Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2013, 12:13:42 PM
-
Regarding Hillary, this just further proves that people vote the top of the ticket. Replacing a dumbo like Biden with her wouldn't have made a significant impact (per their own findings).
Report: Ethics troubles complicated Christie's chances for 2012 ticket
By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN
Fri November 1, 2013
Washington (CNN) -- Ethics troubles complicated New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's chances of becoming Mitt Romney's running mate last year, The New York Times reports is in an upcoming chronicle of the 2012 presidential campaign.
The Times reported that too many questions remained after Christie completed the vetting process and Romney had lingering concerns.
The details come four days before New Jersey voters head to the polls to determine if Christie gets a second term.
During a campaign stop Friday, he dismissed the report and told CNN that the authors are "just trying to sell books."
Christie's challenges were first reported Thursday night by Times national political correspondent Johnathan Martin and based on details of the book, "Double Down: Game Change 2012."
The highly anticipated book about the presidential election by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, is expected to be a juicy tell-all about the inner-workings of the presidential campaign.
Those concerns included a Justice Department investigation of Christie's expenditures while he was a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.
A 2010 report by the department's Inspector General concluded Christie — among five top prosecutors investigated -- was the "the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government (travel expense) rate without adequate justification."
He also offered "insufficient, inaccurate or no justification" for most of those costs, and refused to meet personally with investigators about the discrepancies.
Christie was not identified by name in the government report, but government sources have said he was "U.S. Attorney C," CNN confirmed.
Romney adviser Beth Myers, who ran Romney's vice presidential search committee, told CNN that "Governor Christie complied fully with the Romney campaign's request for documents in a timely manner, including a complete medical report from his internist and cardiologist."
Romney ultimately chose Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate.
Biden vs. Clinton
President Barack Obama's closest advisers may have secretly considered replacing Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton on the 2012 ticket, but White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday that it was never a remote possibility.
"Campaigns and pollsters test a lot of things," he told reporters at the daily White House briefing. "What I can tell you without a doubt is that the President never considered that and if anyone brought that to him, he would have laughed it out of the room, would never take it seriously."
Carney earlier told CNN's "New Day" that he knew "for a fact" Obama never considered it, later saying the idea was never brought to him.
He answered affirmatively when asked if Obama thought Biden would be a strong chief executive, saying that he had been an asset to the President in two campaigns and throughout the administration.
"Sure. I think the President picked Joe Biden as his running mate for the right reason, which is, if necessary, the vice president could be president. That's the first item on your checklist when you're picking your running mate," Carney said at the White House.
Asked about sizing up the potential Republican presidential field, Carney replied, "I think they all ought to run. It would be awesome."
Bill Daley, who was then Obama's chief of staff, said the swap wasn't necessary.
No one "thought that that was a good idea or needed to be done or should be done," Daley said on "CBS This Morning."
The Times obtained a copy of the book and reported that the President's top aides conducted "extensive group-sessions and polling in late 2011" to gauge whether dumping Biden could help bolster Obama's waning re-election hopes.
The book says Daley spearheaded the effort, despite their "close personal rapport," before ultimately deciding against the move when data showed that adding Clinton to the ticket wouldn't "materially improve Obama's odds."
Daley pushed back on the notion.
"Not for a moment was there a serious discussion or a belief that Joe Biden should be replaced, period," said Daley, a CBS contributor.
A difficult political year
Like Carney said, Daley admitted that it was something he considered and that polling and research were done to explore the possibility because it was his job to "look outside the box."
"But in 2011," Daley said, "it was a very difficult political year, and so my sense was we ought to look at everything here because this is a very -- it was a very difficult period, politically."
Polls conducted by CNN at the time showed that the President was struggling politically a year out from Election Day 2012. In the late summer and fall of 2011, Obama's approval ratings hovered around 45%, a 10-point drop from January of that year.
There was much speculation over whether Biden would be on a second-term ticket in late 2011 and early 2012.
Wolf Blitzer wrote on CNN.com in October 2011 that White House sources told him that the President was "very high" on Biden and "deeply appreciates his advice."
He said he asked Clinton, then Secretary of State, if it was something she would consider but she said, "No."
Obama's former deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, told CNN's Erin Burnett in January 2012, "Even privately, President Obama would tell you that one of the best decisions he's ever made in politics was putting Vice President Biden on his ticket."
"He's not leaving the ticket," Burton added.
According to Jonathan Martin, the Times' national political correspondent, the book provides a thorough account of the effort by senior officials inside the campaign and the White House, namely Daley, to measure what effect swapping Clinton for Biden would have on the polls.
The potential switch was a closely guarded secret within the Chicago campaign infrastructure and inside the Oval Office.
Only half a dozen of the President's closest advisers -- including Daley, former Obama campaign chief Jim Messina, and former White House senior advisers David Axelrod and David Plouffe -- knew the change was under consideration.
Messina, Plouffe and Axelrod took to Twitter to push back on the report.
