Republicans Could Lock Up 2016 If...

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, CB:

There is a lot of Conservative garbage on Social Media that would make Ronald Reagan turn over in his grave.

The vitriol and hate I see, especially toward this President, can be down right scary.

The point is that there is PLENTY out there to counter all the liberal garbage you see.

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh, there is a plethora of uninformed letter voters on the right as well. I didn’t intend to frame it that way. I was speaking solely to the “in order for a republican to win” perspective.

Understood…!

Mufasa

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The tactical idea is only worthwhile to secure short term tactical advantage. [/quote]

Overall I agree with you, but it depends on the tactics. Take the House for example.

Gerrymandering has pretty much ensured it stays this red for a long, long time. Which, given the assumption the electorate has made its final push left into death spiral, is good. It ensures balance, and a slow down to the inevitable crash into collectivism.

SO in this instance, ensuring a “red” candidate can win, assuming the republicans don’t just “shift left” in order to win, is a good, long term tactic.

However, when it comes to the executive branch, your point is spot on and largely depressing as shit.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

The point is that there is PLENTY out there to counter all the liberal garbage you see.
[/quote]

It’s just not in the mainstream media outlets where 90% of a population get their info.

  1. He/She needs to oppose protection of religious liberty. Perhaps by jumping on the pizzeria smear bandwagon.
  2. Needs to not only refrain from opposing the liberal-progressive tutelary state, but also endorse it positively. Maybe just promise to run it “more efficiently” like a good “CEO.”

That’s all.

The winds are blowing in one political direction (in the whole). The idea (or fact) that a very specific perfect cosmetic match-up is still needed to defeat Hillary Clinton says as much.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. He/She needs to oppose protection of religious liberty. Perhaps by jumping on the pizzeria smear bandwagon.

  2. Needs to not only refrain from opposing the liberal-progressive tutelary state, but also endorse it positively. Maybe just promise to run it “more efficiently” like a good “CEO.”

That’s all.[/quote]

I like this, Sloth.

Can you see the GOP doing this…and of the possible candidates, who do you like so far?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. He/She needs to oppose protection of religious liberty. Perhaps by jumping on the pizzeria smear bandwagon.

  2. Needs to not only refrain from opposing the liberal-progressive tutelary state, but also endorse it positively. Maybe just promise to run it “more efficiently” like a good “CEO.”

That’s all.[/quote]

I like this, Sloth.

Can you see the GOP doing this…and of the possible candidates, who do you like so far?

Mufasa

[/quote]

Who cares, personally. It’d basically be a choice between two liberal Democrats. Which is my point.

By the way:

Fiorina “has my ear”…she just needs to lay out her vision.

Walker needs to get moving on his vision also.

I was impressed with what Paul laid out at Bowie state.

The Problem?

I see all three getting chewed up and spit out in the GOP Primary. (Even though Paul “won” the CPAC Straw Poll, for what it’s worth).

And Jeb is amassing INSANE amounts of money.

Mufasa

I mean, tell me exactly what the publicly acceptable Republican is going to actually accomplish?

Is he going to promise to cut taxes for an economic/financial sector of the economy that has gained the windfall of wealth/income, while promising to increase US military activity? And he’ll offset this with what? Apparently trying to offset some of the loss from the previous by promising to cut SS, medicare/caid? Lol.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way:

Fiorina “has my ear”…she just needs to lay out her vision.

Mufasa[/quote]

Disqualified. She’s a nutjob bigot.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. He/She needs to oppose protection of religious liberty. Perhaps by jumping on the pizzeria smear bandwagon.

  2. Needs to not only refrain from opposing the liberal-progressive tutelary state, but also endorse it positively. Maybe just promise to run it “more efficiently” like a good “CEO.”

That’s all.[/quote]

I like this, Sloth.

Can you see the GOP doing this…and of the possible candidates, who do you like so far?

Mufasa

[/quote]

Who cares, personally. It’d basically be a choice between two liberal Democrats. Which is my point.[/quote]

Okay…you had me a little confused there, Sloth!

I thought you had “softened” your stance a bit…but I should have known better, right?

Mufasa

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way:

Fiorina “has my ear”…she just needs to lay out her vision.

Mufasa[/quote]

Disqualified. She’s a nutjob bigot.[/quote]

Curious.

In what way?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. He/She needs to oppose protection of religious liberty. Perhaps by jumping on the pizzeria smear bandwagon.

  2. Needs to not only refrain from opposing the liberal-progressive tutelary state, but also endorse it positively. Maybe just promise to run it “more efficiently” like a good “CEO.”

That’s all.[/quote]

I like this, Sloth.

Can you see the GOP doing this…and of the possible candidates, who do you like so far?

Mufasa

[/quote]

Who cares, personally. It’d basically be a choice between two liberal Democrats. Which is my point.[/quote]

Okay…you had me a little confused there, Sloth!

I thought you had “softened” your stance a bit…but I should have known better, right?

Mufasa
[/quote]

I’m complicated. I distrust big business and big paternalistic government. Here though I’m merely giving the winning formula for Republicans. Run on the Democrat platform. And that’s just to beat Hillary Clinton who continues to have controversy swirling around her.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way:

Fiorina “has my ear”…she just needs to lay out her vision.

Mufasa[/quote]

Disqualified. She’s a nutjob bigot.[/quote]

Curious.

In what way?

Mufasa
[/quote]

Supported Indiana’s RFRA (the original version, even). Clearly a bigot and a kook.

This year’s qualifying question from the media–the ever watchful guardians of liberty–to GoP hopefuls, “Do you support the idea that a pizzeria can refuse to service, and discriminate against, a homosexual wedding?”

Who are you liking in the possible GOP field so far, Sloth?

Mufasa

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This year’s qualifying question from the media, the ever watchful guardians of liberty, “Do you support the idea that a pizzeria can refuse to service, and discriminate against, a homosexual wedding?”

[/quote]

And the “but mah abortions!!!” That one won’t go away until the tides continue to shift away from the wholesale slaughter of innocent humans.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Who are you liking in the possible GOP field so far, Sloth?

Mufasa[/quote]

Nobody. And, again, what’s the point?

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Walker needs to get moving on his vision also.

Mufasa[/quote]

ONe of the few, that based on my understanding, could run on his record, not go negative, and whoop major ass.

Only problem? He’s white, and didn’t go to an Ivy League School. He’ll get slaughtered by the race card in the general.

God forbid he isn’t into aborting babies too…