Death of the Republican party

[EdReed4Prez]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...16-rumor-that-wont-go-away/?intcmp=latestnews

If they were to run Mitt again that would be the end. I'm kind of hoping for it. Perhaps we'd get a more fiscally conservative option? Perhaps the Libertarian party could get a foot hold? Another RINO nomination would be disaster for the GOP.

 

[Roy92040]

The GOP has no idea with regards to who they want to support in 2016. They keep asking for people's input on this on their Facebook page. If they don't know by now who would be a good front runner for the job it's because they all have their heads up their collective assessss.

 

[Vader]

Rand Paul is who I'm wanting. These quasi conservatives RINOs can't win a presidential election. Every time one runs they get destroyed. McCain and Romney are so liberal that they can even get their base out. Right now Paul is the best option for the party. He does well with all groups. He also will actually do something when he gets in.

 

[Southern Steeler]

I have resigned myself to the fact that we will have a Democrat president for much of the remainder of my life.

Hope I am wrong, but it's what I expect. Too many entitleds will be left holding the bag if a true conservative ever wins again

 

[jitter77]

Rand Paul is who I'm wanting. These quasi conservatives RINOs can't win a presidential election. Every time one runs they get destroyed. McCain and Romney are so liberal that they can even get their base out. Right now Paul is the best option for the party. He does well with all groups. He also will actually do something when he gets in.

I would hope so, but unfortunately I dont think it matters. The only presidents that has really effected me has been Bush and Obama. Bush's tax breaks put money in my pockets while the Obamacare fine is going to take a nice chunk out of my tax return. Other than that any other policies have not really effected my daily life. I could not stand Clinton I though he was too weak on foreign policy. Seemed like he was trying to be everyones friend instead of taking a stand. Even if people didnt like Bush Jr at least he stuck to his guns and was almost too stubborn at times. Obama just seems to do whatever he wants in general and seems to disregard the whole system. I do not know what the answer is, but we need a big shake up.

 

[Vader]

I would hope so, but unfortunately I dont think it matters. The only presidents that has really effected me has been Bush and Obama. Bush's tax breaks put money in my pockets while the Obamacare fine is going to take a nice chunk out of my tax return. Other than that any other policies have not really effected my daily life. I could not stand Clinton I though he was too weak on foreign policy. Seemed like he was trying to be everyones friend instead of taking a stand. Even if people didnt like Bush Jr at least he stuck to his guns and was almost too stubborn at times. Obama just seems to do whatever he wants in general and seems to disregard the whole system. I do not know what the answer is, but we need a big shake up.

I really think Paul would bring us back to a reasonable constitutional government. He's level headed but tenacious. He's the anti Obama. I'm actually planning on working for his campaign if he runs.

 

[Spike]

Go Hillary!

 

[TAS]

I have resigned myself to the fact that we will have a Democrat president for much of the remainder of my life.

Hope I am wrong, but it's what I expect. Too many entitleds will be left holding the bag if a true conservative ever wins again

This is where I'm at. After Obama was re-elected it seems either the elections are rigged or we're ****** up as a country and beyond repair.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Rand Paul is who I'm wanting. These quasi conservatives RINOs can't win a presidential election. Every time one runs they get destroyed. McCain and Romney are so liberal that they can even get their base out. Right now Paul is the best option for the party. He does well with all groups. He also will actually do something when he gets in.

Mitt might have won if he had gone after Bomma as hard as he did Santorum.
Paul, Cruz, or Scott Walker could win. Christie isn't conservative enough and he has too much baggage after the bridge deal.
Anybody else, no.

 

[Djfan]

Mitt had Obummer on the ropes in that last debate, but refused to hit him. I knew right there that the media would have an excuse for his losing, after the left stole the election.

We are screwed as a country. Even if we have hard conservatives for the next 20 years, the damage done by Obonehead will take years to fix. If we can......

 

[ZonaBurgh]

This is where I'm at. After Obama was re-elected it seems either the elections are rigged or we're ****** up as a country and beyond repair.