Plouffe denied the White House or the campaign ever contemplated the swap.
"Never any consideration of (Biden-for-Clinton) switch," Plouffe wrote in a tweet.
The move was "not ever entertained by the only person who mattered. Or most of us. Back to Halloween," he added.
Axelrod tweeted: "VP swap never in play. Biden's taken on many tough assignments. He's been loyal friend and wise counselor. POTUS lucky to have him," Axelrod wrote Friday.
And Messina said: "Let me be clear: VP-HRC switch never considered by POTUS or anyone who mattered in the campaign. #sillyseason"
A significant investment
But Martin pointed out that it was, in fact, considered.
Martin told CNN's Anderson Cooper the re-election campaign made a significant investment in finding out whether the move would pay dividends at the polls.
"Campaigns don't spend the kind of money on polling and focus groups unless they're seriously considering something," he said on CNN's "AC360."
He said on the program that he asked Daley whether his then-boss knew about the potential shuffle. While Daley said he doesn't think the President "was aware" of the potential change, the former chief of staff admitted that it's "possible" Obama knew.
Martin added that "Double Down" does not definitively answer whether the political probing reached Obama's desk.
As to whether Clinton knew, Daley said on CBS that if she did know, she "didn't find out from me."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/politics/obama-campaign-biden/
-
I'm gonna read the book and decide but I suspect that this is a smear to eliminate at least one of Hil's threats.
-
I'm gonna read the book and decide but I suspect that this is a smear to eliminate at least one of Hil's threats.
Definitely possible. They've already started to demonize Cruz. Part of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.
-
Definitely possible. They've already started to demonize Cruz. Part of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.
and Cruz ended up 100% correct about ObamaCare
-
and Cruz ended up 100% correct about ObamaCare
True. Now he needs to get out of the way and let it implode, while offering a good alternative to the good parts of the law.
-
True. Now he needs to get out of the way and let it implode, while offering a good alternative to the good parts of the law.
Obama needs to be impeach and jailed for treason for what he did.
-
How can anyone read that article and determine that "Hilary was almost VP in 2012"?
-
Obama needs to be impeach and jailed for treason for what he did.
That's never going to happen. Republicans need to start working on a clear message, that isn't just anti-Obama.
-
HAHAHA @ Hillary having any 'threats'. Who are they again? Cruz? Christie? Maybe Trump will run again huh.
-
That's never going to happen. Republicans need to start working on a clear message, that isn't just anti-Obama.
True that.
But what message?
-
HAHAHA @ Hillary having any 'threats'. Who are they again? Cruz? Christie? Maybe Trump will run again huh.
No idea, but it's pretty silly to in 2013 that Hillary is unbeatable in 2016.
-
Anyone is unbeatable when the opposition can't nominate a candidate that generates more interest than yesterday's dog shit.
-
Anyone is unbeatable when the opposition can't nominate a candidate that generates more interest than yesterday's dog shit.
Nobody is unbeatable. Especially when the people running haven't been nominated, there have been no debates, we have no idea how the economy will be, and it's three years away.
What we've seen in 2008 and 2012 is even a ridiculously unqualified person can be elected president. Who knows what condition the country will be in, but if things continue down the current path, the election will be wide open.
-
Definitely possible. They've already started to demonize Cruz. Part of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.
It's been 8 years since Obama started using these tactics. Repubs and the right-wing media should have found ways to combat these strategies by now. They've been complaining about this shady-ass playbook for 08, 10, and 2012 elections now. Defeat it already. Or proclaim it as unbeatable and put your balls back in your purse. Every time I hear whining about this playbook, it's like, dude... come up with a counter-attack... if this liberal, radical book is still pwning your party 8 years later, maybe you dont have the balls/brains to lead.
I'm gonna read the book and decide but I suspect that this is a smear to eliminate at least one of Hil's threats.
Definitely possible. Reminds me of how Bush wrecked Mccain with the robocalls in SC in 2000.
-
Nobody is unbeatable. Especially when the people running haven't been nominated, there have been no debates, we have no idea how the economy will be, and it's three years away.
What we've seen in 2008 and 2012 is even a ridiculously unqualified person can be elected president. Who knows what condition the country will be in, but if things continue down the current path, the election will be wide open.
LOL @ ridiculously unqualified
he met all the qualification requirements in 2008 and certainly having been POTUS for 4 years (especially if one is capable of remember the shit storm he was handed) made him more qualified BY ANY STANDARD than any Repub contender in 2012
-
It's been 8 years since Obama started using these tactics. Repubs and the right-wing media should have found ways to combat these strategies by now. They've been complaining about this shady-ass playbook for 08, 10, and 2012 elections now. Defeat it already. Or proclaim it as unbeatable and put your balls back in your purse. Every time I hear whining about this playbook, it's like, dude... come up with a counter-attack... if this liberal, radical book is still pwning your party 8 years later, maybe you dont have the balls/brains to lead.
lol @ "right-wing media."
No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals. Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently.
But don't let the facts get in the way.
-
lol @ "right-wing media."
No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals. Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently.
But don't let the facts get in the way.
Really?
here is glenn beck on the air complaining about Saul Alinsky back in Feb 2010.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
I'm sorry if you don't listen to as much Beck as I do.
Rudy Guiliani talked at length about Saul Alinsky in 2008:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-right-wing-resurrects_b_1663154.html
Dick Armey talked about it nonstop in 2009. Same link.
Dude, I bet on getbig alone, Saul Alinsky was discussed by 33386 back in 2008, 2009 and probably earlier, with references to the Right Wing media articles.
beach bum, if you are only hearing about SA in 2013, I have to say, you need to pay closer attention to FOX, brietbart, and drudge - they're doing GREAT work in exposing these shady tactics. And they've been doing it for years. Those are the facts.
-
lol @ "right-wing media."
No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals. Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently.
But don't let the facts get in the way.
Did Carson mention that right wing groups like Freedom Works give copies out to their top leadership members?
-
No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals. Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently.
Actually, YOU posted a great article. In 2009. Where Limbaugh talks about the danger of Saul's tactics.
Really good article, reading it 4 years later. Republicans spent a great deal of time in 08/09 exposing Alinsky tactics. It's a shame, 4 years later, they're still powerless to stop them. :(
Conservatives Aren't the Extremists
Friday, June 5, 2009 10:14 AM
By: David Limbaugh Article Font Size
America's liberals and squishy Republicans routinely mischaracterize mainstream conservatives as extreme, when the liberals actually are the real extremists, by any fair measure.
Conservatives are not the ones who:
# Sermonize about tolerance yet demonstrate intolerance toward conservative and Christian thought
# Support exterminating babies in the womb
# Apologize the world over for America
# Or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States.
Conservatives aren't the ones who:
# Have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government
# Judge people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character
# Pit economic groups against one another, stoking the flames of envy and greed
# Punish success, reward failure, and promote mediocrity
# Side with the world's tyrants and dictators
# Slavishly attach themselves to leftist propaganda about impending environmental catastrophes
# Promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition
# Or morally equate the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques to save innocent lives with that of beheading innocent people.
Conservatives aren't the ones who:
# Seek to criminalize policy differences and, like a thuggish Third World dictatorship, prosecute previous administration officials for implementing EIT that their party's leadership was briefed on and approved
# Have a party leader who falsely accused the CIA of lying concerning those briefings
# Or who voted to give President George W. Bush authority to attack Iraq because they believed, based on our best intelligence at the time and that of the intelligence agencies of every other major nation, that Iraq had WMD and then spent the next five years attacking Bush for attacking Iraq and lying about Bush's alleged lies — contending that a man they painted as the dumbest president in history duped them into believing WMD existed.
Conservatives aren't the ones who:
# Actually blocked military ballots and falsely accused the other party of suppressing black voters, with absolutely no evidence.
# Publicly declared that President Bush delayed the federal response to Katrina because of his alleged racism, with utter disregard for the abominable lie it was and the untold damage that message would do to race relations
# Aren't honest about their beliefs, fearful the voters would reject them outright if they were
# Are using government money we don't have to fund community organizing groups to manipulate the census, gerrymander districts and register illegal voters by the thousands
# Or consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky to target, freeze and demonize private citizens who dissent from their policies.
Conservatives aren't the ones who:
# Seek to silence the opposition on talk radio and college campuses
# Support eliminating secret ballots for union membership to intimidate workers into joining the unions, and then have the audacity to call it free choice
# Oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools
# Reverse welfare reform despite its proven successful record; believe it's kosher for judges to twist the Constitution into whatever judges want it to say and consider foreign law in interpreting it
# Favor nationalizing healthcare instead of implementing market reforms in the face of overwhelming evidence that socialized medicine has been a disaster everywhere and every time it's been tried
# Glamorize the world's tyrants and the conditions in their thugocracies
# Ignore the verdict of history that socialism destroys the human spirit and cannot work in the real world — assuming it would be desirable if it could, which it most certainly would not
# Promote wide-open borders and universal amnesty for illegals
# Or believe government should be the primary arbiter of philanthropy in the United States.
Conservatives do want to:
# Restore constitutional principles, knowing we owe our liberties to our uniquely structured government and the Judeo-Christian principles undergirding it
# Recognize evil in the world and favor a strong national defense and peace through strength
# Believe in the individual and want to unleash his entrepreneurial spirit and provide him equal protection under the law
# Protect the lives of the unborn
# And defend traditional values — values that have been instrumental in making this the freest and most prosperous nation in history.
Republicans must cease this self-destructive tendency to emulate Democrats. They must grow more comfortable in their own political skin and return the party to its conservative roots by articulating, without apology or reservation, mainstream conservatism. They must quit allowing the left to define them and the terms of the national debate.
