To: NFHale; Yosemitest
Democrat, Mike Espy, a shamed, disgraced & criminal The favorite candidate of Freeper Yosemitest, although it's not clear that he is going to vote for Espy. He will certainly not vote for Hyde-Smith. Quite a few Freepers aid and abet the Democrats.
To: centurion316
He will certainly not vote for Hyde-Smith. Quite a few Freepers aid and abet the Democrats. We "win" by losing, doncha know?
It works like this: Defeat a candidate we agree with 90% of the time to elect a candidate we agree with 0% of the time and then 6 years down the road we'll finally get our 100% candidate!
21 posted on
11/24/2018 11:12:56 AM PST by
Drew68
(Twitter @TheRealDrew68 // Click my profile page for great Russian pop music videos.)
To: centurion316
“...Quite a few Freepers aid and abet the Democrats. ...”
You can be sure that I’m definitely NOT one of those... :^)
31 posted on
11/24/2018 11:13:50 PM PST by
NFHale
(The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
To: centurion316; Yosemitest
Glad to see I’m not the only one that has serious issues with the serious issues Yosemitest has..he wanted McDaniel but now seems to hope Espy wins just for spite....stupid is what stupid does, but to be fair, Yosemitest exhibits signs of immaturity and potential need for some serious medications...he’s obviously handicapped and unable to face/deal with reality. He argues that Cindy only voted with Trump 38% of the time (ignores that even that would be better than 0% of the time) while trump says she voted with him 100% of the time.....
32 posted on
11/25/2018 3:22:44 AM PST by
trebb
(Those who don't donate anything tend to be empty gasbags...no-value-added types)
To: centurion316
You
mind-numb robots need to get a brain, and STAND FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, that is
IF YOU HAVE ANY PRINCIPLES !
There's no way in hell I'll compromise my values.
Jack Kerwick wrote the truth in his article
The Tea Partier versus The Republican
... It is this frustration with the GOPs betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.
If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of 06 and 08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.
First, they will be told that they are utopian, purists foolishly holding out for an ideal candidate.
Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party, they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.
Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced;at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.
Lets begin with the argument against purism. To this line, two replies are in the coming.
No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isnt an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, dont exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.
A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate is one thing;
I will only vote for a perfect candidate is something else entirely.
As for the second objection against the Tea Partiers rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election seasonand at no time more so than this past seasonRepublicans pledge to reform Washington, trim down the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for compromise and patience.
Well, when the Tea Partiers impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.
For example,
as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the countrys leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.
It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservativesand the countrywill ultimately win.
If he didnt know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.
Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.
I'm fresh out of
"patience", and I'm not in the mood for
"compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
The "Establishment Republicans",and the DemocRAT, Cindy Hyde-Smith, PRETENDING TO BE a R.I.N.O.,
can ALL go to hell!
36 posted on
11/25/2018 11:59:05 AM PST by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson