Beck says Hillary will win in 2016

[Kondor3]

HildyBeast will win if the GOP doesn't get its head out of its ass and field a decent candidate.[/[/COLOR][/COLOR]QUOTE]
who would that be?

Beats the hell outta me, 'cause none come to mind right off the bat.

Then again, I'm not paid to pick 'em.

But thats the problem, you make a statement like the one highlighted in red, rather than make a sensible statement like "I will vote against hillary no matter who the GOP runs"

Do you see the difference?

But I did not say that I will vote against Hillary, no matter who the GOP runs.

I was not even thinking in such terms.

You are putting words into my mouth which do not belong there.

See the difference?

 

[Redfish]

HildyBeast will win if the GOP doesn't get its head out of its ass and field a decent candidate.[/[/COLOR][/COLOR]QUOTE]
who would that be?

Beats the hell outta me, 'cause none come to mind right off the bat.

Then again, I'm not paid to pick 'em.

But thats the problem, you make a statement like the one highlighted in red, rather than make a sensible statement like "I will vote against hillary no matter who the GOP runs"

Do you see the difference?

But I did not say that I will vote against Hillary, no matter who the GOP runs.

I was not even thinking in such terms.

You are putting words into my mouth which do not belong there.

See the difference?

Yes, of course I do. I am just trying to point out that attitudes such as yours is why we have two terms of obama. "romney isn't conservative enough so I'm not voting" "I am voting third party" People who thought that way elected obama. If you want Hillary as president continue that line of thinking.

 

[Redfish]

Glenn Beck Hillary Clinton will be the next president - CNN.com

Notwithstanding the messenger, Beck sees the writing on the wall. The national vote is slipping away from the GOP.

If Beck is right, the USA is over. Hillary would complete the destruction begun by obama.

Oh noes!

You mean like more jobs, increased housing starts, strong stock market, deporting more illegals, even less deficit, more equality, continuing economic growth and all the other good stuff Obama has done?

OH! The humanity!




You Pootarians will just have to suck it up.

so you are claiming that the same policies that failed under obama will work under Hillary?

I think you need to see a mental health professional-----------oops, your obamacare policy doesn't cover that. oh well, just stay stupid, thats the way they like you.

 

[JimH52]

A place to start, NOT all are present! Some good, some subversive lite!

Dang!

That's like almost the entire Clown Car Contents.

McDonnell and Bachman....Really? Perry looks like Dracula.

 

[Kondor3]

HildyBeast will win if the GOP doesn't get its head out of its ass and field a decent candidate.[/[/COLOR][/COLOR]QUOTE]
who would that be?

Beats the hell outta me, 'cause none come to mind right off the bat.

Then again, I'm not paid to pick 'em.

But thats the problem, you make a statement like the one highlighted in red, rather than make a sensible statement like "I will vote against hillary no matter who the GOP runs"

Do you see the difference?

But I did not say that I will vote against Hillary, no matter who the GOP runs.

I was not even thinking in such terms.

You are putting words into my mouth which do not belong there.

See the difference?

Yes, of course I do. I am just trying to point out that attitudes such as yours is why we have two terms of obama. "romney isn't conservative enough so I'm not voting" "I am voting third party" People who thought that way elected obama. If you want Hillary as president continue that line of thinking.

You have completely mis-read me on this (not that it matters much in the larger scheme of things).

My original statement was...

HildyBeast will win if the GOP doesn't get its head out of its ass and field a decent candidate.

...and nowhere in there, can one glean such an attitude, nor even a hint of one.

I said 'decent candidate'.

Meaning, someone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth... a Man (or Woman) of the People... who is neither a doddering and ancient wreck nor someone who holds 47% of his fellow countrymen in contempt nor who is a token this-or-that... someone who has experience in governing and sufficient charisma and force of personality to encourage bipartisanship and who has a vision for the Nation's future that he/she successfully imparts to and excites the Nation with... or as close to such an ideal as may prove practicable.

Meaning, someone who inspires sufficient confidence in his/her leadership abilities that constituents are naturally drawn to vote for, without working overly-hard at it - someone for whom the vote comes naturally.

