitution. Many of us really rallied around him. Except, he doesn't have the kind of money the RINO chosen candidate does and they're starting their full court press. We're still in our little factions, still fighting with each other and being all butt hurt because everyone else in the freaking party didn't see the genius of "our" candidate.
So, we have Romney. We were outsmarted by the RINOs who didn't have to spend a dime while we tore each other apart. But, Romney's a decent human being. He loves this country. He has a backbone when it comes to foreign policy. We certainly wouldn't be in the geopolitical mess we are now. He had such genuine compassion and righteous anger about Benghazi. Given that, do you honestly believe we'd have the chaos around the world we have now? Do you think Romney would've drawn a red line and walked away? Do you think his consequences after beheading American citizens would be as limp wristed as 0bama's? That he would've completely think he would've abandoned Israel and the Ukraine? Or continued to alienate our European allies while kissing the butt of anyone in wearing a towel on their head? Do you really think the economy wouldn't be any better? If he's anything, Romney's a numbers guy.
And, just like the Republican congress listens to their base more often than the democrat senate listens to us, we'd have a lot more influence over him than 0bama. He'd want to be reelected. And I'm pretty sure he has enough respect for the constitution that he wouldn't violate it with endless executive orders. If you don't see the differences between them, then perhaps you need better information. The canard about "well, he's going in the same direction just slower" is bogus. So many of 0bama's executive orders and extra constitutional rulings would NOT have happened under Romney. Reversing some of those will take a great deal of work. It's so much easier and quicker to tear down than rebuild. We wouldn't be slowing down, we'd be going in a completely different direction.
We need to stop throwing tantrums and work for what we want. Don't want RINOs...that's what primaries are for. Maybe it will take 2 or 3 or even 4 elections (took Reagan a few). In the meantime you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Play the cards your dealt may be a cliche, but it's better than taking your toys and going home. Staying home or voting for a 3rd party is no different than giving the democrats another vote. Honestly, I'm more libertarian than conservative on many issues but just preventing the left from getting total control of the judicial system, as they've done with pop culture, education and the press, is worth not wasting my vote. Anyway, if you can find a way to justify your lack of concern for the country more power to you. I just can't. I have children and grandchildren and I don't every want to have to tell them, "Sorry, you guys are riddled with debt and won't be able to live the American dream that all parents want for their children. I sat out X,Y,Z election(s) to 'teach the party a lesson'! No one even noticed that I and a few million of my fellow conservatives sat it out until after the election. The other guy was elected and the country went to shit! Hey, don't blame me, I voted in the primaries."
Cindie
Cindie
-
If you read my post, you'd realize I wasn't voting blindly for anyone. I completely understand who Romney is. I like Gary Johnson too but the fact is, we have only 2 parties with any hope of winning. You don't have to like it but that's the way it is. How many times have 3rd parties gummed up the works for either party? What needs to happen (and Gary Johnson could be part of this) is to change the party from within. The looney left did this quite effectively. It didn't take that long, either. It's the one lesson we really need to learn from them. We almost learned it in 2010. Then we went backwards. Up one, back two...it's like we're playing "Mother May I". The solution lies with us, the base. We could've changed the direction of the country. We had a diverse, conservative pool of candidates to choose from in 2012. But we have too many purists...he/she doesn't think exactly like I do on every single issue, no way I'm going to accept that 95% is better than 80% and 50% is better than -200% (which is what we have now).
Oh, no, can't have this guy, somone wrote on a rock and he's an idiot, nevermind he's running one of the largest states in the union, it's doing well economically and he's fearless when standing up for his citizens.
This guy over here...okay, so he's run an entire freaking world wide corporation but he doesn't have any government experience. Everyone knows there's absolutely no politics in business. So what if he knows how to find the best people to delegate work to. And despite having the endorsement and faith of Dr. Alveda King, we're just going to allow the liberal media to turn him into some Mandingo and declare him unable to win.
Her? She's looney toons. The press calls her crazy and lazy so that's that! Of course she'd be better than 0bama. Of course she's a rock-ribbed conservative. Oh, she said a couple things in a way that made the press criticize & mock her. At least she knows we don't have 57 states. She's unelectable because we, the republican base, just assume if the press knocks someone they have to be kicked to the curb. Sheesh, it's not like we're democrats and will stand behind our candidates.
