Save Our State

Save Our State (http://www.saveourstate.info/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.saveourstate.info/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Republican establishment turn on Romney (http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=7280)

Greg in LA 11-24-2012 10:04 PM

Republican establishment turn on Romney
 
Isn't it interesting how the Republican establishment turns on Romney after the Republican defeat. With so many currying jobs and positions in his administration in the months before the election, then those same people are the first to criticize and blame Romney after the defeat. Of course those same people are blaming it all on Romney's position on immigration. What's interesting is Louisiana Gov. Jindahl is loudly calling for Amnesty. With friends like these, who needs enemies.

What can I say. Republicans, if they listen to Jindahl and Gingrich then they want to be double losers.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

wetibbe 11-25-2012 07:18 AM

Deplorable.
 
The longer I live, the more I learn, the more disgusted I become with the human race and particularly a segment of the American population. All the more so about politicians, the media and corporate America.

We truly have an inordinate number of dysfunctional, corrupt, disingenuous surplus.

I endorsed Mitt in June 2011. I still endorse him. He was, in my opinion, an excellent candidate that would have done a really good job.

Bill O'Reilly had some Hollywood actors on a few days ago and asked why Hollywood was so liberal and endorsed Obama. Fascinating replies. Most we actually conservative Republicans.

One in particular said: The Liberals are empathetic and the Conservatives are logical. Good response !

Another said: We have a lot of excessive baggage in the population. O'Reilly pumped him for a reply and he said about 45%. Surprisingly I am also of the opinion that around 45% of the population is excess baggage.

Ayatollahgondola 11-25-2012 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetibbe (Post 22235)
Another said: We have a lot of excessive baggage in the population. O'Reilly pumped him for a reply and he said about 45%. Surprisingly I am also of the opinion that around 45% of the population is excess baggage.

And here is where the republicans mortally would themselves with their mouths. The democrats are way too crafty to villainize the poor...or excess as you call them. They use them instead. A fate much worse for the used, but none-the-less more harmful to the republicans. If republicans are to compete, they must use more restraint and take a different tack on non-producing electors. Think of it like they're family...kids for instance, and you have to instill values that reflect your own, but without driving them away. Do you tell your kids they are worthless drags on society, will never amount to much, and should be cut off from every available source of your assets? Sadly many parents do, but it doesn't work out that well for all concerned. Would those families be seen as father of the year types whom others would like to emulate or come to for guidance? They wouldn't, would they?

Republicans must use far more restraint in the way the teachings are delivered out there.

As for people like jindal and christie and such. They are your Arnold types. They are actually creating a new party without declaring it yet. Arnold was not a republican nor a democrat. He acted as both, but wore the label of one to stay in the game. Running as an independent would have hobbled him in the recall, and beyond, possibly causing his loss. There's a growing bunch of Arnolds out there, plotting to steal the republican electors away from their values, and it is likely they are working in concert

ilbegone 11-25-2012 08:01 AM

Politics is a nasty business.

The Republicans did a lot of Obama's campaign work for him during the Republican primary. Romney had a theme about reaching across the isle, in general practice Republicans can't even reach out to one another.

I suppose the election results must be blamed on the one issue of immigration, but immigration was a few notches down in the polls from worry about the economy.

The "youth vote":

Quote:

An analysis by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University found that had the youth vote been split 50-50 for the presidential race in just four states -- Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia -- Romney would have been elected president. In each of those four crucial swing states, exit polling shows young voters made up 16 to 19 percent of the electorate.
However, it seems the "youth vote" for Obama was down overall by 6% from 2008, the Obama "Jewish vote" likewise appears to be down 5%.

Immigration wasn't the decisive factor in the election, even though "Latinos" who responded to polls appear to have felt that they were "less enthusiastic" about Romneys debate positions on immigration.

