# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  What's wrong with the Republican Presidential Candidates.   Your list

## texmaster

Huckabee-  Soft on crime, weak willed.    He's suckered the religious conservatives somehow

Carson-    Not ready.    Praised Jesse Jackson on Fox News.      He should stay a spokesman

Romney-  Same as before.   Too moderate and too wishy washy

Paul-  Showing to change his position if its politically convenient.  ie his stance on war

Bush-  omg where to start.   He's a Bush.    He's a moderate.   Nuff said.

Perry-   Too comfortable in an environment where Republicans rule.   Can't handle the national audience.

Christie-  Moderate, damaged.   Can come off as brash.  Easy target

Cruz-  He tells the truth too often.

West-  Nothing.

----------

DriftingSand (09-28-2014),KSigMason (09-29-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

The Republican Party is in control of people who do not represent its base or America's mainstream values.

It has become one more political party of Leftist Elites...just not AS radical as the other party.

It DESERVES to fail.  As you say, there is not a one among those who are worth consideration except as an "alternative."

The problem is that the people of the base do not get involved.  We cannot let the Elites do it for us - this is what happens if we do.  We have to USE the Party to promote OUR values - that is what a political party is FOR.

And no party is going to emerge that does this FOR us.  We have different perspectives than professional pols and campaign operatives.  They are radicalized in Elitist universities; we have to supplant and displace them.

----------

texmaster (09-28-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

Democrats will trash whoever the Republicans nominate.   Hopefully republicans won't join them.  Democrats have Hillary that's all.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-02-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Democrats have Hillary that's all.


Nope.
Democrats don't have an "R" after their name and that's more than enough.

----------


## doniston

> The Republican Party is in control of people who do not represent its base or America's mainstream values.
> 
> It has become one more political party of Leftist Elites...just not AS radical as the other party.
> 
> It DESERVES to fail.  As you say, there is not a one among those who are worth consideration except as an "alternative."
> 
> The problem is that the people of the base do not get involved.  We cannot let the Elites do it for us - this is what happens if we do.  We have to USE the Party to promote OUR values - that is what a political party is FOR.
> 
> And no party is going to emerge that does this FOR us.  We have different perspectives than professional pols and campaign operatives.  They are radicalized in Elitist universities; we have to supplant and displace them.


You. and his loonyship have just trashed the Republican party and also the Dens,  there are none left to carry the ball.  what do you think should happen now.  you have left no alternative.

----------


## michaelr

Establishment republicans are as liberal.....hell, they're identical to the dems. This why nothing changes, shit just escalates. There is an end to that rope too, and were about there. Hence those ''approval'' polls which show massive disapproval.

----------


## doniston

deleted as duplicate

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You. and his loonyship have just trashed the Republican party and also the Dens,  there are none left to carry the ball.  what do you think should happen now.  you have left no alternative.


I posted it; and anyone of reasonable intelligence would understand.

INVOLVE yourself.  Wrest control of the party AWAY from the Elites.

There isn't anyone who will do it FOR you.  The elites are what they are; and what they are is not what the nation is or what works.  The elites need to be FORCED OUT.

----------

texmaster (09-28-2014)

----------


## doniston

Actually some of us with reasonable inteligence need the things we read to be complete and not requiring the reader to try and understand what is left unstated.

----------


## texmaster

> Actually some of us with reasonable inteligence need the things we read to be complete and not requiring the reader to try and understand what is left unstated.



Pretty amusing since for the 3321st time you provide nothing to back your claims up

----------


## doniston

> I question why government is involved in marriage at all.  Exactly where does the Constitution give them permission to do so?
> 
> In any case, this is a matter that rightfully belongs at the state level.


My question too

----------


## Sled Dog

> I question why government is involved in marriage at all. Exactly where does the Constitution give them permission to do so?
> 
> In any case, this is a matter that rightfully belongs at the state level.


Government has ALWAYS been involved in marriage. It's a civil act, publicly recording the bonding of MAN and WIFE. Just because the United States is the first government in the history of the human race to be Constitutionally and deliberately secular is besides the point. Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious event.

Do try to recall that throughout history, until the United States, the governments were all some form of theocracy.

Because of the full faith and credit clause, marriage is a national issue that crosses state lines.

The real question is why Concealed Carry permits, a public act and a public record, aren't recognized by the courts as being as equally protected by the full faith and credit clause as are driver's licenses and marriages.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Are you claiming gay marriage is supported by the Constitution when its never referenced or even mentioned anywhere in the wording or in any Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Slavery itself was abolished through an Amendment as was women's voting rights not a fabrication based on existing wording that never mentioned either. What makes gay marriage so special that they get to circumvent the Constitution instead of going through the Amendment process?
> 
> The simple answer is they don't have the votes. Its the same reason the majority of states have laws against gay marriage and a majority of states that have gay marriage were never voted on by the people or their state governments but by liberal activist judges. 
> 
> If you apply the moronic argument that the 14th amendment covers gay marriage under "equal protection under the law" then any marriage between human beings would be legal using the exact same argument regardless of age or number since neither are limited by that very passage quoted by the gay advocates to justify circumventing state law. And please spare me the consent law argument since the same argument gay marriage believes in would demand the abolishment of all laws against gay marriage. You can't hide behind selective laws that only ban marriages you don't like while demanding the laws against marriages you do like get removed when the exact same justification argument is used for both marriages.
> 
> That is the fallacy of the gay marriage argument being supported by the Constitution.


You forgot to read the full faith and credit clause.

----------


## Mainecoons

> Government has ALWAYS been involved in marriage. It's a civil act, publicly recording the bonding of MAN and WIFE. Just because the United States is the first government in the history of the human race to be Constitutionally and deliberately secular is besides the point. Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious event.
> 
> Do try to recall that throughout history, until the United States, the governments were all some form of theocracy.
> 
> Because of the full faith and credit clause, marriage is a national issue that crosses state lines.
> 
> The real question is why Concealed Carry permits, a public act and a public record, aren't recognized by the courts as being as equally protected by the full faith and credit clause as are driver's licenses and marriages.


Sorry but just because they always have been is no justification for interfering in what is a private matter between two consenting adults.

Government has a congenital problem in sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

----------


## liberal_hack

> And Eliz Warren?


SecTrez in the Clinton admin

----------


## nonsqtr

> SecTrez in the Clinton admin


Yeah right. You are so dreaming. Somewhere in liberal la-la land a defanged Hillary Clinton and a refanged Elizabeth Warren live in perfect peace and harmony, kum ba ya and all that.

But that's not reality.

Reality is this:

a. The bankers will never allow Elizabeth Warren anywhere near the White House, they'll veto her just like they veto'd Austan Goolsbee.
b. Hillary very much dislikes Elizabeth Warren and there is no political reason for her to grant Warren any post north of dogcatcher.
c. To accept SecTreas, Warren would have to resign as a Senator, a position from which she has considerable real power. Whereas, SecTreas is merely a liaison position, it carries little or no regulatory clout and mostly lately it has to do with how the government is going to prop up the banks. If Warren is politically astute and if she intends to run for President at some future point, she'll turn down any role in Hillary's administration and work from the outside, where she can actually get something done. Hillary is a friend of the bankers, there's no question about that. (If you have any doubts, google on Mel Watt).

----------


## RMNIXON

*W on Jeb Bush: 'I think he wants to be president'*

WASHINGTON (AP)  Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants to be president.

That's according to his brother, former President George W. Bush, who notes that Jeb hasn't made any final decisions about the 2016 presidential contest.

George W. Bush told Fox News on Thursday that the pair recently spoke about Jeb's political future at an event honoring veterans. The elder Bush says he's encouraging his brother to run. George W. Bush says "he thinks" his brother wants to.

http://news.yahoo.com/w-jeb-bush-thi...1ULG4Aj_HQtDMD



Yeah, and so does Hillary.

But I think we are tried of legacy candidates.

----------


## liberal_hack

> Yeah right. You are so dreaming. Somewhere in liberal la-la land a defanged Hillary Clinton and a refanged Elizabeth Warren live in perfect peace and harmony, kum ba ya and all that.
> 
> But that's not reality.
> 
> Reality is this:
> 
> a. The bankers will never allow Elizabeth Warren anywhere near the White House, they'll veto her just like they veto'd Austan Goolsbee.
> b. Hillary very much dislikes Elizabeth Warren and there is no political reason for her to grant Warren any post north of dogcatcher.
> c. To accept SecTreas, Warren would have to resign as a Senator, a position from which she has considerable real power. Whereas, SecTreas is merely a liaison position, it carries little or no regulatory clout and mostly lately it has to do with how the government is going to prop up the banks. If Warren is politically astute and if she intends to run for President at some future point, she'll turn down any role in Hillary's administration and work from the outside, where she can actually get something done. Hillary is a friend of the bankers, there's no question about that. (If you have any doubts, google on Mel Watt).


Warren is 2 years younger than Hillary. She has no future potential as a candidate for POTUS. She will be the "opposition" to Hillary in the primaries and for her role of allowing Hillary to have opposition, she will receive a cabinet position. In 2016 she will be 67 years old and after 8 years of Clinton, 75. 

Sec Trez will be her retirement position. And with respect to your comment about she hates her etc, are you really that naive?

This is politics and it's about keeping the WH in Democrat control. Only Hillary can give that to us and the process has already begun.

By the time Nov 2016 rolls around we will have it so some folks believe that she already is POTUS. 

You have nobody who can pose a serious challenge other than Romney.

----------


## Mainecoons

> *W on Jeb Bush: 'I think he wants to be president'*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants to be president.
> 
> That's according to his brother, former President George W. Bush, who notes that Jeb hasn't made any final decisions about the 2016 presidential contest.
> 
> George W. Bush told Fox News on Thursday that the pair recently spoke about Jeb's political future at an event honoring veterans. The elder Bush says he's encouraging his brother to run. George W. Bush says "he thinks" his brother wants to.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/w-jeb-bush-thi...1ULG4Aj_HQtDMD
> ...


It's Republicrat time again.

----------


## Jim Scott

> *W on Jeb Bush: 'I think he wants to be president'*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants to be president.
> 
> That's according to his brother, former President George W. Bush, who notes that Jeb hasn't made any final decisions about the 2016 presidential contest.
> 
> George W. Bush told Fox News on Thursday that the pair recently spoke about Jeb's political future at an event honoring veterans. The elder Bush says he's encouraging his brother to run. George W. Bush says "he thinks" his brother wants to.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/w-jeb-bush-thi...1ULG4Aj_HQtDMD
> ...


The eight-year media assault on President George W. Bush, the long Iraq war and the ability of the Democrats to shift the blame for the collapse of the housing market that precipitated the 2008 economic crisis onto Bush along with the fact that his father, George H.W. Bush, was also president (1989-1993) makes Jeb Bush an unlikely candidate, no matter what Jeb may want.  Two presidents from the same family is enough for most of us.  The left's vilification of President G.W. Bush has likely soured most voters as well as conservatives who defended G.W. but viewed him as a RINO- on yet another Bush presidential candidacy.  

For conservatives, Jeb Bush is the type of 'RINO' we abhor.  He is pro-amnesty and generally an anti-conservative Republican.  Unfortunately and counter-intuitively, just what the RNC is looking for.  That being the case, Jeb is probably being encouraged by the GOP honchos to stick his toe in the primary waters in 2016 and to float some trial balloons now.  I sincerely hope such balloons will be quickly shot down.  We don't need or want yet another quasi-Democrat as the Republican presidential candidate, giving voters essentially no real choice between a liberal and a liberal sympathizer with one or two allegedly 'conservative' positions that he'll abandon as soon as he is elected.    

No, thanks.  Been there, done that, again and and again.  John McCain was touted by the media as the perfect Republican presidential candidate, meaning he was basically a Democrat.  He lost to a radical leftist, Barack Obama.  Mitt Romney was supposed to be a savvy businessman that was 'electable'.  However, he allowed the Democrats define him as a greedy, heartless Wall Street tycoon who hated working people and catered to the rich.  Romney had Obama on the ropes during their first debate but in subsequent debates he backed off and allowed the president to score points and 'win' the debates.  His purported 'electability' evaporated under withering criticism from the Democrats and their media henchmen.  Now we read rumors that Mitt Romney is 'thinking' about yet another try at the presidency - which Romney denies.  I hope he means it.    

The Republicans need a bone fide conservative presidential candidate in 2016, not another sort-of Republican who caves the minute the media attack him for not being a Democrat.  The left's hooting and hollering about Ted Cruz is proof that they don't want the GOP to nominate him.  They want Republicans to _lose_ and when they insist that Cruz is toxic and has no chance, it tells us that the exact opposite is true.  The RNC should drop it's RINO fetish and help a conservative to succeed in the primaries.  

Fat chance, I know but I'm just saying.

*Jim*

----------


## nonsqtr

> Warren is 2 years younger than Hillary. She has no future potential as a candidate for POTUS. She will be the "opposition" to Hillary in the primaries and for her role of allowing Hillary to have opposition, she will receive a cabinet position. In 2016 she will be 67 years old and after 8 years of Clinton, 75. 
> 
> Sec Trez will be her retirement position. And with respect to your comment about she hates her etc, are you really that naive?
> 
> This is politics and it's about keeping the WH in Democrat control. Only Hillary can give that to us and the process has already begun.
> 
> By the time Nov 2016 rolls around we will have it so some folks believe that she already is POTUS. 
> 
> You have nobody who can pose a serious challenge other than Romney.


"You"?

Bite your tongue!

 :Angry20:

----------


## Devil505

> I question why government is involved in marriage at all.  Exactly where does the Constitution give them permission to do so?
> 
> In any case, this is a matter that rightfully belongs at the state level.


Funny how the hypocrites that scream the loudest about the size and reach of government are the ones who want it in our families and bedrooms!

----------


## Jim Scott

> Funny how the hypocrites that scream the loudest about the size and reach of government are the ones who want it in our families and bedrooms!



Yet another left-wing canard, repeated endlessly.  It remains a fallacy.  

 Heterosexuals didn't ask the government to change the legal definition of marriage, that was the work of those who advocated for it under the guise of 'equality'.  The claim that conservatives 'want the government in our bedrooms' is sheer rubbish.  Homosexual activists attempting to normalize their sexual preferences by demanding America alter traditional definitions of marriage to include them are the persons attempting to change the law and bring the government into the bedroom. 

That the issue will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court is inevitable, but not soon.  They just issued their autumn docket and same-sex marriage isn't on it.  It will be, soon enough.  

*Jim*

----------

birddog (10-03-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

Indeed.   Gays seem to want the world in their bedroom clapping and cheering.   They don't understand what Keep your homosexuality out of my home and away from my children means.

----------

Jim Scott (10-03-2014)

----------


## doniston

> "You"?
> 
> Bite your tongue!


  That's OK in this case I am willing to take on the title of "YOU"

----------


## liberal_hack

> "You"?
> 
> Bite your tongue!




whatever

the only people even mentioning Sen Warren are those who want the GOP to take the WH. I'm a pragmatist and understand a good marketing campaign and what's needed to reach a goal.

The objective is the White House.

Hillary gets us that. No other candidate is as sure a victory as she is. We will need to run a few token opponents and Sen Warren will be offered up as one. 

As Sectrez, she'll earn a little more money but won't need to campaign or answer to constituents. It won't be a bad deal for her to serve for a few years, and then return on the speaking circuit within academia

----------


## JustPassinThru

What you are is a gun for hire and a cheerleader.

WHAT is it that excites you about Her Hillaryness?  What NEW WAY OF DEALING WITH PROBLEMS does she bring?  

More rehashed, warmed-over Alinskyism?  That's pragmatic?

That's a recipe for sliding further down the tubes.  This from an arrogant, superior, unstable, violent woman who's fucked up everything she's tried to do. 

Everything.

----------

Jim Scott (10-03-2014),nonsqtr (10-03-2014)

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

> whatever
> 
> the only people even mentioning Sen Warren are those who want the GOP to take the WH. I'm a pragmatist and understand a good marketing campaign and what's needed to reach a goal.
> 
> The objective is the White House.
> 
> Hillary gets us that. No other candidate is as sure a victory as she is. We will need to run a few token opponents and Sen Warren will be offered up as one. 
> 
> As Sectrez, she'll earn a little more money but won't need to campaign or answer to constituents. It won't be a bad deal for her to serve for a few years, and then return on the speaking circuit within academia


Is criticism of Hillary Clinton a form of sexism in the same way that criticism of Barack Obama is a form of racism?

----------


## Sled Dog

> WHAT is it that excites you about Her Hillaryness? What NEW WAY OF DEALING WITH PROBLEMS does she bring?


Post-menopausal SHRIEKING.

----------


## nonsqtr

> whatever
> 
> the only people even mentioning Sen Warren are those who want the GOP to take the WH. I'm a pragmatist and understand a good marketing campaign and what's needed to reach a goal.
> 
> The objective is the White House.
> 
> Hillary gets us that. No other candidate is as sure a victory as she is. We will need to run a few token opponents and Sen Warren will be offered up as one. 
> 
> As Sectrez, she'll earn a little more money but won't need to campaign or answer to constituents. It won't be a bad deal for her to serve for a few years, and then return on the speaking circuit within academia


So in other words, you've given up on the Hope and Change, and you're willing to throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus.

The only candidate who might bring us a little real change, and you want to make sure she never sees the White House.

Got it. You're an "establishment liberal". You've sold out all those wonderful idealistic socially liberal values in favor of money and power.

So then, tell me - what makes you different from the Republicans? They want money and power too, and they can't deliver any hope and change either, so what makes you different? Why the heck should I vote for the Wicked Witch of the Midwest?

----------


## nonsqtr

> What you are is a gun for hire and a cheerleader.
> 
> WHAT is it that excites you about Her Hillaryness?  What NEW WAY OF DEALING WITH PROBLEMS does she bring?  
> 
> More rehashed, warmed-over Alinskyism?  That's pragmatic?
> 
> That's a recipe for sliding further down the tubes.  This from an arrogant, superior, unstable, violent woman who's fucked up everything she's tried to do. 
> 
> Everything.


Exactly.

You are exactly spot on. Hillary Clinton has fucked up every single thing she ever touched. (Including Bill).

(*cough*   Benghazi  *cough cough*)

All the Republicans have to do, is keep playing that sound bite over and over again on national television: "What difference does it make?"

----------

birddog (10-03-2014),Jim Scott (10-03-2014),Victory (10-03-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

Democrats have no one else.  Every egg is in the Hillary basket.   They are so convinced that Hillary will be elected, they need do nothing more than smear whoever the republicans put up.  They thought so last time too.  No one was as surprised as Hillary was when this black guy came out of left field and stole what was rightfully hers.  Well, we will have had eight years of democrats by the time the next election comes up.  Hillary will have to run very fast to escape the stink of the last eight years.