This is a war whose outcome will determine whether our children will live in freedom and prosperity, so let's answer the call.
http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Limbaugh_liberals_extreme/2009/06/05/221930.html
-
Really?
here is glenn beck on the air complaining about Saul Alinsky back in Feb 2010.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
I'm sorry if you don't listen to as much Beck as I do.
Rudy Guiliani talked at length about Saul Alinsky in 2008:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-right-wing-resurrects_b_1663154.html
Dick Armey talked about it nonstop in 2009. Same link.
Dude, I bet on getbig alone, Saul Alinsky was discussed by 33386 back in 2008, 2009 and probably earlier, with references to the Right Wing media articles.
beach bum, if you are only hearing about SA in 2013, I have to say, you need to pay closer attention to FOX, brietbart, and drudge - they're doing GREAT work in exposing these shady tactics. And they've been doing it for years. Those are the facts.
This is really funny. Stop trying to portray yourself as some Republican or conservative that follows conservative media. lol
No, I don't listen to Beck's show.
I doubt you heard Dick Army talk about anything nonstop in 2009.
No, I didn't hear anything about Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals until 2013.
-
Actually, YOU posted a great article. In 2009. Where Limbaugh talks about the danger of Saul's tactics.
Really good article, reading it 4 years later. Republicans spent a great deal of time in 08/09 exposing Alinsky tactics. It's a shame, 4 years later, they're still powerless to stop them. :(
This isn't an article about Alinsky's rules for radicals. But keep looking.
It's a shame people like you voted for Obama, despite his use of the Alinsky's rules.
And Republicans didn't do anything to expose Obama or Alinsky's tactics. They spent most of their time imploding, overall screwing things up during presidential campaigns, and paving the way for an incompetent, unqualified, dishonest community organizer to get elected.
You and the other people who voted for that should be proud.
-
From Wiki which referenced a Wall Street Journal Article
Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.
Kind of hard for right wing blowhards to piss and moan about it without mentioning that there side uses it too
Remember all the assholes screaming at town hall meetings
-
This is really funny. Stop trying to portray yourself as some Republican or conservative that follows conservative media. lol
No, I don't listen to Beck's show.
I doubt you heard Dick Army talk about anything nonstop in 2009.
No, I didn't hear anything about Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals until 2013.
I do follow conservative media, dude. patricularly FOX radio - Beck, Rush, Hannity and Levin. I think a lot of repubs here on getbig will vouch for that.
I can bump what is probably dozens of "tonight on Rush's show, I heard..." or "What do you think of what Levin said tonight" or "Is beck right" throughout the days. But I don't see a need. Getbiggers know I discuss these shows all the time with examples from that day, and I have for years now. Recently I even started a "Rush's show starts in 15 minutes... what will he say about..." lol... I mean, I'm doing countdown to FOX radio shows now haha.
Just because I'll argue anything doesn't mean I don't respect their points of view and really enjoy their shows.
-
And Republicans didn't do anything to expose Obama or Alinsky's tactics.
I have to disagree here.
Sept 2008 - Rudy Giuliani claimed on the television talk show Meet the Press that Obama had been recruited to Chicago by "a Saul Alinsky group" with "a very core Saul Alinsky kind of almost socialist notion that [government] should be used for redistribution of wealth."
Spring 2009 - After Obama entered the White House, Fox News' Glenn Beck constantly linked him to Alinsky, whom Beck viewed as a Marxist Machiavelli whose ideas for radical change had infiltrated the Democratic Party and mainstream liberalism
April 2011 - Bill O'Reilly told his audience that Alinsky "is in the great tradition of Karl Marx [and] Lenin." Commentator Monica Crowley said, "This is the very essence of socialism... The tactics of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama are geared toward wealth redistribution."
March 2012 - Sean Hannity invited Andrew Breitbart's editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro for a special FOX segment about the Obama-Alinsky connection.
Mitt would have loved to use the line about Saul, but since Mitt's own father used Alinsky for advice in 1967, it would have been awkward.
Beach Bum, Repubs have been revealing the shady connection and horrible tactics for 5 years now. The problem is that most repubs WERENT LISTENING. When Rudy, Rush, Beck, Hannity, and others all yell about it for 5 years, and staunch repubs like yourself assert as FACT that it only started being discussed in 2013, well... it's a shame when a lib like myself knows way more about Right wing coverage of alinsky than a repub like yourself. And you lecture me about facts... come on man, I admit when i get shit wrong, I'm wrong every day. No need to belittle me with "facts" talk when I'm actually correct on this point.
-
I have to disagree here.
Sept 2008 - Rudy Giuliani claimed on the television talk show Meet the Press that Obama had been recruited to Chicago by "a Saul Alinsky group" with "a very core Saul Alinsky kind of almost socialist notion that [government] should be used for redistribution of wealth."
Spring 2009 - After Obama entered the White House, Fox News' Glenn Beck constantly linked him to Alinsky, whom Beck viewed as a Marxist Machiavelli whose ideas for radical change had infiltrated the Democratic Party and mainstream liberalism
April 2011 - Bill O'Reilly told his audience that Alinsky "is in the great tradition of Karl Marx [and] Lenin." Commentator Monica Crowley said, "This is the very essence of socialism... The tactics of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama are geared toward wealth redistribution."
