New Website on Senator Joseph McCarthy

[JoeB131]

View attachment 675920

The ironic thing, Mormon Bob, is that everyone on your side hates Romney now because he won't sign up for the cult of Trump.

 

[Mushroom]

The fact is, the reason why Romney didn't get the nomination in 2008 was because the EVANGELICALS wouldn't elect a Mormon.

This just goes to show you how off the rails you really are.

In 2008, Romney was not even close to getting the nomination. Hell, he had only 1/6 of the votes of the frontrunner, and less votes than the runner-up. The only one that remained in the race that long who got less votes was Ron Paul.

Wow, look at all those green states, that voted for McCain. I had absolutely no idea the Evangelicals were so influential in all of those.

But Mitt Romney did get the nomination in 2012. What, somehow all the evangelicals vanished in 4 years? And he somehow magically won every state and territory but 3, because... evangelicals?

Once again, you make an absolutely nonsensical post.

As are all of your posts, that claim is once again nonsensical, and completely of your own imagination. Yet another attempt to justify your hatred, by claiming that more people join you in your unreasonable hate than actually do.

Once again, you are a proud winner of this weeks Hitler Seal of Approval.

You know, you are as bad as many of those Russian dudes at spinning propaganda. Because good propaganda has to have at least a large backing of truth. Like them, you simply make up things completely, that contradict reality, then simply expect people to believe them unquestioned.

Of course, most of us who actually have working brains remember that Mitt Romney pulled out after "Super Tuesday". Where he got trounced, and there were only 22 states and territories left. On that one day, McCain walked away with 511 delegates, Romney got 176.

Oh wow, look at all those Evangelical strongholds! Especially considering that over half of those delegates came from just two states, California and New York! Why, who knew that evangelicals really ran those states!

You see, this is why you can not actually debate based on facts, whenever you try you completely jack it up. Making completely nonsensical claims, that are easily shattered.

But please, tell us again some of these amazing truths. But with, you know, some actual facts and proof?

 

[JoeB131]

This just goes to show you how off the rails you really are.

In 2008, Romney was not even close to getting the nomination. Hell, he had only 1/6 of the votes of the frontrunner, and less votes than the runner-up. The only one that remained in the race that long who got less votes was Ron Paul.

YOu really don't understand how the nomination process works, do you? Pretty much, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. That's how the nomination is decided.

The point was, the Evangelicals KILLED Romney in IA and SC, first by supporting Mike Huckabee in IA, and then switching to McCain in SC. The problem was, after losing all three of those contests, after he had spent millions of dollars, the party establishment decided that Romney wasn't a viable candidate and put all their chips behind McCain, a guy the rank and file just plain old didn't like.

Wow, look at all those green states, that voted for McCain. I had absolutely no idea the Evangelicals were so influential in all of those.

But Mitt Romney did get the nomination in 2012. What, somehow all the evangelicals vanished in 4 years? And he somehow magically won every state and territory but 3, because... evangelicals?

Yes, Romney got the nomination in 2012, after the Establishment torpedoed Santorum, Gingrich, and Even Herman Cain who all enjoyed about a week's lead in the polls before the Establishment shoved Romney down their throats. And the Evangelicals went along with it because OH MY GOD THERE'S A NEGRO IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

You know, you are as bad as many of those Russian dudes at spinning propaganda. Because good propaganda has to have at least a large backing of truth. Like them, you simply make up things completely, that contradict reality, then simply expect people to believe them unquestioned.

Of course, most of us who actually have working brains remember that Mitt Romney pulled out after "Super Tuesday". Where he got trounced, and there were only 22 states and territories left. On that one day, McCain walked away with 511 delegates, Romney got 176.

But what you don't understand is WHY Romney pulled out after Super Tuesday in 2008. It wasn't because he got trounced, in so much as McCain was a compromise candidate

The Evangelical Wing of the Party wanted Huckabee, but Huckabee scared the Investor Class, because he actually bothered to read the Bible and realized Jesus didn't say anything about tax cuts for rich people.

