quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a prediction: The GOP will select a candidate who has pandered too much to the Right/Tea Party to be electable, and Hilary will win by default.

So why waste the billions of $ that the election will cost? Have the election tomorrow and think of all the time money and energy that will be saved.

quote:

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz held a luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina on Monday. During his speech, the Texas senator says voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would be a bad choice for the country.

Cruz said that voting for the former United States Secretary of State would be the same thing as keeping Barack Obama in office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a prediction: The GOP will select a candidate who has pandered too much to the Right/Tea Party to be electable, and Hilary will win by default.

So why waste the billions of $ that the election will cost? Have the election tomorrow and think of all the time money and energy that will be saved.

After all, who needs voting and democracy and stuff?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a prediction: The GOP will select a candidate who has pandered too much to the Right/Tea Party to be electable, and Hilary will win by default.

So why waste the billions of $ that the election will cost? Have the election tomorrow and think of all the time money and energy that will be saved.

After all, who needs voting and democracy and stuff?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a prediction: The GOP will select a candidate who has pandered too much to the Right/Tea Party to be electable, and Hilary will win by default.

So why waste the billions of $ that the election will cost? Have the election tomorrow and think of all the time money and energy that will be saved.

After all, who needs voting and democracy and stuff?

Which part of "Have the election tomorrow" don't you understand?

quote:

It seems the New York Times has gotten itself all worked up because Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz attended an event in his honor at the Manhattan apartment of — gasp! — “two prominent gay hoteliers.” (Apparently one cannot simply be a ‘hotelier’ these days — a sexual identifier is required.)

It’s obvious that Times reporter Maggie Haberman thought she had found the smoking gun that would tarnish Cruz’s conservative credentials forever when she reported that he’s not a hateful bigot or something…

“[T]he juxtaposition of Mr. Cruz being the guest of honor at a home owned by two of the most visible gay businessmen in New York City was striking,” a seemingly shaken Haberman wrote.

If you’re a left-leaning reporter who believes that the only reason half of Americans oppose same sex marriage is because they’re hateful bigots who are acting out of raw animus, events and statements like this cause you all kinds of cognitive dissonance and consternation. All good leftist reporters believe in the deepest recesses of their hearts that mean-spirited Republicans who disagree with the push for same-sex marriage never, ever associate with gay people — unless they’re snooping around in their bedrooms.

But Haberman persisted, asking Ian Reisner, one of the hosts of the event, about the possible “dissonance” between his gay activism and being at an event for Cruz. “Reisner said that while he does not agree with Cruz on social issues, the two men do agree on national security and Israel. “Ted Cruz was on point on every issue that has to do with national security,” he said…

This may come as a surprise to reporters at the Times, but Senator Cruz — like most Republicans — has gay friends (and supporters) and he’s willing to engaging in dialogue with people with whom he disagrees. And guess what? This is not newsworthy.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/23/nyt-freak-out-ermagersh-ted-cruz-has-gay-friends-and-supporters/

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

NYT Freak Out: Ermagersh! Ted Cruz Has Gay Friends — and Supporters!!!

That doesn't fit the narrative

quote:

It seems the New York Times has gotten itself all worked up because Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz attended an event in his honor at the Manhattan apartment of — gasp! — “two prominent gay hoteliers.” (Apparently one cannot simply be a ‘hotelier’ these days — a sexual identifier is required.)

It’s obvious that Times reporter Maggie Haberman thought she had found the smoking gun that would tarnish Cruz’s conservative credentials forever when she reported that he’s not a hateful bigot or something…

“[T]he juxtaposition of Mr. Cruz being the guest of honor at a home owned by two of the most visible gay businessmen in New York City was striking,” a seemingly shaken Haberman wrote.

If you’re a left-leaning reporter who believes that the only reason half of Americans oppose same sex marriage is because they’re hateful bigots who are acting out of raw animus, events and statements like this cause you all kinds of cognitive dissonance and consternation. All good leftist reporters believe in the deepest recesses of their hearts that mean-spirited Republicans who disagree with the push for same-sex marriage never, ever associate with gay people — unless they’re snooping around in their bedrooms.

But Haberman persisted, asking Ian Reisner, one of the hosts of the event, about the possible “dissonance” between his gay activism and being at an event for Cruz. “Reisner said that while he does not agree with Cruz on social issues, the two men do agree on national security and Israel. “Ted Cruz was on point on every issue that has to do with national security,” he said…

This may come as a surprise to reporters at the Times, but Senator Cruz — like most Republicans — has gay friends (and supporters) and he’s willing to engaging in dialogue with people with whom he disagrees. And guess what? This is not newsworthy.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/23/nyt-freak-out-ermagersh-ted-cruz-has-gay-friends-and-supporters/

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a prediction: The GOP will select a candidate who has pandered too much to the Right/Tea Party to be electable, and Hilary will win by default.

