May 31, 201412 yr So, to put words in your mouth you have no answer to "why Hillary?" I agree. :lol2: I said why I liked her but as I initially stated, my reasons likely wouldn't be good enough or "informed" enough to satisfy Hillary opponents. And that's cool. It's not going to change my mind about her. I've always liked her and I always will. If I don't like her GOP opponent she'll get my vote.
May 31, 201412 yr Jeb Bush is probably the best candidate for the Republicans to win the oval office, but may be too moderate to get his party's nomination. A Clinton vs. Bush election would be interesting. I agree.
May 31, 201412 yr Putting Jeb Bush on the ticket would severely depress Republican turnout. Under no circumstances will I vote for Jeb and many conservatives feel the same as I do. Reince Priebus, Karl Rove, McConnell, Boehner and the other "establishment" Republicans are working hard to ensure that another moderate loser is nominated but I do not believe that conservatives are going to turn out in large numbers to elect a RINO. This is what I don't get though. The republicans are infighting so badly that they'll not support "their guy" and lose the election and then blame liberals/democrats for all of the government's failures. I don't understand that logic. It's like there is no accountability in the republican party to come together as one and put their best foot forward to support one another and take back the White House. It's much easier to punt the election and point the finger across the aisle for being able to defeat a splintered party.
May 31, 201412 yr This is what I don't get though. The republicans are infighting so badly that they'll not support "their guy" and lose the election and then blame liberals/democrats for all of the government's failures. I don't understand that logic. It's like there is no accountability in the republican party to come together as one and put their best foot forward to support one another and take back the White House. It's much easier to punt the election and point the finger across the aisle for being able to defeat a splintered party. As far as big issues go, the only substantial difference in establishment or "Rockefeller" Republicans and Democrats go is the speed at which they will implement the liberal agenda. Conservatives like myself have supported the Republican Party as it has nominated economic liberals like the Bushes, Dole, and Romney. We have fallen for the argument that conservatives must fall in line to prevent the more liberal candidate destroying the foundation. That approach has not worked for us. You speak of accountability. Where have the folks who have lined up behind Obama to support some of the most hare-brained and mis-managed federal programs known to mankind been when it comes to holding Obama and his allies in Congress accountable? You and your friends have been AWOL for six years now in the area of accountability and most of you are salivating about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency - that's where. I disagree that conservatives blame only liberal Democrats for losses by the Republican Party. There are charlatans like Rove, McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, and a long list of professional Rockefeller Republicans that practice the same kind of finger pointing, divide and conquer politics as the liberal wing of the Democratic Party does. All that matters to them is grabbing as much power and wealth as they can and they share that agenda with the professional, lifelong career Democrats that selects your party's candidates. However, a growing number of economic conservatives such as myself have come to realize that we are being doomed to a future of misery because of politicians in both parties pursuing their short term goals of wealth and power. Electing a Chis Christie, Jeb Bush, or some other moderate will not stop the decline of this nation's economic strength, it would only slow the rate of descent. As long as voters in both parties continue to believe that more of the same from the "experienced" Washington politicians will yield different results, this country will continue down the road to self-destruction. The national GOP can either begin offering me a chance to vote for good candidates or they will have to manage to get by without my support. Edited May 31, 201412 yr by True blue (and gold) Rule 8
May 31, 201412 yr Resume 1. Future first woman President of the US 2. Married to a former President with a well known name 3. Secretary of State while first US ambassador in 33 years was killed by a group that the US helped bring to power in Libya. No meaningful accomplishments. 4. Senator of a state where never lived. 5. Leader of creating a health plan concept in the 1990s whose major parts were brought into law in 2010. 6. Member of Watergate Investigative Committee - fired for lying and unethical behavior by a Democrat. 7. 1969 Thesis - "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT...", An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. 8. Hates cigars. "Why Hillary?" - see entries 1 and 2. Rest of resume is apparently irrelevant.
May 31, 201412 yr Resume 1. Future first woman President of the US 2. Married to a former President with a well known name 3. Secretary of State while first US ambassador in 33 years was killed by a group that the US helped bring to power in Libya. No meaningful accomplishments. 4. Senator of a state where never lived. 5. Leader of creating a health plan concept in the 1990s whose major parts were brought into law in 2010. 6. Member of Watergate Investigative Committee - fired for lying and unethical behavior by a Democrat. 7. 1969 Thesis - "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT...", An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. 8. Hates cigars. "Why Hillary?" - see entries 1 and 2. Rest of resume is apparently irrelevant. You left out some of Hillary's strongest qualifications from your list. For example, she was the defacto head of the BET - the Bimbo Eruption Team at the same time she served this nation as its First Lady. She is extremely experienced with running other cover-up operations as well. Then there is her talent for speaking in a black, southern dialect when speaking to black audiences without being labeled a racist. (e.g., "Ah don't feel no ways tarred.") That kind of talent has to count for something.
