Should The Tea Party Abandon The GOP and form their own party?

[SmilinJack]

I did? How did you determine that? In fact, the opposite is true, I formed my opinion based on the many republicans that told me they voted for Obama, that Obama was more conservative than their hero Raygun and that Romney was way too extreme.

Yes, some cast their vote for Obama by not voting.

Worst of all, you have no one to offer.

Ryan is reviled by moderate republicans, independents, and dems alike. Cantor is equally hated. Every fool that Romney beat is useless to you as well. The citizens will not take a chance on another Bush even if he is wearing sheep's clothing.


Christie is washed out, Cruz is an actual idiot, independents will NEVER go for Walker, plus he has his education hurdle ( there hasn't been a college dropout in the white house in 70 years) and unionised government agencies on all levels (including police) will not support him.

Irregardless of why some deluded souls voted for Obama-- that only demonstrates one thing 'confusion'...in regards to motives, definitions, and a true understanding of the mess the republican party is in.... it is not rocket science but neither is it an easy thing to dissect or analyze.

There are many factions in the Republican Party and they invariably harbor much misunderstanding of what the Republican Party needs to do to win next time.

What is needed is a clear headed approach to the problem....first of all a correct analysis of why they lost is paramount to understand what is needed.

Now it has been clearly demonstrated that Romney got the majority of the White Working Class vote....he lost though because he did not get the overwhelming majority of it aka....he needed 72% of the White Working Class Vote...if he had got that he would be President today....and tragically he could easily have gotten it if he had had better advice.....he is not a stupid man but he was misled and that combined with some arrorgance and being overly confident to some extent led to the tragedy.

Now, lest we forget what happened in virginia....a clear demonstration of the fact that the Elitist East Coast Faction of the Republican Party(the leadership aka the RNC)clearly preferred allowing a democrat to win rather than support a tea party candidate. That speaks volumes regarding the impotency of the Republican Party Leadership.

Now why would the big wig Republicans prefer to let a democrat win by refusing to support a tea partier? Obviously...they are obsessed with retaining their power.

In a nutshell that is the tragedy of the Republican Party...a leadership that is more concerned about their own power than they are with what is good for America.

Now the next thing the electorate that wants a Republican Victory next time needs to understand ......Who is the White Working Class? What do they need? What do they want? and............ultimately: how they can be persuaded to get out and vote and in great numbers?

The White Working Class is the key to victory and unfortunately not even the Tea Partiers understand that.

I read a very on target article by some columnist awhile back and he had the most clear headed analysis of what is needed for a Republican Victory next time....a combination of a Teddy Roosevelt and a Huey P. Long.

In other words....a strong conservative America First type candidate with the populism that would wrap up the White Working Class vote by actually offering them something. Newsflash: The mantra of 'lower taxes and smaller government' will not win an election and the tea party is way tooooo hung up on that. It has no appeal to the majority of the White Working Class.

Now you are correct I see no one on the horizon yet that foots that bill but if the various candidates and wanna be candidates could be brought to understand what is really needed then perhaps one could be persuaded to pursue that route.

 

[SmilinJack]

What we can learn from Teddy Roosevelt...........

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/opinion/avlon-teddy-roosevelt-100-years/

 

[SmilinJack]

What we can learn from Huey P. Long aka.........The appeal of Huey P. Long to the working classes:


http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hueyplongshare.htm

 

[Rune]

Irregardless

The word is regardless...there is no word "irregardless"

of why some deluded souls voted for Obama-- that only demonstrates one thing 'confusion'...in regards to motives, definitions, and a true understanding of the mess the republican party is in.... it is not rocket science but neither is it an easy thing to dissect or analyze.

No one was confused. Moderate republicans didn't want Romney. Simple.

There are many factions in the Republican Party and they invariably harbor much misunderstanding of what the Republican Party needs to do to win next time.

Yes, that is the problem, and made worse constantly by the inexorable march to the right. This is the part you have all wrong. Republicans can only win by moving towards center.

What is needed is a clear headed approach to the problem....first of all a correct analysis of why they lost is paramount to understand what is needed.

See reply above, no further anlaysys needed.