The Wall Street Wing wanted Romney, bad. But when they realized that the Evangelicals would never support a Mormon, they got behind McCain.

Do you really think the Republican Rank and File suddenly learned to love McCain? A guy who was a thorn in the side of Geo. W. Bush for 8 years?

2008, the last year Republicans were almost sane.

 

[Mushroom]

YOu really don't understand how the nomination process works, do you? Pretty much, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. That's how the nomination is decided.

Wow, you really do not know how they work, do you?

In 1984, Jessie Jackson won in South Carolina, Gary Hart in New Hampshire. But that did not help them defeat Walter Mondale (who won Iowa). The same in 1988, but Gephardt won in New Hampshire, and Dukakis won the nomination and Iowa.

Maybe you forgot 1992? Tom Harkin won in Iowa, but Bill Clinton won in New Hampshire and South Dakota.

Of course, all those were before South Carolina moved the date of their primary to earlier in the election cycle.

But here is the problem, you do not understand how primaries work at all. You are confusing the earliest primaries, with Super Tuesday. Since 1076, that has been the actual deciding factors, as 1/3 of all delegates are elected on that one day. And unless for some reason that vote is split the rest normally bow out at that point. But that point is normally a month into the primary process. and unless a candidate can secure most of those 12 states, trying to continue is pointless.

Those three states do not matter at all, especially as Iowa is not even a primary, but a caucus. And the winners of those more often than not do win the nomination, as that gives the winner a large boost into following primaries. But that is not always the case, as Tom Harkin won Iowa in 1992, and still lost the nomination.

Wow, once again you have absolutely no facts, you just make something up and can not even prove your point. Instead, I actually take the time to find facts and past elections to destroy your claim.

Now, any more silly sidebars that take us completely off of the topic? Or are you going top bring up something else completely off-topic for me to destroy, as I have destroyed all of your attempts to spin lies on the topic itself.

Oh, and on Super Tuesday 2008, John McCain won 9 of the 21 states (and pulled splits in 6 others). Most critically, he won California, Arizona, and Illinois, totaling over 280 delegates right there. Romney did win 7 states (and pulled splits in 5 states), but only Utah with a large enough majority that the votes were not split. He only won 22 of the 40 delegates from his home state of Massachusetts. It was failing to secure a majority in his own state that caused him to pull out (plus getting only a fraction of the delegates that McCain got).

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, you really do not know how they work, do you?

Yeah, I kind of do.. but never mind.

But here is the problem, you do not understand how primaries work at all. You are confusing the earliest primaries, with Super Tuesday. Since 1076, that has been the actual deciding factors, as 1/3 of all delegates are elected on that one day. And unless for some reason that vote is split the rest normally bow out at that point. But that point is normally a month into the primary process. and unless a candidate can secure most of those 12 states, trying to continue is pointless.

Since 1076? You mean we were having primaries since the Crusades?

My point still stands... that those first three contests pretty much decide the race, that no one gets the nomination without winning one of them, at least since 2000, when they moved up SC to get a more conservative bent on . Romney lost all three in 2008 - Iowa to Mike Huckabee, NH and SC to McCain, because the EVANGELICALS WOULD NOT SUPPORT A MORMON.

The problem with the "Super Tuesday" thing is that usually, by the time it gets to Super Tuesday, most of the candidates have dropped out, and only one or two are floundering around. It's messed up, not a good way to be doing these things at all.

Maybe you forgot 1992? Tom Harkin won in Iowa, but Bill Clinton won in New Hampshire and South Dakota.

Actually, Clinton didn't win NH in 1992, Paul Tsongas did. but IA and NH were not considered relevant in 1992 because Harkin and Tsongas were local favorites. Also in 1992, SC wasn't considered as big a factor. They hadn't moved it up yet.

The big story about NH in 1992 was that Clinton survived at all, as the story about Gennifer Flowers had just broken.