----------


## liberal_hack

> So in other words, you've given up on the Hope and Change, and you're willing to throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus.
> 
> The only candidate who might bring us a little real change, and you want to make sure she never sees the White House.
> 
> Got it. You're an "establishment liberal". You've sold out all those wonderful idealistic socially liberal values in favor of money and power.
> 
> So then, tell me - what makes you different from the Republicans? They want money and power too, and they can't deliver any hope and change either, so what makes you different? Why the heck should I vote for the Wicked Witch of the Midwest?


My naive little friend. What is the objective?

What is the best vehicle to get us there?

It's not rocket science. You can keep to your petty little things but I'll be working to help secure the WH.

----------


## liberal_hack

> Democrats have no one else.  Every egg is in the Hillary basket.   They are so convinced that Hillary will be elected, they need do nothing more than smear whoever the republicans put up.  They thought so last time too.  No one was as surprised as Hillary was when this black guy came out of left field and stole what was rightfully hers.  Well, we will have had eight years of democrats by the time the next election comes up.  Hillary will have to run very fast to escape the stink of the last eight years.


so, if you are thirsty, and have a cool glass of clean water in your hand, do you dump it?

Of course not.

Of course Hillary is how we retain the WH. What is so bad about having an electable front-runner?

This is about winning. It's not about losing. Do you not understand politics?

----------


## liberal_hack

> Exactly.
> 
> You are exactly spot on. Hillary Clinton has fucked up every single thing she ever touched. (Including Bill).
> 
> (*cough*   Benghazi  *cough cough*)
> 
> All the Republicans have to do, is keep playing that sound bite over and over again on national television: "What difference does it make?"


I hope that is what the GOP tries

that dog won't hunt as it's already been discussed this year and come 2016, it's ancient history.

Why don't you stop some folks in the mall and ask if they know who Ben Gazzee is?

10% of the US population watches the evening news.

----------


## BlackCat

They're insane, unintelligent, paranoid, war hawkish and bought by the Plutocrat class. Among other things, they claim to be Christians but support Capitalism and American Imperialism. They claim to be pro-life but believe in abolishing public health care, mass murdering Iraqis and Syrians and the death penalty.

----------


## Victory

> I hope that is what the GOP tries
> 
> that dog won't hunt as it's already been discussed this year and come 2016, it's ancient history.
> 
> Why don't you stop some folks in the mall and ask if they know who Ben Gazzee is?
> 
> 10% of the US population watches the evening news.


"The Youtube that sparked Bengahzi" is a story that will live on into the next generation.  It's lived this long, it will live a lot longer.

As long as there is trouble in the Middle East, that lie, and Hillary's white wash, will live on.  The only way people will forget about "What difference does it make" is if somebody redraws the ME borders and pulls "peace in the Middle East" out of their ass.

----------


## RMNIXON

> They're insane, unintelligent, paranoid, war hawkish and bought by the Plutocrat class. Among other things, they claim to be Christians but support Capitalism and American Imperialism. They claim to be pro-life but believe in abolishing public health care, mass murdering Iraqis and Syrians and the death penalty.



Please tell us more, we lack the entertainment value in this forum..................

----------


## RMNIXON

> *This is about winning. It's not about losing. Do you not understand politics?*



I know I have asked this many time before with no answer.

But what is it you are going to Win?

You act like the very carefully planned political process that our founders put in place to limit Government has evolved into some kind of High School lead cheerleader contest, and the prettiest girl who can hand out more candy and smiles for votes wins. 

So tell me what kind of Republic do you think will result after a few elections of that kind?

----------


## Victory

> so, if you are thirsty, and have a cool glass of clean water in your hand, do you dump it?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Of course Hillary is how we retain the WH. What is so bad about having an electable front-runner?
> 
> This is about winning. It's not about losing. Do you not understand politics?


That's right.  And when you've lost your soul a long time ago. . .you have nothing left to lose!

----------


## Dan40

> so, if you are thirsty, and have a cool glass of clean water in your hand, do you dump it?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Of course Hillary is how we retain the WH. What is so bad about having an electable front-runner?
> 
> This is about winning. It's not about losing. Do you not understand politics?


You already elected an incompetent "electable" front runner.  And it has given you bragging rights and NOTHING else.  The black base of the Democrat Party have suffered terribly under odumbo's incompetence.  The prestige and honor of the USA has suffered under his incompetence.  Criminals all over the world are on the move due to odumbo's incompetence.  War is nearly global, already tens of thousands have suffered horrible deaths due to odumbo's incompetence.  Liberals, even tho you are forced to deny it, have suffered along with the nation due to odumbo's incompetence.

Why would you be willing to elect another incompetent, one that already HAS displayed her ignorance and incompetence?

Do you put silly ass bragging rights ahead of the nation, ahead of the entire world?

----------

birddog (10-04-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Democrats have no one else. Every egg is in the Hillary basket. They are so convinced that Hillary will be elected, they need do nothing more than smear whoever the republicans put up. They thought so last time too. No one was as surprised as Hillary was when this black guy came out of left field and stole what was rightfully hers. Well, we will have had eight years of democrats by the time the next election comes up. Hillary will have to run very fast to escape the stink of the last eight years.


Here's the REAL problem.

EVERYONE "knows" the Rodents are going to put the Red Queen Butcher Bitch of Benghazi out front. 

The RINOs know this, and they're banking on it. Because they're so convinced that the RQBBB is "unelectable" (the same STUPID conceit they had about the Marxist muslim Messiah), they're spending every effort and every dollar to squash the only significant conservative movement around...believing that the people they insult today will line up in hordes outside the polling places to vote for the Select RINO Candidate - NO MATTER WHO - just to keep Clinton's WIFE out of the White House.

Living in California as I do, as many here do, OUR votes mean nothing, the Slut That Can't Bake Cookies is going to get all of California's electoral votes. But the Americans in the so-called swing states should damn well say "Up Your, RINOs" and stay home.

2016 will mark 32 years since the last conservative American got the GOP nomination. In that time, the RINO candiates won as follows:

1988 - Bush won big because .... he promised to be as conservative as Reagan.
1992 - Bush lost, because AMERICANS aren't Stupids and they don't like being lied to.
1996 - Dole lost, because RINOs aren't tasty.
2000 - Bush won, ONLY because Ralphie Nader made the mistake of splitting the Rodent vote in JUST ONE critical state.
2004 - Bush won, because the Rodents made the mistake of nominating someone who fully reflected every stupid believe they had, but who wasn't black, so the magical Race Card remained inoperative.
2008 - McStain lost, because the only thing worse than a RINO is a traitor corrupt has-been RINO wrapped in a filthy flag...and because the Race Card was fully recharged.
2012 - Romney lost because the RINOs nominate the ONLY candidate that could not campaign against MessiahCare, and because Horst Wessel walked the Earth again.

