Republican Infighting Continues

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.

gop-civil-war-TJ.jpg
 
We have the tea party to thank for Obama's reelection. They're pushing the Republicans so far down the road to irrelevance that it doesn't matter who we put forth in 2016. Heck, Bill Maher could be the nominee.
 
[h=2]Republican Infighting ? Hardly.[/h]Mainstream conservatives don't want to see their party overly influenced by anyone that could be considered on the fringe...

unlike Liberal Democrats that have obviously welcomed the far left socialists, and neo-communists into their ranks.....and its even
more obvious, that that fringe has taken control of what used to be the somewhat rational Democrat party of 30 years ago...
 
Shy Guy said:
We have the tea party to thank for Obama's reelection. They're pushing the Republicans so far down the road to irrelevance that it doesn't matter who we put forth in 2016. Heck, Bill Maher could be the nominee.
Click to expand...

I don't think so....only the Democrats and Socialists are responsible for electing Obama.....don't try to pin that on the Tea party....
 
Far left socialists? Neo-communists? Fringe Democrats? Name one of them that voted for President Barack Hussein Obama. Or, do you actually know any of them? I am a Liberal Progressive Democrat and I don't know any of them. On this board I know of only BAC who claims to be some weird socialist type and he says that he didn't vote for President Obama.
 
Gatorman said:
Far left socialists? Neo-communists? Fringe Democrats? Name one of them that voted for President Barack Hussein Obama. Or, do you actually know any of them? I am a Liberal Progressive Democrat and I don't know any of them. On this board I know of only BAC who claims to be some weird socialist type and he says that he didn't vote for President Obama.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that these wingnut extremist think that anyone slightly to the left of Attila the Hun is a bleeding heart commie pinko liberal.
 
So how is acting more like democrats going to help republicans win more elections? Are democrats going to loosen the hold on their loyal voters? Anyone care to explain this?
 
Gatorman said:
Far left socialists? Neo-communists? Fringe Democrats? Name one of them that voted for President Barack Hussein Obama. Or, do you actually know any of them? I am a Liberal Progressive Democrat and I don't know any of them. On this board I know of only BAC who claims to be some weird socialist type and he says that he didn't vote for President Obama.
Click to expand...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obamas_communist_party_endorsement.html

This is not the first time the CPUSA has officially supported Obama, of course. Alternative media voices have been trying to break through the MSM soundproofing on this matter for some time. (Examples here and here.) The wording of this year's endorsement is particularly full-throated, however, which in itself ought to be disturbing to anyone still on the fence about the nature of the man, his party, and his policies. And while the extreme race-baiting language used in the endorsement is more in keeping with the rhetorical tone of the Weather Underground or MSNBC than with that of "respectable" Democrat sources, is its point any different in principle from many things we hear from elected Democrats every day?
Nevertheless, we must not allow the extreme rhetoric in which the endorsement is couched to distract us from a more fundamental issue, which is this: the CPUSA endorses Barack Obama on the very same grounds -- even in the same words -- that Obama uses in defense of himself.

You use rationalization to label yourself a Liberal Progressive Democrat but it IS you that is the new (neo) Communist of the US.....


​
 
Gatorman said:
Far left socialists? Neo-communists? Fringe Democrats? Name one of them that voted for President Barack Hussein Obama. Or, do you actually know any of them? I am a Liberal Progressive Democrat and I don't know any of them. On this board I know of only BAC who claims to be some weird socialist type and he says that he didn't vote for President Obama.
Click to expand...
you are NOT a liberal progressive democrat simply by your stance on the supposed authority of the president to assassinate american citizens on a whim.
 
NOVA said:
I don't think so....only the Democrats and Socialists are responsible for electing Obama.....don't try to pin that on the Tea party....
Click to expand...

Actually,,, running Romney didn't help.

Karl Rove is a complete screw up as well. I don't know any republican that has any nice thing to say about that ass.
 
Why do so many on the left seem to support the neocons in the GOP's internal battles? I really don't understand that.

The Republican party needs to be more than just the anti-Democrat Party. It's not about being more like them. Picking your positions based on knee jerk reactions leads to an abandonment of common sense. It's not what the voters want and it will lead to certain electoral defeat.