I got to speak again with the Latino teacher who supported Romney and who became angry during our previous discussion when he misinterpreted that I was talking about race rather than politics. You have to hear his full statement from our second conversation I condense about the "Latino vote":

He began by strongly asserting that Latinos like to work and make their own way by creating businesses and working hard for employers, then very briefly added in almost hushed tones that there are a significant number of Latinos who work the system, and those who do so voted accordingly.

So, it all goes back to "What's in it personally for me".

I believe that among the myriad people collectively termed "Latino" immigration issues will figure strongly into the voting consciousness of those who either have close relatives who are illegally present or those among the multi-generational who are incorrigible brown racists, those taking advantage of the system will vote according to who will is more likely to keep the gravy train rolling, and business owners and the otherwise industrious will tend to vote for whomever they perceive will help them earn a living.

More issues:

People tend to be more "liberal" when they are young and grow more "conservative" as they age.

The "youth vote". Just like their parents did when they were young, they believe they have it all figured out and the "geezers" ruined everything they touched- so a significant number may oppose "geezer" conservatism or general ideals of previous generations. Those seeking education don't like the reality that until they pay off crushing education debt burger flippers may actually have a better lifestyle, nor do they appreciate that Chancellors are giving themselves raises while increasing tuition. Most of the rest inclined towards industriousness want jobs with all the accoutrements. Face it, except for varying cultural demands in societies concerning respect for elders instinctively it's generally about the young pushing aside the old. They vote accordingly.

"Obamacare" is misrepresented as a health care act, it appears to me more to be more of a health insurance gimmick which is extremely expensive and doesn't really deal with the issue of rising health care costs. Who is going to vote positively on the issue? The chronically ill, idealistic unrealists, and the "social justice" types.

Obama didn't seem to realize there was a national unemployment problem until it was time to campaign for reelection. However, he was perceived in the swing state of Ohio as saving jobs with the auto bail out.

The environmentlists:

Generally they believe that all progress besides their own personal kumbya version of the world is destroying the planet. So, rather than walking to work or school (or anywhere else for that matter), they will fill up at Arco and vote against the Keystone pipeline project. As well, they think electricity comes out of the wall, so they will vote against any project that upgrades the infrastructure but will take advantage of any "environmental" job on those projects to pay the bills - and not a one will demand that the power company remove the service conductors from their house. Which candidate was most likely to accommodate their world view?

In the end the pundits can argue all day long about what caused Romneys electoral defeat, but the simple reality is that all boils down to

Quote:

WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME
Expressed by the aggregate of millions of individual votes. Romney didn't lose on any one issue (Republican back stabbing fratricide figures into the equation), and you can take that to the bank.

Greg in LA 11-25-2012 09:45 AM

Personally, I know lots of people that receive some type of government aid. They all vote Democrat, even if they are greatly impacted by the illegal aliens. The town that I live in is filled with many types of government workers, they all of course vote Democrat to protect their jobs.

I went to the county registrar in Norwalk last week to check on my voters registration and noticed the hundreds of office workers doing very little. Is there any doubt how they vote.

I cast my vote for Romney, although many were saying he was going to betray us on immigration. The betrayal would have been something like we would get E-verify after they got guest workers, expanded h-1b visa's and a partial amnesty.

I think the Republicans should have figured out by now that immigration has sunk the party nationally, and that immigrants as a whole vote overwhelmingly Democrat. It's only going to get worse because in each cycle more an more immigrants are a greater part of the electorate. People are calling this the Democrat party "electing a new people".

The point I would like to make is that if the Republicans don't finally recognize this, it's literally over for them. One hopes this election finally gets Republicans to wake up. Unfortunately they have to wake up to the fact that immigration has totally marginalized about half the nation.

ilbegone 11-25-2012 11:32 AM

What primarily has sunk the Republican party was catering to the self interest of employers for cheap labor several decades ago. By all appearances they wanted a non voting slave class, something they couldn't get out of the native born because of citizen reluctance to be wage slaves.

The self interest of the Democrat party was to take advantage of Republican pandering to employers.

