"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[edthecynic]

Private secondary market gun sales at gun shows is extremely rare or essentially non-existent. This is because gun shows are conducted by gun dealers who are required by law to conduct background checks. If I am a gun dealer at a gun show, and I am obeying the law and conducting background checks, and you are in the booth next to me, selling guns through some "loophole" without doing this, you can see where I would be quite agitated at this because it would cut into my business. So this just doesn't legitimately happen.

The lies just keep on coming!

Where Do We Get Our Civil Rights

The Bloomberg Investigation

In 2009, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, stirred controversy and stimulated the gun show debate when NYC hired private investigators to target gun shows in Ohio, Nevada and Tennessee.

According to a report released by Bloomberg’s office, 22 of 33 private sellers sold guns to undercover investigators who informed them that they probably could not pass a background check, while 16 of 17 licensed sellers allowed straw purchases by the undercover investigators, a process through which a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm recruits someone to purchase the gun for them.

 

[Boss]

Private secondary market gun sales at gun shows is extremely rare or essentially non-existent. This is because gun shows are conducted by gun dealers who are required by law to conduct background checks. If I am a gun dealer at a gun show, and I am obeying the law and conducting background checks, and you are in the booth next to me, selling guns through some "loophole" without doing this, you can see where I would be quite agitated at this because it would cut into my business. So this just doesn't legitimately happen.

The lies just keep on coming!

Where Do We Get Our Civil Rights

The Bloomberg Investigation

In 2009, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, stirred controversy and stimulated the gun show debate when NYC hired private investigators to target gun shows in Ohio, Nevada and Tennessee.

According to a report released by Bloomberg’s office, 22 of 33 private sellers sold guns to undercover investigators who informed them that they probably could not pass a background check, while 16 of 17 licensed sellers allowed straw purchases by the undercover investigators, a process through which a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm recruits someone to purchase the gun for them.

I am not here to debate your hyped up gun control propaganda from Bloomberg. Private sellers can sell guns on Craigslist or Facebook, they don't need to go to a gun show. The only way to resolve the problem is to allow individuals the right to do background checks on other individuals. If that's what you favor, back a candidate who promises to do away with the 4th Amendment.

I will repeat... Seven gun show loophole bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013, but none were passed. If you want to think this was in defiance of 90% of America, be my guest... I think you're an idiot if you believe that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We know you are an imbecile to believe the logic you give above.

 

[Boss]

We know you are an imbecile to believe the logic you give above.

What's that? The logic that our elected representatives in Congress have repeatedly shot down your left-wing idiotic gun control bills? Sorry... I operate on the logic of reality. You?

 

[edthecynic]

Private secondary market gun sales at gun shows is extremely rare or essentially non-existent. This is because gun shows are conducted by gun dealers who are required by law to conduct background checks. If I am a gun dealer at a gun show, and I am obeying the law and conducting background checks, and you are in the booth next to me, selling guns through some "loophole" without doing this, you can see where I would be quite agitated at this because it would cut into my business. So this just doesn't legitimately happen.

The lies just keep on coming!

Where Do We Get Our Civil Rights

The Bloomberg Investigation

In 2009, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, stirred controversy and stimulated the gun show debate when NYC hired private investigators to target gun shows in Ohio, Nevada and Tennessee.

According to a report released by Bloomberg’s office, 22 of 33 private sellers sold guns to undercover investigators who informed them that they probably could not pass a background check, while 16 of 17 licensed sellers allowed straw purchases by the undercover investigators, a process through which a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm recruits someone to purchase the gun for them.

I am not here to debate your hyped up gun control propaganda from Bloomberg. Private sellers can sell guns on Craigslist or Facebook, they don't need to go to a gun show. The only way to resolve the problem is to allow individuals the right to do background checks on other individuals. If that's what you favor, back a candidate who promises to do away with the 4th Amendment.

I will repeat... Seven gun show loophole bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013, but none were passed. If you want to think this was in defiance of 90% of America, be my guest... I think you're an idiot if you believe that.

Another sign of the far Right is any fact that contradicts their ideology can be dismissed as "propaganda" by nothing more than their far Right opinion.

 

[Synthaholic]

Most voters are conservative

Yeah, that why Obama won in a landslide in 2008, and why Democrats have won 5 out of the past 6 elections.

You're a deluded dope.

 

[Jroc]

Most voters are conservative

Yeah, that why Obama won in a landslide in 2008, and why Democrats have won 5 out of the past 6 elections.

You're a deluded dope.

Weak candidates on our part, and brain washed people like you for Obama there was no landslide.

If i did videos I'd put this song in with pictures of the death and mayhem Obama has caused since he's been in office..


Your kids..

 

[Synthaholic]

Weak candidates on our part, and brain washed people like you for Obama there was no landslide.

If you can't come up with any strong candidates through 6 election cycles, then it's just a weak Party with weak ideas.

No landslide? What do you call 365-173?

You're a moron.

 

[Jroc]

Weak candidates on our part, and brain washed people like you for Obama there was no landslide.

If you can't come up with any strong candidates through 6 election cycles, then it's just a weak Party with weak ideas.

No landslide? What do you call 365-173?

You're a moron.

2004 not a landslide

2008 not a landslide

Here's what a landslide looks like clown...


