| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Finally, some good political news...
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle. He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and looked ahead to next fall. …”I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time winning,” Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country – especially in Washington D.C.” “So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,” Priebus told the Examiner. = = = Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans. |
Finally, some good political news...
Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very different kind of 2016 election cycle. He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and looked ahead to next fall. …”I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time winning,” Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country – especially in Washington D.C.” “So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,” Priebus told the Examiner. = = = Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans. Never good for America or the people for a one party system. |
Finally, some good political news...
On 10/16/2015 11:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very different kind of 2016 election cycle. He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and looked ahead to next fall. …”I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time winning,” Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country – especially in Washington D.C.” “So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,” Priebus told the Examiner. = = = Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans. Reuters just announced the results of a computer generated prediction for the 2016 Presidential election. It predicts a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017. The prediction is full of flaws though. It's based primarily on historical data of things like how many times a two term party has successfully retained the presidency and other factors not really germane to this election cycle. The way things are going, the Republicans will be responsible for a major aberration of historical data by handing the White House to another Democrat after eight years and possibly control of Congress. |
Finally, some good political news...
On 10/16/15 11:33 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very different kind of 2016 election cycle. He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and looked ahead to next fall. …”I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time winning,” Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country – especially in Washington D.C.” “So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,” Priebus told the Examiner. = = = Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans. Never good for America or the people for a one party system. Oh, I'm not advocating a one party system. Perhaps a three party system... The mainstream Democratic Party A reborn mainstream Republican Party A Tea Party/Abolitionist/Hate Party, concentrated mainly in the most "Dixie" of the southern states |
Finally, some good political news...
On 10/16/15 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/16/2015 11:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very different kind of 2016 election cycle. He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and looked ahead to next fall. …”I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time winning,” Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country – especially in Washington D.C.” “So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,” Priebus told the Examiner. = = = Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans. Reuters just announced the results of a computer generated prediction for the 2016 Presidential election. It predicts a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017. The prediction is full of flaws though. It's based primarily on historical data of things like how many times a two term party has successfully retained the presidency and other factors not really germane to this election cycle. The way things are going, the Republicans will be responsible for a major aberration of historical data by handing the White House to another Democrat after eight years and possibly control of Congress. The White House and the Senate are possibilities for the Dems. I don't see the Repubs losing the House, what with all the gerrymandering they've done over the years. I'm at a loss trying to guess who the 2016 GOP POTUS candidate might be. If Trump doesn't do himself in, I can't see any of the others who are running knocking him off. I think Jeb has cooked his own goose. Rubio? Pretty slim pickings there. I don't see Sanders getting the nomination, but he and his campaign are performing a great service for this country in many ways. |
Finally, some good political news...
On 10/16/2015 12:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/16/15 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/16/2015 11:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very different kind of 2016 election cycle. He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and looked ahead to next fall. …”I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time winning,” Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country – especially in Washington D.C.” “So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,” Priebus told the Examiner. = = = Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans. Reuters just announced the results of a computer generated prediction for the 2016 Presidential election. It predicts a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017. The prediction is full of flaws though. It's based primarily on historical data of things like how many times a two term party has successfully retained the presidency and other factors not really germane to this election cycle. The way things are going, the Republicans will be responsible for a major aberration of historical data by handing the White House to another Democrat after eight years and possibly control of Congress. The White House and the Senate are possibilities for the Dems. I don't see the Repubs losing the House, what with all the gerrymandering they've done over the years. I'm at a loss trying to guess who the 2016 GOP POTUS candidate might be. If Trump doesn't do himself in, I can't see any of the others who are running knocking him off. I think Jeb has cooked his own goose. Rubio? Pretty slim pickings there. I don't see Sanders getting the nomination, but he and his campaign are performing a great service for this country in many ways. I like Bernie although I could never vote for him. He's honest, sincere and passionate in his beliefs. You can't be faulted for that. I caught the replays of his appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres where she asked him if he was ever in handcuffs. He has a genuine sense of humor. |
Finally, some good political news...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:40:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/16/2015 12:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: I don't see Sanders getting the nomination, but he and his campaign are performing a great service for this country in many ways. I like Bernie although I could never vote for him. He's honest, sincere and passionate in his beliefs. You can't be faulted for that. I caught the replays of his appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres where she asked him if he was ever in handcuffs. He has a genuine sense of humor. He wouldn't take the bait and admit the possibility that they were furr lined handcuffs. |
Finally, some good political news...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:06:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: The main reason Libertarians get nowhere is that they are recognized as just another offshoot of the GOPers, but with even less social conscience and sense of social responsibility, and total naivety on foreign policy. That is simply demonstrating your prejudice or perhaps ignorance of what it means to be Libertarian. They take, what I think, is the best parts of both parties. Have you ever taken the quiz at LP.ORG? And they haven't been helped by Libertarian elected officials such as Ron and Rand Paul, who many middle of the road Americans think are nuts and also just a tad too far over on the side of racists. The Pauls are not really Libertarians since they want the government to control the woman's right to choose, among other things. Did Browne even get 1% of the total vote in his two presidential campaigns? Yes in 96. When you consider that his ad budget was basically zero and he did not get much "free" advertising like Trump gets, it was as well as could be expected. There was also the Perot factor, siphoning off 3d party people. |
Finally, some good political news...
|
Finally, some good political news...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:41:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: Yes, I've seen and taken that simple-minded little quiz. It accurately reflects what I am saying... Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. What drugs? Marijuana? Sure. Crack? No. Heroin? No. Why? Because the drug war is working so well? End government barriers to international free trade. Uh-huh. Sure. Anything goes. No thanks. How is protectionism working for you? Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. Oh, please. Too many workers today barely make enough to eat. Without social security, they'd starve at retirement age. But of course that's ok, right? Economics and demographics will make that question moot soon. SS is already broke and it is just redistributing our kid's tax money ($150 million a year) right now. That number is going to go up exponentially in the next decade. This is a Poinzi and the natural result is occurring as we speak. They ran out of people at the bottom of the pyramid while those at the top are not going away.. Replace government welfare with private charity. Hah. Private charity doesn't raise enough $$$ to fill the gaps, and too much of it has religious restrictions and connections. I might agree with you but government charity should be a lot more focused on people who really need it, not the rich and lazy. (there is a lot of nm90ney to be made in brokering government charity) Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. Right, because libertarianism at its base level is...I've got mine, **** you. You don't m9ond cutting the spending at DOD? Mostly silliness. And there's a lot more to libertarianism than what's in that little quiz. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com