What's 2016 going to be like?

The Rodents are going to run someone who wants only the fame, who in her 900 years of life cannot show one single accomlishment.

The RINOs are going to run only the kind of candidate that cannot beat their own meat, let alone Hillary.

That's guaranteed.

This Principles of American Whosits is certain proof of that.

Something else to consider:

See all the Stupids on this board and the others that actually DEFEND the Marxist muslim Traitor Messiah, who actually defend the fascism that's going to choke the very life out of them?

The schools YOU are robbed to pay for are churning out MILLIONS MORE OF THEM every single year, permanent native born Stupids who have been told not only that life owes them everything they want, but that the DemocRATs serve "Life".

NOT a one of those Stupids have the faintest friggin' idea what a "goodlife" is, because they haven't read Saberhagen's Berserker stories.

----------


## liberal_hack

> You already elected an incompetent "electable" front runner.  And it has given you bragging rights and NOTHING else.  The black base of the Democrat Party have suffered terribly under odumbo's incompetence.  The prestige and honor of the USA has suffered under his incompetence.  Criminals all over the world are on the move due to odumbo's incompetence.  War is nearly global, already tens of thousands have suffered horrible deaths due to odumbo's incompetence.  Liberals, even tho you are forced to deny it, have suffered along with the nation due to odumbo's incompetence.
> 
> Why would you be willing to elect another incompetent, one that already HAS displayed her ignorance and incompetence?
> 
> Do you put silly ass bragging rights ahead of the nation, ahead of the entire world?


it's about retaining the WH

Do you not understand politics?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> it's about retaining the WH
> 
> Do you not understand politics?


Have you no principles?

Is it okay...advisable...a good plan...for a candidate to say ANYTHING, PROMISE anything, to get elected?  Is that the goal?

Is a candidacy based only on the candidate's desire for power, and willingness to do or say ANYTHING to GET that power, the way to go?

Is there no room for principles in your political world?  Are you nothing but a political prostitute?

----------


## Dan40

> it's about retaining the WH
> 
> Do you not understand politics?


My question was NOT directed to the DNC, it was directed at YOU personally.

Yes I understand politics and you understand politics.

Neither of us IS a politician.

I understand decency and integrity and you do not.

----------

RMNIXON (10-04-2014),Sled Dog (10-07-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

The only way to WIN is to sell Hillary by default.

Only fools will buy "Hope and Change" after Obama. They must make you think the GOP candidate is someone you just don't like. A candidate won't give you (and your identity politics people) free stuff before we go into the shitter and nothing remains to be redistributed. 

That is all they have in order to WIN as Hack would say. 

A fools view of human history than spans four year or maybe eight if people are stupid enough?

----------


## Mainecoons

They are, that is the problem.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The only way to WIN is to sell Hillary by default.
> 
> Only fools will buy "Hope and Change" after Obama. They must make you think the GOP candidate is someone you just don't like. A candidate won't give you (and your identity politics people) free stuff before we go into the shitter and nothing remains to be redistributed. 
> 
> That is all they have in order to WIN as Hack would say. 
> 
> A fools view of human history than spans four year or maybe eight if people are stupid enough?


ONLY fools bought the Hopey Changey thing in the first place, and almost all of them are still just as Stupid now as they were two years ago, only older, and, by default, even dumber.

ONLY Stupids support DemocRATs, and Stupids will support ANY THING the DemocRATs put in front of them to support.

I see that Mumia piece of shit is in the news again, for example.  According to the Stupids, it's "racist" to talk disparagingly of that cop-killing turd.  But there it is, ONLY Stupid people defend that thing.

Stupids cannot grow up, they elect politicians to steal for them so they don't have to face the consequences of being Stupid, yet they're so Stupid they can't see that the money they're stealing won't last another twenty years.

It's all Bush's Fault and It's all Racism, too.

----------


## liberal_hack

> My question was NOT directed to the DNC, it was directed at YOU personally.
> 
> Yes I understand politics and you understand politics.
> 
> Neither of us IS a politician.
> 
> I understand decency and integrity and you do not.


I disagree, whether you know it or not, most of us have "politic'd" in our lives.

You can have all kinds of wonderful ideas but they are useless if you don't get elected.

----------


## liberal_hack

> The only way to WIN is to sell Hillary by default.
> 
> Only fools will buy "Hope and Change" after Obama. They must make you think the GOP candidate is someone you just don't like. A candidate won't give you (and your identity politics people) free stuff before we go into the shitter and nothing remains to be redistributed. 
> 
> That is all they have in order to WIN as Hack would say. 
> 
> A fools view of human history than spans four year or maybe eight if people are stupid enough?


winning is everything.

You can't do squat from the outside looking in

----------


## liberal_hack

> Have you no principles?
> 
> Is it okay...advisable...a good plan...for a candidate to say ANYTHING, PROMISE anything, to get elected?  Is that the goal?
> 
> Is a candidacy based only on the candidate's desire for power, and willingness to do or say ANYTHING to GET that power, the way to go?
> 
> Is there no room for principles in your political world?  Are you nothing but a political prostitute?


Do you not understand target-marketing, messaging and demographics?

Do you really think the avg voter wants to spend even 5 seconds learning the mechanics of anything beyond their own personal lives?

Well, despite that, those are the people you need to get your gal/guy elected. So, you create a marketing plan targeted at the avg voter that will get the results you want.

Walk through the mall, stop 5 different people and ask them if they know Ben Gazzee and see what they say.

----------


## Hansel

> Do you not understand target-marketing, messaging and demographics?
> 
> Do you really think the avg voter wants to spend even 5 seconds learning the mechanics of anything beyond their own personal lives?
> 
> Well, despite that, those are the people you need to get your gal/guy elected. So, you create a marketing plan targeted at the avg voter that will get the results you want.
> 
> Walk through the mall, stop 5 different people and ask them if they know Ben Gazzee and see what they say.


Good thinking and good post.  I think that the average person votes his or her pocket book and maybe a bit about the hot button issues, which are often
merely emotional issues such as abortion and same gender marriage. Beyond that they could not care less about what a candidate believes or promises.  

People have been had so often by snake oil peddlers that voting is something they do, not because they enjoy it but because they see it as their 
civic duty and don't want to be criticized if they do not vote.  Can you blame them?  I ask this in a non partisan way, when is the last time we had
a national candidate that was worth getting excited over?  