Now, any more silly sidebars that take us completely off of the topic? Or are you going top bring up something else completely off-topic for me to destroy, as I have destroyed all of your attempts to spin lies on the topic itself.

Oh, please, you really haven't destroyed anything, just showed dumb versions of alternative history of the right wing.

Joseph McCarthy was a radical piece of garbage who abused his position until REPUBLICANS made him stop.
Evangelicals rejected Romney in 2008 but grudgingly accepted him in 2012 because they are racist pieces of garbage who would have supported Satan if he were white.

 

[surada]

One of Americas greatest senators and patriots.

We are going to reinvent McCarthy during the Trump years? Roy Cohn was also McCarthy's lawyer.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yeah, I kind of do.. but never mind.



Since 1076? You mean we were having primaries since the Crusades?

My point still stands... that those first three contests pretty much decide the race, that no one gets the nomination without winning one of them, at least since 2000, when they moved up SC to get a more conservative bent on . Romney lost all three in 2008 - Iowa to Mike Huckabee, NH and SC to McCain, because the EVANGELICALS WOULD NOT SUPPORT A MORMON.

The problem with the "Super Tuesday" thing is that usually, by the time it gets to Super Tuesday, most of the candidates have dropped out, and only one or two are floundering around. It's messed up, not a good way to be doing these things at all.



Actually, Clinton didn't win NH in 1992, Paul Tsongas did. but IA and NH were not considered relevant in 1992 because Harkin and Tsongas were local favorites. Also in 1992, SC wasn't considered as big a factor. They hadn't moved it up yet.

The big story about NH in 1992 was that Clinton survived at all, as the story about Gennifer Flowers had just broken.




Oh, please, you really haven't destroyed anything, just showed dumb versions of alternative history of the right wing.

Joseph McCarthy was a radical piece of garbage who abused his position until REPUBLICANS made him stop.
Evangelicals rejected Romney in 2008 but grudgingly accepted him in 2012 because they are racist pieces of garbage who would have supported Satan if he were white.

You have displayed far more racism than any evangelical.

No matter how much you hate the man Mccarthy was correct and that is setteld fact

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm not surprised you're a Trump supporter. Roy Cohn was also his mentor.

What difference does it make that he's a Trump supporter?

I remember we had a thread here where I asked people to name one person who was baselessly accused by McCarthy and who suffered because of it. Not one of the anti-McCarthy leftists could name a single person who was accused with no evidence of their guilt and who suffered as a result.

Liberal historians always cite Mccarthy's attack on George Catlett Marshall as "slanderous" and an "outrageous smear." But McCarthy was by no means the only Republican who discussed Marshall's horribly pro-communist foreign policy record. Even Congressman John F. Kennedy complained about Marshall's actions in China. The big difference was that McCarthy was the first elected official to argue that Marshall's many disastrous actions were not just terrible mistakes but deliberate acts of treason. General Chennault voiced the same suspicion, but he was not an elected official and was never savaged for it.

 

[surada]

What difference does it make that he's a Trump supporter?

I remember we had a thread here where I asked people to name one person who was baselessly accused by McCarthy and who suffered because of it. Not one of the anti-McCarthy leftists could name a single person who was accused with no evidence of their guilt and who suffered as a result.

Liberal historians always cite Mccarthy's attack on George Catlett Marshall as "slanderous" and an "outrageous smear." But McCarthy was by no means the only Republican who discussed Marshall's horribly pro-communist foreign policy record. Even Congressman John F. Kennedy complained about Marshall's actions in China. The big difference was that McCarthy was the first elected official to argue that Marshall's many disastrous actions were not just terrible mistakes but deliberate acts of treason. General Chennault voiced the same suspicion, but he was not an elected official and was never savaged for it.

Look it up for yourself. McCarthy accused over 200 people without evidence. He was a lush.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Look it up for yourself. McCarthy accused over 200 people without evidence. He was a lush.

All of whom he turned out to be correct about.

BTW none of their lives were ruined.

The question is why? Which is eactly what Mccarthy was asking. Why were none of these people later PROVEN to be traitors brought to justice?