Now it has been clearly demonstrated that Romney got the majority of the White Working Class vote....he lost though because he did not get the overwhelming majority of it aka....he needed 72% of the White Working Class Vote...if he had got that he would be President today....and tragically he could easily have gotten it if he had had better advice.....he is not a stupid man but he was misled and that combined with some arrorgance and being overly confident to some extent led to the tragedy.

Sorry but there is no way 3/4 of white people are going to vote against their own interests...it is amazing that nearly 50% do so routinely.

Now, lest we forget what happened in virginia....a clear demonstration of the fact that the Elitist East Coast Faction of the Republican Party(the leadership aka the RNC)clearly preferred allowing a democrat to win rather than support a tea party candidate. That speaks volumes regarding the impotency of the Republican Party Leadership.

It speaks volumes about why taking the party further right is so wrong, yet that is what you think the solution is.

Now why would the big wig Republicans prefer to let a democrat win by refusing to support a tea partier? Obviously...they are obsessed with retaining their power.

See post above

In a nutshell that is the tragedy of the Republican Party...a leadership that is more concerned about their own power than they are with what is good for America.

Sorry, it has been decades since the GOP stood for the good of America. They do what is good for the biggest donors.

Now the next thing the electorate that wants a Republican Victory next time needs to understand ......Who is the White Working Class? What do they need? What do they want? and............ultimately: how they can be persuaded to get out and vote and in great numbers?

Again, no. Continuing to pander to the old white males to the whites is the problem, not the solution.

The White Working Class is the key to victory and unfortunately not even the Tea Partiers understand that.

True, even those idiots know better than your unreal theory

I read a very on target article by some columnist awhile back and he had the most clear headed analysis of what is needed for a Republican Victory next time....a combination of a Teddy Roosevelt and a Huey P. Long.

In other words....a strong conservative America First type candidate with the populism that would wrap up the White Working Class vote by actually offering them something. Newsflash: The mantra of 'lower taxes and smaller government' will not win an election and the tea party is way tooooo hung up on that. It has no appeal to the majority of the White Working Class.

Now you are correct I see no one on the horizon yet that foots that bill but if the various candidates and wanna be candidates could be brought to understand what is really needed then perhaps one could be persuaded to pursue that route.

By all means, keep losing. That is what is truly best for the country.

 

[SmilinJack]

The word is regardless...there is no word "irregardless" No one was confused. Moderate republicans didn't want Romney. Simple. Yes, that is the problem, and made worse constantly by the inexorable march to the right. This is the part you have all wrong. Republicans can only win by moving towards center.
See reply above, no further anlaysys needed. Sorry but there is no way 3/4 of white people are going to vote against their own interests...it is amazing that nearly 50% do so routinely. It speaks volumes about why taking the party further right is so wrong, yet that is what you think the solution is. See post above Sorry, it has been decades since the GOP stood for the good of America. They do what is good for the biggest donors. Again, no. Continuing to pander to the old white males to the whites is the problem, not the solution. True, even those idiots know better than your unreal theory

By all means, keep losing. That is what is truly best for the country.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa I use the word 'irregardless' all the time and usually it is liberals that object to it...which is kinda understandable....the only time most posters get involved in being a grammar cop is when they feel they are losing the argument.

Irregardless...............'Irregardless' is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.


Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. Here's why.




1.It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.


2.Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.


3.Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.


4.It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.


5.It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris, roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.


6.If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.



So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.


Now back at the ranch: You claim that Romney was not wanted by the moderates is absolutely incorrect...try and find some source to back up that outrageous claim....the moderates aka the politically correct segment of the Republican party were well satisfied with Romney.

Again....you are a perfect example of the 'coinfused' Republicans who have not a clue as to why they lost nor how to win next time. You are entitled to your opinion but that is all you have and it is not enough.

At first I thought you were a establishment repubican...now I see you are a democrat trying to give republicans advice.....bwaaaaaaa what a hoot!!!!

http://riehlworldview.com/2013/11/ambinder-gop-cant-win-with-a-moderate-in-2016.html

 

[Rune]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa I use the word 'irregardless' all the time and usually it is liberals that object to it...which is kinda understandable....the only time most posters get involved in being a grammar cop is when they feel they are losing the argument.

