Though I’m glad to see Boehner go, I will hold off celebrating until a new speaker is chosen. I could see the GOP establishment pulling its bullshit and putting us right back in the same situation with an “Appeaser of the House.”
I know I’m being cynical, but they haven’t given me a reason to be optimistic.
Listen to the crowds reaction at 0:35.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Interesting that Boehner, apparently a man for all of TB’s seasons, before he goes, is expected to push through a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, the only place TB could think of federal government cutbacks in spending (from another thread a few short weeks ago).[/quote]
Where did I say I was a fan of Boehner? Now I get it. The problem is you don’t read good.
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
Solid strategy. Instead of consolidating, maintaining a united front through an election, and therefore improving their chances of getting a Republican in the White House, and then passing whatever the Hell they want (being able to run the table), the geniuses in the House want to stage a coup ousting someone who lacks ideological purity, make an bloody example out of a Speaker in their own party, all to have public control and to grandstand during a lame duck session where nothing will actually get done because of the veto.
Try to think of a dumber strategy to secure the endgame of controlling both houses and the White House.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Soooooo…TB, since this is a dreaded Newsmax article I’m betting you’re gonna say Carson never said this, eh?[/quote]
Who cares if he said it?
And I don’t dread NewsMax. It’s a tabloid and I simply think less of people who rely on it, that’s all.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[/quote]
Exactly right. Romney lost because 4 million Conservatives stayed home, but all we heard about was the mythical Latino vote and that it was the reason why Republicans lost. Romney could have gotten every single Latino vote and he would have still lost.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[/quote]
Ok, let me understanf you right. In your view, there are multitudes of right-wing voters (purist types, not moderates) who just need to be mobilized and inspired to vote.
But in 2012, these liberty-lovin’, socialist-hatin’ voters weren’t inspired to show up and vote against socialist, constitution-trampling, liberty-hating, government-expanding Obama, knowing full well this was their last, clear chance to stop him from expanding his crusade against America (emboldened by the fact he wouldn’t have another election), to actually repeal Obamacare (because you can’t unless you get Obama out of the White House), and to start generally implement a new agenda for the country?
No? They can’t be bothered to show up for that? Because they were so upset Romney was the candidate? They couldn’t be bothered to drive down to the polls to cast a ballot to stop the most leftist and worst president in our nation’s history? But ousting Boehner will light a fire under them to start casting votes in national elections?
Either these multitudes of voters are irredeemably stupid, or they don’t actually exist.
Smart money is on the latter.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[/quote]
Exactly right. Romney lost because 4 million Conservatives stayed home, but all we heard about was the mythical Latino vote and that it was the reason why Republicans lost. Romney could have gotten every single Latino vote and he would have still lost.
[/quote]
None of that matters to the TB’s of this world. They want moderation: Romney moderation, McCain moderation, Dole moderation, GHW Bush moderation, Boehner moderation, McConnell moderation. But history shows us that all that fucking moderation leads to is fucking Failure. Failure at the presidential ballot box and failure in the Congress and failure in the Supreme Court. Failure. [/quote]
Moderation is not a bad thing generally speaking. But when you have a runaway left wing of the democratic party in control nothing good gets done with moderation. As if Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Barack Obama and the others are even close to moderate. They’ve pulled the country left and when you cut deals with them you get nothing. John Boehner proved that over and over again. Always coming up with the short end of the stick because the left wing ideologues care not about bending one inch.
And the biggest irony of all is that the American electorate leans center right! So how did we get to the place we are at politically? Plenty of ways, a left wing media telling everyone that they’re one of the cool kids if they believe the left wing dogma. But moreover constantly compromising with the far left and getting nothing in return.
I’m sure John Boehner was a nice enough guy, at least he seemed it I never met him personally. but, he was in well over his skill level and giving away the store at every opportunity.
And as a side note speaking of people who are over their head, Republican Chairman Reince Priebus needs to go. I have seen many Republican chairman’s come and go over the years and I’ve never seen one more incompetent than Priebus. From allowing Candy Crowley to moderate one of the Obama/Romney debates (gee did he think she’d actually give Romney a fair deal?) to setting up so many debates four years ago so that we ate our own. This guy is a clown.
Okay that was a bit of a rant, but all painfully true.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[/quote]
Ok, let me understanf you right. In your view, there are multitudes of right-wing voters (purist types, not moderates) who just need to be mobilized and inspired to vote.
But in 2012, these liberty-lovin’, socialist-hatin’ voters weren’t inspired to show up and vote against socialist, constitution-trampling, liberty-hating, government-expanding Obama, knowing full well this was their last, clear chance to stop him from expanding his crusade against America (emboldened by the fact he wouldn’t have another election), to actually repeal Obamacare (because you can’t unless you get Obama out of the White House), and to start generally implement a new agenda for the country?
No? They can’t be bothered to show up for that? Because they were so upset Romney was the candidate? They couldn’t be bothered to drive down to the polls to cast a ballot to stop the most leftist and worst president in our nation’s history? But ousting Boehner will light a fire under them to start casting votes in national elections?
Either these multitudes of voters are irredeemably stupid, or they don’t actually exist.
Smart money is on the latter.
[/quote]
TB, it is a fact that approximately 4-6 million people stayed home who would normally have voted for the republican candidate. I have a slightly different take on why they stayed home than Push does. Generally speaking they did not want a Mormon in the White House. These are far right mostly Christian voters who rejected Romney out of hand. Again, not all of them felt that way I’m sure to many Romney looked like Obama watered down after passing health care in the state of Massachusetts.
Either way, you can be sure that there are plenty of republican voters who would get out and vote if the proper candidate were to emerge.
I saw it right here on T Nation. I’m one of those guys who will take a half a loaf over nothing. I encouraged everyone to vote out Obama. It’s only logical to vote for a candidate who represents at least some of your interests as opposed to staying home and allowing someone who represents none of your interests win. But, Romney was not their ideal candidate so many stayed home. I don’t understand that philosophy but that is in fact what happened.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[/quote]
Ok, let me understanf you right. In your view, there are multitudes of right-wing voters (purist types, not moderates) who just need to be mobilized and inspired to vote.
But in 2012, these liberty-lovin’, socialist-hatin’ voters weren’t inspired to show up and vote against socialist, constitution-trampling, liberty-hating, government-expanding Obama, knowing full well this was their last, clear chance to stop him from expanding his crusade against America (emboldened by the fact he wouldn’t have another election), to actually repeal Obamacare (because you can’t unless you get Obama out of the White House), and to start generally implement a new agenda for the country?
No? They can’t be bothered to show up for that? Because they were so upset Romney was the candidate? They couldn’t be bothered to drive down to the polls to cast a ballot to stop the most leftist and worst president in our nation’s history? But ousting Boehner will light a fire under them to start casting votes in national elections?
Either these multitudes of voters are irredeemably stupid, or they don’t actually exist.
Smart money is on the latter.
[/quote]
TB, it is a fact that approximately 4-6 million people stayed home who would normally have voted for the republican candidate. I have a slightly different take on why they stayed home than Push does. Generally speaking they did not want a Mormon in the White House. These are far right mostly Christian voters who rejected Romney out of hand. Again, not all of them felt that way I’m sure to many Romney looked like Obama watered down after passing health care in the state of Massachusetts.
Either way, you can be sure that there are plenty of republican voters who would get out and vote if the proper candidate were to emerge.
I saw it right here on T Nation. I’m one of those guys who will take a half a loaf over nothing. I encouraged everyone to vote out Obama. It’s only logical to vote for a candidate who represents at least some of your interests as opposed to staying home and allowing someone who represents none of your interests win. But, Romney was not their ideal candidate so many stayed home. I don’t understand that philosophy but that is in fact what happened.[/quote]
If you’re right - and I don’t think you are - but if so, then that bloc of voters, as I noted, is irredeemably stupid. If they think Obama is truly an America-hating, constitution-trampling socialist, but don’t turn out to boot such an obvious villain out of office, then they are too dumb to be relied upon in any election with any candidate. I mean that as objectively as I can, not in the pejorative sense of simply insulting them - as a voting bloc, they are completely unreliable, as they can’t eveb figure out basic politics.
Nothing should have driven them to the polls like trying to oust Obama. If they exist.
EDIT: fixed typo and added last sentence.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said Boehner’s departure - and the circumstances of it - are going to draw lots of negative attention to the GOP as we get closer to a looming election…one in which the GOP desperately must grab a share of unaffiliated voters.
[/quote]
That is a fallacy. The Republicans need to get their people to vote, not get unaffiliated votes. What would invigorate registered Republicans more than a new, bold speaker willing to actually do what he campaigned on?
[/quote]
Ok, let me understanf you right. In your view, there are multitudes of right-wing voters (purist types, not moderates) who just need to be mobilized and inspired to vote.