Ike is the last one I remember and I may have voted for  the first time for him. It has been a long time but I was on my way back to the air base after being home on leave and stopped by the county courthouse to  vote absentee. The clerk sent me to a vault with a paper ballot and that is how I voted. 

I have said this before, only to have it fall on deaf ears, but if you want to be heard in WDC then join a special interest group and support its 
activities.  I am presently in AARP and at least keep up with the issues that affect older people. This helps me to make an informed vote on some issues and candidates.  Something tells me that legislation is influenced much more by lobbyists than by the average vote at the polls.

----------

Mainecoons (10-04-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

There is no way to tell what effect events will have on the election.   Even adults are dying from open border flu.  Children are paralyzed from it.  Ebola is showing signs of becoming a full blown panic with 10,000 sick by election day next month.  Not because they really have ebola but because everyone with a runny nose and an allergy will think they do.  Democrats did it.  The democrats opened the border.   Democrats don't want screening.   Democrats are bringing sick black people here.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Do you not understand target-marketing, messaging and demographics?
> 
> Do you really think the avg voter wants to spend even 5 seconds learning the mechanics of anything beyond their own personal lives?
> 
> Well, despite that, those are the people you need to get your gal/guy elected. So, you create a marketing plan targeted at the avg voter that will get the results you want.
> 
> Walk through the mall, stop 5 different people and ask them if they know Ben Gazzee and see what they say.


I understand the instincts of a demagogue.  I understand the difference between Ronald Reagan, who wanted to better his world and didn't even care if his enemies got the credit; and Bubba Erectile, who wanted power because he wanted power and would say and do ANYTHING to get it.

The ignorance of voters as you note, is why there SHOULD be literacy tests - and how the goobermint skeuls, championed by people like Her Hillaryness, are such appalling failures.

----------


## liberal_hack

> I understand the instincts of a demagogue.  I understand the difference between Ronald Reagan, who wanted to better his world and didn't even care if his enemies got the credit; and Bubba Erectile, who wanted power because he wanted power and would say and do ANYTHING to get it.
> 
> The ignorance of voters as you note, is why there SHOULD be literacy tests - and how the goobermint skeuls, championed by people like Her Hillaryness, are such appalling failures.


I want even argue about anything you said and whether it's valid or not.

The point is that the Democrat Party has learned to craft well a message while the GOP has fallen behind. It's to the point that no matter what you try, you're going to continue to lose because we've beat you in the messaging war.

----------


## Mainecoons

The truth is that the Democratic Party has learned that the path to power is paved with government checks and unionized government workers.

BTW, the Caesars learned that the path to power was paved with bread and circuses.  It did work for a while.

Great nations are not built or sustained on handouts or government by morally bankrupt power brokers who think like you do.

----------

St James (10-07-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The only way to WIN is to sell Hillary by default.
> 
> Only fools will buy "Hope and Change" after Obama. They must make you think the GOP candidate is someone you just don't like. A candidate won't give you (and your identity politics people) free stuff before we go into the shitter and nothing remains to be redistributed. 
> 
> That is all they have in order to WIN as Hack would say. 
> 
> A fools view of human history than spans four year or maybe eight if people are stupid enough?


And that's where the Rodents are stuck.   The Hopey Changey gambit is for the party that isn't in the  White House, it can't work for the Red Queen unless the bitch succeeds in painting the GOP candidate as the heir to the Obama legacy.  No matter how true it might be, and it could be very true indeed for certain RINO hopefuls, it's not really going to fly.

No, the Red Queen is going to campaign on her record, which the medea will white wash completely.  

She is going to campaign against the SEXXXXXXXXXIST PIGS in the GOP.   

She is going to claim that because she's allegedly female, it's time to elect the first allegedly female president, just as they so happily voted for the first allegedly black allegedly male president in 2008.

She's going to use the following phrases

"Mistakes of the past"
"War on Women"
"Equal Pay for Equal Work"
"Reproductive FREEDOM"
"Evita Peron" - Madonna will be hitting the campaign trail, along with that ugly stupid Lena Dunham snatch.
"Golda Meir' to score points with the Stupids who are Jewish

There will even be completely meaningless and totally confusing false comparisons with Margaret Thatcher.

They will say ANYTHING and do ANYTHING to steal yet another election.  To them, the lie is preferred over truth.  They are true users of double-think and believe, while they are saying it, any lie that suits their purpose.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I want even argue about anything you said and whether it's valid or not.
> 
> The point is that the Democrat Party has learned to craft well a message while the GOP has fallen behind. It's to the point that no matter what you try, you're going to continue to lose because we've beat you in the messaging war.


No.

The Rodents have learned to craft a message of lies to the ignorant people they ruined via public indoctrination.

The RINOs see the success of the Rodents and seek to emulate them.

The Americans are demanding a candidate who will craft a message of truth...and when that message is uttered by a candidate that believes in it and can defend it, both the Rodents and RINOs will turn and attack in concert.

The big question is why do you like to be lied to?

----------


## Sled Dog

> There is no way to tell what effect events will have on the election. Even adults are dying from open border flu. Children are paralyzed from it. Ebola is showing signs of becoming a full blown panic with 10,000 sick by election day next month. Not because they really have ebola but because everyone with a runny nose and an allergy will think they do. Democrats did it. The democrats opened the border. Democrats don't want screening. Democrats are bringing sick black people here.


Not quite right.

The Rodents are bringing sick people with ebola here, not just black people. 

The Rodent are returning to America any stupid, white, fucked-in-the-head liberal dipshit whiny ass that went to Africa to "help".

An AMERICAN president would have shut down all incoming flights from the plaque zone MONTHS AGO, and refused admission to EVERY aircraft with a suspected ebola carrier on them, no matter what the origin.

We haven't had an American in the White House for almost three decades now, and the inevitable decline that has caused cannot avoid notice any more.  The Stupids just lie when they say they can't see it or when they shift the blame away from themselves.

----------


## liberal_hack

> And that's where the Rodents are stuck.   The Hopey Changey gambit is for the party that isn't in the  White House, it can't work for the Red Queen unless the bitch succeeds in painting the GOP candidate as the heir to the Obama legacy.  No matter how true it might be, and it could be very true indeed for certain RINO hopefuls, it's not really going to fly.
> 
> No, the Red Queen is going to campaign on her record, which the medea will white wash completely.  
> 
> She is going to campaign against the SEXXXXXXXXXIST PIGS in the GOP.   
> 
> She is going to claim that because she's allegedly female, it's time to elect the first allegedly female president, just as they so happily voted for the first allegedly black allegedly male president in 2008.
> 
> She's going to use the following phrases
> ...


unbelievable.

