The pipe of the racism piper is playing and the lemmings hear the call. One after another politicians run to the front of the political correctness cliff and jump off blathering about how the Confederate flag has to come down and even how the next symbol of oppression must also find the dustbin of history:
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has joined calls to remove a statue of Kentucky-native Jefferson Davis from the state capitol building.
The statue of Jefferson Davis has been in the rotunda of the Kentucky Capitol building since 1936, but it has come under fire by McConnell, GOP Gubernatorial candidate Matt Bevin, and “top Republicans in Kentucky’s House and Senate.”
According to WAVE 3, McConnell gave a measured response to questions about removing the statue, saying, “Maybe a better place for that would be the Kentucky History Museum, which is also in the state Capitol.”
Frankly, I think the Confederate flag flying in the South probably should have been taken down years ago but thanks to democrats like Fritz Hollings up it went.
Retailers lined up and jumped off the cliff as well. Amazon stated it will no longer sell the Confederate flag, but it will continue to sell Communist merchandise.
Amazon sells a huge variety of shirts, posters, you-name-it featuring the hammer and sickle, Joseph Stalin’s mustache, all things Che Guevara, Vladimir Lenin and other colorful revolutionaries who fought to make the world a better place, man. Guevara’s book Guerilla Warfare is on sale in four different formats. In one of the worst genocides in modern times, Stalin forcibly starved Ukrainian peasants in what’s known as the Holodomor, a “terror-famine” that left anywhere from 2.4 million to 7.5 million Ukrainian peasants dead in 1933.
Nazi merchandise? Sure.
Walmart has pulled the Confederate flag but it will be happy to sell you a poster of Che Guevara.
“We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer. We have taken steps to remove all items promoting the confederate flag from our assortment — whether in our stores or on our web site,” said Walmart spokesman Brian Nick. “We have a process in place to help lead us to the right decisions when it comes to the merchandise we sell. Still, at times, items make their way into our assortment improperly — this is one of those instances.”
“We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer.”
Well, a lot us find Communists and Nazism offensive. A lot of us find the aggrandizement of philosophies that has killed millions after millions of people offensive.
“We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer.”
Hmm. Can’t help but wonder- will that eventually include the American flag?
Increasingly, the American flag- the flag of the United States of America- is becoming more and more offensive to the left.
Hispanics find the American flag offensive
Muslims find the flag offensive.
Illegals? I guess they don’t mind as long as the priorities are in order:
Flag stomping has become a liberal past time
Rappers find the flag offensive.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mQ4tPgkoJg[/youtube]
Activists find the flag offensive.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajl-5rwliK4[/youtube]
Oh, and kill whitey while we’re at it.
Liberal educators find the flag offensive.
Wearing the American flag is offensive.
And the Obama mentor in whose living room the political career of Barack Obama was spawned?
As soon as there are enough votes to be had and voters to be pandered to, democrats will call for the removal of the US flag and replace it with something closer to their hearts.
What comes after that? Burning the books about the Confederacy?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Greg:
That’s right, using marijuana only makes stupid people more stupid.
Given all we now know about the health consequences, it’s stupid to smoke tobacco. That doesn’t mean that tobacco use makes a person stupid.
Correlation is not causation.
@Greg:
I’m guessing they are there so that someone else has to pay for their sexual deviancy. Otherwise they would go to their general practitioner.
@Greg:
I thought the subject was marijuana. And tests indicate it is about 5 times more likely to cause lung cancer, but by the time the lung cancer showed up your brain would be mush and you wouldn’t realize it anyhow.
@Greg:
IOW, you don’t have a clue and you’re just throwing something out to see if it sticks.
@Redteam, #304:
No credible studies indicate that marijuana is “5 times more likely to cause lung cancer.” Credible studies indicate that the cancer risk of smoking either is approximately equal.
Flawed studies and be found to back up almost any claim a person cares to make. Such as the claim that gay people are nearly all pedophiles. Some gay people are pedophiles, just as some heterosexual people are pedophiles. I’m guessing that the latter are far more numerous, simply because heterosexuals are far more numerous.
@Greg:
Has someone made that claim. George simply said homosexuals are looking to have sex with minors. pedophiles would be looking for sex with prepubescents.
I just read on the internet the other day that marijuana is 5 times more likely to cause lung cancer. I didn’t check to see if it was a ‘certified, guaranteed’ study or not. Couldn’t care less, have never indulged, even once. I know it screws up brains and that’s all a civilized person should need to know.
I’d say the number of pedophiles and number of homosexuals would be about the same, about 3% of the population. Seems as if the law of averages put the number of ‘normal’ people about 85%, with about 3%homos, 3% killers, 3% bipolar, 3% pedophiles and the 3% random.
@Redteam: where does he say” all or most” homosexuals or heterosexuals are pedophiles.You’re lying again RT–addiction perhaps?
BTW You should look up definition of “pedophile”—different age parameter than minors–under 18
Nanny rightfully pointed out that sex with minors when involving rape or coercion is more about power than sexual gratification.
Also as o5 knows mosr priests who molest young boys claim they are NOT homosexual–it is about ease and availability.and again power
I just read your final sentence in #307 and can’t stop laughing–thanks.
@Greg: wasn’t talking about tobacco, talking about marijuana.
@rich wheeler:
you should read before you write. I made that distinction in the comment ‘above’ your comment.
Oh, I get it, you’re pretending you didn’t see that and thought you would claim to be educating me. oh, ok….. hang with that.
whoops, there you go again. As I said, read before you write. I told you where that was. loosen them chaps up so you’re not in a bind and go back and read, then comment. You’ll sound (though you won’t be)more intelligent that way.
You didn’t pick up any groceries in plastic bags today did you? Gotta be a good little Moonbeam follower.
@rich wheeler:
Usually pedophilia involves children under 16. Pederasty applies to older teens.
Which has what to do with the fact that a greater percentage of homosexual men were molested as a child than were heterosexual men?
Of course they did. But then, pedophiles who are heterosexual molest children of the opposite sex. The whole priest scandal is what happened when the Jesuits decided that they could allow homosexuals into the clergy by a simple promise that the homosexuals would stay celibate. It’s just like DADA; when it was repealed, male on male sexual harassment skyrocketed to the point that even the left wing New York Times reported on it.
Tell us, Rich, how often do you act out being a friend of Dorothy’s?
@rich wheeler: oh, yeah, that’s what the other 3% was, uncontrollable laughers in assless chaps
@Redteam: I gotta assume you’re just trying to be a comedian RT,.and truth be told, some of your stuff is pretty funny. I like your MJ story…I wish everybody could read your stuff.-Laughter is great for all.
Do you agree with 05 that pedophilia “involves children under 16”
Does it really excite you to continuously talk about assless chaps Are you wearing them as you type–a real obsession you got there RT
@rich wheeler:
As a legal term, “pedophilia” applies to molestation of any underage child.
Pederasty is a clinical term.
@retire05:
Pedophilia–a psychiatric disorder which an adult or older adolescent expresses a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children generally 11 years or younger.
As a medical diagnosis specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.
@rich wheeler:
Is that you Wikipedia explanation? Why don’t you try the DSM?
Do you not know the difference between legal and clinical terminology?
What color feathers did you wear to your friends of Dorothy parade? Or did you wear that muscle shirt and jogging shorts thinking you could grab the attention of some parade participant?
@retire05: You poor old lady–are you able to get out at all?- Or just barely able to sit at your computer and bash gays , libs .and whoever else you hate on any given day.
You’re a dying breed ol gal.
@rich wheeler:
Not poor, by any stretch of the imagination.
And at least I have enough respect for myself to act like an adult and not try to pretend I’m still in my 20’s. Someone needs to tell you that no matter how young you try to act, or how hard you work out, gravity has no respect for skin.
“Hate” Such a great word that just rolls off the liberal tongue with such ease.
@rich wheeler:
What’s an MJ story?…
I understand it to be prepubescent children, as I said several times just above.
If you had a ‘do-over’, would you get on this site and tell the world you had begun participating in homosexual pride parades with your wife (though to be honest, you haven’t said which sex your wife is) and how much fun it is and that you think they are fine upstanding citizens, they just happen to like abnormal sex practices, etc. Then when it is revealed you were wearing your assless chaps in the parades and I asked if you like them, for some reason you take that as I brought the subject up. So Rich, would you make that grand announcement a little different next time. Maybe while you’re assisting some Animal lover kill their human baby because it makes them feel better.
I can’t believe how scared the Dims are of Trump. They’re falling all over themselves telling us why the republicans don’t like him. They must be terrified.
@Redteam #320:
You keep believing that.
Go ahead and nominate Trump, PLEASE!
Nominating Trumpdy-Dumpty would make about as much sense as nominating Sara Palin.
One good clown is as good as another.
If you are so convinced – REALLY – that Democrats are afraid of Trumpty-Dumpty, then you should – by all means – nominate HIM for president.
I’d be thrilled to vote for him in the Virginia Republican Primary.
But alas!
Everyone – at least everyone with a lick of sense – understands that Trumpty-Dumpty is nothing more then a brief side-show, a trivial bit of comic relief.
Go ahead and make pretend that Democrats are “afraid” of the comb-over buffoon, but take note of the smoke’s color when he goes down in flames.
Imagine a debate between blunt Trump and lying, obtuse Hillary. While Trump would certainly be eviscerated for not being “respectful” to a “woman”, Hillary would be left a shivering, shredded mass of contradictory excuses and lies.
As long, that is, as Stephanopoulos or Candy weren’t the friendly moderators.
@Bill #322:
I’m not sure that HRC could perform badly enough in a debate – or N a series of them – to give the presidency to Trumptie-Dumptie.
You heard the poll numbers that came out yesterday – Trump Enterprises came in dead last among all of the GOP contenders when paired against HRC, and that was the same poll that had The Don edging Jeb by an nose (or beak) in the GOP primary race.
Y’all made the silly charge that Democrats were MORE afraid of Sara Palin than of any other GOP candidate, so why didn’t she get your party’s nod? Because YOU didn’t buy your own message. Because YOU knew she didn’t have a prayer, not a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning. And YOU know the same thing with the TRUMPSTER. The GOP will put his candidacy in the same place it put Sara’s – in the DUMPSTER!
@George Wells:
Really? You really aren’t sure? Have you ever actually seen her in an interview or debate? She is a train wreck and whenever she manages to speak, he favorability levels plummet. Remember her book tour? Remember “we were broke”? From her latest interview, remember “I have never received a subpoena? How about, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” When she speaks, unless it is a well-rehearsed speech before a hand-picked crowd, she is a disaster.
No doubt a debate between her and a Republican COULD be on a friendly stage (with some left wing moderator that can leap to their defense, as Crowley did Obama), but if Hillary faces questions about all the contradictions between her statements and actions regarding Benghazi, emails, foundation donations, speaking fees and decisions made by the State Departments, the left should be dumping her like yesterday’s coffee grounds. It is conceivable that Hillary COULD refuse to debate altogether; “my speeches are my answers”, as it were.
Of course, the friendly left wing media is the wild card.
Redteam Again with your foolish yet telltale comments I’m an open book. Real name facebook page seen by many–pictures of my beautiful wife–my participation in gay pride parade in L.A was under the banner of Mercy For Animals a cause I totally support.
Who are you? A phony name. You remind me of a certain Southern pastor who railed against homosexuals and was found to have a male lover. You protest so much it would seem you probably have latent (?) homosexual tendencies.
Maybe you should come out of your backwoods closet RT.
@Bill #324:
I guess you had trouble with that first sentence, since you seem to be questioning it. I stand by what I said. HRC could turn into a pillar of salt, and she’d still trump TRUMP.
Here, I’ll try to help you understand two equally important points:
#1. The GOP base THINKS that the nation cares about Benghazi. It doesn’t.
The GOP base THINKS that the nation cares how much money the Clintons
make or admit to having made. It doesn’t.
The GOP base THINKS that the nation cares about subpoenas, donations and
legal/lawyer shenanigans. It doesn’t.
The mistake that you are making is assuming that the rest of the country
would abandon their only hope of gaining the things that are important to
THEM simply because the GOP base has gotten a hair up over these trivial
issues. You’ve managed to rile up your base with this stuff – good for you.
But that’s about as far as you’re going to get with those details. Every one
of those issues has already been talked to death. Nobody (except the GOP base) cares about them.
The only chance you have is if HRC royally embarrasses herself in the debates,
but I would remind you that BHO had a dreadful debate – lost by a mile – and
it didn’t cost him the election. The voters still got what they wanted. Your
problem was just that what the majority of voters wanted wasn’t what YOU
wanted.
#2. The Trumpster is a joke. Nobody wants a joke for president. Not a clown.
Not a buffoon. The GOP base loves Dono because they THINK he’s the
quintessential conservative, but he is REALLY just a caricature of a
conservative, and the rest of the nation understands this.
But go ahead and nominate this combed-over punch-line, and see just how worried Democrats really get. I know I’ll sleep better at night.
@George Wells:
Still curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion, other than your hatred of Trump and trust in Hillary. But, anyway….
Yes, actually, it does, insofar as proof of Hillary lying about not taking the steps to secure the embassy, impotently standing by while an ambassador and three other Americans are murdered, then lying again about the motivation for the attacks (to cover Obama’s political butt) indicates what kind of leadership qualities she possesses. Which is none.
As with the rest of the left, you purposely avoid the points which makes this pertinent. No one really cares about how much money they make, except when Hillary is complaining about being broke or claiming to identify with Joe Lunchbox. She’s an entitled, pampered hypocrite and has no concept of what working people need. Next, it isn’t how much they make but how they made it. There is ample reason to suspect, if not confirm, that she and Bill peddled influence and access to the State Department and then made decisions based on how much money they received. This, too, is a leadership metric and, once again, she fails miserably.
Reference the entries above. Obama proved to be a colossal liar, as far removed from what he advertised himself to be as is humanly possible. Hillary clearly demonstrates the corrupt, untrustworthy, duplicitous person she has been; there is no reason to believe that with the power of the White House, that corruption would not multiply. Bill sold access to the White House for campaign money. Would Hillary stoop to anything less?