Him? Too damned socially conservative. And mild. And caring. And smart. And his kid is sick. What's gonna happen if he get's that 3am phone call and he's at the hospital with her? He might be compelled to sit with her and let a whole embassy burn or something. Everyone knows that's so much worse than being unavailable while your ambassador and a few Navy SEALs are killed. He might even have *gasp* prayed with his pastor after sending in every warmongering personnel in the area. That's so uncool compared to jetting off to party with Jay-Z and Beyonce. Another one bites the dust.
Getting towards cruch time and we've effectively allowed the liberal press and the RINOs to divide us and take out our most conservative candidates, any one of which could win with our support. The majority of the country is conservative, socially and/or financially. A positive message, love of country and common sense ideas wins the day every time...think Reagan. The RINO's thought he was as crazy as any candidate in the 2012 primary but he won the hearts and minds of the people.
Well at least we have the former speaker of the house. Maybe he's not as conservative as we'd like but he's smart & practical and has an encyclopedic knowledge of our history and the constitution. Many of us really rallied around him. Except, he doesn't have the kind of money the RINO chosen candidate does and they're starting their full court press. We're still in our little factions, still fighting with each other and being all butt hurt because everyone else in the freaking party didn't see the genius of "our" candidate.
So, we have Romney. We were outsmarted by the RINOs who didn't have to spend a dime while we tore each other apart. But, Romney's a decent human being. He loves this country. He has a backbone when it comes to foreign policy. We certainly wouldn't be in the geopolitical mess we are now. He had such genuine compassion and righteous anger about Benghazi. Given that, do you honestly believe we'd have the chaos around the world we have now? Do you think Romney would've drawn a red line and walked away? Do you think his consequences after beheading American citizens would be as limp wristed as 0bama's? That he would've completely think he would've abandoned Israel and the Ukraine? Or continued to alienate our European allies while kissing the butt of anyone in wearing a towel on their head? Do you really think the economy wouldn't be any better? If he's anything, Romney's a numbers guy.
And, just like the Republican congress listens to their base more often than the democrat senate listens to us, we'd have a lot more influence over him than 0bama. He'd want to be reelected. And I'm pretty sure he has enough respect for the constitution that he wouldn't violate it with endless executive orders. If you don't see the differences between them, then perhaps you need better information. The canard about "well, he's going in the same direction just slower" is bogus. So many of 0bama's executive orders and extra constitutional rulings would NOT have happened under Romney. Reversing some of those will take a great deal of work. It's so much easier and quicker to tear down than rebuild. We wouldn't be slowing down, we'd be going in a completely different direction.
We need to stop throwing tantrums and work for what we want. Don't want RINOs...that's what primaries are for. Maybe it will take 2 or 3 or even 4 elections (took Reagan a few). In the meantime you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Play the cards your dealt may be a cliche, but it's better than taking your toys and going home. Staying home or voting for a 3rd party is no different than giving the democrats another vote. Honestly, I'm more libertarian than conservative on many issues but just preventing the left from getting total control of the judicial system, as they've done with pop culture, education and the press, is worth not wasting my vote. Anyway, if you can find a way to justify your lack of concern for the country more power to you. I just can't. I have children and grandchildren and I don't every want to have to tell them, "Sorry, you guys are riddled with debt and won't be able to live the American dream that all parents want for their children. I sat out X,Y,Z election(s) to 'teach the party a lesson'! No one even noticed that I and a few million of my fellow conservatives sat it out until after the election. The other guy was elected and the country went to shit! Hey, don't blame me, I voted in the primaries."
Cindie
Cindie
Any support for McConnell died with this quote:
"I think we are going to crush them everywhere," McConnell said. "I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country."
Divisive party politics indeed. As I said before, he's no better than the primitive candidate and neither are worthy of my vote. A non-vote isn't worthless and it's not supporting the left either. If we're so far gone that this is the type of candidate we're left with, then there is probably no hope of getting back to sanity. This clip explains it perfectly:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAyr0kWRGE[/youtube]
-
His ideals were much more in tune with what a true conservative should be.
You're right...outside of his views on Global Warming...Abortion...Open Borders and illegal drugs...he's the spitting image of Ronald Reagan!
:whatever:
-
You're right...outside of his views on Global Warming...Abortion...Open Borders and illegal drugs...he's the spitting image of Ronald Reagan!
:whatever:
Reagan had his liberal spells too. See late 80s amnesty, bailouts (Chrysler version 1), and tax hikes for examples.
I personally don't give a crap about illegal drugs. If somebody is dumb enough to use them, they deserve the consequences. I don't drink and never have. That doesn't mean I want alcohol outlawed.
Johnson proposes free market solutions to GW, if it's not costing me anything, I don't care if he believes in it or not.
-
Reagan had his liberal spells too. See late 80s amnesty, bailouts (Chrysler version 1), and tax hikes for examples.
He was lied to on the Amnesty and the promised $2 in cuts to every $1 of tax increases by the Dems. So that takes care of that typical Paulbot talking point.
I personally don't give a crap about illegal drugs. If somebody is dumb enough to use them, they deserve the consequences. I don't drink and never have. That doesn't mean I want alcohol outlawed.
Alcohol is legal...pot...with a couple exception in direct violation of Federal law...is not legal. Big difference. ANd the whole "who cares if they get high as long as it doesn't affect me" attitude is more Liberal tan Conservative.
Johnson proposes free market solutions to GW, if it's not costing me anything, I don't care if he believes in it or not.
And that whole lazy attitude is why Liberaltarians will never be more than a shitstaiin on the political landscape.
Please...do tell all of us...how is a belief in man made global warming and open borders the likes of what we're seeing now...things that Johnson supports...Conservative in ANY way?
-
Please...do tell all of us...how is a belief in man made global warming and open borders the likes of what we're seeing now...things that Johnson supports...Conservative in ANY way?
How is McConnell's support for bailouts and romney's romneycare conservative in ANY way? I can play that game too. Look, as I said before, MMGW is nonsense but I don't really care if somebody believes in it or not. The problem is when people try to take from me to do something about it, that's not something Johnson was willing to do. And I'm not okay with anyone supporting open borders. Glad to see you support romneycare so willingly.
-
How is McConnell's support for bailouts and romney's romneycare conservative in ANY way? I can play that game too. Look, as I said before, MMGW is nonsense but I don't really care if somebody believes in it or not. The problem is when people try to take from me to do something about it, that's not something Johnson was willing to do. And I'm not okay with anyone supporting open borders. Glad to see you support romneycare so willingly.
Romneycare?
There is absolutely no comparison between "Romneycare" and Obamacare. Romneycare doesn't violate states' rights. Romneycare care didn't paint a target on the back of the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, and any other Christian business or religious order.
Romney was a moderate, but he had an incredible foreign policy team. He was endorsed by 500 retired generals/admirals. You voted for a liberal that helped give us four more years of Barack Obama.
ISIS thanks you.
-
Romneycare?
There is absolutely no comparison between "Romneycare" and Obamacare. Romneycare doesn't violate states' rights. Romneycare care didn't paint a target on the back of the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, and any other Christian business or religious order.
Romney was a moderate, but he had an incredible foreign policy team. He was endorsed by 500 retired generals/admirals. You voted for a liberal that helped give us four more years of Barack Obama.
ISIS thanks you.
Romney had every opportunity to concede to a better conservative, I don't settle for squishy candidates.
-
Romney had every opportunity to concede to a better conservative, I don't settle for squishy candidates.
There was nothing squishy about his foreign policy. We have a JV President.
Not to mention, you didn't even vote for a conservative.
-
There was nothing squishy about his foreign policy. We have a JV President.
Not to mention, you didn't even vote for a conservative.
sure I did, Johnson lined up better with traditional conservative values better than Romney. His economics were better, more focus on the individual. If i wanted a whiter Obama, I'd have voted for Romney.
-
Romney had every opportunity to concede to a better conservative, I don't settle for squishy candidates.
Winners don't concede. He won the primary, why the hell would he say, "Oh, I'm just not conservative enough...here, you take the nomination." Why doesn't the winning Super Bowl team give up their trophy to the losers? You can't possibly be serious.
