6/7 of the GOP frontrunners for Prez nomination agree with Libs on _________.

[240 is Back]

Jeb supports amnesty, calls it an act of love-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jeb-Bush-immigration-amnesty-Republican/2014/04/11/id/565010/

Rand is on board now too, taking major heat for it-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/25/Rand-Paul-Amnesty-Legislation-Could-Pass-This-Year

Christie supports it, newsmax blasts him for it -
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/30/chris-christie-clarifies-on-amnesty-illegals-need-to-go-to-the-back-of-the-line/

Pawlenty supports amnesty AND min wage increase-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/01/Tim-Pawlenty-GOP-Should-Support-Reasonable-Minimum-Wage-Increase-Amnesty

Romney - supports amnesty, on video lol -

&feature=related

Rubio - YES I support Amnesty, and here's why -
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/ugh-marco-rubio-still-supports-senate-amnesty-plan-video/

Ted Cruz?  He ain't having that bullshit.

[LurkerNoMore]

Not a single one of those can beat Hillary.  So it doesn't matter.

[240 is Back]

Not a single one of those can beat Hillary.  So it doesn't matter.

I have a few repub friends that have NO IDEA that most conservatives have "quietly" softened up their positions in order to pander to Hispanic voters.  Even worse are the "conservative" voters that cheerlead their shift as if they supports amnesty all along.  "Oh, it's inveitable!' - I wonder how many of them just GAVE UP on the obamacare fight, because, hey, it's inevitable, right?

I used to think that... Hey, let's just cave, its inevitable, right?  No more.  Repubs, you gotta be better than that.

[dario73]

And that is why many of those repubes can't be considered conservatives.

Which is why they have lost the last 2 presidential elections.

[OzmO]

And that is why many of those repubes can't be considered conservatives.

Which is why they have lost the last 2 presidential elections.

then who is gonna run that has legit chance to win?

This crap continues and it will be 16 years of Dem presidency, 32 if you count Bush as one lol

[Coach is Back!]

Not a single one of those can beat Hillary.  So it doesn't matter.

And for no other reason besides being a women just like voting for Obama only because he was black...and we're seeing the result of that.

[dario73]

then who is gonna run that has legit chance to win?

This crap continues and it will be 16 years of Dem presidency, 32 if you count Bush as one lol

In a situation like this, I have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul should be the ones representing the GOP. Not Christie, not Jeb.
Cruz and Rand are the only ones that I would vote for. I get nervous when I hear Rand talk about immigration, but otherwise I can support him on most issues.

But if neither of them are representing the GOP in 2016, then I am staying home.

I wish there was a solid third party. I wish one would rise.

[dario73]

And for no other reason besides being a women just like voting for Obama only because he was black...and we're seeing the result of that.

Ask lurkerthedolt to name a single Hitlery accomplishment and he will post an even more convoluted answer than what she gave. She couldn't answer the question, nor could any of her surrogates/supporters/homo fan boys.

[240 is Back]

And for no other reason besides being a women just like voting for Obama only because he was black...and we're seeing the result of that.

so why not run condi rice - black, and a woman - and win over all the dem voters?

[syntaxmachine]

The plan in question -- S.R. 744 -- calls for securing the border and creating a mechanism for expediting citizenship acquisition for the immigrants already here.

Putting aside the issue of whether the particular policy prescriptions of S.R. 744 will work, what alternative is there? Mass deportation? The status quo?

[240 is Back]

The plan in question -- S.R. 744 -- calls for securing the border and creating a mechanism for expediting citizenship acquisition for the immigrants already here.

Putting aside the issue of whether the particular policy prescriptions of S.R. 744 will work, what alternative is there? Mass deportation? The status quo?

keeping them illegal.  tighten up border security.  and make it so punitive that businesses will stop hiring them.

Right now, they can play dumb "Oh, i totally thought those papers were real..."

Make is so punitive that there are no more jobs.  then, they return home, and the streets here become safer.

[Coach is Back!]

so why not run condi rice - black, and a woman - and win over all the dem voters?

1. She has no desire to run that I know of.

2. Dems don't care. She's republican. Race and gender only matter to them if they're a lib. In their eyes, she's white. The female version of an Uncle Tom. It doesn't help them either that she's smarter than the entire left combined.

