GOP must find a female candidate or will lose in 2016

[Blern]

You will be crushed by the liberal demagogue machine for being sexist if you run another white bread elitist male against Hillary Clinton.

There are qualified, strong female GOP candidates. Find one soon.

Or live under Hillary's rule.

[Niether of the Above]

The message, not the messenger, will be more important in 2016. Growth and Opportunity, not dependence and more government.

[Amused Slew]

Try blather and bluster, obstructionists....

[Miss Piggy]

Hillary, Whitewater, Vince Foster, McDougals, Hillarycare, Bimbo-gate, Mrs. Arafat kissin', Benghazi, Clinton doesn't stand a chance in 2016.
The Democrats will have to find a member of a different victim group to run. Maybe a Latina Lesbian with a barely visible handicap. The GOP should not play identity politics!

[Amused Slew]

Nice hatred and the chair agrees... LMAOROTFu ~!

[Miss Piggy]

Amused Slew wrote:

Nice hatred and the chair agrees... LMAOROTFu ~!

Hillary was filled with hatred when she had her hissy fit while being questioned about her Benghazi lies. That outburst is what she will be remembered for!
You, on the other hand, will not be remembered at all, you're as relevant as an empty chair.

[Amused Slew]

She was fine and you're wrong, just like the election...
You have no kids, so you have no legacy.
You REALLY suck.

[Blern]

Niether of the Above wrote:

The message, not the messenger, will be more important in 2016. Growth and Opportunity, not dependence and more government.

Yeah that worked real well in 2012. The voters arent intetested in the message. Its American Idol on steroids. Don't make it easy for the activists to paint you as sexist.

[Amused Slew]

Poor blern, contractions ARE HARD !!! LMAOROTFU~!

[Niether of the Above]

Blern wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah that worked real well in 2012. The voters arent intetested in the message. Its American Idol on steroids. Don't make it easy for the activists to paint you as sexist.

How does making sure the message, Growth and Prosperity, make me or anyone else for that matter a sexist? Hilary will run in 2016 because even the dumbest of liberal realize that can't force the radical left wing ideology down 300 million peoples throat for more than 8 years at a time. You have to sell the message, growth and properity, not more big government, which means more big taxes! Romney had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, then he allowed the left to dictate the arguement. He came off message, focused on the economy and foreign policy and lost the election. The message over the next 4 years has to be eonomic growth and prosperity for everyone who is willing to contribute and the sky is the limit. Not relying on the $500/month EBT welfare card! We cannot get sidetracked with all the social issues, a growing economy with full employment and opportunity will take of the social ills we incur.

[Amused Slew]

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>How does making sure the message, Growth and Prosperity, make me or anyone else for that matter a sexist? Hilary will run in 2016 because even the dumbest of liberal realize that can't force the radical left wing ideology down 300 million peoples throat for more than 8 years at a time. You have to sell the message, growth and properity, not more big government, which means more big taxes! Romney had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, then he allowed the left to dictate the arguement. He came off message, focused on the economy and foreign policy and lost the election. The message over the next 4 years has to be eonomic growth and prosperity for everyone who is willing to contribute and the sky is the limit. Not relying on the $500/month EBT welfare card! We cannot get sidetracked with all the social issues, a growing economy with full employment and opportunity will take of the social ills we incur.

You sure "no" what you're talking about, the spelling is so bad, it's GOTTA BE INTENTIONALLY STUPID !!!!! Poor Cluckers...

[cantmakeitup]

Blern wrote:

You will be crushed by the liberal demagogue machine for being sexist if you run another white bread elitist male against Hillary Clinton.
There are qualified, strong female GOP candidates. Find one soon.
Or live under Hillary's rule.

Please, don't say Bachman or Palin. If the GOP puts up a woman for president, it needs to be someone who can be taken seriously.

[Amused Slew]

Will cantgetitup "work", she's been making approaches to me for weeks...

[Come on ThunderChild]

Hillary Clinton/Matt Damon in 2016

[Blern]

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>How does making sure the message, Growth and Prosperity, make me or anyone else for that matter a sexist? Hilary will run in 2016 because even the dumbest of liberal realize that can't force the radical left wing ideology down 300 million peoples throat for more than 8 years at a time. You have to sell the message, growth and properity, not more big government, which means more big taxes! Romney had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, then he allowed the left to dictate the arguement. He came off message, focused on the economy and foreign policy and lost the election. The message over the next 4 years has to be eonomic growth and prosperity for everyone who is willing to contribute and the sky is the limit. Not relying on the $500/month EBT welfare card! We cannot get sidetracked with all the social issues, a growing economy with full employment and opportunity will take of the social ills we incur.

How would that make you sexist? The same way not voting for a black militant socialist made us racist. They same way fiscal common sense made us obstructionist.

Elections are now about labels, because the electorate is too dumb to research and be informed about issues. They respond more to demagogy than logic.

Liberals will nominate another member of their perceived oppressed or victim class, because they use the strategy all too well. Anyone that doesn't give full throated support is labeled an oppressor.

If not a woman, a minority should be nominated by the GOP. Take that label off the table.

Then people may just have to research the issues, instead of voting against who is labeled the villian.

[Niether of the Above]

cantmakeitup wrote:

<quoted text>
Please, don't say Bachman or Palin. If the GOP puts up a woman for president, it needs to be someone who can be taken seriously.

How does Susana Martinez of New Mexico look?? Or Jan Brewer of Arizona?

[Amused Slew]

I like folks who call their neighbors dumb, we call them rethuglicant's ~! Oddly, it lost you the last election, but you're trying the same "maneuver " ???

[cantmakeitup]

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>How does Susana Martinez of New Mexico look?? Or Jan Brewer of Arizona?

I think Brewer has too much political baggage at this point. Not familiar with Martinez.

[Niether of the Above]

cantmakeitup wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Brewer has too much political baggage at this point. Not familiar with Martinez.

Interesting, what baggage? Martinez spoke at the convention. I met her a couple of years ago in St Paul, prior to her becoming Govenor of New Mexico.

[Niether of the Above]

Blern wrote:

<quoted text>
How would that make you sexist? The same way not voting for a black militant socialist made us racist. They same way fiscal common sense made us obstructionist.
Elections are now about labels, because the electorate is too dumb to research and be informed about issues. They respond more to demagogy than logic.
Liberals will nominate another member of their perceived oppressed or victim class, because they use the strategy all too well. Anyone that doesn't give full throated support is labeled an oppressor.
If not a woman, a minority should be nominated by the GOP. Take that label off the table.
Then people may just have to research the issues, instead of voting against who is labeled the villian.

Fasinating logic.