"If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral
votes.The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like
the Whig Party. Our kids and grand kids would study how this used to be a
national political party. ‘They had Conventions, they nominated
Presidential candidates. They don’t exist anymore.’ ”
Best part of the article. Makes me hope that Limbaugh keeps the vitriol flowing.
"If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral
votes.The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like
the Whig Party. Our kids and grand kids would study how this used to be a
national political party. ‘They had Conventions, they nominated
Presidential candidates. They don’t exist anymore.’ ”
Best part of the article. Makes me hope that Limbaugh keeps the vitriol flowing.
If you voted for Obama you must like having no jobs and paying double for gas and paying skyrocketing college tuition with no jobs after they graduate. I know those welfare sponges love em because there is over 40 million of them. Obama supporters are brain dead. Please tell me what he has done that benefited this country. LOL
Now there's a sure way to win over majority-leaning Democrats. Call them "Brain Dead". I'm sure they will cross over to the GOP in the next election.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ontherocks28:
If you voted for Obama you must like having no jobs and paying double for gas and paying skyrocketing college tuition with no jobs after they graduate. I know those welfare sponges love em because there is over 40 million of them. Obama supporters are brain dead. Please tell me what he has done that benefited this country. LOL
Now there's a sure way to win over majority-leaning Democrats. Call them "Brain Dead". I'm sure they will cross over to the GOP in the next election.
Ironically,George Bush's two election victories were do to him winning 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Texas Republicans grew up around Hispanics. They understand better than the rest of the country.
Texas will turn purple sooner or later, but I think the Texas Republicans will fight hard to stay in charge. Their background suggests that.
0
Ironically,George Bush's two election victories were do to him winning 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Texas Republicans grew up around Hispanics. They understand better than the rest of the country.
Texas will turn purple sooner or later, but I think the Texas Republicans will fight hard to stay in charge. Their background suggests that.
Ironically,George Bush's two election victories were do to him winning 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Texas Republicans grew up around Hispanics. They understand better than the rest of the country.
Texas will turn purple sooner or later, but I think the Texas Republicans will fight hard to stay in charge. Their background suggests that.
Believe it or not George Bush was a much better candidate than Romney was. And he won those Hispanic votes deservingly so.
0
Quote Originally Posted by promark12:
Ironically,George Bush's two election victories were do to him winning 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Texas Republicans grew up around Hispanics. They understand better than the rest of the country.
Texas will turn purple sooner or later, but I think the Texas Republicans will fight hard to stay in charge. Their background suggests that.
Believe it or not George Bush was a much better candidate than Romney was. And he won those Hispanic votes deservingly so.
Stilin, there's still a major debate within the Republican Party on how you treat immigration, and Hispanics, in general, seem to make this debate their focus.
As long as the far right in the party refuses to budge, it will continue to give the Hispanics to the Democrats. This is something that the GOP has to deal with, and it's becoming as polorizing as the abortion issue.
0
Stilin, there's still a major debate within the Republican Party on how you treat immigration, and Hispanics, in general, seem to make this debate their focus.
As long as the far right in the party refuses to budge, it will continue to give the Hispanics to the Democrats. This is something that the GOP has to deal with, and it's becoming as polorizing as the abortion issue.
Stilin, there's still a major debate within the Republican Party on how you treat immigration, and Hispanics, in general, seem to make this debate their focus.
As long as the far right in the party refuses to budge, it will continue to give the Hispanics to the Democrats. This is something that the GOP has to deal with, and it's becoming as polorizing as the abortion issue.
Can you read bro?? Stiln.... One "i".....
Actually not only was george bush soft on immigrants Obama has deported nearly twice the amount bush did so its hysterical to watch moronic right wingers whine and cry about Obamas stance on immigration.
0
Quote Originally Posted by promark12:
Stilin, there's still a major debate within the Republican Party on how you treat immigration, and Hispanics, in general, seem to make this debate their focus.
As long as the far right in the party refuses to budge, it will continue to give the Hispanics to the Democrats. This is something that the GOP has to deal with, and it's becoming as polorizing as the abortion issue.
Can you read bro?? Stiln.... One "i".....
Actually not only was george bush soft on immigrants Obama has deported nearly twice the amount bush did so its hysterical to watch moronic right wingers whine and cry about Obamas stance on immigration.
You are right, so maybe it's not the actual doings, but the rhetoric coming from the far right that turns off Hispanics. And Romney was out there trying to act conservative and also court hispanics. It's like trying to play ping pong with yourself.
0
You are right, so maybe it's not the actual doings, but the rhetoric coming from the far right that turns off Hispanics. And Romney was out there trying to act conservative and also court hispanics. It's like trying to play ping pong with yourself.
Actually not only was george bush soft on immigrants Obama has deported nearly twice the amount bush did so its hysterical to watch moronic right wingers whine and cry about Obamas stance on immigration.
He meant to put an "a" where the "i" is.
As you know Stalin means steel.
Promark's Freudian slip is either because...
A. Your rock hard abs of steel.
B. Your political philosophy is left of Stalin.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Can you read bro?? Stiln.... One "i".....
Actually not only was george bush soft on immigrants Obama has deported nearly twice the amount bush did so its hysterical to watch moronic right wingers whine and cry about Obamas stance on immigration.
The immigration issue does not drive the Hispanic vote to the Democrats....it's Democratic party's core principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation ..
The Hispanic poor want the same things as the 47%er's of Americans want Free Stuff and handouts...'Nannystate' Government'..
0
Promark12,
The immigration issue does not drive the Hispanic vote to the Democrats....it's Democratic party's core principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation ..
The Hispanic poor want the same things as the 47%er's of Americans want Free Stuff and handouts...'Nannystate' Government'..
If Texas were to become a blue state that would mean your party would have ZERO checks and balances. Is that what you would really prefer?
I freely admit that I wouldn't want the GOP to go unchecked for years to come.
ZERO checks balances?? Uh you're purporting the worst case scenario that Texas becomes a blue state and elects democrats in every single election for the future. That would never happen. There will be bad candidates from both parties in the future in which case certain historically blue states would not vote the democratic candidate necessarily.
Although lets entertain your idea that Texas does become a blue state like California giving the Democrats a win in the next 10 or so presidential elections... There are still state and local leaders that a blue state might feel need a republican congressman ,senator or a republican governor...There's one way that the checks and balances are still in place. Bills, laws, pieces of legislation still have to be voted on by both houses of congress....
Your argument will most likely be that well a supreme court would be primarily liberal and that would result in decision getting swayed to the liberal.democratic side. Again that's wrong, because its the NOT the job of the supreme court to make political decisions in fact there was a famous supreme court case (Baker v Carr) declaring that it's not in the courts power to make those decisions as the Supreme Court is ONLY able to decide LEGAL questions...
So there would still be MANY forms of checks and balances......
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Stiln,
Real talk here.
If Texas were to become a blue state that would mean your party would have ZERO checks and balances. Is that what you would really prefer?
I freely admit that I wouldn't want the GOP to go unchecked for years to come.
ZERO checks balances?? Uh you're purporting the worst case scenario that Texas becomes a blue state and elects democrats in every single election for the future. That would never happen. There will be bad candidates from both parties in the future in which case certain historically blue states would not vote the democratic candidate necessarily.
Although lets entertain your idea that Texas does become a blue state like California giving the Democrats a win in the next 10 or so presidential elections... There are still state and local leaders that a blue state might feel need a republican congressman ,senator or a republican governor...There's one way that the checks and balances are still in place. Bills, laws, pieces of legislation still have to be voted on by both houses of congress....
Your argument will most likely be that well a supreme court would be primarily liberal and that would result in decision getting swayed to the liberal.democratic side. Again that's wrong, because its the NOT the job of the supreme court to make political decisions in fact there was a famous supreme court case (Baker v Carr) declaring that it's not in the courts power to make those decisions as the Supreme Court is ONLY able to decide LEGAL questions...
So there would still be MANY forms of checks and balances......
ZERO checks balances?? Uh you're purporting the worst case scenario that Texas becomes a blue state and elects democrats in every single election for the future. That would never happen. There will be bad candidates from both parties in the future in which case certain historically blue states would not vote the democratic candidate necessarily.
Although lets entertain your idea that Texas does become a blue state like California giving the Democrats a win in the next 10 or so presidential elections... There are still state and local leaders that a blue state might feel need a republican congressman ,senator or a republican governor...There's one way that the checks and balances are still in place. Bills, laws, pieces of legislation still have to be voted on by both houses of congress....
Your argument will most likely be that well a supreme court would be primarily liberal and that would result in decision getting swayed to the liberal.democratic side. Again that's wrong, because its the NOT the job of the supreme court to make political decisions in fact there was a famous supreme court case (Baker v Carr) declaring that it's not in the courts power to make those decisions as the Supreme Court is ONLY able to decide LEGAL questions...
So there would still be MANY forms of checks and balances......
Perhaps you have a bigger disconnect from reality than I had assumed.
If Texas became a BLUE state there would be no way for a Republican president to be elected under the current model.
If the Supreme court ALWAYS base decisions on the law then why the need for 9 judges?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
ZERO checks balances?? Uh you're purporting the worst case scenario that Texas becomes a blue state and elects democrats in every single election for the future. That would never happen. There will be bad candidates from both parties in the future in which case certain historically blue states would not vote the democratic candidate necessarily.
Although lets entertain your idea that Texas does become a blue state like California giving the Democrats a win in the next 10 or so presidential elections... There are still state and local leaders that a blue state might feel need a republican congressman ,senator or a republican governor...There's one way that the checks and balances are still in place. Bills, laws, pieces of legislation still have to be voted on by both houses of congress....
Your argument will most likely be that well a supreme court would be primarily liberal and that would result in decision getting swayed to the liberal.democratic side. Again that's wrong, because its the NOT the job of the supreme court to make political decisions in fact there was a famous supreme court case (Baker v Carr) declaring that it's not in the courts power to make those decisions as the Supreme Court is ONLY able to decide LEGAL questions...
So there would still be MANY forms of checks and balances......
Perhaps you have a bigger disconnect from reality than I had assumed.
If Texas became a BLUE state there would be no way for a Republican president to be elected under the current model.
If the Supreme court ALWAYS base decisions on the law then why the need for 9 judges?
Perhaps you have a bigger disconnect from reality than I had assumed.
If Texas became a BLUE state there would be no way for a Republican president to be elected under the current model.
If the Supreme court ALWAYS base decisions on the law then why the need for 9 judges?
Again IF Texas did become a blue state that doesn't mean that they will ALWAYS vote for the democratic candidate. You think this argument is so clear cut like there are no other variables to it. One variable would be the changing more progressive society the U.S is becoming. If you look around you more states are adopting gay marriage laws, abortion laws, marijuana laws, and all kinds of other social welfare programs/ laws. And so in Texas there are lot of unhappy latinos with regards to the immigration laws etc.. So the republicans would have to revamp their party's views on these issues. ...
You thinking that this scenario is black and white and that if texas was a blue state mathematically there would be no more republicans in office,,,, yes.... But being a "blue state" is just a label..does not mean that it would vote for every single democratic candidate that steps on to the stage.... Many historically red and blue states have voted for the opposite candidate's party of that state.
1 supreme court justice?? You're the one suggesting that we need more checks and balances if Texas were to become a blue state. Having more justices CREATES MORE checks and balances so a collective group of brilliant minds can make decisions on important LEGAL matters. Having one judge would reduce the amount of checks and balances, allowing NO dissenting opinions, discussions of opinions etc...
I'm not sure you have any idea even remotely what you're talking about......
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Perhaps you have a bigger disconnect from reality than I had assumed.
If Texas became a BLUE state there would be no way for a Republican president to be elected under the current model.
If the Supreme court ALWAYS base decisions on the law then why the need for 9 judges?
Again IF Texas did become a blue state that doesn't mean that they will ALWAYS vote for the democratic candidate. You think this argument is so clear cut like there are no other variables to it. One variable would be the changing more progressive society the U.S is becoming. If you look around you more states are adopting gay marriage laws, abortion laws, marijuana laws, and all kinds of other social welfare programs/ laws. And so in Texas there are lot of unhappy latinos with regards to the immigration laws etc.. So the republicans would have to revamp their party's views on these issues. ...
You thinking that this scenario is black and white and that if texas was a blue state mathematically there would be no more republicans in office,,,, yes.... But being a "blue state" is just a label..does not mean that it would vote for every single democratic candidate that steps on to the stage.... Many historically red and blue states have voted for the opposite candidate's party of that state.
1 supreme court justice?? You're the one suggesting that we need more checks and balances if Texas were to become a blue state. Having more justices CREATES MORE checks and balances so a collective group of brilliant minds can make decisions on important LEGAL matters. Having one judge would reduce the amount of checks and balances, allowing NO dissenting opinions, discussions of opinions etc...
I'm not sure you have any idea even remotely what you're talking about......
Again IF Texas did become a blue state that doesn't mean that they will ALWAYS vote for the democratic candidate. You think this argument is so clear cut like there are no other variables to it. One variable would be the changing more progressive society the U.S is becoming. If you look around you more states are adopting gay marriage laws, abortion laws, marijuana laws, and all kinds of other social welfare programs/ laws. And so in Texas there are lot of unhappy latinos with regards to the immigration laws etc.. So the republicans would have to revamp their party's views on these issues. ...
You thinking that this scenario is black and white and that if texas was a blue state mathematically there would be no more republicans in office,,,, yes.... But being a "blue state" is just a label..does not mean that it would vote for every single democratic candidate that steps on to the stage.... Many historically red and blue states have voted for the opposite candidate's party of that state.
1 supreme court justice?? You're the one suggesting that we need more checks and balances if Texas were to become a blue state. Having more justices CREATES MORE checks and balances so a collective group of brilliant minds can make decisions on important LEGAL matters. Having one judge would reduce the amount of checks and balances, allowing NO dissenting opinions, discussions of opinions etc...
I'm not sure you have any idea even remotely what you're talking about......
I only brought up the supreme court thing to prove a point.
You would think that it wouldn't take 9 justices to unscramble the laws that are on the books.
I agree that the country is trending toward the middle but not nearly as fast as you think it is.
I think that Obama won because he was able to fool people into believing that he isn't who/what he is. Not because more people want to see two men getting married or two women.
I do believe POT should be legalized in all states myself.
I also believe in what I said before, and I don't think the GOP should abandon many of the core principles just to cater to the 'trends'.
Obama has been somewhat of a 'Rock Star' , able to sway the majority of the true independents, (sorry DL36 not talking about you) but you libs will vote for a real donkey if it has a 'D' branded on it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Again IF Texas did become a blue state that doesn't mean that they will ALWAYS vote for the democratic candidate. You think this argument is so clear cut like there are no other variables to it. One variable would be the changing more progressive society the U.S is becoming. If you look around you more states are adopting gay marriage laws, abortion laws, marijuana laws, and all kinds of other social welfare programs/ laws. And so in Texas there are lot of unhappy latinos with regards to the immigration laws etc.. So the republicans would have to revamp their party's views on these issues. ...
You thinking that this scenario is black and white and that if texas was a blue state mathematically there would be no more republicans in office,,,, yes.... But being a "blue state" is just a label..does not mean that it would vote for every single democratic candidate that steps on to the stage.... Many historically red and blue states have voted for the opposite candidate's party of that state.
1 supreme court justice?? You're the one suggesting that we need more checks and balances if Texas were to become a blue state. Having more justices CREATES MORE checks and balances so a collective group of brilliant minds can make decisions on important LEGAL matters. Having one judge would reduce the amount of checks and balances, allowing NO dissenting opinions, discussions of opinions etc...
I'm not sure you have any idea even remotely what you're talking about......
I only brought up the supreme court thing to prove a point.
You would think that it wouldn't take 9 justices to unscramble the laws that are on the books.
I agree that the country is trending toward the middle but not nearly as fast as you think it is.
I think that Obama won because he was able to fool people into believing that he isn't who/what he is. Not because more people want to see two men getting married or two women.
I do believe POT should be legalized in all states myself.
I also believe in what I said before, and I don't think the GOP should abandon many of the core principles just to cater to the 'trends'.
Obama has been somewhat of a 'Rock Star' , able to sway the majority of the true independents, (sorry DL36 not talking about you) but you libs will vote for a real donkey if it has a 'D' branded on it.
I only brought up the supreme court thing to prove a point.
You would think that it wouldn't take 9 justices to unscramble the laws that are on the books.
I agree that the country is trending toward the middle but not nearly as fast as you think it is.
I think that Obama won because he was able to fool people into believing that he isn't who/what he is. Not because more people want to see two men getting married or two women.
I do believe POT should be legalized in all states myself.
I also believe in what I said before, and I don't think the GOP should abandon many of the core principles just to cater to the 'trends'.
Obama has been somewhat of a 'Rock Star' , able to sway the majority of the true independents, (sorry DL36 not talking about you) but you libs will vote for a real donkey if it has a 'D' branded on it.
You brought up the court thing to bring a point? What point there is none. Just you sound like person with an extremely low IQ..
This country it trending towards the middle not as fast as I think? Really? Aside from the fact that I don't give a shit about gay marriage, weed, or abortions who cares...
Huh? What does this is even mean? To me it sounds like you have no argument and are just mad about Obama winning.
The GOP will do whatever it wants to do or has to do. It doesn't care what bowslit thinks..
I'm not as liberal as you think but you're free to think whatever it is you'd like, this is an anonymous internet forum...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I only brought up the supreme court thing to prove a point.
You would think that it wouldn't take 9 justices to unscramble the laws that are on the books.
I agree that the country is trending toward the middle but not nearly as fast as you think it is.
I think that Obama won because he was able to fool people into believing that he isn't who/what he is. Not because more people want to see two men getting married or two women.
I do believe POT should be legalized in all states myself.
I also believe in what I said before, and I don't think the GOP should abandon many of the core principles just to cater to the 'trends'.
Obama has been somewhat of a 'Rock Star' , able to sway the majority of the true independents, (sorry DL36 not talking about you) but you libs will vote for a real donkey if it has a 'D' branded on it.
You brought up the court thing to bring a point? What point there is none. Just you sound like person with an extremely low IQ..
This country it trending towards the middle not as fast as I think? Really? Aside from the fact that I don't give a shit about gay marriage, weed, or abortions who cares...
Huh? What does this is even mean? To me it sounds like you have no argument and are just mad about Obama winning.
The GOP will do whatever it wants to do or has to do. It doesn't care what bowslit thinks..
I'm not as liberal as you think but you're free to think whatever it is you'd like, this is an anonymous internet forum...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
