I honestly beleive the only way Hillary can win is if we run trump or Cruz and it pisses me off we are accommodating them.

fixed it for ya 👍


You could also replace Obama with Clinton and you would be covered.
(which is exactly what the Dems are trying to do)

We already had colossal failure in the Republican party when Bush had the WH, the Rep. had the Senate and the House and then acted like the Democrat Party and spent us into oblivion. The Rep. party then got shellacked and lost both House and Senate and this gave rise to the Tea Party in Bush's 2nd term and accelerated and gained major traction with the election of the current president.

The establishment Repubs think just like you Teeddubbya, so embrace your love of that same thinking.

Embrace it, go third party and try to inflict Hillary on the country and further entrench Obama's policies on the country so it makes it impossible to ever get rid of them. Hell just vote for Hillary.

Check your premise, you have faulty logic. But then again you think that Reagan wouldn't be able to get the nomination of the party when he would mop the floor today.

You have shown your true colors and they make you look clownish.

The repub party is broken, and it is because of guys that think like you.

Actually I think guys like you and that slimball Cruz are more at fault for breaking the pube party

Reagan wouldn't get out of the primaries with his actual factual platform. He might with the make beleive one you created for him. Interestingly enough I saw someone on the circuit articulate the same thing this weekend.

Any republican or other party but Cruz or Trump are better than Hillary. Cruz and trump simply are not.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.

Whoopsie. I guess this campaign went the way of Rubio and the gang of 8. Thanks for playing. Rubio was a tea party darling who did less and was pilloried for it. Cruz would ream anyone for saying this (in the debate with Mondale) as would most in here.

The parties litmus test has moved way right of Reagan. Would Reagan have moved with it? Maybe but that's fantasy land. All we have is what he really said and did. The rest is a creation of the mind.

Then again you are not comparing apples to apples. The congress lied to Reagan in where they were to strictly enforce immigration laws and work to ensure tougher borders. There was massive document fraud and, like any government program, they underestimated the numbers that would apply for amnesty.

Also, it was a relatively small illegal immigrant population compared to the massive state it is in now. Pin that too the terrorist attacks and you think Reagan wouldn't learn from what has happened since 86?

Here is a piece from Ed Meese, counselor to Reagan, and since he KNEW the man, he is more qualified than you or I to read any Reagan tea leaves:

http://humanevents.com/2006/12/13/reagan-would-not-repeat-amnesty-mistake/ 

Unlike Obama, Reagan would have realized that history did not start with him. He learned from what has worked and hasn't in the past.

That was just one example and Simpson disagrees with Meese. That said would could should is pure conjecture compared to did. One is opinion the other fact. I'll be on the side of fact in any argument. I believe Reagan meant what he said in the debate which doesn't reference enforcement. It's a pretty clear statement that would doom him now. That clip and that clip alone would become an incessant droning noise even if it was followed by we need more enforcement. I beleive in the idea of amnesty....... The idea of amnesty is completely off the table now even if enforcement is clamped down. It's akin to a R saying I want to raise taxes. DOA. Rubio proved that.

There are many other examples other than immigration too. But it's not worth it. You are convinced Reagan would have morphed from what he was and said to suit the ideals you have now. I disagree. You think Reagan would be exclusionary and uncompromising, I disagree. I think he was what he was and there is not much mystery there. We have fact or conjecture.

Meh. It doesn't matter. He's gone. But much like the Democratic Party left him, I beleive today's Republican Party left him as well and not in the way you think. I think he'd be mortified by Trump and Cruz. I believe Nancy was from what I read. But we'll never know.

Meh.

Reagan is something I look fondly back on but something not likely repeated in this environment. 24/7 news and social media alone make that unlikely. We want more kardasians. Flavor of the day.

The only truth you need...


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rZRO2jL7kqc

I also miss James Baker. Howard too.

What? Are you saying I should run for the Republican primary?



On a more serious note... if you intend to belittle someone, why would you bother being tactful? To avoid hurting the feelings of someone you are intentionally belittling? Is that what passes for logic in that little pin-head of yours? (see what I did there?)

tony, you are a liberal drone, and therefore not rooted in logic or reason. So forgive me if I disregard what you think is going on in the Republican party.

T-ball, you are an idiot and shouldn't be anywhere near childrens' education.

Fact check (for those who believe in facts):

http://www.startribune.com/assessing-the-candidates-overall-truthfulness/372603041/ 

Don't worry, I won't try and educate your 5th grade view of the world. You are a lost cause.

But you are blissful, right?



5168

FIFY

.... hmmm.... so you believe he's an idiot, but if he weren't an idiot, you'd want him to be involved in children's liberal brainwashing?


I don't think you fixed that how you wanted to fix that.

1738

I think you know what I mean, but perhaps I give you too much credit for intelligence.

Whatevah...