Thread: WTF at this quote

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

As for 2016 , we all know it is Jeb bush , brother of crackhead george(where do you think daddy got the idea to buy cocain , sell it to americans then buy guns and bombs to give to contras?) son of conspiriter (JFK assisination) grandson of gun sealing nazi goose stepping grampa bush.
and finally his brother neil...the reason we went to desert stom under daddy bush , because g. herbie bush had to pardon neil for stealing 77 million dollars and try to win reelection

JFK conspiracy? Seriously, this is still a thing?

Originally Posted by biggentleben

JFK conspiracy? Seriously, this is still a thing?

I think this poster lives out of country, fyi...

Originally Posted by kydoty

At a gathering of Minnesota Republicans brainstorming for ideas on how to stop losing elections in the state:

Andy Parrish, a former staffer to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmannn, suggested Republicans should look to Democratic tactics to find tactical solutions. He bashed the opposition with dubious claims but said the GOP could learn something from the other side.

"Voter suppression is a beautiful thing, it really is, because that's what the Democrats do," said panelist Parrish, who helped manage last year's failed campaign to pass the marriage amendment. "When we go against the Democrats, it's like going into a boxing ring and showing up with your gloves, ready to fight and the Democrats show up with a bat and two pistols and hits you over the head and shoots you twice and then the referee says you're out because they paid him off."

Republicans gather to plot future | StarTribune.com

If the discussion is about winning elections, then this is the sort of thing that needs to be discussed democrat republican or otherwise. the problem is either it was said when the wrong people were in the room. If that was known then Parrish is an idiot, if this was a stealth leak like the Romney 47% video then the nature of politics requires some gooning it up. politics is a really rough sport. If you aren't aware of the rules don't play. By the way most of the outrage on this sort of stuff comes from people who know the rules, in other .words the outrage is fake.

100% turnout will result in Democrat victories, 70% turnout will give us close races which we've been seeing for about the last 15 years, and 50% will result in Republican victories. If you don't like the idea of low turnout or republican victories do what you have to do to make that happen. If fake outrage helps in that effort cool, otherwise it's fake outrage and really kind of pathetic.

What did Huntsman have that Romney didn't? Romney's biggest problem was that he was the Republican candidate and thus the #1 enemy of the Democrats. It was a 3% loss, and demographics wouldn't have allowed anything more then a 5% Republican win if everything went perfect.

Originally Posted by mikecgrimes

What did Huntsman have that Romney didn't? Romney's biggest problem was that he was the Republican candidate and thus the #1 enemy of the Democrats. It was a 3% loss, and demographics wouldn't have allowed anything more then a 5% Republican win if everything went perfect.

Huntsman is for civil unions for gay people, strongly emphasizes the importance of science and understanding climate change, and openly states that government has a role in society. He also has a diversified background in a myriad of government roles.

Basically, he's the type of guy moderates and independents will vote for, not run away from.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Huntsman is for civil unions for gay people, strongly emphasizes the importance of science and understanding climate change, and openly states that government has a role in society. He also has a diversified background in a myriad of government roles.

Basically, he's the type of guy moderates and independents will vote for, not run away from.

But what about the lunatic fringe? Surely that is more important to appeal to than the body of votes that actually swings elections!

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

But what about the lunatic fringe? Surely that is more important to appeal to than the body of votes that actually swings elections!

The better question is why would Huntsman want to be the nominee of a party whose base doesn't think at all like him.

Huntsman would have a better chance surviving the Democratic primaries than the Republican primaries.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

The better question is why would Huntsman want to be the nominee of a party whose base doesn't think at all like him.

Huntsman would have a better chance surviving the Democratic primaries than the Republican primaries.

What a sad world we live in today. Huntsman is the most likable Republican because he doesn't act like a Republican (not a Republican from this era, anyway).

And the GOP wonders why a generation of fiscal conservatives have moved to Libertarianism. I don't even like the Libertarian party much but at least they don't make me want to throw up (most of the time anyway). I'm a moderate fiscal conservative and 100% socially liberal and there isn't anything out there that represents me as a voter. I've ended up voting Democrat lately simply because 1) the GOP has lost the right to refer to themselves as "fiscal conservatives" and 2) the GOP's stance on social issues is maddening.

Even more than most, I'm left in the "lesser of two evils" camp. At the end of the day, at least the Dems don't want to lock the gay people in cages or put them on an island off the coast of California. And that's a pretty pathetic reason to vote for someone.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Even more than most, I'm left in the "lesser of two evils" camp. At the end of the day, at least the Dems don't want to lock the gay people in cages or put them on an island off the coast of California. And that's a pretty pathetic reason to vote for someone.

I've been pretty much been doing this since I've started voting. And unless we truly are no longer a two-party' system, that's how it will continue. And gays aren't the only ones who stand to lose a lot in the hands of Republicans. As a woman, there is no way in hell I will ever vote Republican in this era of where this party has gone.

Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan

I've been pretty much been doing this since I've started voting. And unless we truly are no longer a two-party' system, that's how it will continue. And gays aren't the only ones who stand to lose a lot in the hands of Republicans. As a woman, there is no way in hell I will ever vote Republican in this era of where this party has gone.

You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

The issue is that there is a growing percentage of voters being left out of the political process with the current standing of the Dems and Repubs. I consider myself a politically active person and I have really struggled to be motivated enough to vote in both 2010 and 2012.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

Yeah, that was actually going to be my original statement, but I figured, odds were, that a few here would be offended; not that that's stopped me before, but I was trying to be more subtle, I guess.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

The issue is that there is a growing percentage of voters being left out of the political process with the current standing of the Dems and Repubs. I consider myself a politically active person and I have really struggled to be motivated enough to vote in both 2010 and 2012.

For me the motivation is there, but I wish, for once, I were motivated by positives rather than negatives. Again, it's the 'lesser of two evils' concept. It's not that I exactly live in fear for my rights, but I do worry about them; and there are definitely places I'd never move to as a result.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

Huntsman: white, male.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Huntsman: white, male.

I hadn't noticed.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

Most of the white males would be screwed too.

Originally Posted by Kobs

Most of the white males would be screwed too.

True, but inexplicably, they'd still vote GOP. It's kinda what they do.

Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan

I've been pretty much been doing this since I've started voting. And unless we truly are no longer a two-party' system, that's how it will continue. And gays aren't the only ones who stand to lose a lot in the hands of Republicans. As a woman, there is no way in hell I will ever vote Republican in this era of where this party has gone.

It's OK to say as a liberal you won't be voting Republican. Fact is about 44% of Women voted for Romney. The War on Women was a great marketing campaign despite having no substance. Of course if Republicans were able to get over 50% of women they would win, but softing the stance on abortion will only lose them women, women that you might disagree with but still women.

Process starts at the caucuses. Any group of 10% control the process based on current turnout levels. if you want Jon Huntsman to win the nomination make it happen.

Originally Posted by mikecgrimes

The War on Women was a great marketing campaign despite having no substance..

But there IS substance. Nothing says freedom like a forced transvaginal ultrasound. Or not covering birthcontrol (but covering viagra) in health insurance plans. Or opposing equal pay for equal work. Or...