Cindie
-
Winners don't concede. He won the primary, why the hell would he say, "Oh, I'm just not conservative enough...here, you take the nomination." Why doesn't the winning Super Bowl team give up their trophy to the losers? You can't possibly be serious.
Cindie
In his 1975 speech to CPAC Ronald Reagan said that, “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the peopleâ€.
You can't seriously believe that Romney represents the best of conservative values.
-
You voted for a pro abortion, pro same sex marriage, and pro open borders candidate.
He's the opposite of conservative.
-
sure I did, Johnson lined up better with traditional conservative values better than Romney. His economics were better, more focus on the individual. If i wanted a whiter Obama, I'd have voted for Romney.
I can name you Dems that lined up better on economics than Romney. Doesn't make them Conservative.
You're doing a lot of dancing here...you've yet to state one specific thing that made/makes Gary Johnson Conservative.
You seem to be short on specifics.
-
How is McConnell's support for bailouts and romney's romneycare conservative in ANY way? I can play that game too.
No one here was talking about them...you made the statement on Johnson...I showed where you were wrong...now you're deflecting.
Look, as I said before, MMGW is nonsense but I don't really care if somebody believes in it or not.
But your supposed "Conservative" believes in it. Were he to get elected by some fluke he'd side with the Progressives on this issue...as he would on the border.
You SHOULD care...you're the one touting his Conservative credentials.
The problem is when people try to take from me to do something about it, that's not something Johnson was willing to do. And I'm not okay with anyone supporting open borders.
You made the statement:
I voted for Gary Johnson. His ideals were much more in tune with what a true conservative should be.
I simple asked how support for illegal drugs open borders and man made global warming are principals of a "true conservative".
You've done your best to avoid answering that.
Why? I mean after all you were bold enough to tout him as the Conservatives Conservative.
Glad to see you support romneycare so willingly.
I don't. I never have and I never will. That's just a straw man you're tossing out there to deflect from the fact you stepped in it with what you said.
-
You voted for a pro abortion, pro same sex marriage, and pro open borders candidate.
He's the opposite of conservative.
Shhhh you can't tell the Paulbots that.
-
Shhhh you can't tell the Paulbots that.
Paulbots and Purists will help ensure another Senate Majority for the Dems.
-
You can't seriously believe that Romney represents the best of conservative values.
None of us here tried to claim that. You're creating a strawman.
-
None of us here tried to claim that. You're creating a strawman.
I voted for the stronger conservative, why didn't you? why did you sacrifice your values just so the red team would win and disappoint you all over again? Charlie Brown, there's a football with your name on it...
-
why did you sacrifice your values just so the red team would win
I dunno. Maybe to keep the blue team from winning and adding more socialist moonbats to the Supreme Court?
Or maybe it's because we realize anyone acceptable to either party's Purity Brigade will lose a landslide 100% of the time in a national election.
-
I dunno. Maybe to keep the blue team from winning and adding more socialist moonbats to the Supreme Court?
Or maybe it's because we realize anyone acceptable to either party's Purity Brigade will lose a landslide 100% of the time in a national election.
Also, while Romney is a moderate, he ran on conservative principles. Gary Johnson is a liberal who ran on liberal principles.
-
Also, while Romney is a moderate, he ran on conservative principles. Gary Johnson is a liberal who ran on liberal principles.
One left a state surplus and the other left socialized medicine in his state... let's talk about those conservative principles...
-
One left a state surplus and the other left socialized medicine in his state... let's talk about those conservative principles...
I keep trying to...you keep ducking the topic.
What Conservative Principals does Gary Johnson actually have?
-
I keep trying to...you keep ducking the topic.
What Conservative Principals does Gary Johnson actually have?
