Do Republicans hate the constitution?

[Strychnine]

To be fair, that's all SMEAC ever does. I've never seen the guy in a real discussion. He just comes here to vent his anger at liberals.

Whenever I try to have a political discussion, I wind up being labeled a "Race-Baiter" by the usual suspects... Par for the course I guess.

 

[lfd0311]

For me, it wasn't about who owned whom (and owning Rev. Al Sharpton in a political discussion is not the same as summiting Everest ), it was about Did the meeting take place? Was Speaker Gingrich there?

Now I did post other articles that said the meeting happened and that it wasn't about, how we can "Bring the GOP back into the White House."
It was about "Stopping Pres. Obama at ANY cost."

Of course the meeting took place. Like Gingrich said, in 2000 when Bush won, do you think the Dems didn't have a similar meeting? After the disaster that was the 2014 mid-term elections, do you think the Dems just hung out, ate pizza and went home? Or do you think the devised a political strategy for regaining control?

 

[lfd0311]

No one yet. Just saying it would be shameful if they blocked any/all of Obama's nominations based on the idea that he shouldn't appoint one as a lame duck.

I agree. Until they actually do it, they have done nothing more than what Schumer did, voice an opinion.

 

[oldshadow]

For me, it wasn't about who owned whom (and owning Rev. Al Sharpton in a political discussion is not the same as summiting Everest ), it was about Did the meeting take place? Was Speaker Gingrich there?

Now I did post other articles that said the meeting happened and that it wasn't about, how we can "Bring the GOP back into the White House."
It was about "Stopping Pres. Obama at ANY cost."

If it had been Hillary in office it would have been the same thing.

It's about political power and ideology.

It's about retaining power so each side and direct the country as they wish.

The thing is both side have to compromise some to keep things going.

How much compromise depends on how much power you have.

 

[SammyPops]

can only imagine Bernie's nomine post election

 

[kpt018]

Wow dude. You can't really be that oblivious. Liberals like you and Jack just live in such a fairy tale la la land that is getting hard to take you seriously. Obama won Iowa and many of the Midwestern States by winning the "Democrat" vote exclusively. He obviously didn't get the Republican vote and most of the Independents voted for Romney, yet he still won the state. If you think there are more Liberal Elitist Democrats in freaking Iowa than there are old school Republican farmers AND Independents you are sadly, woefully, horribly naïve. And Iowa wasn't the only state in the Midwest like that. Look at the county by county breakdowns of many of the states. In the areas where the legions of Obamaphone recipients live, Obama won, sometimes just barely.

Now let's fast forward to the 2014 midterm elections. What happened? Liberal Democrats got CRUSHED. Why do you think that is? Are you really so naïve that you think it was because this legion of Liberal Elitists that exist in great enough numbers to defeat both the Republicans and the Independents just didn't give a shit that day? Or do you think it was because the Dems couldn't get the Obamaphone voters to care again that quickly. Like I said, if you are really this naïve it is because you are choosing to be.

You are totally confused as to what I am saying or are really dense (and it could be both). Turnout refers to the number of voters that actually go out and vote. Obama won because there was a good number of Democrats that went out and voted. If Dems didn't participate at a high rate, Obama would have lost. You seem confused because I never made a comment about whether Obama won independents or not.

I know I'm wasting time, but here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html?_r=0

There are a million other sources that show what we all know, turnout was pathetic in 2014. My point is it helps Republicans.

 

[Strychnine]

Of course the meeting took place. Like Gingrich said, in 2000 when Bush won, do you think the Dems didn't have a similar meeting? After the disaster that was the 2014 mid-term elections, do you think the Dems just hung out, ate pizza and went home? Or do you think the devised a political strategy for regaining control?

Oh I'm SURE that the DEMS got together to strategize on how to win. But there's a stark difference between strategizing and vowing to vote No on anything and everything that the President is for. In my opinion that's not a strategy, that's throwing the Nation under the bus for Ideology.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It would be pretty funny if Republican obstructionism led to Clinton putting Obama on the SCOTUS and a Democratic Senate approving it.

 

[kpt018]

It would be pretty funny if Republican obstructionism led to Clinton putting Obama on the SCOTUS and a Democratic Senate approving it.

That would be fucking epic (and I read a few places that it is possible, but I find that hard to know at this point).

 

[lfd0311]

You are totally confused as to what I am saying or are really dense (and it could be both). Turnout refers to the number of voters that actually go out and vote. Obama won because there was a good number of Democrats that went out and voted. If Dems didn't participate at a high rate, Obama would have lost. You seem confused because I never made a comment about whether Obama won independents or not.