The senate has had many people who were worse drunks than Mccarthy such as Ted Kennedy

 

[surada]

All of whom he turned out to be correct about.

BTW none of their lives were ruined.

The question is why? Which is eactly what Mccarthy was asking. Why were none of these people later PROVEN to be traitors brought to justice?

The senate has had many people who were worse drunks than Mccarthy such as Ted Kennedy

Nope. McCarthy died at 47. How old were you? Did your parents ever talk about him?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope. McCarthy died at 47. How old were you? Did your parents ever talk about him?

Yes

Just because one drunk lives longer than another does not mean one is a better lush

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope. McCarthy died at 47. How old were you? Did your parents ever talk about him?

How many lives were lost due to Mccarthy's drinking?

At least one died as the result of Kennedy being a drunken pice of filth

 

[surada]

How many lives were lost due to Mccarthy's drinking?

At least one died as the result of Kennedy being a drunken pice of filth

I see what you're doing.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I see what you're doing.

Yes that is what question marks are for.

 

[JoeB131]

I remember we had a thread here where I asked people to name one person who was baselessly accused by McCarthy and who suffered because of it. Not one of the anti-McCarthy leftists could name a single person who was accused with no evidence of their guilt and who suffered as a result.

Uh, that isn't how it's supposed to work in a free society, Mormon Mike.

Liberal historians always cite Mccarthy's attack on George Catlett Marshall as "slanderous" and an "outrageous smear." But McCarthy was by no means the only Republican who discussed Marshall's horribly pro-communist foreign policy record. Even Congressman John F. Kennedy complained about Marshall's actions in China. The big difference was that McCarthy was the first elected official to argue that Marshall's many disastrous actions were not just terrible mistakes but deliberate acts of treason. General Chennault voiced the same suspicion, but he was not an elected official and was never savaged for it.

Yeah, the most slanderous Republican lie was "Who Lost China". China was never ours to lose.

There was simply nothing Marshall or Truman could do that was going to prevent Communist victory in China. Chiang Kai-Shek was a corrupt fascist who had long wore out any good will on the part of his people.

 

[Mushroom]

Oh, please, you really haven't destroyed anything, just showed dumb versions of alternative history of the right wing.

I am not "right wing". And more important, I have given a hell of a lot of references. Including sites with complete transcripts of Venona.

What have you given, other than hot air and hate?

 

[Mushroom]

Uh, that isn't how it's supposed to work in a free society, Mormon Mike.

And your swastika is showing, as in a free society we do not defame and demonize people because of their religion.

Funny, how you scream about "free society", yet you are one of the most vocal and biased bigots I have seen in here.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not "right wing". And more important, I have given a hell of a lot of references. Including sites with complete transcripts of Venona.

Ho-hum, nobody cares. You don't persecute people because you don't like their beliefs. While I might find it amusing to put a big fence around Utah and turn it into a Cult Deprograming Camp, that would be a massive violation of their human rights.

So is accusing someone of treason because 20 years early, they had the wrong political beliefs in a period of shifting alliances.

And your swastika is showing, as in a free society we do not defame and demonize people because of their religion.

Who is defaming anyone. I just point out the crazy beliefs and whacky history of the Mormon Cult, and let gravity do the rest.

Funny, how you scream about "free society", yet you are one of the most vocal and biased bigots I have seen in here.

Uh, if you belong to a cult started by child molesters, you aren't going to get any respect from me, nor do you deserve any.

 

[whoisit]

While president Truman still retained the support of the media, he became so unpopular after the debacle in Korea that he dropped out of politics rather than run for a 2nd full term. Ike's election in 1952 brought about a republican majority in congress for the first time in decades. The anti-communist hunt tapered off after democrats became the minority and Sen. McCarthy gained a chairmanship which had nothing to do with communist infiltration. The media created the faked legend of McCarthyism because the media was still in the back pocket of the democrat party and was in the process of building the faked legacy of "feisty" Harry Truman.

The media is still in their pockets.