I spelled it out before, but I guess some people need remedial help. Here are just a few:
•Lay out a process for state bankruptcies. (Aug 2012)
•No bank bailout; no farm subsidies; no stimulus. (May 2012)
•Cut federal budget by 43% to bring it into balance. (Feb 2012)
•Trillion-dollar stimulus failed; so will another $450B? (Sep 2011)
•We could have avoided default without raising debt ceiling. (Aug 2011)
•Ending the fed OK, but that's only part of the solution. (Aug 2011)
•Stop incurring more debt; balanced budget by 2013. (Jul 2011)
•Our debt is greatest threat to our national security. (Jul 2011)
•Opposed TARP, stimulus & Fannie Mae bailout. (Jul 2011)
•End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011)
•On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011)
•Balance budget by cutting entitlements AND Defense. (Apr 2011)
•Uphold commitments to states before other spending. (Sep 2001)
•Vetoed early release of prisoners due to overcrowding. (Aug 2012)
•Vetoed hate crime legislation as thought-crime. (Aug 2012)
•Built private prisons to replace out-of-state prisoners. (Aug 2012)
•Private prisons cost $20 less/day than public control. (Aug 2012)
•DNA evidence shows many people are mistakenly convicted. (Aug 2012)
•1994: Proponent of death penalty, but willing to debate it. (Jan 2012)
•Death penalty as a public policy is flawed. (Jan 2012)
•Don't risk putting innocent to death. (Aug 2011)
•Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime. (Jan 2001)
•Supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs. (Sep 2001)
•Zero tolerance for violence against government employees. (Aug 2001)
•Public education system needs major reform. (Aug 2012)
•Vouchers OK for church childcare & church schools. (Aug 2012)
•$3,500 voucher for every K-12 student. (Aug 2012)
•Vouchers are as constitutional as pre-school and day-care. (Aug 2012)
•Competition would make our schools better. (Aug 2012)
•I support evolution; but no federal involvement. (May 2012)
•No student loans; they cause higher tuition. (Nov 2011)
•Education Dept. takes 16 cents for every 11 cents it gives. (Sep 2011)
•Abolish Departments of Education and HUD. (Aug 2011)
•Give every student in New Mexico vouchers worth $3,500. (Jul 2011)
•Put educational funds in the hands of the people who use it. (May 2011)
•End the Department of Education. (May 2011)
•No student loans; they cause higher tuition. (Feb 2011)
Very Friedmanish on schooling.
-
And then you ignored abortion, same-sex marriage, and illegal immigration.
-
The poster I replied to for those slow to comprehend, and bolded for absolute clarity:
I keep trying to...you keep ducking the topic.
What Conservative Principals does Gary Johnson actually have?
And then you ignored abortion, same-sex marriage, and illegal immigration.
I answered that post that asked what CONSERVATIVE principals Johnson had. I answered that. Economics and education are my biggest issues, if you need to cherry pick my answers, that's your problem, not mine. How bout them purity tests...
-
I voted for the stronger conservative, why didn't you?
Ummm newsflash for you...if you wasted your vote on Gary Johnson...you dod NOT vote for the stronger Conservative.
why did you sacrifice your values just so the red team would win and disappoint you all over again?
I find myself asking you the same question.
Charlie Brown, there's a football with your name on it...
Says the guy who threw away his vote on a Libertarian.
And again you seem incapable of unwilling to show specifics on what supposedly makes Johnson Conservative not to mention you refuse to address his support for man made global warming and open borders.
IF he's so conservative...why is he so firmly behind such Progressive causes?
No real Conservative would support either one of those.
-
The poster I replied to for those slow to comprehend, and bolded for absolute clarity:I answered that post that asked what CONSERVATIVE principals Johnson had. I answered that.
And yet what you stated could be cited by fiscally conservative sociall Liberal Dems like Zell Miller, Sam Nunn and a host of others.
Those two things do not a Conservative make.
Economics and education are my biggest issues, if you need to cherry pick my answers, that's your problem, not mine.
Yippee he suppors a Fair Tax. Yet he has no peoblems with Big Labor...to include the teachers unions.
He vowed to cut the military budget by 43% while saying NOTHING about dealing with unfunded liabilities.
He's anti-interventionist and borderline isolationist.
He's for open borders.
He's pro Pot.
He's a believer in the myth of man made global warming. Infact he cites the EPA...THE EPA as an example of "good government".
He's pro abortion.
He wants to turn all non violent drug offenders loose on the streets.
He's pro gay marriage.
So tell me how exactly does that make Gary Johnson "the stronger conservative"
He's no more Conservative than RINO Ron Paul was.
How bout them purity tests...
