What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rover said:
Why bother when running for someone's 3rd term gets you elected???? Methinks mookie is living in some fantasyland where politics is fair and people don't take the easiest route to winning office! :eek: :D
Click to expand...

She can continue to get jobs off someone else. Mookie no care. But call a spade a spade.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

mookie1995 said:
Shouldn't a strong candidate who has been training their whole life be running for THEIR 1st term?
Click to expand...

Hillary has been running for president since she was in middle school. If adopting a popular predecessor as a "third term" is a way for her to get there, so be it.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

mookie1995 said:
She can continue to get jobs off someone else. Mookie no care. But call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

You've got me confused with someone else. I don't care if she runs as her 1st term, Bill's 3rd, Obama's 3rd, or Andy Jackson's 3rd. The point is to win the office, crush conservatism and p !ss on its corpse. Thought that was clear from my postings over the past 10 years but perhaps not...
 
Rover said:
You've got me confused with someone else. I don't care if she runs as her 1st term, Bill's 3rd, Obama's 3rd, or Andy Jackson's 3rd. The point is to win the office, crush conservatism and p !ss on its corpse. Thought that was clear from my postings over the past 10 years but perhaps not...
Click to expand...

you Rover are the pied piper for the rest of the weenie libs here. You toot and they pick up your tune (cept of course for kep). :D
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

...and please stop confusing whatever these guys (Cruz, tD, marko) be doing as conservatism!!! :p
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

mookie1995 said:
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Past a certain point, yeah, it kinda does. The self-understanding of an overwhelming number of American conservatives is that the noxious magma that vomits forth from the face holes of Ted Cruz or Peter King or Jonah Goldberg is "conservatism." For about thirty years, the American right has been dominated by monsters like these.

It's not even a split personality anymore if Mr. Hyde has been in control for that long. "You are what your record says you are."
 
Kepler said:
Past a certain point, yeah, it kinda does. The self-understanding of an overwhelming number of American conservatives is that the noxious magma that vomits forth from the face holes of Ted Cruz or Peter King or Jonah Goldberg is "conservatism." For about thirty years, the American right has been dominated by monsters like these.

It's not even a split personality anymore if Mr. Hyde has been in control for that long. "You are what your record says you are."
Click to expand...

Shoot Mookie now :(
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

So now the straw we're grasping for is saying that wanting to follow a plan that has been working(more or less) is somehow a flaw?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
Past a certain point, yeah, it kinda does. The self-understanding of an overwhelming number of American conservatives is that the noxious magma that vomits forth from the face holes of Ted Cruz or Peter King or Jonah Goldberg is "conservatism." For about thirty years, the American right has been dominated by monsters like these.

It's not even a split personality anymore if Mr. Hyde has been in control for that long. "You are what your record says you are."
Click to expand...

Yup. I appreciate that people long for 70's era conservatism, but that conservatism is dead and buried. Trump, Cruz, Steve King, Louis Gohmert, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckleberry, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Paul LePage, Bobby Jindal, Rick Scott, Sam Brownback... THIS is conservatism.
 
Rover said:
Yup. I appreciate that people long for 70's era conservatism, but that conservatism is dead and buried. Trump, Cruz, Steve King, Louis Gohmert, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckleberry, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Paul LePage, Bobby Jindal, Rick Scott, Sam Brownback... THIS is conservatism.
Click to expand...

nope.

It is not.

mookie may as well say he hung like wilt chamberlain
If mookie repeats that enough it still ain't true :(
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

mookie1995 said:
mookie will be the last one protecting that wall, sad to say....
Click to expand...

Well, you can go to the wall with it if you want but it's been redefined. Case in point. I heard Paul Ryan called a fiscal conservative this weekend. But, I can find nothing "conservative" about his budget proposals. In fact ALL of the budget proposals by the GOP of the last decade invariable involve not paying the bills. Paying the bills is number one in my mind for being a fiscal "conservative". Tim Pawlenty here in Minnesota, same way. He didn't pay the bills.

Starving the government isn't fiscal conservativism. Cutting the government is. Taking the easy path doesn't make you a "conservative". But, today it does because the definition has been changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top