What hope does Hillary provide, George? What? What hope did Obama deliver? “Gay marriage”? Meanwhile, the economy collapses, enemies grow stronger and bolder, racial strife explodes and Iran goes nuclear. How is Hillary going to correct that; does Hillary INTEND to correct it?
Hillary, like Obama, opposed “gay marriage” until they needed to divert from their own self-inflicted wounds. Whatever else you seek (cake, perhaps) will not come forth until and unless Hillary has the same issues, and what good is that for the country (see, the NATION is what I worry about… not personal matters. Those take care of themselves in a healthy nation)?
And what was Obama? He was (and is) nothing but a professional campaigner, and he proves this every single day. Apparently, 53% of the electorate wanted a joke for President; one of those bad, racist jokes that no one finds very funny. It’s what you wanted, apparently.
I’ve never said I support Trump, have I? Have I? However, Trump is speaking facts and the truth while Hillary is hiding out. You really think she could hold her own against someone who, apparently, does not give a damn who he offends by what he says? Sheesh. Hillary is deathly afraid of her own skeletal-stuffed closets; I doubt she would face Trump, probably making the same lame excuses as you are or, like that coward Weiner in San Francisco, that would not even address questions about Stienle being murdered due to their immigration policies; too cowardly to face the music.
Let’s just wait and see, if Hillary even has the guts to appear at a debate. I wonder about THAT. She realizes there are enough stupid, selfish, disinterested people to vote for her simply because she SAYS she can do the job that she may not even debate.
She’s relying on YOU, George.
@George Wells:
I know you’re not going to believe my assessment of this. But it indicates you make a habit of lying. You regularly say that you support the Republican agenda in everything but homosexuality. Now that that battle is over and homosexuals are ‘just people’ you should not have to support the liberal socialists any longer. But you clearly are for the Republicans losing out. So tell me my assessment is not correct.
My statement that the Dimocrats are afraid of Trump, says nothing about who I would like to see nominated or elected. I think you may be ‘jumping’ to conclusions.
@George Wells:
Are these the same person, or is there twins involved, or you can’t remember how to spell it, or what? Oh, excuse me, you’re a socialist liberal yankee. Never mind.
@rich wheeler:
My goodness, now you are advocating homosexuals get involved with animals. Is there a limit? Was your banner a ‘rainbow’?
it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve taken to studying homosexuals. It’s like any new habit you acquire, you want to know all you can about it. I can’t say how far you can go in that, especially linking animals and homosexuals, but then I don’t really care. If you need advice on that lifestyle you’ll need to talk with George, or someone that knows. Phony name? I’ve used the name Redteam for years.
@George Wells:
I nominate that paragraph as the single, dumbest statement I have read on FA.
“Nobody wants a joke? a clown?” one word Obama.
” The GOP base loves Dono because they THINK he’s the
quintessential conservative” Are you totally out of your mind? Who thinks Trump is a ‘conservative’? I’ve never even heard that mentioned.
“and the rest of the nation ” No not the ‘rest’, all of it.
Next!
@Bill #327:
You jump to too many conclusions.
I don’t trust Hillary. We are in agreement on that.
Neither do I hate Trump, any more than I hate Wile E. Coyote or Yosemite Sam. They are all cartoon figures, not any more real than the artist that imagined them. Each was intentionally designed to appeal to a specific audience for commercial purposes. None will ever be elected president.
”
You then gave the reason YOU think that this issue matters, but you DIDN’T offer one iota of evidence that it matters to the American public – that BIG part of the voting public – not just the GOP base that desperately wants this issue to matter. You stated your premise but didn’t support it.
The public doesn’t care about that, either. What they care about is whether or not HRC will gut Social Security and Medicare, or if she will take away all of the other freebees that they fear will get axed if a Republican gets into office. You give the Democratic Coalition too much credit for unselfish motivation. They have no more of that precious commodity than do republicans.
The rest of your rant stays on track, but it still doesn’t address what I TOLD you – that the MAJORITY of voters don’t CARE about your issues. Certainly not enough to elect Trump. Watch and see, if you don’t believe me.
Good for you. But not good for “personal matters.”
My “PERSONAL MATTERS” never got the time of day, not from Republicans OR Democrats, through administration after administration, for as long as I’ve been alive. Not until Obama. So by your reckoning, no president, Democrat OR Republican, has EVER presided over a “healthy nation.” Right? So what good is waiting “quietly?” I can’t see how your premise logically concludes.
I have no reason to doubt your claim YOUR first priority is the health of the nation. I just don’t believe that a majority of voters feel the same way. Who was it who said that nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public?
She may very well have reached that conclusion. I’m sure that some of her advisors have made that argument. Cold calculation is the foundation of successful politics. It is what it is.