You tell me...you're the only claiming you're the ONLY pure Conservative here.
-
•Cut federal budget by 43% to bring it into balance. (Feb 2012) HE was going to do that by cutting the military by that amount.
•Trillion-dollar stimulus failed; so will another $450B? (Sep 2011) ???
•We could have avoided default without raising debt ceiling. (Aug 2011) Conservatives oppose this, Libs pushed for it.
•Ending the fed OK, but that's only part of the solution. (Aug 2011) And do what? Return to the Gold Standard?
•Stop incurring more debt; balanced budget by 2013. (Jul 2011) [b]Yet he supports contuing Social Sercurity and Medicaid. [/b]
•Our debt is greatest threat to our national security. (Jul 2011) Yet his only solution is to reduce the military budget.
•End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011) Again and replace it with what?
•On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011) And how does he propose to do that?
•Balance budget by cutting entitlements AND Defense. (Apr 2011) He favores continuing Social Security and Medicaid so he's NOT ending entitlements...and he wants to cut Defense to a level worse than Obama.
•Vetoed early release of prisoners due to overcrowding. (Aug 2012) Yet he wants to turn drug offenders loose.
•Built private prisons to replace out-of-state prisoners. (Aug 2012) Which was foolish
•Private prisons cost $20 less/day than public control. (Aug 2012) Because they don't pay their employees and guards very well which leads to mismanagement and corruption.•DNA evidence shows many people are mistakenly convicted. (Aug 2012)
•1994: Proponent of death penalty, but willing to debate it. (Jan 2012) So he's willing to flip flop of the price is right?
•Death penalty as a public policy is flawed. (Jan 2012) Yet he claims just above this to support it. Why the double speak?
•Don't risk putting innocent to death. (Aug 2011) We don't. That's a typical Liberal talking point.
•Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime. (Jan 2001) That's another Liberal talking point. It will lead to black markets and increased instances of DUI's. Just ask Colorado. No to mention Pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs.
•Supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs. (Sep 2001) So do Liberals! Midnight basketball ring a bell?
•Zero tolerance for violence against government employees. (Aug 2001) So he's in the pocket of Big Labor. How is that Conservative?
•Public education system needs major reform. (Aug 2012) Yet he supports the Teachers Unions
•$3,500 voucher for every K-12 student. (Aug 2012) Not every K-12 student needs this. And who pays for it?
•Vouchers are as constitutional as pre-school and day-care. (Aug 2012) Huh?
•Competition would make our schools better. (Aug 2012) How can he make that happen if he still supports the teachers unions?
•I support evolution; but no federal involvement. (May 2012) So he just alienated the majority of the GOP base and made Liberals cheer. Not very Conservative.•No student loans; they cause higher tuition. (Nov 2011)
•Abolish Departments of Education and HUD. (Aug 2011) Never happen as long as he supports the unions.
•Give every student in New Mexico vouchers worth $3,500. (Jul 2011) And how much did that cost the tax payers?
•Put educational funds in the hands of the people who use it. (May 2011) Not as long as he supports the teachers unions.
•End the Department of Education. (May 2011) See above
•No student loans; they cause higher tuition. (Feb 2011) So if he supports education...how are some kids supposed to go to College if he does this? With a voucher?
When you break it down...Johnson comes across as just another RINO or in this case CINO. He's pro labor...pro abortion and drugs...anti-Military and he's for open borders and legalization of drugs.
Not to mention his stances on gay "marriage" and DADT.
Still trying to see how he's the best Conservative out there.
-
Reaction to the abysmal failures of doctinaire hard-over uncompromising laissez-faire Capitalism is what gave the Democrats a death-grip on the Congress for most of the 20th Century, not that active Federal economic meddling didn't produce plenty of failures of its own. Both approaches, pursued inflexibly and zealously, will have periods of gross failure. Personally, I'd rather not have a fanatic devotee of either one.
The guy's positions on education seem contradictory. 'Reform education' is going to be pretty hard to achieve if you abolish the instrumentality that the Feds use to deal with the subject while backing big unions like AFT to boot. Really seems like a word salad where he's trying to sound like a Libertarian nutter and a Democrat union shill at the same time, and hoping people just notice the stuff they like in it.