Do you even read your own posts? Do you then look at empirical data to see if your theories will even hold water?

Hillary will not and cannot campaign on the "war on women" and in fact, she will be stronger because of it. 

In most people's lives, they have had an indiscretion which affected a love one. Some might be "whoppers" while others just little things.

In the end, it is up to the 2 people to decide if they can forgive and forget.

Bill strayed and it hurt Hillary. It did not hurt you nor did it hurt me. But, because it was in the public eye, her campaign cannot use "unfairness or sexism" but that's a good thing.

If the GOP decides to attack Bills' indiscretions then who are they to involve themselves in a personal matter? It will appear mean spirited.

Nope, the topic is very simple

How were you the last time a Clinton was in the WH ?

Good luck trying to overcome that.

We have a slam-dunk winner with Hillary.

----------


## liberal_hack

> The truth is that the Democratic Party has learned that the path to power is paved with government checks and unionized government workers.
> 
> BTW, the Caesars learned that the path to power was paved with bread and circuses.  It did work for a while.
> 
> Great nations are not built or sustained on handouts or government by morally bankrupt power brokers who think like you do.


FYI

there is "reply with quote" selection at the bottom as well as the @ (mention) feature which can be used by simply typing
 @Mainecoons

both methods alert me that you responded directly toward me or were discussing me.

Now, as to your comment, you may wish to believe that but Democrats simply want people, all people to be given a fair shake.

----------


## liberal_hack

> No.
> 
> The Rodents have learned to craft a message of lies to the ignorant people they ruined via public indoctrination.
> 
> The RINOs see the success of the Rodents and seek to emulate them.
> 
> The Americans are demanding a candidate who will craft a message of truth...and when that message is uttered by a candidate that believes in it and can defend it, both the Rodents and RINOs will turn and attack in concert.
> 
> The big question is why do you like to be lied to?


I rarely use profane language within the forum but

WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU TO THINK YOU ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHERS?

Are your beliefs and your intellect so superior that you can label as rodents, any who disagree with you?

What do you even know of me to label me as a rodent? Maybe just maybe I pay more taxes than you? Maybe I volunteer within the community more than you.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> unbelievable.
> 
> Do you even read your own posts? Do you then look at empirical data to see if your theories will even hold water?
> 
> Hillary will not and cannot campaign on the "war on women" and in fact, she will be stronger because of it. 
> 
> In most people's lives, they have had an indiscretion which affected a love one. Some might be "whoppers" while others just little things.
> 
> In the end, it is up to the 2 people to decide if they can forgive and forget.
> ...


You might as well credit Miss America with the period's prosperity.  That was the result of LAWS - of Congressional action, or more accurately, RESTRAINT.

Sound reasoning involves being able to trace back a desired or undesired event to its CAUSE.  If it rains, it probably isn't because the shaman did a dance for eight hours.  Something else was involved; correlation isn't causation.

Meantime, while the President doesn't make laws (when he is behaving lawfully) he DOES effect many things in terms of bureaucratic priorities and management.  Which means PERSONAL CHARACTER DOES MATTER.

Bubba has all the character of Caryl Chessman.  And his harpy wife has LESS...she's a power-oriented golddigger.

And it was the Reign of Bubba where so MANY of today's problems initiated.  Who ramrodded through Most-Favored-Nation trading status for CHINA?  Give ya three guesses, and the first two don't count.  Thass...RIGHT!...it was in the BUBBA YEARS that our shores and our stores became flooded with slave-labor-manufactured shoddy Chinese goods!

And it was in THOSE YEARS that al-Qaeda secreted themselves in this nation's airport-security offices and flight schools.  REMEMBER THAT?

So...no...only a simpleton (and there are many millions of them, obviously) would support this self-styled American royalty.  And only a soulless carpetbagger like yourself would want to inflict MORE of that on us.

----------


## liberal_hack

> You might as well credit Miss America with the period's prosperity.  That was the result of LAWS - of Congressional action, or more accurately, RESTRAINT.
> 
> Sound reasoning involves being able to trace back a desired or undesired event to its CAUSE.  If it rains, it probably isn't because the shaman did a dance for eight hours.  Something else was involved; correlation isn't causation.
> 
> Meantime, while the President doesn't make laws (when he is behaving lawfully) he DOES effect many things in terms of bureaucratic priorities and management.  Which means PERSONAL CHARACTER DOES MATTER.
> 
> Bubba has all the character of Caryl Chessman.  And his harpy wife has LESS...she's a power-oriented golddigger.
> 
> And it was the Reign of Bubba where so MANY of today's problems initiated.  Who ramrodded through Most-Favored-Nation trading status for CHINA?  Give ya three guesses, and the first two don't count.  Thass...RIGHT!...it was in the BUBBA YEARS that our shores and our stores became flooded with slave-labor-manufactured shoddy Chinese goods!
> ...


when a Clinton was in the WH, how were the job prospects for a college grad?

How were prospects of worker mobility? Namely, if you left a job could you easily find a similar or better paying one?

It's a simple message which will be welcomed by the majority

----------


## Katzndogz

Why is Hillary's popularity sliding?

http://news.yahoo.com/why-hillary-cl...060600878.html

Democrats are so nostalgic for Bill Clinton, that they believe that he will be president instead of his harpy wife.   Bill Clinton followed Ronald Reagan and already had a stable economy and a prosperous nation.   Hillary would inherit a nation fractured by dissention, crippled by disease, threatened within the country by terrorists and economically on its knees.  With herself being part of the regime that brought all this about.

----------


## Swedgin

My personal opinions and comments on your observations:




> Huckabee- Soft on crime, weak willed. He's suckered the religious conservatives somehow


--I am now a Huckabee supporter.  IF he were to run, I would support him 100%.  The man is a classy conservative, who exemplifies his faith and values.  That said, the fact that he does not hide his Christianity pretty much kills his chances to win, in New America.  (But, he might be damned good in the right cabinent position....)




> Carson- Not ready. Praised Jesse Jackson on Fox News. He should stay a spokesman


--I really like Dr. Carson, but, as you said:  Not ready.  That said, I could care less who he praises on FOX news.  If we start precluding those who say something nice about people we do not like....we are going to have to find one mean asshole.  And I don't think mean assholes get elected to very much.....




