People don't like to see division. They like strength and leadership. It won't be a problem, so long as the GOP agrees to a candidate everyone likes.

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 07:13:56 PM
People don't like to see division. They like strength and leadership. It won't be a problem, so long as the GOP agrees to a candidate everyone likes.

I have yet in my life time, seen a candidate everyone like on either side.  That could only happens in a Utopian world.   

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 07:13:56 PM
People don't like to see division. They like strength and leadership. It won't be a problem, so long as the GOP agrees to a candidate everyone likes.

Screw the GOP and their wishes, they've screwed us the last 30 years with their picks, it's our turn!

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 07:13:56 PM
People don't like to see division. They like strength and leadership. It won't be a problem, so long as the GOP agrees to a candidate everyone likes.

No thanks.  I'd rather have small government and retain my freedoms.

Quote from: walkstall on December 08, 2013, 07:32:48 PM
I have yet in my life time, seen a candidate everyone like on either side.  That cold only happens in a Utopian world.   

I meant the factions within our own party. Sorry I was not clear.

A crazy or aloof candidate is going to result in some conservatives sitting out, and that is a fact.

And by the way, Reagan was nearly universally approved for the job in 1984.

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 07:43:56 PM
I meant the factions within our own party. Sorry I was not clear.

A crazy or aloof candidate is going to result in some conservatives sitting out, and that is a fact.

And by the way, Reagan was nearly universally approved for the job in 1984.

In my life time I have yet to see everyone happy with there own party 100%.  That is why we have a lot of independent and stay at home armchair voters.

Quote from: walkstall on December 08, 2013, 07:57:53 PM
In my life time I have yet to see everyone happy with there own party 100%.  That is why we have a lot of independent and stay at home armchair voters.

Unfortunately in the first past the post elections we have, the most unified party wins. As much as I did not like Romney, it was absolutely necessary. Obama has now has a free hand to turn the federal bench liberal, and Obamacare is going to destroy your healthcare choices.

Now I think the consequences of losing 2016 are so severe, including losing the Supreme Court for a generation, that conservatives will rally around someone, and Americas will be sufficiently sick of the Democratic stranglehold on them that it won't be difficult. However, that should not be taken a sign to relax or ignore the fact that the GOP can still give us a candidate that deeply divides us. It's still to early to say who that is because politics changes very quickly.

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 08:07:01 PM
Unfortunately in the first past the post elections we have, the most unified party wins. As much as I did not like Romney, it was absolutely necessary. Obama has now has a free hand to turn the federal bench liberal, and Obamacare is going to destroy your healthcare choices.

It was a "Republican", appointed by Bush, who actively rewrote HusseinCare.

Quote
Now I think the consequences of losing 2016 are so severe, including losing the Supreme Court for a generation, that conservatives will rally around someone, and Americas will be sufficiently sick of the Democratic stranglehold on them that it won't be difficult. However, that should not be taken a sign to relax or ignore the fact that the GOP can still give us a candidate that deeply divides us. It's still to early to say who that is because politics changes very quickly.

The GOP is not conservative.  I don't know what planet you live on.

Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2013, 08:12:36 PM

The GOP is not conservative.  I don't know what planet you live on.

I agree that they mean two different things entirely. However, we need a Republican in the White House to get anything conservative done, including replacing Ginsburg once she finally croaks of cancer.

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 08:16:41 PM
I agree that they mean two different things entirely. However, we need a Republican Conservative in the White House to get anything conservative done, including replacing Ginsburg once she finally croaks of cancer.

Fixed it...

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 08:07:01 PM

Now I think the consequences of losing 2016 are so severe, including losing the Supreme Court for a generation, that conservatives will rally around someone, and Americas will be sufficiently sick of the Democratic stranglehold on them that it won't be difficult. However, that should not be taken a sign to relax or ignore the fact that the GOP can still give us a candidate that deeply divides us. It's still to early to say who that is because politics changes very quickly.

If you think a lot of Democrats are going to suddenly become Republicans because of what Obama has done, I don't so.  There are too many LIV that will always vote Democratic regardless of what happens.  The fools don't even know that Lincoln was a Republican.

Quote from: bigmck on December 08, 2013, 08:20:35 PM
If you think a lot of Democrats are going to suddenly become Republicans because of what Obama has done, I don't so.  There are too many LIV that will always vote Democratic regardless of what happens.  The fools don't even know that Lincoln was a Republican.

Of course nobody actually has to belong to either one to vote for president. Unfortunately the Obamacare disaster did not enter the public mind soon enough, and there is no return policy.

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 08:25:25 PM
Of course nobody actually has to belong to either one to vote for president. Unfortunately the Obamacare disaster did not enter the public mind soon enough, and there is no return policy.

Let me fix that for you, you mean lib's and RINO minds.

Quote from: bigmck on December 08, 2013, 08:20:35 PM
If you think a lot of Democrats are going to suddenly become Republicans because of what Obama has done, I don't so.  There are too many LIV that will always vote Democratic regardless of what happens.  The fools don't even know that Lincoln was a Republican.

There's nothing to motivate the left, no rockstar image, nothing but an bitchy old wannabe commie with baggage at this point.
The base has no reason to rally and race to the polls.
Following lib forums the way I do, many are saying they really don't care what happens, they thought the Dim plan would save the country, only to discover they made it 10 times worse, unemployment, higher prices, race issues, everything worse, the great healer turned out to be the great liar, and they're pissed.

They're so pissed they're talking about a 3rd party candidate. Now that's angry, that's TEA talk.

Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2013, 06:35:53 AM
There's nothing to motivate the left, no rockstar image, nothing but an bitchy old wannabe commie with baggage at this point.
The base has no reason to rally and race to the polls.
Following lib forums the way I do, many are saying they really don't care what happens, they thought the Dim plan would save the country, only to discover they made it 10 times worse, unemployment, higher prices, race issues, everything worse, the great healer turned out to be the great liar, and they're pissed.

They're so pissed they're talking about a 3rd party candidate. Now that's angry, that's TEA talk.

Yeah, I've heard that Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is considering a third-party run. Would be interesting to see him play the part of Ralph Nader 2.0!