I know I'm wasting time, but at least it's on the board for those who are interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html?_r=0

For real? I know what "Turn out" means. Those so called "Democrats" aren't Democrats. They're poor people who HAD NEVER VOTED BEFORE. EVER. AND MORE THAN LIKELY NEVER WILL AGAIN. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I'm sorry that doesn't fit into whatever nonsensical view of the world you seem to have. The New York Times and other Liberal ass rags can repeat that lie all they want, and so can you. Those voters didn't "turn out" in 2014 because nobody told them to. That was the entire point of my last post. Good to see that that zoomed right over your head.

 

[lfd0311]

Oh I'm SURE that the DEMS got together to strategize on how to win. But there's a stark difference between strategizing and vowing to vote No on anything and everything that the President is for. In my opinion that's not a strategy, that's throwing the Nation under the bus for Ideology.

No, there really isn't. And you can believe Democrats are absolutely capable of doing that. How many times has Hillary Clinton openly referred to Republicans as her enemy now?

 

[oldshadow]

It would be pretty funny if Republican obstructionism led to Clinton putting Obama on the SCOTUS and a Democratic Senate approving it.

About as funny as Trump and a republican Senate, depending on which side you sit on.

 

[SMEAC]

To be fair, that's all SMEAC ever does. I've never seen the guy in a real discussion. He just comes here to vent his anger at liberals.

As if the simple jack does anything other than engage in snark defense of Hillary

 

[kpt018]

For real? I know what "Turn out" means. Those so called "Democrats" aren't Democrats. They're poor people who HAD NEVER VOTED BEFORE. EVER. AND MORE THAN LIKELY NEVER WILL AGAIN. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I'm sorry that doesn't fit into whatever nonsensical view of the world you seem to have. The New York Times and other Liberal ass rags can repeat that lie all they want, and so can you. Those voters didn't "turn out" because nobody told them to. That was the entire point of my last post. Good to see that that zoomed right over your head.

You're just further exposing yourself as a hack. The NYT was the first thing that popped into the search but they simply reported the numbers. Like I said in the post there are tons of sites reporting the same thing in 2014. It's not a matter of bias they're fucking numbers. Turnout was the lowest in decades in 2014. It's not up for debate (it's a simple fact) so you can keep droning on all you want.

And WTF is up with your logic? You believe voter turnout doesn't matter because low income earners won't vote? HUH?

 

[SMEAC]

Your opinion.

Mine and many others, perhaps you should try being objective.

Unlike you and your leftist ilk here
I have no issue with people blocking stuff they don't believe inn the dems did it once the gop is now. You don't elect someone to agree to the opposite viewpoint

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

It would be pretty funny if Republican obstructionism led to Clinton putting Obama on the SCOTUS and a Democratic Senate approving it.

Why would you want that retard on the Supreme Court?

 

[Jack V Savage]

About as funny as Trump and a republican Senate, depending on which side you sit on.

You have an odd sense of humor, I guess. My example was people trying to use dirty tactics to get something and having it blow up in their faces, while yours is people using dirty tactics to get something and then getting it.

Also, Trump has almost no chance of beating Clinton. Rubio would be near 50/50, but in another example of how today's loony right puts emotion over reason, his chances of winning in the primary seem to be falling.

Why would you want that retard on the Supreme Court?

Talking about Obama. Like him or not, you can't really deny that he's comfortably in the top 0.1% of intelligence. And while I was kidding, he'd actually be great on the court.

 

[lfd0311]

You're just further exposing yourself as a hack. The NYT was the first thing that popped into the search but they simply reported the numbers. Like I said in the post there are tons of sites reporting the same thing in 2014. It's not a matter of bias they're fucking numbers. Turnout was the lowest in decades in 2014. It's not up for debate (it's a simple fact) so you can keep droning on all you want.

And WTF is up with your logic? You believe voter turnout doesn't matter because low income earners won't vote? HUH?

A hack? Bro, can you read? Of course voter turn out was low. Because the army of poor folks that voted for Obama didn't show up to vote in the Mid Term elections. This argument is so flawed at it's core its astounding. You Liberal Intellectuals all care deeply about politics, are all universally concerned and united behind the direction you wish to take this country.... except for when its time to f**king vote. So again, keep believing those reports. Keep trying to find a way to justify that ass kicking as something other than the majority of the country being flat out tired of Progressive Liberal nonsense. Because that is what it is, nonsense.

 

[Strychnine]

No, there really isn't. And you can believe Democrats are absolutely capable of doing that. How many times has Hillary Clinton openly referred to Republicans as her enemy now?

Saying that someone is the enemy and are still willing to work with them is a far cry from telling them no 100% of the time.

 

[lfd0311]

Saying that someone is the enemy and are still willing to work with them is a far cry from telling them no 100% of the time.

sure thing, dude.