@Redteam #331:
Don’t you get dizzy talking in circles?
CNN ran a poll.
Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
Only 37% are satisfied with the administration’s response to the September 2012 assault that killed four Americans.
55% of Americans have a negative view of Hillary Clinton on this very issue.
Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the administration has generally been dishonest in providing information about Benghazi.
Only 44% of Americans say the GOP has gone too far in their probes to get to the truth about Benghazi.
Among the entire sample,
30% described themselves as Democrats,
23% described themselves as Republicans, and
47% described themselves as Independents or members of another party.
So, it was hardly a poll that skewed toward Republicans.
Seems like Banghazi really is important to Americans.
@Nanny G #334:
“Seems like Banghazi really is important to Americans.”
Nanny, nothing in your statistics indicate what importance “Benghazi” holds in the minds of Americans. I agree that the administration’s handling of the incident was inept. Your CNN poll indicates that the majority of Americans agree with me on that. But the poll numbers YOU reported do NOT indicate that the American public considers “Benghazi” an important issue.
Can’t you grasp this simple distinction?
I’m not happy about all sorts of things that this administration has done, or HRC, for that matter. But those things aren’t deal-breakers for me, and they aren’t deal-breakers for the voters in the Democratic coalition – the people who elected Obama in the first place, and who RE-ELECTED him.. Remember that Obama had already had one term under his belt when he FLUBBED the debates before the 2012 election. His first 4 years weren’t exactly stellar were they? Then why on Earth did the MAJORITY of voters re-elect him?
BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF WHAT A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WOULD DO TO THEM!
Y’all just don’t get it.
You see a Democrat making mistakes, and you think that’s all that matters.
It isn’t.
You are, right now, rushing to nominate all sorts of scary dudes who PROMISE to screw the people- particularly the members of the Democratic coalition.
“We’re going to kill ObamaCare!”
“We’re going to kill gay marriage!”
“We’re going to deport Mexican illegals!”
“We’re going to Kill Social Security!”
Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, and on and on. You might as well go ahead and throw in the 2016 towel right now, because your candidates for the GOP nomination have ALL promised to screw 55% of the American public in their hurry to one-up each other for the GOP Base’s nod, and those voters won’t forget.
Those polled voters probably don’t trust green cheese either, but, as HRC said, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
@George Wells:
Ah. So, when you accuse anyone that points out that Trump, in spite of all his flaws, has pointed out some absolute truths about illegal immigration (point which almost everyone on this very site has made for years), they have become Trump-followers. However, to make the point that you feel everyone will simply suspend disbelief and ignore the obvious and support Hillary (no doubt quite a few WILL) and this makes you a supporter of Hillary is out of line and defies logic. Really.
I guess if it ain’t gay, you can’t understand it. Hillary has a vast credibility problem. While any one of her scandals would sink most anyone else, Hillary has a buffet of them. Benghazi, emails, campaign finance, Clinton Foundation, her lousy record, her chameleon positions… take your pick… but eat all you take.
Hillary ignored requests for additional security in Benghazi. Then, she ignored the attack. Then she lied about the attack. Then she lied about ignoring the attack and the requests for security. Then she deleted 50,000 emails that could have either confirmed her version of events or proved she was lying (gee, so WHY did she delete what could have exonerated her? I simply wonder)?
See, not everyone is fixated on gay stuff. Not everyone disregards anything that is not gay. Some people pay attention and Hillary has a vast problem with THOSE people. Beyond any possible doubt, Bill and Hillary are corrupt. They have always been corrupt and they have always been mired in corruption. Liberals, without any actual principles or morals, don’t care about corruption (unless it can be used as a political weapon), so they support Hillary. The media is liberal and corrupt, so they bury tales of corruption concerning liberals and, while Hillary is THE most liberal liberal in the field, they will protect her.
Meanwhile, in the last Presidential election, Romney lost (by a narrow margin) due, in part, because of the success of the liberal media depicting him as a wealthy, out of touch businessman. Since then, it has been made clear how much better a job Romney would have done than a second, failure-rich administration of Obama. Many of Romney’s words, derided by the liberal media, have come back to haunt Obama.
Hillary negates that argument that could be used against any Republican candidate being wealthy and out of touch; HILLARY is wealthy and out of touch and, what’s more, she didn’t create jobs and wealth as she got rich; she made millions by peddling US influence. Hillary is a pitiful candidate, but she is the best you leftists can dredge up.
The longest river in the world, the river in Egypt.
@George Wells:
So you agree that Obama is a clown, buffoon?
@George Wells:
When the election is between tweedle dee and tweedle dum, sometimes it is hard to tell which is which. That was an election between those 2. Do you think the country would have been much different if the other had won. Not much.
@Bill #336:
You are still being… astonishingly… DENSE… about HRC’s appeal to the Democratic coalition.
Tell me, in one concise paragraph, why you think that all of the folks that voted for Obama would suddenly place more importance on what HRC did before, during and after the Benghazi incident ahead of their own immediate self-interests. Maybe not “all.” Maybe just enough to change the election. How many of those Democrats do you really think give a $hit about Benghazi enough to blow their Social Security?
You perpetually confuse the truth with the perception. It is the perception that makes people vote the way they do. I do gleefully agree that the country would have been better off with a whole lot more Republican presidents along the way. And I also agree that HRC won’t make a good president. But those points aren’t being litigated. My proposition is that the GOP is killing its own chances at winning the White House in 2016 by entertaining the candidacy of several viable politicians – who are routinely chastised for being “RINO’s – and a couple dozen lunatics that have no chance at all of winning a general election IN SPITE OF having the hearty support of the Republican “BASE.”
That, “sir,” is your problem.
Trump won’t win, for the reasons I’ve already expounded upon.
Zero chance, and you know it.
Truth is, he has some really good points, although his delivery has already cost him any chance he might have had. That’s why he is a cartoon figure. He paid all that money to buy an “ACME” nuclear cannon that he aimed at the Road-Runner but ended up shooting himself in the foot with. He’s a “side show,” good for a morning laugh but forgotten by noon.
You keep droning on with the Benghazi details.
Why? Are you afraid that y’all might FORGET them?
Democrats aren’t listening.
You’re wasting your time.
Get behind one candidate that has a reasonable chance of beating HRC, and go “all-in” behind THAT person.
Here’s a helpful hint: It isn’t Cruz, Trump, Paul, Carson, Santorum or Jindal, for starters. None of those clowns will ever be President of the United States.
Make a note of this prediction, since the FA Archives seem to have crashed.
And there I’ve cut your field by 25%, which could effectively save you loads of time and money, but it won’t.
That’s because the GOP’s crazy primary process favors the most extreme wing-nuts that can be found.
All this crap about GOD. What’s that about? Trying to scare the majority of voters into voting Democrat AGAIN, apparently, and the single biggest reason Cruz and Santorum haven’t a prayer. Even Trump knows not to play that card, but he’s already dug his own grave and climbed in. Paul and Jindal are space aliens (EVERYBODY knows this) and Carson… well, this country isn’t ready for another Black president, in case you haven’t figured that out.
All no-goes. So why are they still running? Just for the money?
@George Wells:
I have no misconception about Hillary’s base (in the basest of terms); they are, like you, sycophantic apologists for failure, corruption and ineptitude. We’ve certainly seen plenty of THAT in the past 7 years.
However, Obama won for one reason and one reason only; he was black. Guilt-ridden liberals voted for him to say they did; it would be racist NOT to. Any argument AGAINST Obama (far left, unknown, no accomplishments, no experience, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) were countered by, “oh… because he’s black.” In fact, some of those BLACK voters may remember how Hillary herself (and Bill) were characterized as racist, particularly when it was Hillary that was the first “birther”. Of course, most are used to liberals lying about just about anything, so it is not inconceivable that this would be disregarded by many liberals.
However, what exactly motivates blacks to come out and vote for Hillary? Further, take note of what DEmotivates them to vote for her. I hope the RNC makes ample use of her “racist” past; hell, just running against Obama in 2008 is racist, according to liberals.
So, blather on and hate on Republicans because they are not as likely to help you gays invent rights, then cram them down taxpayer’s throats, for their votes. The reality is that Hillary is garbage and I actually believe this basic fact will make all the difference.
@George Wells: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/16/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-collapse/
Gosh, George. When you’re right, you’re right.
@Bill #340:
“However, Obama won for one reason and one reason only; he was black.”
That reasoning holds water for Obama’s first term, but not his second.
After having suffered through Obama’s inept first 4 years, his coalition had every reason to abandon him, Black or not. In fact, he DID lose some fractions of his constituency’s support, just not enough to lose the election.
Take note that I don’t “support” HRC. I have NEVER given a dime to a Clinton. I have supported the HRC and the ACLU for the reasons previously mentioned. If a GOP candidate surfaces who even VAGUELY suggests that he WON’T work to diminish gay rights, I’d vote for him. If he adopted a strong pro-gay-rights platform, I’d support him financially.
I’ve pointed out repeatedly that I’m not arguing that HRC would make a good president, or a better one than ANY of the candidates that are presently vying for the GOP nomination. I suspect that she would not.
What I AM pointing out is that the process that the GOP is currently using to nominate a candidate for president in the 2016 election is guaranteeing that the GOP candidate loses in the general election. All the piss-and-vinegar you can spit at HRC can’t begin to undo the damage that the Republican party is doing to itself by engaging candidates the likes of Cruz, Trump, Paul, Carson, Jindal and Santorum.
Why don’t you address this?
I can’t help you if you don’t.
Calling HRC “garbage” simply adds to your problem. You’re never going to win that way.
Sorry that you are so… disappointed with politics.
What else did you expect?
We let everyone vote, not just smart people.
It isn’t my fault that the Democratic Party has figured out how to make this preponderance of stupid people work for them while the Republican Party hasn’t.
@Bill #341:
You made the same mistake that Nanny G made.
Read my #335. It was in reference to Nanny’s calling attention to the same poll you’re referring to.
Show me where those poll results indicate that the Americans who don’t trust HRC will vote Republican because of it.
@George Wells:
It holds water even more for the second term. We had had 4 long, bitter years of failure and lies and the only response from the left was that identifying all those were “racist attacks”. So, for liberals, it would be racist NOT to vote for this failure again, plus if they didn’t, they would be secretly admitting to themselves what a monumental mistake they made in putting this failure in the White House in the first place.
Then perhaps for some other bizarre, obscure reason you continue to make excuses and deny reality concerning Hillary’s appeal. Whatever your motivations, you look like a supportive fool. For instance…
You may try to win this argument (and further solidify your oneness with Hillary) by attempting to move the goal posts, but it simply won’t work. First, I made no claim or assumption that all those who distance themselves from Hillary will vote Republican. My argument is that Hillary has a very good chance of losing… or even missing the nomination…. because she is a terrible candidate with LOTS of corrupt baggage. This poll bears this out.
YOU say the majority of Americans don’t care about Hillary’s varied and assorted scandals and lies, but the poll proves you WRONG. Her trustworthiness IS a major issue for her and this IS based on the issues listed above.
While Hillary tries desperately to ride that novelty train of the “first woman President”, and certainly some will succumb to that novelty (like they did with Obama), those who buy into the grievance industry do not feel as obligated to patronize a woman as they do a black or Hispanic.
Hillary is simply a bag with baggage. She is fading fast and she hasn’t even had the media or any Republicans tear into her yet. This is all damage SHE is doing.
Sorry, George. Better pick again.
@Bill: Bill and George, it’s interesting reading your exchanges. There are only two bets on the election that I would make at this point (it’s still way too early) 1. Hillary won’t be the candidate. Her sins will catch up with her. 2. I have no clue who the Republican candidate will be.
Nobody is paying attention to the politicking yet, it’s way too early. But many remember how crooked both Bill and Hill are, so it’s going to be hard when the spotlight starts shining in her direction. Repubs: it will have to be a candidate with a good immigration/border plan. People are getting tired of that problem.
@Redteam #345:
The Democrats won’t nominate Bernie. He’s a “socialist.” While the majority of Democrats really ARE socialists, they are afraid of that label, principally because the Republican party has been using that term as if it was a curse word since WW2. And Sanders wears it with pride. Sooo…
Who does that leave? Webb? In spite of Rich Wheeler’s love affair with this guy, not enough Democrats – much less the rest of the country – know or remember who he is – or was – and for that reason he won’t get the nomination either. That leaves Biden, the court jester. Now, it would be… distantly possible… for Biden to pull off a miracle in the debates – which HRC will stumble in for the reasons Bill thinks she’s toast – and he COULD get the nomination as a result. But that long shot probably has 50-to-1 odds stacked against it. Biden isn’t often brilliant, and never consistently. So I think HRC gets the Dem. nomination by default. The Dems will BELIEVE that she has a chance to win, and they WON’T believe that any of their other options have the same chance.
BILL! That doesn’t mean that I support HRC. It doesn’t mean that I am apologizing for her, or anything she’s done or not done. That’s how I read the mood of the Democratic party. Nothing more.
Now, regarding what I’ve said about the Republican candidates, you’ll notice that Bill won’t comment on what I have identified as the fatal flaws of the infamous six soon-to-be-deep-sixed GOPHERS. (Their heads pop up from the soil they live in, and something bites them off. Just wait and see for yourself.)
Oh, you know what? I forgot to put Huckabee in that warped group. I guess that makes it SEVEN, not six.
Let’s review ’em:
CRUZ
PAUL
SANTORUM
CARSON
JINDAL
TRUMP
HUCKABEE
Got that? These wing-nuts won’t make it to the main event.
Neither will Christie. Not because he’s a flake, but because the rest of the country isn’t ready for his New Jersey longshoreman-style delivery, and probably never will be. People know he’s a dirty politician, and when he speaks honestly, it creeps ’em out.
Neither will Rick Perry. His new nerd glasses won’t help voters forget what he forgot, and fair or not, he had his chance and blew it. Voters will remember – it was too funny to forget.
Neither will Carly Fiorina. Her corporate record is SO bad that if ANYONE actually looks at this relative unknown, they won’t give her a second look.