So why waste the billions of $ that the election will cost? Have the election tomorrow and think of all the time money and energy that will be saved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a prediction: The GOP will select a candidate who has pandered too much to the Right/Tea Party to be electable, and Hilary will win by default.

So why waste the billions of $ that the election will cost? Have the election tomorrow and think of all the time money and energy that will be saved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz held a luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina on Monday. During his speech, the Texas senator says voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would be a bad choice for the country.

Cruz said that voting for the former United States Secretary of State would be the same thing as keeping Barack Obama in office.

http://www.fox28.com/story/28795872/2015/04/14/ted-cruz-takes-on-hillary-clinton

ive heard a number of people say its virtually unheard of for a same party candidate to win the presidency after 8 yrs of an unpopular predecessor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

NYT Freak Out: Ermagersh! Ted Cruz Has Gay Friends — and Supporters!!!

That doesn't fit the narrative

quote:

It seems the New York Times has gotten itself all worked up because Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz attended an event in his honor at the Manhattan apartment of — gasp! — “two prominent gay hoteliers.” (Apparently one cannot simply be a ‘hotelier’ these days — a sexual identifier is required.)

It’s obvious that Times reporter Maggie Haberman thought she had found the smoking gun that would tarnish Cruz’s conservative credentials forever when she reported that he’s not a hateful bigot or something…

“[T]he juxtaposition of Mr. Cruz being the guest of honor at a home owned by two of the most visible gay businessmen in New York City was striking,” a seemingly shaken Haberman wrote.

If you’re a left-leaning reporter who believes that the only reason half of Americans oppose same sex marriage is because they’re hateful bigots who are acting out of raw animus, events and statements like this cause you all kinds of cognitive dissonance and consternation. All good leftist reporters believe in the deepest recesses of their hearts that mean-spirited Republicans who disagree with the push for same-sex marriage never, ever associate with gay people — unless they’re snooping around in their bedrooms.

But Haberman persisted, asking Ian Reisner, one of the hosts of the event, about the possible “dissonance” between his gay activism and being at an event for Cruz. “Reisner said that while he does not agree with Cruz on social issues, the two men do agree on national security and Israel. “Ted Cruz was on point on every issue that has to do with national security,” he said…

This may come as a surprise to reporters at the Times, but Senator Cruz — like most Republicans — has gay friends (and supporters) and he’s willing to engaging in dialogue with people with whom he disagrees. And guess what? This is not newsworthy.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/23/nyt-freak-out-ermagersh-ted-cruz-has-gay-friends-and-supporters/

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz held a luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina on Monday. During his speech, the Texas senator says voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would be a bad choice for the country.

Cruz said that voting for the former United States Secretary of State would be the same thing as keeping Barack Obama in office.

http://www.fox28.com/story/28795872/2015/04/14/ted-cruz-takes-on-hillary-clinton

ive heard a number of people say its virtually unheard of for a same party candidate to win the presidency after 8 yrs of an unpopular predecessor.

Who decides unpopularity ?
I have a feeling were I to canvas your friends he would indeed be "unpopular"

On the other hand were it my friends canvassed the result would be different.

Surely there would be comments indicating a certain disappointment in his administration but what you(generic you) guys always fail to take into account is that this disappointment is due to the belief that he didn't get far enough left.

Those folks aren't going to exhibit their disappointment by voting republican,if anything they will feel let down that Warren didn't run but they will hold their noses and still vote for Hillary.....as their only choice.These folks wouldn't votte for a conservative on pain of death

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And agreat number of those 50% percent are disappointed because he isn't far enough left


For sake of argument lets put the number right at %50,lets both agree that 35% of those folks are on the right......they wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

But the other 15%,while clearly disappointed in President Obama have no political choice save to vote for whomever (re: Hillary) is the nominee from the Democratic party.

These folks would rather have their arm cut off that vote for a Cruz,a Walker or a Huckabee

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And agreat number of those 50% percent are disappointed because he isn't far enough left


For sake of argument lets put the number right at %50,lets both agree that 35% of those folks are on the right......they wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

But the other 15%,while clearly disappointed in President Obama have no political choice save to vote for whomever (re: Hillary) is the nominee from the Democratic party.

These folks would rather have their arm cut off that vote for a Cruz,a Walker or a Huckabee

Your right, the left are Gods the right are demons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And agreat number of those 50% percent are disappointed because he isn't far enough left


For sake of argument lets put the number right at %50,lets both agree that 35% of those folks are on the right......they wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

But the other 15%,while clearly disappointed in President Obama have no political choice save to vote for whomever (re: Hillary) is the nominee from the Democratic party.

These folks would rather have their arm cut off that vote for a Cruz,a Walker or a Huckabee

Your right, the left are Gods the right are demons.

Okay putz show me where I said that.

That's what I get for trying to engage an idiot in an actual fucking conversation