The MMGW, open borders, and drug positions would've been enough to get Conservative base voters to stay away in droves, looking at those, it's fairly hard to see why he even ran as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian. I guess he was planning on pulling a lot of Democrats in the general election, but I think the Democrat who is running would have kicked his ass on that one. It would have been a blow-out like that stupid 'God told me to stay in the race' fanatic asshat Todd Akin gave us here in MO.
-
I have suspected that some Paulbots are leftists.
They raise rabbits and turn them loose just for fun.
-
Y'know, that's what the primaries are for. If you want to pick up your toys and go home when your ideal guy loses in the primaries, and boycott the general election, you're going to be doomed to a life of political frustration and largely having a Congressional delegation from the other party. Apparently not enough of your fellow Kentuckians agreed with you to turn McConnell out.
Truth.
-
Romneycare?
There is absolutely no comparison between "Romneycare" and Obamacare. Romneycare doesn't violate states' rights. Romneycare care didn't paint a target on the back of the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, and any other Christian business or religious order.
Romney was a moderate, but he had an incredible foreign policy team. He was endorsed by 500 retired generals/admirals. You voted for a liberal that helped give us four more years of Barack Obama.
ISIS thanks you.
Very well said.
-
I personally don't give a crap about illegal drugs. If somebody is dumb enough to use them, they deserve the consequences. I don't drink and never have. That doesn't mean I want alcohol outlawed.
Every time an illegal drug is made legal, it adds layers of government and taxation, rather then reducing it. It does create jobs, for those applying for jobs with our growing government.
-
Every time an illegal drug is made legal, it adds layers of government and taxation, rather then reducing it. It does create jobs, for those applying for jobs with our growing government.
So you're good with alcohol prohibition, got it. how bout cigarettes and other tobacco products? Maybe what your concern is with our government and not with the drugs themselves. You should be free to do whatever stupid thing you want to your own body, that's part of that whole liberty thing that conservatives seem to usually champion.
-
So you're good with alcohol prohibition, got it. how bout cigarettes and other tobacco products? Maybe what your concern is with our government and not with the drugs themselves. You should be free to do whatever stupid thing you want to your own body, that's part of that whole liberty thing that conservatives seem to usually champion.
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the concept of freedom.
Our freedom ends where our neighbor's begins.
-
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the concept of freedom.
Our freedom ends where our neighbor's begins.
so somehow your neighbor lighting up a fatty next door influences you.
-
so somehow your neighbor lighting up a fatty next door influences you.
Yes, it does. That you can't see how tells volumes.
-
Yes, it does. That you can't see how tells volumes.
Going by that logic, we should outlaw alcohol and tobacco products since it would influence you the same way as if your neighbor is drinking a beer in his backyard.
-
Going by that logic, we should outlaw alcohol and tobacco products since it would influence you the same way as if your neighbor is drinking a beer in his backyard.
That you equate alcohol and tobacco to pot speaks even more volumes.
-
So you're good with alcohol prohibition, got it. how bout cigarettes and other tobacco products? Maybe what your concern is with our government and not with the drugs themselves. You should be free to do whatever stupid thing you want to your own body, that's part of that whole liberty thing that conservatives seem to usually champion.
The legalization of drugs turned into a pipe dream of politicians (local, county and state) dreaming of big tax money falling from the sky in order to keep their big government payroll going.
What people put in their bodies, such as drugs, does have an effect on others. So when an uninsured person overdoses, who picks up the hospital bill? The taxpayer!
-
The legalization of drugs turned into a pipe dream of politicians (local, county and state) dreaming of big tax money falling from the sky in order to keep their big government payroll going.
What people put in their bodies, such as drugs, does have an effect on others. So when an uninsured person overdoses, who picks up the hospital bill? The taxpayer!
How about somebody that OD's on alcohol? Who pays for their not being insured? it happens regularly. But that's really a completely separate issue, isn't it?
-
So you're good with alcohol prohibition, got it. how bout cigarettes and other tobacco products? Maybe what your concern is with our government and not with the drugs themselves. You should be free to do whatever stupid thing you want to your own body, that's part of that whole liberty thing that conservatives seem to usually champion.
When prohibition is exchanged for higher taxes, yes.