> Romney- Same as before. Too moderate and too wishy washy


--I have grown to like Mitt Romney as a man.  I am not overly concerned about his "New England Republicanism," but....I am not overly keen on his status as a Blue Blood.  The dude should just buy himself a resort island, for his extended family, then just take a book from the Kennedy's and start his own Aristocratic Dynasty...




> Paul- Showing to change his position if its politically convenient. ie his stance on war


--I have come to LOVE Rand Paul, even though, I still disagree with him on some points.  The simple fact that he is willing to go speak to "hostile" audiences, and, the fact that he is willing to fillibuster, as fillibusters were meant to be done, tells me much about his character.  I would point out that Paul MAY be much better suited to draw in some of the Liberals, who are disgruntled with the economic policies of the DNC, but, steadfast on their anti-war stance....




> Bush- omg where to start. He's a Bush. He's a moderate. Nuff said.


--As one who literally adores the Bush Aristocracy....I'm just not overly keen on Aristocrats.  He would be the THIRD Bush to hold the Presidency in less than three decades.  The fact that he is a "moderate" does not bother me in the least.  Jeb would probably be a better President than his brother, and perhaps as good as his father.  But still....this is America, not the United Kingdom.




> Perry- Too comfortable in an environment where Republicans rule. Can't handle the national audience.


--Agreed.  He would make a great leader for the Newly independent Republic of Texas, though.  But, he just seems a bit "rough around the edges" for a National Campaign.





> Christie- Moderate, damaged. Can come off as brash. Easy target


--At one time, I really liked Gov. Christie.  I actually like the "Tony Soprano" image he has going.  However:  He is still 'hefty,' and that could be a deal killer for any elected official in the modern age;  He literally used his position to "bully" others for political punishment.  NOT COOL.  (I don't want the GOP version of a fat Obama....)




> Cruz- He tells the truth too often


.

--Agreed.  I would still like to see more from Sen. Cruz.  He says the right things (for Conservatives, at least), but, even should he run, I think he needs to show more of what he's got.  Although...he is already a MAJOR target for the Leftists.  The longer he remains in politics, the more the shit they sling at him is going to leave a stain....




> West- Nothing


. 

--GREAT Man.  Could actually make a good President, I think.  But, he simply does not have the political backing, money, etc.  (What would be BEST for him, is to make a semi-serious run in 2016, and see where the cards fall.  He would be best served showing what he is made of, while serving in a cabinent position for a Republican President...)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> when a Clinton was in the WH, how were the job prospects for a college grad?
> 
> How were prospects of worker mobility? Namely, if you left a job could you easily find a similar or better paying one?
> 
> It's a simple message which will be welcomed by the majority


When the shaman is dancing in his penis gourd, under dark clouds, what were the prospects of rain?

When Miss America 1996 was chosen, what were job prospects?

...I guess we should re-crown Miss America 1996, Miss America 2015.

----------


## Sled Dog

> FYI
> 
> there is "reply with quote" selection at the bottom as well as the @ (mention) feature which can be used by simply typing
> @Mainecoons
> 
> both methods alert me that you responded directly toward me or were discussing me.
> 
> Now, as to your comment, you may wish to believe that but Democrats simply want people, all people to be given a fair shake.


She might wish to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too.  Both have greater reality than any fantasy that the Rodents desire people to do well.

Rodents are from Eddore, and desire power, only POWER.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I rarely use profane language within the forum but
> 
> WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU TO THINK YOU ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHERS?


Telling you would then require extreme measures.

But you've asked for them:

EVERY, and that means ALL, person who did not vote for Obama is ten times superior to the combined inferiority of the entire mass of mindless idiots that did vote for him. EVERYONE that voted for Obama is a mindless idiot and possibly a traitor.

We know who you voted for.




> Are your beliefs and your intellect so superior that you can label as rodents, any who disagree with you?


Since you asked so baldly, the answer is YES.

Bet that hurt.




> What do you even know of me to label me as a rodent?


You support Obama.

You support the Rodents.

Ergo, you support a political ideology dedicated to theft, to deceit, to raw power, to retaliation, to ego, to emotion.

You REALLY need to stop asking questions you already admit you don't like the answers you're going to get.





> Maybe just maybe I pay more taxes than you? Maybe I volunteer within the community more than you.


You mean you, a socialist who despises the accumulation of gross wealth, are going to try to measure your putative pile of filthy lucre against mine?

Does anyone care? Shall we set up a poll to see if people believe that @liberal_hack's Internet Claim of Vastly Superior Wealth makes you "more right" than your betters? Do you believe that since you can't support your position with facts and logic you can then wave a pile of money as a chip in the game?

Not this game you can't. You're just unhappy because liberals ALWAYS come to the Fact and Logic Game disarmed and despised. 

Do you suddenly believe your money is a measure of how big your dick is? What really is the point of your last two sentences?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Hillary will not and cannot campaign on the "war on women" and in fact, she will be stronger because of it.


The fools that vote for Obama might believe your statement.

The Americans have been watching the Cattle Futures Nag Hag for decades now, and aren't gullible. The Butch Butcher Bitch of Benghazi is going to play the bogus "WOW" card because the Ugly hag has even played the "I"m Jewish, REALLY!" card in 2008.




> If the GOP decides to attack Bills' indiscretions then who are they to involve themselves in a personal matter? It will appear mean spirited.


Yes, your Masters have told you how they're going to play the game. Anything said against the Red Queen will be "intruding on her rights as a woman"...all the while you're trying to insist the cunt won't be playing the WOW card.

Right there, in the same post, you insist they won't play the WOW card and then illustrate how they're going to play the WOW card.

And then you wonder why I consider myself to be superior to the Rodents.

It's because I AM.

Ha!

=======

Oh. And the Rapist President did not commit "indiscretions". He committed sexual harassment, sexual assualt, and even RAPE, upon multiple women employed in a capacity significantly junior to his positions as Attorney General of Arkansas, Governor of Arkansas and as President of the United States of America, the last of which was a direct violation of the federal anti-sexual harassment laws he himself signed into law.

Also, your Rapist President committed PERJURY, a crime for which he was later convicted, paid $80,000 in fines, and was disbarred.

And you want to know what?

Your Rapist President, with all his crimes and all his scandals, can't hold a candle up to the klieg light of treason, corruption and scandal your Marxist muslim Messiah Traitor has as his (YOUR) legacy.

----------