[240 is Back]

1. She has no desire to run that I know of.

2. Dems don't care. She's republican. Race and gender only matter to them if they're a lib. In their eyes, she's white. The female version of an Uncle Tom. It doesn't help them either that she's smarter than the entire left combined.

I keep hearing "oh, libs only vote for so-and-so because skin color, gender".

If 51% of the country was conservative, it wouldn't matter who they chose.

Since 51% of this country is liberal, well, repubs need to find a way to invite more voters to their camp.

[dario73]

The plan in question -- S.R. 744 -- calls for securing the border and creating a mechanism for expediting citizenship acquisition for the immigrants already here.

Oh, just like in 1986 when the promise was made to secure the border if amnesty was given to 3 million illegal invaders. Amnesty passed and the border was never secured. Sure, a few pieces of a wall were raised here and there but here we are again 27 years later. An unfulfilled promise has led to another 11 million illegal invaders to flood the county. And that 11 million figure is a conservative one.

Now, why should amnesty be given to these law breakers? Why? Who says that the USA HAS TO GIVE THEM AMNESTY? The USA doesn't have to do anything. Giving them amnesty is like giving a warm plate of food to a criminal who has broken into your house and raped your wife while holding a knife to her neck.

What should happen is that politicians can choose to grow a sack, enforce the current immigration laws, start enforcing penalties on employers/corporations that hire them, start raiding work places that are suspected of hiring illegals, start imposing financial penalties on property owners that give them homes where there are 15 illegals living in a 3 room house or apartment, stop recognizing anchor babies as citizens, and make it illegal for them to receive any type of federal assistance. Strip them of any rights. ILLEGALS are not supposed to have any rights at the same level as any other citizen. They are not supposed to have driver licenses, nor reduced in-state college tuition, nor any DREAM of making it here if they broke the law. It is pretty damn simple.

MAKE IT AS UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THEM AS THEIR OWN HOMELANDS MAKE IT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

IF the USA does that you will see them leaving by the millions.

[OzmO]

Oh, just like in 1986 when the promise was made to secure the border if amnesty was given to 3 million illegal invaders. Amnesty passed and the border was never secured. Sure, a few pieces of a wall were raised here and there but here we are again 27 years later. An unfulfilled promise has led to another 11 million illegal invaders to flood the county. And that 11 million figure is a conservative one.

Now, why should amnesty be given to these law breakers? Why? Who says that the USA HAS TO GIVE THEM AMNESTY? The USA doesn't have to do anything. Giving them amnesty is like giving a warm plate of food to a criminal who has broken into your house and raped your wife while holding a knife to her neck.

What should happen is that politicians can choose to grow a sack, enforce the current immigration laws, start enforcing penalties on employers/corporations that hire them, start raiding work places that are suspected of hiring illegals, start imposing financial penalties on property owners that give them homes where there are 15 illegals living in a 3 room house or apartment, stop recognizing anchor babies as citizens, and make it illegal for them to receive any type of federal assistance. Strip them of any rights. ILLEGALS are not supposed to have any rights at the same level as any other citizen. They are not supposed to have driver licenses, nor reduced in-state college tuition, nor any DREAM of making it here if they broke the law. It is pretty damn simple.

MAKE IT AS UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THEM AS THEIR OWN HOMELANDS MAKE IT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

IF the USA does that you will see them leaving by the millions.

Racist Post Reported
































































 

[240 is Back]

Great post. 

[LurkerNoMore]

Ask lurkerthedolt to name a single Hitlery accomplishment and he will post an even more convoluted answer than what she gave. She couldn't answer the question, nor could any of her surrogates/supporters/homo fan boys.

Her accomplishment?  Being a Clinton and beating the GOP in every race they have ever been in.  The GOP hasn't found a way to beat a Clinton yet and it won't start with the next POTUS if she decides to run.

That's the only accomplishment she needs.

[Coach is Back!]

Her accomplishment?  Being a Clinton and beating the GOP in every race they have ever been in.  The GOP hasn't found a way to beat a Clinton yet and it won't start with the next POTUS if she decides to run.

That's the only accomplishment she needs.