A 'decent' (respectable, experienced, inspiring, practical yet vision-laden) candidate.

The GOP (and, unless I'm mistaken here, you, as well) make the mistake of blaming the American Voting Public for electing Obumble.

The truth is, you (the GOP, anyway) have failed to field a 'decent candidate' for whom the vote comes naturally.

Do not blame the Common Man for your failures, else, resign yourselves to yet another defeat.

There is still time to (1) wake up and (2) acknowledge your shortcomings in fielding candidates and (3) fix the problem, before both the mid-terms in 2014 and the next general in 2016.

The question is: Do you (the GOP, anyway) have the brains and self-scrutiny and honesty-with-one's-selves to successfully complete such a necessary sequence, in order to stand a good chance of winning in 2016?

Based on past performance, I'm not so sure, although I'd love to be surprised, in that context.

 

[Redfish]

HildyBeast will win if the GOP doesn't get its head out of its ass and field a decent candidate.[/[/COLOR][/COLOR]QUOTE]
who would that be?

Beats the hell outta me, 'cause none come to mind right off the bat.

Then again, I'm not paid to pick 'em.

But thats the problem, you make a statement like the one highlighted in red, rather than make a sensible statement like "I will vote against hillary no matter who the GOP runs"

Do you see the difference?

But I did not say that I will vote against Hillary, no matter who the GOP runs.

I was not even thinking in such terms.

You are putting words into my mouth which do not belong there.

See the difference?

Yes, of course I do. I am just trying to point out that attitudes such as yours is why we have two terms of obama. "romney isn't conservative enough so I'm not voting" "I am voting third party" People who thought that way elected obama. If you want Hillary as president continue that line of thinking.

You have completely mis-read me on this (not that it matters much in the larger scheme of things).

My original statement was...

HildyBeast will win if the GOP doesn't get its head out of its ass and field a decent candidate.

...and nowhere in there, can one glean such an attitude, nor even a hint of one.

I said 'decent candidate'.

Meaning, someone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth... a Man (or Woman) of the People... who is neither a doddering and ancient wreck nor someone who holds 47% of his fellow countrymen in contempt nor who is a token this-or-that... someone who has experience in governing and sufficient charisma and force of personality to encourage bipartisanship and who has a vision for the Nation's future that he/she successfully imparts to and excites the Nation with... or as close to such an ideal as may prove practicable.

Meaning, someone who inspires sufficient confidence in his/her leadership abilities that constituents are naturally drawn to vote for, without working overly-hard at it - someone for whom the vote comes naturally.

A 'decent' (respectable, experienced, inspiring, practical yet vision-laden) candidate.

The GOP (and, unless I'm mistaken here, you, as well) make the mistake of blaming the American Voting Public for electing Obumble.

The truth is, you (the GOP, anyway) have failed to field a 'decent candidate' for whom the vote comes naturally.

Do not blame the Common Man for your failures, else, resign yourselves to yet another defeat.

There is still time to (1) wake up and (2) acknowledge your shortcomings in fielding candidates and (3) fix the problem, before both the mid-terms in 2014 and the next general in 2016.

The question is: Do you (the GOP, anyway) have the brains and self-scrutiny and honesty-with-one's-selves to successfully complete such a necessary sequence, in order to stand a good chance of winning in 2016?

Based on past performance, I'm not so sure, although I'd love to be surprised, in that context.

I think we are somewhat in agreement, McCain/Palin was a terrible ticket. Romney/Ryan was a good ticket that ran a bad campaign.

It is also true that it is very hard to overcome the media bias, even if the GOP finds a "decent" candidate per your description.

But, my point remains valid. Staying home or voting 3rd party will ensure a hillary victory.

 

[Kondor3]

But, my point remains valid. Staying home or voting 3rd party will ensure a hillary victory.

Fair enough.

 

[Freemason9]

Just reading this board, it's clear why even the looniest of the left are going to keep winning. Many conservatives have confused being a conservative with being an asshole, and no one likes an asshole.

