GOP Agrees to Forfeit Presidency? by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

GOP Agrees to Forfeit Presidency?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 19:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2151
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 8:49 PM

From what I understand, House Speaker and other leaders of the Republican Party have essentially pledged to hold their nose at the stench of their presumptive nominee, for the purpose of having a unified campaign to benefit down-ticket candidates.

This seems to mean they have agreed to give up all hope of winning the White House, and just plan to have enough Congressional power to stop more of the Obamination of America, and bring America back from the brink.

With Ryan as Speaker, they would at least have the spine for it.
But after 8 years of every Senator and Representative who promised to stop Obama and then cow-towing, capitulating, cowering, compromising and caving to every request he issued, is the GOP also figuring that they may not get a pile of returning legislators? All those Congressional incumbents who have exposed themselves as useless to the conservative voters may not be returning.

If a Third Party wins the White House, this can be very good, but if Hilliary survives the Email Primary and then is elected, how will their foolish compromise with their principles serve them in 2017?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 12:09 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Republicans, please remember: the majority of you asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.

I will be reminding you all of that, from time to time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 2:59 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

"All those incumbents who have exposed themselves as useless to the conservative voters may not be returning."

The only sensible thing you said in your post. I agree with Second, you guys had a choice of who would emerge from the clown car as the nominee for the Con-servative
Party. And so, "you gets what you pays for."

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 8:08 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Donald Trump dislikes the media. I can imagine President Trump pushing a federal law making it illegal to criticize the president — punishable by long prison terms. At that point, he might as well be Vladimir Putin and his nation will be in deep trouble.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/06/06/who-are-the-anonymous-people-ter
rorizing-those-who-criticize-putin/
Russia currently has a law that makes insulting state officials illegal and punishable by up to a year of correctional labor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 8:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I can imagine President Obama pushing a federal law making it legal to surveil everyone at any time

Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine that.

-----------

This is one election where party lines have become almost meaningless. Hillary is courting neocon Republicans, and Trump is courting Sanders anti-establishment voters. The election isn't about Democrat versus Republican; for many people it's about establishment versus non-establishment. Or, as I heard one Sanders voter in CA say, when asked if he would vote for Hillary:

"Nah, I'm voting for Trump. Let's pop this zit and get on with it"

As far as dreams of a third-party vote, there are too many people committed to trying to keep "the other" candidate from winning to give third-party enough of a chance to win. OTOH, there are also a lot of people who can't imagine voting for either of the presumptive nominees, and as long as they don't stay home third parties should do well this year. They won't win, but some of them may break that magic 5% number at which the major parties have to actively start courting them.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 9:23 AM

REAVERFAN

Quote:
This seems to mean they have agreed to give up all hope of winning the White House, and just plan to have enough Congressional power to stop more of the Obamination of America, and bring America back from the brink.

The brink?

Obama brought us back from the brink Bush left us at. It seems conservatives can't remember anything that happened before Jan. 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 12:57 PM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I can imagine President Obama pushing a federal law making it legal to surveil everyone at any time

Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine that.

-----------

This is one election where party lines have become almost meaningless. Hillary is courting neocon Republicans, and Trump is courting Sanders anti-establishment voters. The election isn't about Democrat versus Republican; for many people it's about establishment versus non-establishment. Or, as I heard one Sanders voter in CA say, when asked if he would vote for Hillary:

"Nah, I'm voting for Trump. Let's pop this zit and get on with it"

As far as dreams of a third-party vote, there are too many people committed to trying to keep "the other" candidate from winning to give third-party enough of a chance to win. OTOH, there are also a lot of people who can't imagine voting for either of the presumptive nominees, and as long as they don't stay home third parties should do well this year. They won't win, but some of them may break that magic 5% number at which the major parties have to actively start courting them.

quote SIG

I can imagine President Obama pushing a federal law making it legal to surveil everyone at any time

Above is SIG using an act of deception to suggest she is responding to what someone posted. The statement she put in quotes is nowhere to be found in this thread.

What I would say to you moron is that while you are continuously suggesting how the West sucks, your fearless leader (Putin), is dismantling any freedoms they have in Russia. Even the right to have an opinion. Hey SIG, 1kiki turn around, a monster is lurking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Donald Trump dislikes the media. I can imagine President Trump pushing a federal law making it illegal to criticize the president — punishable by long prison terms. At that point, he might as well be Vladimir Putin and his nation will be in deep trouble.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/06/06/who-are-the-anonymous-people-ter
rorizing-those-who-criticize-putin/
Russia currently has a law that makes insulting state officials illegal and punishable by up to a year of correctional labor.

I have tried in vain, so far, to find the poll that I have heard about which shows Hilliary and Donald having more unfavorable ratings among American Voters than Putin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I can imagine President Obama pushing a federal law making it legal to surveil everyone at any time

Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine that.

-----------

This is one election where party lines have become almost meaningless. Hillary is courting neocon Republicans, and Trump is courting Sanders anti-establishment voters. The election isn't about Democrat versus Republican; for many people it's about establishment versus non-establishment. Or, as I heard one Sanders voter in CA say, when asked if he would vote for Hillary:

"Nah, I'm voting for Trump. Let's pop this zit and get on with it"

As far as dreams of a third-party vote, there are too many people committed to trying to keep "the other" candidate from winning to give third-party enough of a chance to win. OTOH, there are also a lot of people who can't imagine voting for either of the presumptive nominees, and as long as they don't stay home third parties should do well this year. They won't win, but some of them may break that magic 5% number at which the major parties have to actively start courting them.

