Today has been a Disaster for the GOP

[Mac1958]

.
Listening to Limbaugh. Of course, he's saying the GOP have a "mandate" and need to go full speed ahead and "dominate".
Maybe he really believes that, who knows.

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.

Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.

Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
Listening to Limbaugh. Of course, he's saying the GOP have a "mandate" and need to go full speed ahead and "dominate".
Maybe he really believes that, who knows.

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

 

[Mac1958]

.
Listening to Limbaugh. Of course, he's saying the GOP have a "mandate" and need to go full speed ahead and "dominate".
Maybe he really believes that, who knows.

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.

If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

.

 

[Listening]

The Tea Party would be well served if they kept low and just did the work they set out to do.

Keep it quiet and don't allow the other side to get started.

The nice thing about this system is that nobody (including the GOP) can just go whole hog.

 

[Mac1958]

The Tea Party would be well served if they kept low and just did the work they set out to do.

Keep it quiet and don't allow the other side to get started.

The nice thing about this system is that nobody (including the GOP) can just go whole hog.

It's pretty clear by Limbaugh and Levin and many posters are saying here that they are expecting the GOP to not give an inch.

Crazy.

.

 

[Listening]

The Tea Party would be well served if they kept low and just did the work they set out to do.

Keep it quiet and don't allow the other side to get started.

The nice thing about this system is that nobody (including the GOP) can just go whole hog.

It's pretty clear by Limbaugh and Levin and many posters are saying here that they are expecting the GOP to not give an inch.

Crazy.

.

They don't need to give...they need to govern.

They can start sending all kinds of stuff Obama's way and he can show his true stripes.

Pat Cadell had it right last night when he said Harry Reid belonged in the mob.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
Listening to Limbaugh. Of course, he's saying the GOP have a "mandate" and need to go full speed ahead and "dominate".
Maybe he really believes that, who knows.

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

 

[Listening]

.
Listening to Limbaugh. Of course, he's saying the GOP have a "mandate" and need to go full speed ahead and "dominate".
Maybe he really believes that, who knows.

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

Why don't you start by defining mandate and then tell us just what Rush thinks the mandate is.

It is possible to be conservative and still think Rush is a fool.

 

[Mac1958]

.
Listening to Limbaugh. Of course, he's saying the GOP have a "mandate" and need to go full speed ahead and "dominate".
Maybe he really believes that, who knows.

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Go ahead. Go for impeachment. Get rid of the ACA. Close the IRS. Kick all the RINO's out of your party.

That'll go real well for you.

.

 

[Listening]

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Go ahead. Go for impeachment. Get rid of the ACA. Close the IRS. Kick all the RINO's out of your party.

That'll go real well for you.

.

Stop with the hyperbole.

Impeachment won't happen.

Getting rid of the ACA can be done in a series of steps and it will happen. Are you really thinking that people give a rats ass about that mess ?

You don't kick anyone out. They leave.

 

[Mac1958]

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Go ahead. Go for impeachment. Get rid of the ACA. Close the IRS. Kick all the RINO's out of your party.

That'll go real well for you.

.

Stop with the hyperbole.

Impeachment won't happen.

Getting rid of the ACA can be done in a series of steps and it will happen. Are you really thinking that people give a rats ass about that mess ?

You don't kick anyone out. They leave.

We'll see how it goes.

I think Americans want the politicians to work together.

.

 

[Listening]

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Go ahead. Go for impeachment. Get rid of the ACA. Close the IRS. Kick all the RINO's out of your party.

That'll go real well for you.

.

Stop with the hyperbole.

Impeachment won't happen.

Getting rid of the ACA can be done in a series of steps and it will happen. Are you really thinking that people give a rats ass about that mess ?

You don't kick anyone out. They leave.

We'll see how it goes.

I think Americans want the politicians to work together.

.

To do what ?

 

[Listening]

 

[Mac1958]

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Go ahead. Go for impeachment. Get rid of the ACA. Close the IRS. Kick all the RINO's out of your party.

That'll go real well for you.

.

Stop with the hyperbole.

Impeachment won't happen.

Getting rid of the ACA can be done in a series of steps and it will happen. Are you really thinking that people give a rats ass about that mess ?

You don't kick anyone out. They leave.

We'll see how it goes.

I think Americans want the politicians to work together.

.

To do what ?

Make popcorn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is he wrong?

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Your answer did not contain any demonstration of how Limbaugh is wrong.
Do you often disagree with people even though you cannot show how they are wrong?

 

[BullKurtz]

The Tea Party would be well served if they kept low and just did the work they set out to do.

Keep it quiet and don't allow the other side to get started.

The nice thing about this system is that nobody (including the GOP) can just go whole hog.

I agree. The country club GOPers found suitable candidates and trained them to be attractive to the electorate. I am TEA PARTY but had to cringe a little at the last batch of candidates. This bunch didn't make crazy replies to crazy questions asked by the media to sandbag them. They were urbane and attractive to women first and foremost and for that we need to let them run things unless and until they start to compromise with a defeated enemy.....if that happens, YEAH we take the rod of correction to them.

 

[Listening]

Steve Schmidt pointed out this morning that in the current political climate, the GOP should be trouncing the Dems not just squeaking by.

Steve Schmidt: Anything Short of a Senate Majority Is ‘Disaster’ for GOP

And they are barely just squeaking by in many races. And losing a few to boot.

This is an utter disaster for the GOP... They're like a dying cancer patient sitting up in bed for one last jerk off. And, and, and... Now they have to actually do something.

They ran on no real agenda, they have no plan, they have nothing but the same ol', same ol' anti-Obama bullshit that no one wants.

They are basically just setting up 2016 as the death of the GOP.

Ted Cruz will (unknowingly) be their worst enemy when he starts talking tomorrow.

Yeah....

I feel awful.......what a disaster.

 

[Mac1958]

If the TP forces the GOP to go full-bore absolutist, the Dems would be overjoyed.
Both parties continually convince themselves they have a "mandate", and both parties continually overreach and get voted out.
Regardless of what Limbaugh says, most people really do want the parties to cooperate.

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Your answer did not contain any demonstration of how Limbaugh is wrong.
Do you often disagree with people even though you cannot show how they are wrong?

I don't play Whack-A-Mole with partisan ideologues.

If you have a point to make, make it.

I made mine. More than once.

.

 

[Listening]

The Tea Party would be well served if they kept low and just did the work they set out to do.

Keep it quiet and don't allow the other side to get started.

The nice thing about this system is that nobody (including the GOP) can just go whole hog.

I agree. The country club GOPers found suitable candidates and trained them to be attractive to the electorate. I am TEA PARTY but had to cringe a little at the last batch of candidates. This bunch didn't make crazy replies to crazy questions asked by the media to sandbag them. They were urbane and attractive to women first and foremost and for that we need to let them run things unless and until they start to compromise with a defeated enemy.....if that happens, YEAH we take the rod of correction to them.

Just keep in mind that this was more about throwing Reid and Co. out and it can happen to us like it did in 2006.

America wants backbone and leadership......not Affirmative Action Experiments.

 

[Listening]

Confused.
How does any of this illustrate that Rush is wrong about the GOP having a mandate?

Whether a party has a "mandate" after an election is purely subjective and every party always says it has one.
If, as I suspect, Limbaugh means they're justified in going full bore, it will be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned.

So, you don't really have an argument as to how he is wrong, but you disagree with him anyway.
Thank you.

No, you just don't like my answer.

Your answer did not contain any demonstration of how Limbaugh is wrong.
Do you often disagree with people even though you cannot show how they are wrong?

I don't play Whack-A-Mole with partisan ideologues.

If you have a point to make, make it.

I made mine. More than once.

.

You mean like "popcorn".

Didn't quite get that one.