Neither will Lindsey Graham. He’s been around too long without actually getting noticed outside of his home state that he hasn’t a prayer. The hill he has to climb is too steep for someone his age. Too bad…
Now, the rest of the snowball’s-chance-in-Hell group include the unknowns who have declared and the unknowns who have NOT declared. Doesn’t matter at this point. There are already four reasonably viable contenders, and that’s enough for a good exchange of ideas. No, not a debate among between 20 and 30 clowns in a three-ring circus. A real debate.
The four are:
RUBIO
BUSH
WALKER
KASICH
Each of these four has a chance of beating HRC. Nominate one of them ASAP, and the GOP has a chance of winning in 2016. Nominate anyone else, and you give it to HRC. And take too long, mortally wounding the eventual corpse that rises to the surface, and HRC wins anyway.
This isn’t my support for anyone. It’s my PREDICTION!
So Bill, you can save your breath reposting your indictment of HRC & Co.
Instead, go ahead and tell me how this prediction is wrong, and what will make the Democrats vote for one of your favorite clowns.
@George Wells: Your assessment is viewed fully through the eyes of a liberal. Skewed. Democrats don’t have to necessarily vote for the Republican; but they could disappear like they did in 2014. Moderate Democrats (what’s left of them) are apparently sick to death of the far left liberalism that has infected the party; they won’t vote for Hillary and they won’t vote for Bernie. The would probably vote for Webb, but he is too human for the Democrat party today.
Liberals live in an information vacuum thanks to the corrupt left wing media. They see Hillary being picked on and treated meanly; probably because she is a woman. However, once the one-on-one gets underway, and IF Hillary is the candidate, expect an avalanche of facts and accusations about Benghazi (yeah, people care about how a Secretary of State demonstrated how she might keep the nation safe), influence peddling (Obama once promised to ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, but greed got the better of him; liberals are SUPPOSED to hate that sort of thing) and using her little email secret to destroy evidence of what she did and did not do.
Further, liberalism aside, the media doesn’t like the arrogant and imperious Hillary very much; remember how they holed her below the waterline in 2008. She does not trust the media to keep tossing those cotton-ball interviews at her and they don’t like her for roping them out. If anyone shows a lick of promise, they will turn on her with a vengeance.
Meanwhile, what, exactly, do you know about the Republicans? You know why Trump is in the lead? Because he is getting the media coverage, and it isn’t even GOOD coverage. Bush follows close by due to his identification. Otherwise, none of the others get ANY coverage, so how can anyone have anything but a partisan this or that view? However, there are many candidates that can do really well in a debate (perhaps even Perry, off his back pain meds) and THAT will tell the tale.
And they all want a shot at Hillary. THEY ain’t skirred.
Now, if the media played fair and only reported the NEWS, this would be a non-starter; in fact, Hillary would already be out. So, who really knows how THAT will turn out?
@George Wells: They don’t need to ”vote Republican,” George.
All they need to do is sit home.
I have been hearing that a lot of Dems have no interest in going out to vote in Hillary…..or some of the other Dems.
Many only have enthusiasm for the likes of Fauxahauntus, Liz Warren.
She’s far closer to a 2nd Obama than Hillary or Bernie are.
@Bill #347:
I notice that none of you have the courage to answer my prediction with your own.
Let me know when you get up your nerve.
@George Wells: your 396 (the comment numbers seem to be screwed up)(it’s now been changed to 346) Don’t know why you said we didn’t respond to your predictions. I said my prediction is the Dims won’t do Hill. They’ve run through that love affair and rejected her in 08, she won’t make the grade this year either. I don’t know who the candidate will be. It won’t be Bernie. It’s still an eternity til anyone get’s the nom. On your 7.
CRUZ
PAUL
SANTORUM
CARSON
JINDAL
TRUMP
Cruz and Trump will hang around for a while, the others won’t.
Christie wasted his time getting in. The people in New Jersey won’t even vote for him. He’s seen as a buffoon.
Graham is a member of the ‘gang of eight’ traitors to the Republicans. He’s not going anywhere.
I agree on Figorina.
The four are:
RUBIO
BUSH
WALKER
KASICH
HUCKABEE
Bush and Rubio are open fence to the world guys. No one wants them.
Walker and Kasich are both experienced and Walker is a proven winner. He’s a serious candidate and if he’s nominated, he’ll get my vote. Kasich is not as strong, but he would get my vote also.
As I said the noms are a llllooooooonnnnnnnnggggggg way off.
I’m not quite sure what that statement means, ASAP? There is a schedule and I suspect it will be followed. I doubt they will nominate anyone prior to the scheduled date regardless of you encouragement to do so.
As of now, I would vote for the nominee if it’s Trump, Walker, Kasich and maybe Carson.
Trying to predict who any nominee will be this early in the game is kinda meaningless.