Are you saying a Third Party candidate won't win a single state?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I can imagine President Obama pushing a federal law making it legal to surveil everyone at any time

Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine that.
-----------
This is one election where party lines have become almost meaningless. Hillary is courting neocon Republicans, and Trump is courting Sanders anti-establishment voters. The election isn't about Democrat versus Republican; for many people it's about establishment versus non-establishment. Or, as I heard one Sanders voter in CA say, when asked if he would vote for Hillary:

"Nah, I'm voting for Trump. Let's pop this zit and get on with it"

As far as dreams of a third-party vote, there are too many people committed to trying to keep "the other" candidate from winning to give third-party enough of a chance to win. OTOH, there are also a lot of people who can't imagine voting for either of the presumptive nominees, and as long as they don't stay home third parties should do well this year. They won't win, but some of them may break that magic 5% number at which the major parties have to actively start courting them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally imagined by SIGNYM:
I can imagine President Obama pushing a federal law making it legal to surveil everyone at any time

Above is SIG using an act of deception to suggest she is responding to what someone posted. The statement she put in quotes is nowhere to be found in this thread.

In all fairness, Sig did not attribute any name to the missive within the quote lines.
Although it becomes annoying, many here are guilty of failing to correctly attribute sources, authors, posters of selected quotes, or using correct syntax to make clear what was quoted by whom. One example is your post itself, mucking up the quote syntax to confuse the reader.
I myself have used quoted line from another post, and then edited the words within it, and then posted "fixed that for ya" or similar. When one checked that Sig's "quote" had not been presented earlier, one could have considered that the content had been altered, or "corrected" or "fixed" from it's original. Was this clear? No - but neither was your reply, which follows suit for many of your posts. We try to work around your mistakes in good faith, you should consider doing the same with others, at least until your posts are far more clear.
In the quote I have made above, I have attempted to make corrections to what I believe was intended. This means mostly your post, as Signym does not seem to have an error, just a lack of clarity. A possible alternative would have been if Sig quoted the original line with attribution, and then immediately followed with her version of a similar thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:58 PM

THGRRI

I quoted sig by including her name and separating it from my response by a blue line. And it was a quote from sig. The point I was making was very clear. Proven by the fact that you understood what I was saying. Big difference than posting a quote in blue that is completely made up by you as a part of the post and it suggests by the way it is presented that you are quoting someone else from a previous post. What I point out that sig did is right there in her original post for all to see.

See the difference? And there is no error in what I posted. Her original statement in its entirety is posted along with the made up quote. Also, it is not up to you to correct other peoples posts. You may point out what you perceive to be in error but you are a third party and most likely to get it wrong. Just as you did here.

I look at all the posting you do in all the different threads and I would suggest you think before you post and move on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2016 12:31 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

With Ryan as Speaker, they would at least have the spine for it.
But after 8 years of every Senator and Representative who promised to stop Obama and then cow-towing, capitulating, cowering, compromising and caving

Oh sure, he's a regular frikkin' rock. First thing Ryan did as Speaker was pass Obama's budget. Gave Democrats everything they wanted without so much as one concession that Conservatives wanted. Ryan caved faster than a good girl on Prom Night. Power of the purse? More like Ryan carries a purse.

First Ryan says he can't endorse Trump. Then he endorses him. Then he calls Trump a racist, but still endorses him. This guy peaked when he was jerking sodas at Dairy Queen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2016 2:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I quoted sig by including her name and separating it from my response by a blue line. And it was a quote from sig. The point I was making was very clear. Proven by the fact that you understood what I was saying. Big difference than posting a quote in blue that is completely made up by you as a part of the post and it suggests by the way it is presented that you are quoting someone else from a previous post. What I point out that sig did is right there in her original post for all to see.

See the difference? And there is no error in what I posted. Her original statement in its entirety is posted along with the made up quote. Also, it is not up to you to correct other peoples posts. You may point out what you perceive to be in error but you are a third party and most likely to get it wrong. Just as you did here.

I look at all the posting you do in all the different threads and I would suggest you think before you post and move on.

When I quote other posts, to not correct simple errors of syntax for the sake of clarity would be to make a complete mess for viewers to try to sort out. There would be no point to create an even bigger mess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2016 3:19 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
"All those incumbents who have exposed themselves as useless to the conservative voters may not be returning."

The only sensible thing you said in your post. I agree with Second, you guys had a choice of who would emerge from the clown car as the nominee for the Con-servative
Party. And so, "you gets what you pays for."

SGG

Your post does not seem to make sense.
Did you actually read the OP? Did you understand that part of the presupposition is that Trump will lose? And that the posited ramifications are what is expected to follow that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
"All those incumbents who have exposed themselves as useless to the conservative voters may not be returning."

The only sensible thing you said in your post. I agree with Second, you guys had a choice of who would emerge from the clown car as the nominee for the Con-servative
Party. And so, "you gets what you pays for."

SGG

Your post does not seem to make sense.
Did you actually read the OP? Did you understand that part of the presupposition is that Trump will lose? And that the posited ramifications are what is expected to follow that?

Hello?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE