Mr. Buddy Garrity Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 @cnnbrk: Major upset alert: CNN projects House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has lost Virginia 7th District GOP primary. http://cnn.it/1l6o4Ip 77 1 Quote
smitty Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 @cnnbrk: Major upset alert: CNN projects House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has lost Virginia 7th District GOP primary. http://cnn.it/1l6o4Ip Dave Brat is a Reagan Republican! Excellent win! Quote
Big girl Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 @cnnbrk: Major upset alert: CNN projects House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has lost Virginia 7th District GOP primary. http://cnn.it/1l6o4Ip Thank God...... Quote
tvc184 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 Maybe the Tea Party isn't dead after all. One Republican beat another one. Apparently the Dems are too stupid to realize that it was not their guy that won and an even more conservative will take his place. Quote
new tobie Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 Maybe the Tea Party isn't dead after all. One Republican beat another one. Apparently the Dems are too stupid to realize that it was not their guy that won and an even more conservative will take his place. They realize that the teabaggers will cause the end of the good ole boy establishment Mr. Buddy Garrity and Big girl 2 Quote
westend1 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 Maybe the Tea Party isn't dead after all. One Republican beat another one. Apparently the Dems are too stupid to realize that it was not their guy that won and an even more conservative will take his place. How does this article translate to "Dems are stupid"? Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
TxHoops Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 Maybe the Tea Party isn't dead after all. One Republican beat another one. Apparently the Dems are too stupid to realize that it was not their guy that won and an even more conservative will take his place. Trust me when I tell you the Democrats are praying it's not ;) Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
tvc184 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 How does this article translate to "Dems are stupid"? They are crowing like they beat someone. One conservative replaced a less conservative one in a seat that will likely stay Republican. That new Republican might be a bigger thorn in the side of the Dems than the guy that is being replaced and they act and think it is a great deal. To me, that is stupid. thetragichippy 1 Quote
westend1 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 They are crowing like they beat someone. One conservative replaced a less conservative one in a seat that will likely stay Republican. That new Republican might be a bigger thorn in the side of the Dems than the guy that is being replaced and they act and think it is a great deal. To me, that is stupid. I didn't see any crowing in the article. No sure who they is that you refer to. Pubs did lose a guy with lots of seniority, however. Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 I didn't see any crowing in the article. No sure who they is that you refer to. Pubs did lose a guy with lots of seniority, however. They did, and I think they need to lose some more for things to change. Many of the GOP establishment even though they may differ from the Democrats on key issues like gun-control and energy are still big spenders and have no problem with a massive fed gov. They just feel they can manage it better than the Democrats. I know it is risky to knock out a "establishment" guy for a Tea party candidate, but allowing the fed gov to grow like it has been is unsustainable. If they even win the general election, you always risk the gung ho new guys getting "transformed" when they get there also...but someone has to begin to try to slow or stop growth of the fed gov. Quote
stevenash Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 There is a message that was conveyed in that race and it does not apply to any single individual or single party. Quote
westend1 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 They did, and I think they need to lose some more for things to change. Many of the GOP establishment even though they may differ from the Democrats on key issues like gun-control and energy are still big spenders and have no problem with a massive fed gov. They just feel they can manage it better than the Democrats. I know it is risky to knock out a "establishment" guy for a Tea party candidate, but allowing the fed gov to grow like it has been is unsustainable. If they even win the general election, you always risk the gung ho new guys getting "transformed" when they get there also...but someone has to begin to try to slow or stop growth of the fed gov. That's fair enough. The voters got the guy they wanted. It's a tradeoff, but they thought it was worth it. Quote
EnlightenedChosenOne Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 I'm really in disbelief how shortsighted the loonies here are. Tea party returning to prominence means the republicans will have to become more extreme (aka religious freaks), which almost guarantees a 2016 win for Hillary Clinton. Big girl 1 Quote
stevenash Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 Ahhh, another response to the commoners for which you normally dont have time. Quote
new tobie Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 Teabaggers whipping pubs is always good for dems. Quote
smitty Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 I'm really in disbelief how shortsighted the loonies here are. Tea party returning to prominence means the republicans will have to become more extreme (aka religious freaks), which almost guarantees a 2016 win for Hillary Clinton. And Hillary Rodman Clinton is not extreme??!! Her and obama are from the same Saul Alinsky belief... Quote
stevenash Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Iraq is about to crumble and yet our President says the world is safer than it has ever been and Al Qaeda has been decimated. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Teabaggers whipping pubs is always good for dems. new tobie, do you ever wonder why no one takes your comments seriously? Quote
EnlightenedChosenOne Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 I never said she wasn't, commoner. I think she'd make a terrible president. But she's 100% going to win if she runs because the republicans will run some religious freak who'll completely turn off the voting population under 30 years of age. And Hillary Rodman Clinton is not extreme??!! Her and obama are from the same Saul Alinsky belief... bullets13 and Mr. Buddy Garrity 2 Quote
TxHoops Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 new tobie, do you ever wonder why no one takes your comments seriously? You may not like his manner of stating his point but he actually makes a good point. If the tea party could succeed in getting one of their candidates nominated for the presidency, they would be handing the keys to the White House to the Dems for another 4 years. The good news for you is there is almost no chance that will happen because the majority of the Republican Party realizes this. Quote
smitty Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 You may not like his manner of stating his point but he actually makes a good point. If the tea party could succeed in getting one of their candidates nominated for the presidency, they would be handing the keys to the White House to the Dems for another 4 years. The good news for you is there is almost no chance that will happen because the majority of the Republican Party realizes this. I bet at one point you thought Ted Cruz would not be a Senator from Texas! TEA party all the way on this one. BTW -- what do you have against the philosophy of the TEA party? Quote
westend1 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 I bet at one point you thought Ted Cruz would not be a Senator from Texas! TEA party all the way on this one. BTW -- what do you have against the philosophy of the TEA party? You are kidding, right? Texas will elect anyone who is antiabortion, pro weapon and homophobic. Mr. Buddy Garrity and bullets13 2 Quote
stevenash Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 And California will do the precise opposite Quote
TxHoops Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 I bet at one point you thought Ted Cruz would not be a Senator from Texas! TEA party all the way on this one. BTW -- what do you have against the philosophy of the TEA party? Ted Cruz is as likely to win the nomination as Rick Perry is/was. My thoughts on the tea party is not germane to my point. My point was these candidates are not electable in a general, national election (in my opinion anyway). They seem to be seen as radicals who are very off putting the moderates who now comprise the majority of the voters in this country. I believe for the foreseeable future, the presidency will be won by who garners the most votes in the middle. A tea party candidate will not accomplish this. The GOP's best bet in '16 will be a Chris Christie type. And the nominee has to be careful not to jump in bed with the radical right (as the last two nominees felt it necessary to do). It is a great help in securing the nomination. It is a great hindrance in winning the office. bullets13, westend1 and Mr. Buddy Garrity 3 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.