March 2012 - Sean Hannity invited Andrew Breitbart's editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro for a special FOX segment about the Obama-Alinsky connection.
Mitt would have loved to use the line about Saul, but since Mitt's own father used Alinsky for advice in 1967, it would have been awkward.
Beach Bum, Repubs have been revealing the shady connection and horrible tactics for 5 years now. The problem is that most repubs WERENT LISTENING. When Rudy, Rush, Beck, Hannity, and others all yell about it for 5 years, and staunch repubs like yourself assert as FACT that it only started being discussed in 2013, well... it's a shame when a lib like myself knows way more about Right wing coverage of alinsky than a repub like yourself. And you lecture me about facts... come on man, I admit when i get shit wrong, I'm wrong every day. No need to belittle me with "facts" talk when I'm actually correct on this point.
I'm neither a Republican, nor a "staunch repub." But you like to just make stuff up. That's you're history on the board.
Who cares if you found a snippet or two about somebody on Fox mentioning Saul Alinsky?? That's not the Republican Party. Find me a convention speech devoted to Alisnky. Ads run by the RNC and McCain or Romney. Something in the party platform. I doubt it exists.
But you did get one thing right: yes you are a liberal.
-
Who cares if you found a snippet or two about somebody on Fox mentioning Saul Alinsky?? That's not the Republican Party. Find me a convention speech devoted to Alisnky. Ads run by the RNC and McCain or Romney. Something in the party platform. I doubt it exists.
So what you're saying is that the repubs in office are so far out of touch, that they don't learn things until 5 years after their own media discusses it constantly. For 5 years, trolls on getbig like me, major party figures like Palin and Rudy, and all of the FOX news viewers knew about these evil strategies.
But republicans in office are so far out of touch that they didn't know about it. Maybe you're right. In that case, I"m a little worried about them being in power. If Iran or NK attacks us, maybe they don't find out about until 5 years afterwards.
Dude, it's completely unreasonable for republicans to "wait" for "party officials" like Reince Preibus or RINOS like Mccain to tell them how to think. They have the facts on fox new 24/7, and they don't even bother to research their enemy, Obama, and the tactics he uses.
Either they're clueless - which is horrible.... or they knew about them and didn't bother to coutner them. Either way, repubs look like shit for not being able to combat these tactics that most of us knew about for 5 years now.
-
So what you're saying is that the repubs in office are so far out of touch, that they don't learn things until 5 years after their own media discusses it constantly. For 5 years, trolls on getbig like me, major party figures like Palin and Rudy, and all of the FOX news viewers knew about these evil strategies.
But republicans in office are so far out of touch that they didn't know about it. Maybe you're right. In that case, I"m a little worried about them being in power. If Iran or NK attacks us, maybe they don't find out about until 5 years afterwards.
Dude, it's completely unreasonable for republicans to "wait" for "party officials" like Reince Preibus or RINOS like Mccain to tell them how to think. They have the facts on fox new 24/7, and they don't even bother to research their enemy, Obama, and the tactics he uses.
Either they're clueless - which is horrible.... or they knew about them and didn't bother to coutner them. Either way, repubs look like shit for not being able to combat these tactics that most of us knew about for 5 years now.
This is disingenuous tripe. Your guy got elected. Twice. You're not the least bit concerned about Republicans leading anything.
Republicans don't look like crap for not combating Alinsky's rules. They shouldn't be using those tactics. They shouldn't be demonizing their opponent. They should be focused on the issues. And do a much better job of fielding a variety of good candidates and running more efficient campaigns.
Actually, both parties need to do a much better job of fielding better candidates, so I have better choices come 2016.
-
And I just realized you've transformed this debate from your original claim that "they", the "Right wing media", never mentioned Saul until 2013,
lol @ "right-wing media."
No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals. Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently. .
into this:
Who cares if you found a snippet or two about somebody on Fox mentioning Saul Alinsky?? That's not the Republican Party. Find me a convention speech devoted to Alisnky. Ads run by the RNC and McCain or Romney. Something in the party platform. I doubt it exists.
You've changed the debate, into this new assertion that unless a party tool talks about it in the convention speech or ad, it's irrelevant.
I'm glad we now agree on the first point at least. It's good that we can find common ground, this time in my correct assertion that right-wing media has been talking about this for 5 years now. I'm sure we'll continue to find more common ground as we both learn more about these topics.
I would encourage you to listen to FOX news radio much more often - very informative, entertaining, often funny... and it allows you perspective into things like the shady Saul strategies, sometimes years before others around you.
-
Actually, both parties need to do a much better job of fielding better candidates, so I have better choices come 2016.
Agreed there too. But I think it's about power, money, and infrastructure. Hilary has more of it than anyone else, so the nomination is hers to lose.
It's more wide open on the GOP side.
-
And I just realized you've transformed this debate from your original claim that "they", the "Right wing media", never mentioned Saul until 2013,
into this:
You've changed the debate, into this new assertion that unless a party tool talks about it in the convention speech or ad, it's irrelevant.
I'm glad we now agree on the first point at least. It's good that we can find common ground, this time in my correct assertion that right-wing media has been talking about this for 5 years now. I'm sure we'll continue to find more common ground as we both learn more about these topics.
I would encourage you to listen to FOX news radio much more often - very informative, entertaining, often funny... and it allows you perspective into things like the shady Saul strategies, sometimes years before others around you.
Wrong. I laughed at your use of the phrase "right-wing media." It's silly.
We don't agree on anything, really.
And I'm fine with my media choices.
I also take nothing you say at face value. But you know that already.
-
Repubs LOVE Alinsky so why all the pretending that they don't?
For example, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organization that assists tea-party groups, has distributed Alinsky's books in training sessions.William F. Buckley Jr., the late conservative icon, described Alinsky as "very close to being an organizational genius."
This is one of the right wings favorite rules (as they themselves admit)
For example, one of the most memorable rules in Alinsky's popular "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" instructs: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
-
Obama has unbeatable the last two elections. He was the weakest POTUS in history in 2012 and still the GOP couldn't unseat him.
Maybe you can tell me exactly when and where the GOP has defeated Hillary in any election as well?
-
right off the FreedomWorks website (you know the group that organized the Teabaggers into a political force)
http://www.freedomworks.org/guy-trains-group
-
geez, I had no idea that so much of the republican party structure not only KNEW about alinsky tactics, but beyond that, wow...
It's unbelievable that obama is still using them so effectively, even after repubs have known about them for 5 years.
I do see why Repubs keep losing elections - an inability to defeat a political strategy after knowing it for 5 years... lacking brains, balls, or both.
-
geez, I had no idea that so much of the republican party structure not only KNEW about alinsky tactics, but beyond that, wow...
It's unbelievable that obama is still using them so effectively, even after repubs have known about them for 5 years.
I do see why Repubs keep losing elections - an inability to defeat a political strategy after knowing it for 5 years... lacking brains, balls, or both.
They learned it after seeing used by Obama since 2007 - either way anyone who votes for Hillary is an equal lying digusting slug. Of course liberals love liars and snakes so they will lick her box just the same as they do Obama
-
Obama has unbeatable the last two elections. He was the weakest POTUS in history in 2012 and still the GOP couldn't unseat him.
Maybe you can tell me exactly when and where the GOP has defeated Hillary in any election as well?
No, he wasn't unbeatable the last two elections. Yes, he was incredibly weak and should have lost in 2012. We should be ashamed of ourselves for putting that man back in office. And the GOP should be embarrassed they couldn't unseat him.
Hillary has won a grand total of 2 elections. She won a seat that had been held by a Democrat for nearly 25 years (Moynihan) and was reelected, just like most incumbents. She then lost an election to the most unqualified man to win the presidency in my lifetime, and I'm pretty sure in American history. She doesn't have an election record that makes her unbeatable. She's not even the nominee. It's way too early to start making guaranteed predictions.
-
No, he wasn't unbeatable the last two elections. Yes, he was incredibly weak and should have lost in 2012. We should be ashamed of ourselves for putting that man back in office. And the GOP should be embarrassed they couldn't unseat him.
Hillary has won a grand total of 2 elections. She won a seat that had been held by a Democrat for nearly 25 years (Moynihan) and was reelected, just like most incumbents. She then lost an election to the most unqualified man to win the presidency in my lifetime, and I'm pretty sure in American history. She doesn't have an election record that makes her unbeatable. She's not even the nominee. It's way too early to start making guaranteed predictions.
should have lost?
says who?
~ 126 million of your fellow citizens voted in the last election
that's how we decided who "should" win or lose
your side should be ashamed that you couldn't find a viable candidate to defeat what you believe was such a weak incumbant
-
He got 6 million less votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 - he is a worthless communist slug only propped up due to the welfare voter, the racist black voter, the communist/progressive white voter like yourself, govt workers, the radical lezbos, etc
should have lost?
says who?
~ 126 million of your fellow citizens voted in the last election
that's how we decided who "should" win or lose
your side should be ashamed that you couldn't find a viable candidate to defeat what you believe was such a weak incumbant
-
Obama SHOULD have lost in 2012, I agree there.
Completely beatable, unpopular, and fresh off obamacare. Tired and unenthusiastic. Doing everything he could to lose. A lot of data said he was beatable, should have lost, and most repubs agree he should have lost.
Romney was a phony, and had a long liberal history - base repub voters didn't donate and they didn't show up to vote. From getting spray tanned to appeal to Univision voters to the 47% comment "I never said that...", well, Romney was like a cartoon character.