^^sensative *****^^

Also apparently new the the whole internet thing lol

not sensitive at all. Just stating a fact. This is how a newcomer sees this board

40% assholes calling themselves conservatives
40% morons calling themselves liberals
20% rational posters

You mean the pseudo-intellectual newcomer who's unaware that both explicit and implicit powers are granted to Congress in the Constitution, the guy who eschews Public Accommodation but doesn't really grasp what the tangible imperatives of limited, republican government are, doesn't really grasp the implications of the paramount concerns of inalienable rights? Are you talking about the guy who was utterly unaware of the case law with which Public Accommodation, mere statute, predicated on ideology/behavior is in conflict, as he fails to grasp the fact that lefty's subversive application of equal protection is an assault on the Bill of Rights, the guy who imagines that those asserting defensive political force against illegitimate initial force are doing the same thing as the denizens of cultural Marxism?

Are you talking about the guy, who will not be taught by his betters as his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door, whose argument against Public Accommodation amounts to nothing ontologically or legally defensible due to his ignorance and misapprehensions?

Well, frankly, my Dear, what sensible person on this forum gives a damn what that guy thinks?
____________________________

Those who vote for leftist lunacy are mindless sheep, and the only reason they vote for leftist lunacy is because they're mindless sheep.

The Constitution is vague enough (and ancient enough) that it can be interpretted in nearly any fashion. As one example, it seems to promote democratic representation; on the other hand, an activist Republican Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution allows for disproportionate representation of big business and the rich though purchase of campaigns. I'm no "constitutionalist" by any means, because it seems to undermine working people.

 

[tosacco]

The GOP could run Kelly Ayotte. I think she would have a better chance than other candidates the media has focused on.

 

[FA_Q2]

But, my point remains valid. Staying home or voting 3rd party will ensure a hillary victory.

Fair enough.

Not 'fair enough.' The GOP acts as though they are entitled to votes simply because one might be opposed to the democrats. That is absolutely asinine. The GOP does not represent me so why should I vote for them? This false dichotomy is the most asinine reason to vote for anyone. Want my vote - field a candidate that is worth voting for. Don't blame me for the fact that you support a party that does not represent anything close to a majority needed to garner a winning ticket - that is not our fault. It is the failure of the party.

Further - voters such as Rad are WORSE than the democrats or Obama because they support shit candidates NOT because they actually believe in them but because they don't like the other side. That simply ensures that they terrible candidates that OD NOT represent the core values of the right (such as smaller less intrusive government) continue to infest the party without end. ONLY when those festering boils lose the votes will things change. As long as they are getting votes based on the 'other guy is worse' they will continue to run the party.

 

[Kondor3]

But, my point remains valid. Staying home or voting 3rd party will ensure a hillary victory.

Fair enough.

Not 'fair enough.' The GOP acts as though...

Our colleague Redfish and I were sorting through definitions and perceptions and assumptions and were concluding that sequence when I wrote 'fair enough' - in the sense that I accepted his definition, not that I agreed with it. I suggest you ensure that you understand the context for a remark before you label it asinine, else risk having that appellation turned inwards, eh?

 

[Redfish]

But, my point remains valid. Staying home or voting 3rd party will ensure a hillary victory.

Fair enough.

Not 'fair enough.' The GOP acts as though they are entitled to votes simply because one might be opposed to the democrats. That is absolutely asinine. The GOP does not represent me so why should I vote for them? This false dichotomy is the most asinine reason to vote for anyone. Want my vote - field a candidate that is worth voting for. Don't blame me for the fact that you support a party that does not represent anything close to a majority needed to garner a winning ticket - that is not our fault. It is the failure of the party.

Further - voters such as Rad are WORSE than the democrats or Obama because they support shit candidates NOT because they actually believe in them but because they don't like the other side. That simply ensures that they terrible candidates that OD NOT represent the core values of the right (such as smaller less intrusive government) continue to infest the party without end. ONLY when those festering boils lose the votes will things change. As long as they are getting votes based on the 'other guy is worse' they will continue to run the party.

In many elections voting against a candidate is more important than voting for a candidate. That is a sad fact of life, and it is that fact that got us two terms of obama. Until those on the right and center right understand that FACT, the country will continue to be run by liberal socialist democrats.