And you'll vote for her because she's a Clinton and a women. Like Obama, forget that he was a no name with no accomplishments.

[GigantorX]

Not a single one of those can beat Hillary.  So it doesn't matter.

I think there is a chance she doesn't run...

A good chance.

I'm fine with that, I can do without political royal families.

[Coach is Back!]

I think there is a chance she doesn't run...

A good chance.

I'm fine with that, I can do without political royal families.

She'll run and probably win. If there's anyone thats power hungry, it's a Clinton.

[240 is Back]

She'll run and probably win. If there's anyone thats power hungry, it's a Clinton.

unless cruz runs against her, and the base actually shows up to vote.


they didn't bother to vote mccain, they didn't bother to vote romney.  yet for some reason, some "repubs" think they'll magically show up to vote for another RINO like christie or Jeb. 

And rand and rubio are doing everything they can to turn RINO as fast as possible on a few issues

Cruz + cardio + weight training = 2016 for the win

[chadstallion]

looking forward to the debate when they are asked if they believe in creationism? the hands going up in the air will create a draft in the auditorium.

[syntaxmachine]

unless cruz runs against her, and the base actually shows up to vote.


they didn't bother to vote mccain, they didn't bother to vote romney.  yet for some reason, some "repubs" think they'll magically show up to vote for another RINO like christie or Jeb.  

And rand and rubio are doing everything they can to turn RINO as fast as possible on a few issues

Cruz + cardio + weight training = 2016 for the win

Bloody hell: we already discussed the fact that Tea Partiers -- paradigmatic 'conservatives' in the American sense if anybody is -- are getting destroyed this primary season. At the presidential level, the genuinely conservative candidates can't even win their own party's nomination (see Perry and company in 2012). Yet such candidates will fare better come general election time?

[240 is Back]

Bloody hell: we already discussed the fact that Tea Partiers -- paradigmatic 'conservatives' in the American sense if anybody is -- are getting destroyed this primary season. At the presidential level, the genuinely conservative candidates can't even win their own party's nomination (see Perry and company in 2012). Yet such candidates will fare better come general election time?

(I think) in both elections, there were a bunch of tea partiers and 2 or 3 RINOs running.   tea partiers split the vote 5 ways, and romney could win with a 24% "majority".   And they ran outta money and dropped out fast, since they had to split donations 5 ways with the other tea partiers.

I hope primary voters are smart enough NOT to nomination a RINO.  If they do, I hope we don't see that recycled drivel on getbig "oh, the RINO jeb/christie is the most ELECTABLE"  hahahah oh brother.

[syntaxmachine]

(I think) in both elections, there were a bunch of tea partiers and 2 or 3 RINOs running.   tea partiers split the vote 5 ways, and romney could win with a 24% "majority".   And they ran outta money and dropped out fast, since they had to split donations 5 ways with the other tea partiers.

For the sake of argument, we can meld all of the 2012 Republican presidential primary candidates you want to call 'genuine' conservatives into a single entity: this synthetic being will still have received less votes than Rino Romney, who received the majority of the popular vote in addition to winning most districts across the country.

The Republican party clearly chose RINOism over conservatism, even if the vote for conservatism was distributed amongst multiple candidates.

Thus, my point remains: it isn't reasonable to argue that a party should advance the type of candidate who can't even win his own party's nomination. The establishment correctly discerns that such candidates will perform even more disastrously come general election time.

If you're not convinced, we can look at Congress for more evidence: according to the Brookings Institution, there have been 89 tea party challenges to incumbent establishment Republicans in the House this primary season, and every single one has lost. Of the 38 contests with no Republican incumbent, Tea Party candidates have won 9 -- but this is mostly moot since many of the contests are in safe Democratic districts.

All of the tea party challenges in the Senate were defeated as well.

So, paradigmatic American conservative candidates flourish literally nowhere in the US political system -- but you insist that such candidates -- who, once again, can't even win the primary contests of their own party -- would be the best to advance to the general election level?

I hope primary voters are smart enough NOT to nomination a RINO.  If they do, I hope we don't see that recycled drivel on getbig "oh, the RINO jeb/christie is the most ELECTABLE"  hahahah oh brother.

You'll definitely hear it, because it is true!