Not sure if the elections are rigged, but would it really surprise anyone if they were? Problem is too many waiting for the check in the mail.
What incentive is there for those slopping at the trough to actually be responsible for themselves? This country has made it too easy to be entitled.

 

[madinsomniac]

Frankly I have been waiting for one of these dipshit parties to collapse so it can be replaced with a more moderate one. ideally that leads to the collapse of the dems and we have two generally moderate parties, as well as two smaller Left and right extremist parties that absorb the nut jobs at both ends of the spectrum... The Democrat and Republician brand names are too ingrained in Sheeple who don't look at the issues, just the party ticket... Death to both Partys... Viva La (bloodless) Revolution!

 

[Vader]

Frankly I have been waiting for one of these dipshit parties to collapse so it can be replaced with a more moderate one. ideally that leads to the collapse of the dems and we have two generally moderate parties, as well as two smaller Left and right extremist parties that absorb the nut jobs at both ends of the spectrum... The Democrat and Republician brand names are too ingrained in Sheeple who don't look at the issues, just the party ticket... Death to both Partys... Viva La (bloodless) Revolution!

Hell the Republicans are moderate. How can you get any more moderate than McCain and Romney? Most of the **** we have now is because of wimpy republicans going along with dems. "moderate" is a vacuous personal description anyway. One person's moderate is another's fringe. "Moderate" usually means the reps are bending over and giving the Libs everything they want. Just like when Reagan gave the dems their illegal immigrants while he never received his border security. Or like when Bush I gave the dems their tax hikes then got beat over the head with it by the dems during the election. Or like Bush II did when he allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill then he gets beat over the head with "no child left behind" for 8 years by the EXACT SAME people that wrote the bill. **** me.

The fact is that this country needs someone that gets back to constitutional powers and stop infringing on personal liberty. I want Paul but will settle for Cruz or probably Walker. I sure as hell don't want a "moderate" like Christie who is a dem lite.

 

[oneforthebus]

I have resigned myself to the fact that we will have a Democrat president for much of the remainder of my life.

Hope I am wrong, but it's what I expect. Too many entitleds will be left holding the bag if a true conservative ever wins again

Yup.

BTW Romney certainly wasn't my first choice but do I have any doubt whatsoever that the country would be in far better shape right now had he been elected? Not one single shred. Say what you want about him being a RINO, he understands how basic economics works and how businesses make money and create jobs. He also doesn't hate this country and everything it stands for.

 

[Vader]

Yup.

BTW Romney certainly wasn't my first choice but do I have any doubt whatsoever that the country would be in far better shape right now had he been elected? Not one single shred. Say what you want about him being a RINO, he understands how basic economics works and how businesses make money and create jobs. He also doesn't hate this country and everything it stands for.

Of course Romney would have been a better president. However, he wouldn't have tackled the national debt or deficit. He would have caved on a ton of dem initiatives. Yes, the economy would be growing which is better than nothing. However, a real fiscal conservative, like Rand Paul would do a whole lot more. With him you get fiscal responsibility with some libertarian "get your nose out of my business" back bone.

 

[Vincent]

BTW Romney certainly wasn't my first choice but do I have any doubt whatsoever that the country would be in far better shape right now had he been elected? Not one single shred. Say what you want about him being a RINO, he understands how basic economics works and how businesses make money and create jobs. He also doesn't hate this country and everything it stands for.

That probably echoes about everybody that voted against young baraka.

The pubbies aren't going to put up another Dutch because he doesn't exist. The entire pubbie roster is a dismal and uninspiring seconds bin of "me too" position sound bites that fail miserably to energize the electorate. I wouldn't vote for a one of them on their merits or what they say. Regrettably, they are the only ones that stand between the likes of an islamomarxist homosexual ******* of communist pornographer and his systematic destruction of the Republic. There are but two choices in presidential elections these days - uninspiring and unacceptable. If you can't bring yourself to vote for uninspiring, reality is that you've given a vote to unacceptable. That the aforementioned islamomarxist homosexual ******* of communist pornographer has had 6 years to wreak havoc on this troubled little planet says more about the self righteous American electorate that either can't get up off their dead lazy ***** to vote, or aren't electrified with the candidate than it says about the aforementioned islamomarxist homosexual ******* of communist pornographer. After all, he DID warn us he was going to "fundamentally change this nation".

