GOP Can't Win Honestly; Time to Cheat

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

Didn't realize you were a nationalist.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

The inherent irony of this bald racism after your complaining about 'cracker belt" is... disturbing.

The darkies need "the white man" to take care of them eh?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The country would be just fine regardless of the color/ethnicity of its leaders. I disagree with the idea that color/ethnicity dictates one ability to lead.

I never said they couldn't. Just said they aren't ready. Some surely are but as a whole, no, they aren't ready to lead the US yet.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

The inherent irony of this bald racism after your complaining about 'cracker belt" is... disturbing.

The darkies need "the white man" to take care of them eh?

So you're saying you are ok with a double standard? Got it.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So you're saying you are ok with a double standard? Got it.

Not at all, just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Not at all, just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.

OK, take a guess at something for me. If I could research the demographics of those who successfully start up a company from scratch - dismiss the established companies where white men probably have an advantage in getting top positions. But, in just start up companies, would you expect the owners' races to match demographics?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by elsid13

In theory you are correct, but the way the State Legislatures are "drawing" the congressional distracts, there is purpose attempt to disfranchise urban voters. See examples in Missouri (http://fox2now.com/2012/05/25/missou...ting-decision/) and Texas (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...blican-leaders)

All you have to do to see the problem with what's going on is to look at the track record of gerrymandering (by all) and how that has affected the representation of people in the House. Right now if congress was elected nationally in a general election, there would be a nearly perfect 50/50 split (all national polls show this), yet currently the GOP enjoys a 53/47 advantage, since they are in power and get to draw the congressional districts to their advantage. In other words, the Democrats need more than 50.01% of the vote to actually gain a simple majority in the house. And it's the same story no matter who is in control.

It's a problem I for one would not want to see extended any further than it already is. It does exactly what several here are claiming they want to avoid -- it disenfranchises voters -- except in this case the disenfranchisement is based on political power abuse instead of what state you happen to live in.

Instead of politicking, the GOP should be focusing on solving the problems that are contributing to their decline. Either find a way to convince people they are correct, or change their positions to actually reflect the will of the people.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

All you have to do to see the problem with what's going on is to look at the track record of gerrymandering (by all) and how that has affected the representation of people in the House. Right now if congress was elected nationally in a general election, there would be a nearly perfect 50/50 split (all national polls show this), yet currently the GOP enjoys a 53/47 advantage, since they are in power and get to draw the congressional districts to their advantage. In other words, the Democrats need more than 50.01% of the vote to actually gain a simple majority in the house. And it's the same story no matter who is in control.

It's a problem I for one would not want to see extended any further than it already is. It does exactly what several here are claiming they want to avoid -- it disenfranchises voters -- except in this case the disenfranchisement is based on political power abuse instead of what state you happen to live in.

Instead of politicking, the GOP should be focusing on solving the problems that are contributing to their decline. Either find a way to convince people they are correct, or change their positions to actually reflect the will of the people.

The only thing Rs need to wait for is the welfare lottery to explode in everyone's faces. Sure, you can lure people away by promising them the moon and the stars but it just doesn't work that way in the real world. Rs make their name on taking away from people and Ds make theirs on promising to give to people. Of course the Ds would be more popular.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Is this stuff really acceptable? Is it time to embrace racial slurs just to shine light on the double standard?

There you go pointing to slurs that don't exist.

But if right-wing crackpots like you were barred from bearing false witness and making sh*t up then your party would implode.

[TonyR]

Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable, impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not. Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled politics of America’s 40th president.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/we...-conservatism/

[Rohirrim]

Unfortunately, the Right has become hysterical.

[cutthemdown]

We are a riot!