But in 2012, these liberty-lovin’, socialist-hatin’ voters weren’t inspired to show up and vote against socialist, constitution-trampling, liberty-hating, government-expanding Obama, knowing full well this was their last, clear chance to stop him from expanding his crusade against America (emboldened by the fact he wouldn’t have another election), to actually repeal Obamacare (because you can’t unless you get Obama out of the White House), and to start generally implement a new agenda for the country?
No? They can’t be bothered to show up for that? Because they were so upset Romney was the candidate? They couldn’t be bothered to drive down to the polls to cast a ballot to stop the most leftist and worst president in our nation’s history? But ousting Boehner will light a fire under them to start casting votes in national elections?
Either these multitudes of voters are irredeemably stupid, or they don’t actually exist.
Smart money is on the latter.
[/quote]
TB, it is a fact that approximately 4-6 million people stayed home who would normally have voted for the republican candidate. I have a slightly different take on why they stayed home than Push does. Generally speaking they did not want a Mormon in the White House. These are far right mostly Christian voters who rejected Romney out of hand. Again, not all of them felt that way I’m sure to many Romney looked like Obama watered down after passing health care in the state of Massachusetts.
Either way, you can be sure that there are plenty of republican voters who would get out and vote if the proper candidate were to emerge.
I saw it right here on T Nation. I’m one of those guys who will take a half a loaf over nothing. I encouraged everyone to vote out Obama. It’s only logical to vote for a candidate who represents at least some of your interests as opposed to staying home and allowing someone who represents none of your interests win. But, Romney was not their ideal candidate so many stayed home. I don’t understand that philosophy but that is in fact what happened.[/quote]
If you’re right - and I don’t think you are - but if so, then that bloc of voters, as I noted, is irredeemably stupid. If they think Obama is truly an America-hating, constitution-trampling socialist, but don’t turn out to boot such an obvious villain out of office, then they are too dumb to be relied upon in any election with any candidate. I mean that as objectively as I can, not in the pejorative sense of simply insulting them - as a voting bloc, they are completely unreliable, as they can’t eveb figure out basic politics.
Nothing should have driven them to the polls like trying to oust Obama. If they exist.
EDIT: fixed typo and added last sentence.[/quote]
I have been engaged in many conversations wondering why someone would stay home instead of voting for a candidate who comes closest to meeting their needs. You have seen the same talk on this site. Are they stupid, or just not sophisticated enough to realize exactly what they’re doing? I don’t know, but it happens all the time.
This article claims that about 4 million stayed home in 2012 most of them Christians.
Romney lost Florida by just less than 1% had he picked Florida Senator Rubio as I wanted him to he would most assuredly have won that states 29 electoral votes. Of course he still needed to win Ohio which he lost by only 1.9%, Wisconsin which was his strategy to win by picking Congressman Ryan, but lost anyway, (never pick a Congressman as your VP). And If he had won one more state he was supposed to win, Virginia which he lost by 3%, he would then have won the election.
I know all of this sounds far fetched. But had those 4-6 million (mostly) Christian voters showed up at the polls in those four states we could have possibly had a different outcome. Romney being a moderate absolutely did not help his chances. And being a Mormon certainly did him great harm with some. I am falling on the side of picking a strong conservative for 2016 and rallying the base, I think it would have worked in 2012, and will most certainly work in 2016.
I guess the moral of the story is this, if the exact republican that you love does not get the nomination don’t let that keep you home! Go out and vote for the candidate who best represents your interests (even if you don’t agree with him or her on 100% of the issues) and that candidate is certainly NOT any of the three stooges; Bernie, Biden or Clinton.
[quote] ZEB wrote:
I have been engaged in many conversations wondering why someone would stay home instead of voting for a candidate who comes closest to meeting their needs. You have seen the same talk on this site. Are they stupid, or just not sophisticated enough to realize exactly what they’re doing? I don’t know, but it happens all the time.Ã? [/quote]
By process of elimination, stupidity. It doesn’t take sophistication - it just takes basic horse sense. If you think someone that vile and destructive is irreversibly damaging America, you go vote to boot him out. Basic common sense. You don’t do it? Stupid. Like galactically stupid.
Again, we aren’t talking about people somewhat unhappy with Obama - we’re talking about folks ready to proverbally storm the Bastille to get rid of him because of the danger he presents.
But they can’t be bothered to vote. They’ll entertain fantasies of taking up (literal) arms against Obama to restore their “liberty!” - but they can’t go vote.
So, yes, stupid.
There is a third option, I suppose - they really don’t hate Obama as much as they let on. But that seems unlikely.