May 31, 201412 yr As far as big issues go, the only substantial difference in establishment or "Rockefeller" Republicans and Democrats go is the speed at which they will implement the liberal agenda. Conservatives like myself have supported the Republican Party as it has nominated economic liberals like the Bushes, Dole, and Romney. We have fallen for the argument that conservatives must fall in line to prevent the more liberal candidate destroying the foundation. That approach has not worked for us. You speak of accountability. Pardon me while I ROTF and LMAO. Where have the folks who have lined up behind Obama to support some of the most hare-brained and mis-managed federal programs known to mankind been when it comes to holding Obama and his allies in Congress accountable? You and your friends have been AWOL for six years now in the area of accountability and most of you are salivating about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency - that's where. I disagree that conservatives blame only liberal Democrats for losses by the Republican Party. There are charlatans like Rove, McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, and a long list of professional Rockefeller Republicans that practice the same kind of finger pointing, divide and conquer politics as the liberal wing of the Democratic Party does. All that matters to them is grabbing as much power and wealth as they can and they share that agenda with the professional, lifelong career Democrats that selects your party's candidates. However, a growing number of economic conservatives such as myself have come to realize that we are being doomed to a future of misery because of politicians in both parties pursuing their short term goals of wealth and power. Electing a Chis Christie, Jeb Bush, or some other moderate will not stop the decline of this nation's economic strength, it would only slow the rate of descent. As long as voters in both parties continue to believe that more of the same from the "experienced" Washington politicians will yield different results, this country will continue down the road to self-destruction. The national GOP can either begin offering me a chance to vote for good candidates or they will have to manage to get by without my support. I'm confused as to why the Tea Party still operates under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Makes no sense to me.
May 31, 201412 yr I'm confused as to why the Tea Party still operates under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Makes no sense to me.I am sorry that you are confused and I hope that I am not contributing to your condition. Third parties are not a viable option in this country and for most of our nation's history they have not been viable. The "Tea Party's" best chance of changing the country's course is to exert influence from within one of the two main parties. Tea Partiers are obviously not going to take over the Democratic Party, so that leaves only one main party to target. That seems pretty obvious and very logical to me.
May 31, 201412 yr Let's not forget White Water and Vincent Foster And therein lies the problem for Hillary haters, Ref. All of the dirty laundry on Hillary has been out there for years. WW and Vince is old news. You need to dig up fresh dirt.
May 31, 201412 yr And therein lies the problem for Hillary haters, Ref. All of the dirty laundry on Hillary has been out there for years. WW and Vince is old news. You need to dig up fresh dirt.The problem for liberal Democrats is that is seems that no amount of personal corruption disqualifies a candidate for public office. Does knowingly voting and electing a politician known to be corrupt really qualify as a "win?" I think not.
May 31, 201412 yr As far as big issues go, the only substantial difference in establishment or "Rockefeller" Republicans and Democrats go is the speed at which they will implement the liberal agenda. Conservatives like myself have supported the Republican Party as it has nominated economic liberals like the Bushes, Dole, and Romney. We have fallen for the argument that conservatives must fall in line to prevent the more liberal candidate destroying the foundation. That approach has not worked for us. You speak of accountability. Where have the folks who have lined up behind Obama to support some of the most hare-brained and mis-managed federal programs known to mankind been when it comes to holding Obama and his allies in Congress accountable? You and your friends have been AWOL for six years now in the area of accountability and most of you are salivating about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency - that's where. I disagree that conservatives blame only liberal Democrats for losses by the Republican Party. There are charlatans like Rove, McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, and a long list of professional Rockefeller Republicans that practice the same kind of finger pointing, divide and conquer politics as the liberal wing of the Democratic Party does. All that matters to them is grabbing as much power and wealth as they can and they share that agenda with the professional, lifelong career Democrats that selects your party's candidates. However, a growing number of economic conservatives such as myself have come to realize that we are being doomed to a future of misery because of politicians in both parties pursuing their short term goals of wealth and power. Electing a Chis Christie, Jeb Bush, or some other moderate will not stop the decline of this nation's economic strength, it would only slow the rate of descent. As long as voters in both parties continue to believe that more of the same from the "experienced" Washington politicians will yield different results, this country will continue down the road to self-destruction. The national GOP can either begin offering me a chance to vote for good candidates or they will have to manage to get by without my support. I see you missed my point when I used the word accountability. I'm speaking on the fact that the Republican Party is in such disarray that they point the finger at the dems instead of solving their issues within their party and putting forward some credible opponents for once.
May 31, 201412 yr I see you missed my point when I used the word accountability. I'm speaking on the fact that the Republican Party is in such disarray that they point the finger at the dems instead of solving their issues within their party and putting forward some credible opponents for once.No, in fact I got your point very well. Instead of recognizing that Obama's failures are because of flaws in their ideology, Obama's laziness, and corruption within his administration, liberals constantly blame George W. Bush, Fox News, or a Republican conspiracy for the failures. For liberals to criticize conservatives for criticizing Republican leadership for failing to lead and follow core conservative values while ignoring their own blatant scapegoating of every imaginable target goes far beyond hypocrisy. Members of a political party should hold their leadership accountable for their actions even before they try to hold the opposition party responsible for its actions. That has not been happening within the Democratic Party for many years. Tea partiers and other fiscal conservative are trying to hold Republican leaders accountable for rigging the nomination process in favor of RINOS and for not living up to their campaign promises. Democrats should be doing the same, but they are much more unified to simply post a win on the board, regardless of the disastrous consequences.
May 31, 201412 yr Your right The Reps have a lot of inner party problems Until they Unite behind 1 person then it's chaos Every time something like the sequester comes up and the Reps don't agree they get hammered They are in a no win situation
May 31, 201412 yr Your right The Reps have a lot of inner party problems Until they Unite behind 1 person then it's chaos Every time something like the sequester comes up and the Reps don't agree they get hammered They are in a no win situation Uniting behind the wrong person is worse than chaos. The majority of American voters united behind Obama - twice - how has that worked out for us?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.