-
No, he wasn't unbeatable the last two elections. Yes, he was incredibly weak and should have lost in 2012. We should be ashamed of ourselves for putting that man back in office. And the GOP should be embarrassed they couldn't unseat him.
Hillary has won a grand total of 2 elections. She won a seat that had been held by a Democrat for nearly 25 years (Moynihan) and was reelected, just like most incumbents. She then lost an election to the most unqualified man to win the presidency in my lifetime, and I'm pretty sure in American history. She doesn't have an election record that makes her unbeatable. She's not even the nominee. It's way too early to start making guaranteed predictions.
He wasn't unbeatable? Please tell us again who won the election and who beat him? ::)
So the only election that Hillary lost has been to that same unbeatable man, who just happens to be a Democrat. The GOP hasn't found a way to beat her in an election yet huh? That won't change.
-
He wasn't unbeatable? Please tell us again who won the election and who beat him? ::)
So the only election that Hillary lost has been to that same unbeatable man, who just happens to be a Democrat. The GOP hasn't found a way to beat her in an election yet huh? That won't change.
Pretty poor logic. Was Dubya unbeatable because he won two presidential elections? Of course not. That really makes no sense.
Hillary has only had three elections. And no, the GOP hasn't found a way to beat her in all two of her elections when running against Republicans. What a juggernaut. lol
But hey if you believe the 2016 election is already over and Hillary will be elected president, then good for you. I'll wait and see how this plays out. Heck, I might even vote for her depending on who the Republican nominee is, assuming Hillary is the Democrat nominee.
-
No, Bush had the first election handed to him. The second one he won because his opponent Kerry was just a schmuck. So yes, considering the Dem candidates that were fielded, Bush was unbeatable.
So was Obama. If he wasn't unbeatable, then why didn't he lose? That is the logic of this issue.
The GOP hasn't found a way to stop either of those Clintons yet. And given the piss poor candidates that it has to select from for 2016, it won't then either.
-
The GOP hasn't found a way to stop either of those Clintons yet. And given the piss poor candidates that it has to select from for 2016, it won't then either.
Obama, Bill, and Hilary are undefeated against the Republicans. I just realized that when you wrote that. Wow.
I do believe that a Jeb/Rand Paul ticket could defeat Hilary... Jeb brings that experienced, serious gravitas that people trust. Nobody is going to look at a squirly, giggling 42 year old Marco Rubio and say "Wow, this guy really is ready to lead the free world..."
Jeb has the serious, conservative traditional voters in his pockets, he has FL, and he has the hispanic voters too. Add in Rand, and you have the tea party ecstatic and a few Ron Paul lovers tagging along for another chance to wear the cool "LOVE" t-shirts.
Together, they'd be a tough combination to beat. However, I do think the GOP will splinter like they did in 2012... remember Cain, Newt, Perry all eating one another with cries of "You're more lib than I am!" and after the election, they all go their separate ways. hate obama all you want - but he put Biden, Hilary, and Kerry - the main power players of the party - right into his pocket to ensure party unity.
Does the GOP have party unity?
-
No, Bush had the first election handed to him. The second one he won because his opponent Kerry was just a schmuck. So yes, considering the Dem candidates that were fielded, Bush was unbeatable.
So was Obama. If he wasn't unbeatable, then why didn't he lose? That is the logic of this issue.
The GOP hasn't found a way to stop either of those Clintons yet. And given the piss poor candidates that it has to select from for 2016, it won't then either.
You just explained why Bush wasn't unbeatable in your response. And you made the case for Obama not being unbeatable by saying the GOP put up piss poor candidates.
You'd have a stronger argument if Republicans nominated terrific candidates and still lost. (Even though I think Romney, despite his faults, was head and shoulders a better candidate than Obama.)
I'll agree that Hillary will be a formidable candidate if she is the nominee in 2016.
-
You just explained why Bush wasn't unbeatable in your response. And you made the case for Obama not being unbeatable by saying the GOP put up piss poor candidates.
You'd have a stronger argument if Republicans nominated terrific candidates and still lost. (Even though I think Romney, despite his faults, was head and shoulders a better candidate than Obama.)
I'll agree that Hillary will be a formidable candidate if she is the nominee in 2016.
Hillary brings what to the table again? She is an old corrupt bag who will be forced to defend obamacare and benhgazi and the horrible economy.
Christie would demolish her
-
Hillary brings what to the table again? She is an old corrupt bag who will be forced to defend obamacare and benhgazi and the horrible economy.
Christie would demolish her
WHy don't polls reflect this thinking, 333386? Quite the opposite.
hilary, as much as a bag of shit as she is... has a monster infrastructure that almost took her to the white house.
Christie is still screaming at local teachers.
Repubs would LOVE to show a poll showing Christie leading HIlary, but in every polled matchup, Hilary has a comfy lead.
-
Hillary brings what to the table again? She is an old corrupt bag who will be forced to defend obamacare and benhgazi and the horrible economy.
Christie would demolish her
Well she's a Clinton for one. They win.