The GOP needs to embrace common sense and get rid of the anti science social conservative retards. The anti-establishement Republicans were hijacked by Palin, Santorum and other social conservatives. But that faction was always a part of the governing coalition of BushCo.

The real anti-establishment faction of the GOP is and probably always will be the libertarians. Justin Amash has a good interview in this months Reason talking about how he was able to be successful and outperform Romney and Michigan's Senator Hoekstra within his district while taking what many might consider extreme positions. He agrees with Democrats on many issues and works with them based on his principles.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Why do so many on the left seem to support the neocons in the GOP's internal battles? I really don't understand that.

The Republican party needs to be more than just the anti-Democrat Party. It's not about being more like them. Picking your positions based on knee jerk reactions leads to an abandonment of common sense. It's not what the voters want and it will lead to certain electoral defeat.

The GOP needs to embrace common sense and get rid of the anti science social conservative retards. The anti-establishement Republicans were hijacked by Palin, Santorum and other social conservatives. But that faction was always a part of the governing coalition of BushCo.

The real anti-establishment faction of the GOP is and probably always will be the libertarians. Justin Amash has a good interview in this months Reason talking about how he was able to be successful and outperform Romney and Michigan's Senator Hoekstra within his district while taking what many might consider extreme positions. He agrees with Democrats on many issues and works with them based on his principles.
Click to expand...

So define "common sense" as you propose it?

As far as I am concerned what you posted is complete sophistry and utter bullshit. Politics is a contact sport. The aim is to defeat your political opponent, not find common ground. To suggest that Obama isn't trying to crush the republicans is naive beyond comprehension. I don't blame. He should. And he is not only doing a good job of it, they are helping him with their bullshit "centrist" positions.

Admittedly, it is always going to be easier to sell socialism because it is easy to sell "Hey, I will take shit from that guy you hate and give you stuff". It is a tougher sell telling people they should work for themselves.

As it stands today, left wingers are winning the argument. If the GOP thinks that becoming more liberal on issues will help them, they are as deluded as Neville Chamberlain thinking he achieved "peace in our time"
 
I Love America said:
So define "common sense" as you propose it?

As far as I am concerned what you posted is complete sophistry and utter bullshit. Politics is a contact sport. The aim is to defeat your political opponent, not find common ground. To suggest that Obama isn't trying to crush the republicans is naive beyond comprehension. I don't blame. He should. And he is not only doing a good job of it, they are helping him with their bullshit "centrist" positions.

Admittedly, it is always going to be easier to sell socialism because it is easy to sell "Hey, I will take shit from that guy you hate and give you stuff". It is a tougher sell telling people they should work for themselves.

As it stands today, left wingers are winning the argument. If the GOP thinks that becoming more liberal on issues will help them, they are as deluded as Neville Chamberlain thinking he achieved "peace in our time"
Click to expand...
And some will join the Nazi's to avoid being Neville Chamberlain.

As far as I am concerned what you post is the sort of nonsense that supports big government either explicitly or through its own ineptitude.

Unless you support outlawing the other parties there will be no defeat and even then it won’t last. There will always be a struggle between two or more parties. In order to achieve your goals you need to have some and be guided by them. If your only goal is winning or defeating the Democrats then you are directionless. Knee jerk reactionaries are actually directed by their opponents and easily defeated. Such retards are lead around by the nose by more savvy politicians. Obama did this in the last election, drawing out the social conservatives to destroy Romney’s chances of victory.

It’s easy to sell liberty but you have to actually be committed to it. Look at how many are upset about these assassination memos from Obama. But if the only reason you oppose it is because it is Obama or because you want to portray the Democrats as hypocrites, then you have proven that you are the hypocrite. No, they might not vote for your candidate. But who gives a fuck if you still achieve your goal of stopping those sorts of actions.

Socialism or central planning fails over and over again on its own. The economy sucks and nobody is happy about it. If Obama had not been able to hang the social conservatives around Romney's neck he probably would have lost on the economy. But Romney did not offer any real difference there and so voters distinguished him based on the social issues.

BTW, one typically engages in sophistry when their only goal is in winning the argument regardless of whether their argument is the truthful or right. You are actually claiming it as a tenet.
 
SuperstringTheory said:

And some will join the Nazi's to avoid being Neville Chamberlain.

As far as I am concerned what you post is the sort of nonsense that supports big government either explicitly or through its own ineptitude.

Unless you support outlawing the other parties there will be no defeat and even then it won’t last. There will always be a struggle between two or more parties. In order to achieve your goals you need to have some and be guided by them. If your only goal is winning or defeating the Democrats then you are directionless. Knee jerk reactionaries are actually directed by their opponents and easily defeated. Such retards are lead around by the nose by more savvy politicians. Obama did this in the last election, drawing out the social conservatives to destroy Romney’s chances of victory.

It’s easy to sell liberty but you have to actually be committed to it. Look at how many are upset about these assassination memos from Obama. But if the only reason you oppose it is because it is Obama or because you want to portray the Democrats as hypocrites, then you have proven that you are the hypocrite. No, they might not vote for your candidate. But who gives a fuck if you still achieve your goal of stopping those sorts of actions.

Socialism or central planning fails over and over again on its own. The economy sucks and nobody is happy about it. If Obama had not been able to hang the social conservatives around Romney's neck he probably would have lost on the economy. But Romney did not offer any real difference there and so voters distinguished him based on the social issues.

BTW, one typically engages in sophistry when their only goal is in winning the argument regardless of whether their argument is the truthful or right. You are actually claiming it as a tenet.
Click to expand...

You typed lots of drivel, but you didn't answer the question. Maybe I can sum it up for your dumb ass

1) Give up on protecting the unborn
2) Forgo our immigration laws. Allow unchecked immigration and don't worry about the borders
3) Don't cut any social spending
4) Cut all military spending
5) Let the queers run wild

Does that about sum it up? If the GOP does that, it will be nirvana for them? The folks will come flocking back? Or will the dems and their lapdogs in the media just accuse them of pandering?

The GOP is getting killed right now and not because of social conservatives. It is because they don't know how to articulate conservatism. That is why Sarah Palin was such a threat to the left and to the establishment GOP. She could articulate conservatism. So she had to be destroyed.

This is where you quote Tina Fey and say "I can see Russia from my house". Do you know how many low information voters believe that Sarah Palin actually said those words? That is why Obama won. Too many stupid people. But, like I have said, they are gonna get what they deserve
 
Superfreak said:
You have to realize that Gator is a racist. You are thanking a racist for his posts.
Click to expand...

I am no racist by ANY credible definition. But, I know one when I meet one and there can be no better noun that would describe BAC. He is his own worst enemy in this respect and he is always the total enemy of the community he describes as his own. He is a fool and a liar and intends no good for anything beyond his personal megalomania coupled with his quite feigned poor, poor, pitiful me, they pick on me because they think I'm a nigger bullshit. You can fall for it if you like. I won't,,,,,,again.
 
I Love America said:
You typed lots of drivel, but you didn't answer the question. Maybe I can sum it up for your dumb ass

1) Give up on protecting the unborn
2) Forgo our immigration laws. Allow unchecked immigration and don't worry about the borders
3) Don't cut any social spending
4) Cut all military spending
5) Let the queers run wild

Does that about sum it up? If the GOP does that, it will be nirvana for them? The folks will come flocking back? Or will the dems and their lapdogs in the media just accuse them of pandering?

The GOP is getting killed right now and not because of social conservatives. It is because they don't know how to articulate conservatism. That is why Sarah Palin was such a threat to the left and to the establishment GOP. She could articulate conservatism. So she had to be destroyed.

This is where you quote Tina Fey and say "I can see Russia from my house". Do you know how many low information voters believe that Sarah Palin actually said those words? That is why Obama won. Too many stupid people. But, like I have said, they are gonna get what they deserve
Click to expand...

I don't really care about your questions. They are all loaded and leading to your irrelevant points.

They should cut social and military spending. The rest of your positions stand in the way of that though as your big government desire to control and harass others costs money.

Who gives a fuck whether the Democrats remain critical? Are you capable of thinking for yourself or do you prefer to be lead around the floor? Continuing to appeal to a quickly shrinking group of voters is not going to be successful. There is no change coming on those issues.

Sarah Palin was low information. She appealed to the idiots. She became a success thanks to neocon McCain and his attempt to continue combining war mongering, with social conservativism and anti intellectualism. It worked for Bush and he thought it would work for him. But voters are tired of that and are actually punishing the GOP for that legacy. Rove's strategy failed and the GOP needs to move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top