In retrospect, an unprincipled vote for a Mitt Romney looks like a very inviting prospect, doesn't it.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

That probably echoes about everybody that voted against young baraka.

The pubbies aren't going to put up another Dutch because he doesn't exist. The entire pubbie roster is a dismal and uninspiring seconds bin of "me too" position sound bites that fail miserably to energize the electorate. I wouldn't vote for a one of them on their merits or what they say. Regrettably, they are the only ones that stand between the likes of an islamomarxist homosexual ******* of communist pornographer and his systematic destruction of the Republic. There are but two choices in presidential elections these days - uninspiring and unacceptable. If you can't bring yourself to vote for uninspiring, reality is that you've given a vote to unacceptable. That the aforementioned islamomarxist homosexual ******* of communist pornographer has had 6 years to wreak havoc on this troubled little planet says more about the self righteous American electorate that either can't get up off their dead lazy ***** to vote, or aren't electrified with the candidate than it says about the aforementioned islamomarxist homosexual ******* of communist pornographer. After all, he DID warn us he was going to "fundamentally change this nation".

In retrospect, an unprincipled vote for a Mitt Romney looks like a very inviting prospect, doesn't it.

Not a bit. Rather see Obama invigorate the fiscally conservative crowd with his colossal **** ups than limp along with RINO Mitt. I don't want less evil, I want to fix the problem.

 

[Vincent]

Not a bit. Rather see Obama invigorate the fiscally conservative crowd with his colossal **** ups than limp along with RINO Mitt. I don't want less evil, I want to fix the problem.

Who, among the likely candidates, is going to fix the problem? If, and this is an unlikely if, a Republican were to be elected, the results would be the same regardless of which Republican it was.

If young baraka's first four years wasn't enough to invigorate the fiscally conservative crowd, why would you imagine that an invigorated fiscally conservative crowd would show up for subsequent elections? We are living in the failure of that supposition.

I happen to agree with most here that the pubbies suck hairy RINO balls. But the likelihood of a critical mass rising to offset both the pubbies AND the party of satan to actually win the White House before the Republic collapses is slim and none. And the likelihood of that critical mass taking the house and senate so the presumed President could govern is even less.

As long as we're fantasizing, visualize such an angry backlash in November that the party of satan is dealt the kill shot and the pubbies sweep both houses in filibuster proof numbers. Possible but unlikely. Who takes the White House in 16? That mythical principled candidate?

My dream scenario? The demise of the party of satan. The pubbies move further left to fill the void. A constitution party rises in epic numbers and marginalizes the pubbies. That would require a literate and engaged electorate. Handicap that one, Ed. That's less likely than a Stillers/rats AFCCG in January.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Who, among the likely candidates, is going to fix the problem? If, and this is an unlikely if, a Republican were to be elected, the results would be the same regardless of which Republican it was.

If young baraka's first four years wasn't enough to invigorate the fiscally conservative crowd, why would you imagine that an invigorated fiscally conservative crowd would show up for subsequent elections? We are living in the failure of that supposition.

I happen to agree with most here that the pubbies suck hairy RINO balls. But the likelihood of a critical mass rising to offset both the pubbies AND the party of satan to actually win the White House before the Republic collapses is slim and none. And the likelihood of that critical mass taking the house and senate so the presumed President could govern is even less.

As long as we're fantasizing, visualize such an angry backlash in November that the party of satan is dealt the kill shot and the pubbies sweep both houses in filibuster proof numbers. Possible but unlikely. Who takes the White House in 16? That mythical principled candidate?

My dream scenario? The demise of the party of satan. The pubbies move further left to fill the void. A constitution party rises in epic numbers and marginalizes the pubbies. That would require a literate and engaged electorate. Handicap that one, Ed. That's less likely than a Stillers/rats AFCCG in January.

I think Rand has a chance to fix some of it. Maybe even Cruz. Dem's are going to have an issue when the black voters get more and more pissed that "their money" is being given to illegals.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...merican-from-Baltimore-Where-Can-I-Get-Asylum

Without a motivated black voter base the Dems are in trouble. Without a true conservative candidate the Republicrats are in worse trouble.

 

[Super Dave]

I see Ted Cruz walking away with the primary, he will only be stopped if there are crossover Dem votes in big states but that only happens if the Dems unify behind one candidate.

If that happens then the RINOS (GOPe) and the Dems will pick the Republican candidate.

Cruz will demolish all in the debates and voters will finally be offered the clearest contrast in candidates since the 1980 election.

 

[jitter77]

I think that voting should require some kinda basic test. Have 4-5 major issues with how each candidate stands if you miss a couple then sorry your vote doesnt count. I have a college education and I do not feel really qualified to vote. I do not really follow politics much, but i check out the news and listen to the debates and what not. I would bet at least 25% of voters are basically clueless on what their candidates stand for or what their policies are. Its not really a knock on people, but who has the time or motivation to really research peoples voting records or dig around for other information.

 

[Vader]

I think that voting should require some kinda basic test. Have 4-5 major issues with how each candidate stands if you miss a couple then sorry your vote doesnt count. I have a college education and I do not feel really qualified to vote. I do not really follow politics much, but i check out the news and listen to the debates and what not. I would bet at least 25% of voters are basically clueless on what their candidates stand for or what their policies are. Its not really a knock on people, but who has the time or motivation to really research peoples voting records or dig around for other information.

Testing people will be seen as racist. However I'm all for it. If you can't pass a basic civics test you should be able to vote.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Go away Mitt. If you had any balls you would have brought up Benghazi and been Prez right now, but you listened to your establishment handlers and followed their Democrat light policies.

There is nothing happening now that could not have been predicted and used in your campaign but you took the supposed high road while dems ran ads implying you killed a guy.

You saw McCain fall the same way, never throwing any punches for fear of being labeled racist. You vowed you'd be different and were aggressive in your primaries, then you bitched up in the 4th quarter when the game was on the line.

Unfortunately, living in PA, the Republican candidate will likely be already picked by the time our primary rolls around. Hopefully you early primary state won't nominate another ***** who is afraid to point out who liberal policies may be well intentioned but they are ultimately stupid and produce the opposite result from their intent.

 

[Rod Farva]

Yup.

BTW Romney certainly wasn't my first choice but do I have any doubt whatsoever that the country would be in far better shape right now had he been elected? Not one single shred. Say what you want about him being a RINO, he understands how basic economics works and how businesses make money and create jobs. He also doesn't hate this country and everything it stands for.

These are the depths to which our expectations and standards have sunk. No disrespect to you OFTB....it's just a natural conditioning that we've undergone, imo. Think about that......"doesn't hate America"? ....."check."

I think that voting should require some kinda basic test. Have 4-5 major issues with how each candidate stands if you miss a couple then sorry your vote doesnt count. I have a college education and I do not feel really qualified to vote. I do not really follow politics much, but i check out the news and listen to the debates and what not. I would bet at least 25% of voters are basically clueless on what their candidates stand for or what their policies are. Its not really a knock on people, but who has the time or motivation to really research peoples voting records or dig around for other information.

I'd guess that your 25% estimate is very low.....especially among D voters. My guess would be closer to 60-70% with the remainder just not very smart.

Testing people will be seen as racist. However I'm all for it. If you can't pass a basic civics test you should be able to vote.

Hmmmm.....perhaps the same test one must pass to become a citizen.

 

[oneforthebus]

These are the depths to which our expectations and standards have sunk. No disrespect to you OFTB....it's just a natural conditioning that we've undergone, imo. Think about that......"doesn't hate America"? ....."check."

Like I said, he was not who I would have preferred. But given the choice between him and what we have now, I'd pick him any day of the week and twice on Sundays.