 

[Freewill]

Maybe a liberals could answer this for me. How hard will you have to hold your nose to vote for Hillary? After all she voted for the Iraq war and supported it throughout. Was the woman once married to the POTUS duped by GWB? Or are you so insincere in what you say that it really doesn't matter?

 

[FA_Q2]

In many elections voting against a candidate is more important than voting for a candidate. That is a sad fact of life, and it is that fact that got us two terms of obama. Until those on the right and center right understand that FACT, the country will continue to be run by liberal socialist democrats.

And as soon as we accept your asinine conclusion that we need to elect other slightly less liberal socialists called republicans then all we are going to get is more liberal socialists running the nation ad infinitum.

The center does not need to accept such a pathetic excuse to vote for a terrible candidate that does not represent them.

You are under the INCORRECT perception that the crap the right runs is better than the crap the left does. That is the core problem with your supposition, they are not better and until the start actually doing what they say the will do and standing up for what they claim are their values they are not going to get those votes you seem to think they should.

 

[JoeB131]

[

In many elections voting against a candidate is more important than voting for a candidate. That is a sad fact of life, and it is that fact that got us two terms of obama. Until those on the right and center right understand that FACT, the country will continue to be run by liberal socialist democrats.

I'm not sure where you get this premise from.

Romney's whole campaign was based on voting against Obama. No one was really voting "for" Romney except his fellow Mormon Cultists.

The reason why you lost the last two elections and will probably not win the next one is because your party has alienated minorities, women and working people.

 

[Wildman]

Beck is a total loon. ....

=======
right on !

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe a liberals could answer this for me. How hard will you have to hold your nose to vote for Hillary? After all she voted for the Iraq war and supported it throughout. Was the woman once married to the POTUS duped by GWB? Or are you so insincere in what you say that it really doesn't matter?

I can't speak for "liberals".

Here's my thoughts, though.

As the boys on South Park once observed, an election is usually a choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich. SO it really is going to be the lesser of two evils.

The Republicans at the end of the day are probably going to run Jeb Bush. You guys will all huff and puff for Ted Cruz or some other crazy, who might even win a primary or two. Then you'll be *****-slapped down and told who you are going to support and you better like it.

Well, if it becomes a choice between Hillary and Jeb, that's an easy one. Poppy Bush gave us a war and a recession. Dubya gave us two wars and two recessions. I don't want to go for three.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm not a Hillary-supporter, as I don't endorse either party BUT, she'd, no doubt, steam roll anyone that is currently in the GOP lineup. She's got the name recognition, political machinery already set-up, and the $$$.

 

[Freewill]

Maybe a liberals could answer this for me. How hard will you have to hold your nose to vote for Hillary? After all she voted for the Iraq war and supported it throughout. Was the woman once married to the POTUS duped by GWB? Or are you so insincere in what you say that it really doesn't matter?

I can't speak for "liberals".

Here's my thoughts, though.

As the boys on South Park once observed, an election is usually a choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich. SO it really is going to be the lesser of two evils.

The Republicans at the end of the day are probably going to run Jeb Bush. You guys will all huff and puff for Ted Cruz or some other crazy, who might even win a primary or two. Then you'll be *****-slapped down and told who you are going to support and you better like it.

Well, if it becomes a choice between Hillary and Jeb, that's an easy one. Poppy Bush gave us a war and a recession. Dubya gave us two wars and two recessions. I don't want to go for three.

Oh, so how hard will that nose be pinched? You do know that Hillary isn't the only democrat?

Billy Clinton gave us a war, a recession, a military attack on civilians and free trade deals that have screwed the working man ever since. Oh an yeah, the events that lead to 9/11.

 

[Wildman]

Plenty of time until 2016. Anything can happen, but she's certainly a strong possibility.

===========
TRUE!!

BUT!!

i do not believe there are THAT many stupid voters who will put the worlds 2nd biggest liar in the oval office, unless of course, like last time there was ballot box tampering, the dead voting along with millions of illegal aliens.