Irregardless...............'Irregardless' is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

OOps, wrong again dumbass,

[TABLE="class: mainLayoutTable"]
[TR]
[TD="class: navheaderbg, colspan: 3"][TABLE="class: topNavContainer"]
[TR="class: topNavRow1"]
[TD="width: 310, align: left"] [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[TD="class: noBorder, width: 100%"] [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] Home [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] About Us [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] Contact Us [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] Help [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] Jobs [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] News [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1Link"] Site Index [/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow1LinkLast"] OUP Worldwide [/TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 310, align: left"] [TABLE="class: topNavRow2SearchTable"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] Advanced Search [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="class: topNavRow2RightTd, width: 100%, align: right"]

[TD="align: right"]

[TD="class: regularLinkContainer"] My Account [/TD]
[TD="class: regularLinkContainer"] My Wish List [/TD]
[TD="class: regularLinkContainer"] Sign In/Register [/TD]
[TD="class: regularLinkContainerLast"] View Basket [/TD]

[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]

[TD="align: right"] [TD="class: topnav_basket, width: 30, align: left"]

[TD="class: smallLinkContainer"] Email this to a Friend [/TD]
[TD="class: smallLinkContainerLast"] Printer-Friendly View [/TD]
[TD="width: 10"]
[/TD]

[TD="class: topnavBasket, width: 154, align: left"] Basket: 0 items | £0.00 [/TD]

[/TD]

[/TD]

[/TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: contentbg, width: 20"]

[/TD]
[TD="class: contentbg, width: 940"]

[h=1]Search Results[/h]

Sorry. We did not find any results to match your search. Please try a different search term or use the Advanced Search.

[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] Advanced Search

[TABLE="class: twoColsLeftContainer"] [TR] [TD="class: imageHolder, width: 85"]

[TD="class: headerrule"]

[/TD]

[/TD]

[TD="align: center"] [TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]

[TD="width: 10"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 100%"] Oxford World's Classics
Find out more about the stunning new look Oxford World's Classics.
[/TD]

[/TD]
[TD] [TABLE="class: twoColsRightContainer"]
[TR]
[TD="class: imageHolder, width: 85"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 10"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 100%"] Very Short Introductions
Brilliantly concise introductions to almost everything. Where is the gap in your knowledge?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[TD] [TABLE="class: twoColsLeftContainer"]
[TR]
[TD="class: imageHolder, width: 85"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 10"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 100%"] Oxford Paperback Reference
Specialized subject dictionaries, with a range of over 100 titles.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[TD="class: contentbg, width: 10"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: navfooterbg, colspan: 3, align: center"]

[TABLE="class: bottomNavContainer"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"] [TABLE="class: topTable"]
[TR]
[TD="class: topSection, align: center"] About Us | Contact Us | Help | Jobs | News | Site Index | OUP Worldwide Email this to a Friend | Printer-Friendly View | Accessibility [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: bottomSection, width: 100%, align: center"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

You do that moron, that should help your credibility (NOT)

Now back at the ranch: You claim that Romney was not wanted by the moderates is absolutely incorrect...try and find some source to back up that outrageous claim....the moderates aka the politically correct segment of the Republican party were well satisfied with Romney.

Again....you are a perfect example of the 'coinfused' Republicans who have not a clue as to why they lost nor how to win next time. You are entitled to your opinion but that is all you have and it is not enough.

At first I thought you were a establishment repubican...now I see you are a democrat trying to give republicans advice.....bwaaaaaaa what a hoot!!!!

http://riehlworldview.com/2013/11/ambinder-gop-cant-win-with-a-moderate-in-2016.html

I am not a democrat ignorant fuck, I am a libertarian. You and the other bigots like you are why the GOP is becoming irrelevant. You are a little too stupid to call me confused.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The word is regardless...there is no word "irregardless" No one was confused. Moderate republicans didn't want Romney. Simple. Yes, that is the problem, and made worse constantly by the inexorable march to the right. This is the part you have all wrong. Republicans can only win by moving towards center.
See reply above, no further anlaysys needed. Sorry but there is no way 3/4 of white people are going to vote against their own interests...it is amazing that nearly 50% do so routinely. It speaks volumes about why taking the party further right is so wrong, yet that is what you think the solution is. See post above Sorry, it has been decades since the GOP stood for the good of America. They do what is good for the biggest donors. Again, no. Continuing to pander to the old white males to the whites is the problem, not the solution. True, even those idiots know better than your unreal theory

By all means, keep losing. That is what is truly best for the country.

Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

 

[Rune]

Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Flatulum,

Noun

any speech or written comment made by USFreedom911 (see also verbal diarrhea)

Originally coined by famed social commentator Dune, circa 2014

Since adopted to mean any low I.Q. bloviation, when spoken or written in such a way as to inicate the speaker (or writer's) mental superiority when in fact the opposite is true.

Related; Moron, Retard, Idiot, Village Idiot.

 

[Teflon Don]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa I use the word 'irregardless' all the time and usually it is liberals that object to it...which is kinda understandable....the only time most posters get involved in being a grammar cop is when they feel they are losing the argument.

Irregardless...............'Irregardless' is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.


Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. Here's why.




1.It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.


2.Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.


3.Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.


4.It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.


5.It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris, roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.


6.If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.



So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.


Now back at the ranch: You claim that Romney was not wanted by the moderates is absolutely incorrect...try and find some source to back up that outrageous claim....the moderates aka the politically correct segment of the Republican party were well satisfied with Romney.

Again....you are a perfect example of the 'coinfused' Republicans who have not a clue as to why they lost nor how to win next time. You are entitled to your opinion but that is all you have and it is not enough.

At first I thought you were a establishment repubican...now I see you are a democrat trying to give republicans advice.....bwaaaaaaa what a hoot!!!!

http://riehlworldview.com/2013/11/ambinder-gop-cant-win-with-a-moderate-in-2016.html

Irregardless is not a word

 

[MAGA MAN]

...Of course, the Baggers would have no source of funding...

Cock bros didn't start the TP, they took it over. ...

Sexual insults are getting rather boring.

That being said, which is it? Does the Tea Party not have funding, or are they heavily funded? Make up your minds, libtards.

 

[Robo]

The truth of the matter is so many whites elected to stay home and not vote was simply because Romney was too politically correct, a member of a cult, offered nothing of substance to the White Working Class and a very rich man who could not identify with working people typifieying the stereotype of the Republican party as the party of the rich.

The actual truth of the matter is Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping lying crooked bastard RINO who got OUT-LIED by the crooked flip-flopping Communist and Chief bastard. The election was simply a contest between flip-flopping lying crooked DUOPOLY bastards.

"Don't vote, it just encourages the bastards." (P.J. O'Rourke)

 

[Rune]

Sexual insults are getting rather boring.

That being said, which is it? Does the Tea Party not have funding, or are they heavily funded? Make up your minds, libtards.

If the TP breaks away from the GOP they will lose the funding from the Kock Bros, and any other large corporate source, since they know 3rd parties don't have a chance in this country.

 

[SmilinJack]

If the TP breaks away from the GOP they will lose the funding from the Kock Bros, and any other large corporate source, since they know 3rd parties don't have a chance in this country.

Since you claim to be so smart ...bwaaaaaaaaaaa Give this board an analysis of the following....your silence will be evidence of your cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy. heh heh

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/noah-kristula-green/2013/11/05/how-a-tea-party-third-candidate-could-actually-be-successful

 

[MAGA MAN]

While I would not advocate this as of yet, I certainly will if the Republicans choose another pc/moderate/liberal republican candidate.

The Tea Party is making huge gains with every election. Changes don't come quickly in a large Republic so it's important to be patient.

 

[Truth Detector]

While I would not advocate this as of yet, I certainly will if the Republicans choose another pc/moderate/liberal republican candidate.

Doing so will gaurantee Democratic victories similar to the 1960's through 1980's for another three decades. Can this nation afford that?

