Hillary Was Almost VP in 2012 and Christie Was Eliminated Over Ethics Concerns

[240 is Back]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[240 is Back]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Straw Man]

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."

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[Straw Man]

right off the FreedomWorks website (you know the group that organized the Teabaggers into a political force)

http://www.freedomworks.org/guy-trains-group

[240 is Back]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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   

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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

[240 is Back]

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. 

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[240 is Back]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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   

[240 is Back]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Straw Man]

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