She already has much of the Democrat establishment locked up.
What remains to be seen is whether she can lure independents.
-
Well she's a Clinton for one. They win.
She already has much of the Democrat establishment locked up.
What remains to be seen is whether she can lure independents.
Obama is probably the most successful politician in history
he has never lost a race and went from State Senator to US Senator to two time POTUS
comments like "he should have lost" are just ridiculous but I understand that some people might need to tell themselves this as some sort of comfort for being baffled as to how it could have happened
-
Again, if Obama was beatable, he would have lost.
He didn't. And all things aside that motley crew of douchebags the GOP ran as candidates were the best thing they had to offer at the time.
-
Again, if Obama was beatable, he would have lost.
He didn't. And all things aside that motley crew of douchebags the GOP ran as candidates were the best thing they had to offer at the time.
this simple and undeniable fact is obviously too much for some people to process
-
Obama is probably the most successful politician in history
he has never lost a race and went from State Senator to US Senator to two time POTUS
comments like "he should have lost" are just ridiculous but I understand that some people might need to tell themselves this as some sort of comfort for being baffled as to how it could have happened
LOL - he never lost a race. Wrong again tool. Good god are you ignorant of the ghetto turd you slavishly worship.
-
this simple and undeniable fact is obviously too much for some people to process
Exactly. How much common sense must be missing to say someone isn't unbeatable when they WON the last two elections pretty damn handily.
::)
-
Exactly. How much common sense must be missing to say someone isn't unbeatable when they WON the last two elections pretty damn handily.
::)
That was not the point Straw TWINK made. Obama is not batting .1000 in his political career.
Regardless - the liar in chief will elave office worse than W at this rate
-
LOL - he never lost a race. Wrong again tool. Good god are you ignorant of the ghetto turd you slavishly worship.
fair enough
he lost an election to the House of Representatives in 2000
what's that make him 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 6
You're the person on this board who has devoted his life to all things Obama (real and even more so imagined)
still a damn excellent track record as a politician
-
fair enough
he lost an election to the House of Representatives in 2000
what's that make him 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 6
You're the person on this board who has devoted his life to all things Obama (real and even more so imagined)
still a damn excellent track record as a politician
Running in all dem districts and state - lol
-
Running in all dem districts and state - lol
and won the POTUS on his first try
and crushed what was left of your fragile sanity when he was re-elected
how does that compare to Reagan or Romney or Bush the Elder or Ron Paul or shit the list is endless
-
and won the POTUS on his first try
and crushed what was left of your fragile sanity when he was re-elected
how does that compare to Reagan or Romney or Bush the Elder or Ron Paul or shit the list is endless
So Bush Jr won gov, president and never lost a race. Obama did.
Check mate
-
So Bush Jr won gov, president and never lost a race. Obama did.
Check mate
he lost the 2000 presidential election and was awarded the office by his fathers friends
-
he lost the 2000 presidential election and was awarded the office by his fathers friends
::)
-
::)
Bush lost a race for the House of Representatives in 1978
-
Bush lost a race for the House of Representatives in 1978
So he is the same as Obama right?
-
So he is the same as Obama right?
noticed how when I was wrong I admitted it
-
noticed how when I was wrong I admitted it
I was too I guess - didn't know Jorge Arbusto El Segundo lost a race.
-
I was too I guess - didn't know Jorge Arbusto El Segundo lost a race.
no need to pretend to guess
-
Again, if Obama was beatable, he would have lost.
He didn't. And all things aside that motley crew of douchebags the GOP ran as candidates were the best thing they had to offer at the time.
Could a Jeb/Ron Paul ticket have beaten Obama? Yes, I'm very confident it could have.
Ann Coulter was right - mitt romney will lose. Christie might have won in 2012... obama was that bad and Christie was that new. Now, we've seeen him scream in the face of a dozen women... he's a dick, and he's fat. Doesn't look or act like prez, isn't likable. Can't win now.
-
Could a Jeb/Ron Paul ticket have beaten Obama? Yes, I'm very confident it could have.
Ann Coulter was right - mitt romney will lose. Christie might have won in 2012... obama was that bad and Christie was that new. Now, we've seeen him scream in the face of a dozen women... he's a dick, and he's fat. Doesn't look or act like prez, isn't likable. Can't win now.
how do you figure
the name Bush is still poison and Ron Paul couldn't even get many people in his own party behind him
-
Could a Jeb/Ron Paul ticket have beaten Obama? Yes, I'm very confident it could have.
Ann Coulter was right - mitt romney will lose. Christie might have won in 2012... obama was that bad and Christie was that new. Now, we've seeen him scream in the face of a dozen women... he's a dick, and he's fat. Doesn't look or act like prez, isn't likable. Can't win now.
No.
-
how do you figure
the name Bush is still poison and Ron Paul couldn't even get many people in his own party behind him
Against Hilary, Jeb is polling the highest right now. Still down 7 points, but Rubio is losing to Hilary by 12 points. Yes, seriously.