Right now the media is fooling everyone into thinking the Republican Party is at war with the Tea Party and wants to be "Democrat Light". That is a lie. They are duping Conservatives into thinking that you can only win elections if you're "Democrat Light". This too, is a lie.

The Republicanarty is going through a much needed cleansing and removal of old run-of-the-mill entrenched politicians who have forgotten the reasons they were sent to Wasghington DC decades ago.

The Tea Party is a reminder to everyone of what the Grand Old Party actually stood for and an attempt to drag it back to its Constitutional roots.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes take the old world flat earth pagan Christians with them!

Christians think the earth is flat now? One thing we are certain of; you seldom think at all.

 

[Truth Detector]

I dont all of that is true Althea, the baggers will have big money coming from the richest americans like the Koch Bros that created it. I do not think they will be successful.

Its just like the phony Rand Paul, the standard bearer for Libertarianism yet hes not in the libertarian party but the GOP.
They want to use the gop and vilify it at the same time because they know they cant run on their own ideas and win. So they mix and match

...and yet, your beloved Obummer outspent Republicans by millions in the last two elections.

Nothing more amusing than phoney Liberal hypocrites pretending they don't have millionaire backers buying thier politicians.

 

[Truth Detector]

As I have posted before, the Duopoly D’s & R’s have America’s elections rigged and no others need apply. They together have set up cumbersome non-uniform helter-skelter ballot access regulations throughout the states that drain campaign donations and resources from third party coffers.

The Duopoly D’s & R’s own the mainstream media and the media’s access to government information and interviews.

The Duopoly D’s & R’s own the national debate system through their arbitrary requirements of participation and their ownership of the MSM.

The Duopoly D & R dictatorship has bought the loyalty and campaign donations from Wall Street and every collective special interest group through a Duopoly quid-pro-quo bribery system of historic favorable legislation for campaign donations and retirement lobbying jobs for ousted and retired politicians. It’s a “Good Ole Boy” network that rewards bribery and ignores the wellbeing of the nation. That’s why we have a 17 trillion $ debt and rising millions by the minute and diminished freedoms.

The Duopoly has y’all by your partisan brainwashed balls. The Duopoly owns the electoral system and they’ve corrupted it to its core.

“Don’t vote, it just encourages the bastards.” (P.J. O’Rourke)

LMAO @ the tired and stupid "duopoly meme".

 

[Truth Detector]

If the Republicans really want to win next time they need to do two things....understand why they lost last time and come to grips with what they need to do next time in order to win.

It is not Rocket Science...yet the majority do not get it because they listen to the alphabet media and to the east coast elitist controllers of the organs of the republican party.

BINGO to this part of your speech. As for Romney; he was imminently qualified to be President; so much more so than the current dimwitted occupant.

It is a testament to Americas decline when a man like Romney couldnt win because he was too white, too smart and too successful. It is an amazing thing to watch. It is a testament to a warning from the past; that the Republic would not be threatened from without, but from within when low information dullards realize they can vote themselves others money with the help of corrupt politicians trying to keep their permanent Government jobs.

 

[Rune]

Since you claim to be so smart ...bwaaaaaaaaaaa Give this board an analysis of the following....your silence will be evidence of your cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy. heh heh

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-third-candidate-could-actually-be-successful

Sure. As follows;

1. The article is an opinion piece and doesn't even make reference to facts.
2. The article was written by an employee of a right wing think tank.
3. The article ignores recent history.
4. The article does not even claim that a viable 3rd party is possible, but rather that a third party could have a negative affect on the two major parties.
5. The article does not mention the fact that major corporate funding will be withdrawn.
6. The article is thoeretical at best and unrealistic at worst.
7. The article doesn't take into account the national media's disdain for 3rd party politics.
8. The article is just a concept, an idea. The world is full of ideas, good and bad. Having an idea is not a definite solution, nor necessarily a good idea
9. The article references Glen Beck and Sean Hannity as "experts" who endorse the idea. LMFAO at you, a clear and total idiot.
10. Finally, and most importantly, the TP is a bunch of white squares on a roll that end up covered in shit. You are the lunatic fringe,

but again, carry on, the more divided the GOP, the better for the country as a whole.