1984

 

[HUGGY]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

The population was far more naive when Reagun got elected. He was a democrat when he was an actor playing THAT part until he was handed a script calling for him to sell ":conservative" policies. Reagun was an OK actor but a gifted speaker. He was not smart other than being smart enough to garner financial support from those wealthy people on the far right that invested in him.

Now we are far better informed as a whole and if Reagun was running for president he would come off as simplistic an uninformed as the twit from Alaska.

 

[Jroc]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

The population was far more naive when Reagun got elected. He was a democrat when he was an actor playing THAT part until he was handed a script calling for him to sell ":conservative" policies. Reagun was an OK actor but a gifted speaker. He was not smart other than being smart enough to garner financial support from those wealthy people on the far right that invested in him.

Now we are far better informed as a whole and if Reagun was running for president he would come off as simplistic an uninformed as the twit from Alaska.

LOL..you got Alzheimers old man?

"more informed" indeed..

Sing it with me!!

 

[Boss]

Most voters are conservative

Yeah, that why Obama won in a landslide in 2008, and why Democrats have won 5 out of the past 6 elections.

You're a deluded dope.

Exactly! Conservatives are staying at home and not voting for mush-mouth moderates. If the GOP nominates another "moderate" the same outcome will be realized. The GOP is not capturing the independent vote because they assume the independents are moderate when they're not.

 

[Synthaholic]

Weak candidates on our part, and brain washed people like you for Obama there was no landslide.

If you can't come up with any strong candidates through 6 election cycles, then it's just a weak Party with weak ideas.

No landslide? What do you call 365-173?

You're a moron.

2008 not a landslide

Sure it is. Obama won nearly all the states where people actually live. Yeah, Idaho went for Mitt, but there are more people in Miami than the whole fucking state, so they are irrelevant.

365-173.

^^^That's an ass-kicking!

 

[Synthaholic]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

The population was far more naive when Reagun got elected. He was a democrat when he was an actor playing THAT part until he was handed a script calling for him to sell ":conservative" policies. Reagun was an OK actor but a gifted speaker. He was not smart other than being smart enough to garner financial support from those wealthy people on the far right that invested in him.

Now we are far better informed as a whole and if Reagun was running for president he would come off as simplistic an uninformed as the twit from Alaska.

Can you see Reagan trying to deal with people yelling things at him during a Tea Party town hall?

 

[Synthaholic]

Most voters are conservative

Yeah, that why Obama won in a landslide in 2008, and why Democrats have won 5 out of the past 6 elections.

You're a deluded dope.

Exactly! Conservatives are staying at home and not voting for mush-mouth moderates. If the GOP nominates another "moderate" the same outcome will be realized. The GOP is not capturing the independent vote because they assume the independents are moderate when they're not.

Any conservatives who elected to not cast their vote to remove Obama from office are a very small group, unable to affect any difference.

 

[edthecynic]

Conservatives are staying at home and not voting for mush-mouth moderates.

That lie was already exposed earlier in this thread with the actual % of voters, which showed that the last 2 GOP candidates got the highest % of CON$ervoFascist voters. Repeating the same lie after it has been rebutted does not make it any less a lie, but does expose you as the far Right who always lie in the face of the truth.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Most voters are conservative

Yeah, that why Obama won in a landslide in 2008, and why Democrats have won 5 out of the past 6 elections.

You're a deluded dope.

Exactly! Conservatives are staying at home and not voting for mush-mouth moderates. If the GOP nominates another "moderate" the same outcome will be realized. The GOP is not capturing the independent vote because they assume the independents are moderate when they're not.

That is factually incorrect.
Conservatives made up a bigger share of the total vote in 2008 (34%) and in 2012 (35%) than ever before.
Conservatives are not staying home.

 

[Boss]

Any conservatives who elected to not cast their vote to remove Obama from office are a very small group, unable to affect any difference.

Conservatives won't generally vote to remove people unless it is to replace them with a conservative. Trading one non-conservative for another is a waste of their time.

Again.... for the millionth time.... Conservatism is NOT ideologically driven. This seems to be escaping most but it's a valid point that should be considered. They are generally more concerned with someone having a solid conservative philosophy, and ideology is secondary.

It's challenging to convey this thinking to liberals. That is why we see so many Liberals responding to this OP. If you are a political ideologue, you can't imagine people being political and not being ideologically-driven.

 

[edthecynic]

Again.... for the millionth time.... Conservatism is NOT ideologically driven.

Again.... for the millionth time.... that is a lie of the far Right.

 

[Boss]

That is factually incorrect.
Conservatives made up a bigger share of the total vote in 2008 (34%) and in 2012 (35%) than ever before.
Conservatives are not staying home.

Again, most voters are conservative.

Most Independents are also conservative, they just prefer identifying as independent. They will stay home as opposed to voting for republican ideologues or defeating liberal ideologues.

The polls and numbers are totally misleading and this is the crux of our problem here. Some people want to assume that everyone who claims to be independent is a moderate and people who say they are conservatives really are conservative. "Extreme Conservatism" is essentially an oxymoron. A "Conservative" by definition, is someone opposed to extreme or radical change. Conservative IS the politically moderate alternative to extremism.