The interest of American brown racists was and is to take advantage of the Democrat party pandering to minorities and newcomers in order to build a base the Democrat party can't get among mainstream Americans. The liberal inversion of the intent of the Civil Rights Act along with victimization theory are their ethnic nationalist work horses.

There are lots of things the Republican party leadership is clueless about, the many facets and consequences or cause and effect of massive migration beginning in the 60's as well as their ignorance about people who have been here for generations. In search of a simplistic answer they now echo the squeaky wheels from within "the Latino community" without even seeking to find out who and what those people truly are.

I don't think the Democrat party leadership really has an idea even with all the "social justice" stuff they rant about and slogans they parrot from the movimiento (such as "living in the shadows" etc.), they mainly pander to get the votes for consolidating power. I believe in the end it's going to backfire on the Democrats as well.

In the late 60's the there was the Chicano description of the US political system as being a two headed goat of which both heads fed from the same trough (I see the logic, the statement is more true than not). The idea of the third Party La Raza Unida to circumvent the two headed goat was tried and failed, though the tactics live on. I think the general idea now is to use one head to fight the other until the animal becomes weak enough to butcher.

There are lots of pawns and dupes in this game, Republicans and Democrats included.

Greg in LA 11-25-2012 07:36 PM

"I believe in the end it's going to backfire on the Democrats as well."

Ilbegone, how exactly do you think mass immigration is going to back fire on the Democrat's?

As I see it the vast majority of immigrants vote Democrat, and mass immigration is a continuous voter supply for Democrat's.

The only way I see mass immigration backfiring on the Democrat's is that mass immigration is making the population poorer and poorer. The liberals keep claiming they are for lifting up the poor and working class, but mass immigration just keeps depressing wages of people at the bottom. How can the poor and working class advance if they are continuously undercut by new immigrants.

Maybe that's part of the democrats plan, because poor people vote for government aid.

It seems to me that the Democrats have vastly out smarted the Republicans, through demographics, and there is still a plentiful supply of Republicans in power willing to sell their people out in the form of amnesty.

ilbegone 11-25-2012 07:58 PM

I believe it will backfire on the Democrats because at its core the Democrat elite is just as ignorant as the Republican elite concerning the myriad of peoples who are termed "Latino" as well as the rest of the ignorant vote buying Democrats conduct with other groups of minorities and immigrants of all sorts. The Republican failure through arrogance was determined decades ago, the Democrat failure will be through one way "familiarity", the rude surprise one might get when - after years of kissing ass, being sincerely over generous to the ungrateful and thinking that he is finally accepted as a member of the family he married into - one suddenly realizes he isn't worth a plugged nickle to most in that family who are over the age of ten years old.

Jose Angel Gutierrez - who is now a Democrat - in an interview with a Texas newspaper reporter (Dallas Fort Worth Times?) a few years ago said that the US will soon be broke, and that's when his goals will be met. Gutierrez might be a lot of things, might have done a little miscalculating in the past, but stupid he is not. The open borders, American brown racist lobby doesn't have a lock step agreement with the Democrat party. It is a maxim that so long as an association benefits the movimiento, the association is maintained. When the association no longer benefits the movimiento, the relationship is severed.

Government will collapse, the promises made can't be fulfilled anymore - there will be no more government aid dispensed to prime the Democrat pump. Regardless of where anyone stands, both Republicans and Democrats will be irrelevant.

I hope I'm wrong.

Greg in LA 11-25-2012 11:07 PM

Are you saying, when the government finally goes broke, and the checks to LaRaza stop, Hispanics will no longer be loyal Democrat voters.

Are you also saying that Hispanics when they are no longer "payed" to vote Democrat through government aid, and affirmative action, will split from the Democrat party and try some other type of unruliness like create a third party, A "Hispanic party" or just become totally uncontrollable in their demands for money and power from the government and declare themselves above the law, and start a kind of secessionist movement?

I think what you are saying is that professional "Hispanics" groups like LaRaza and LULAC are not really core Democrats they are really Mexican Nationalist in America and want little else than more race power.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if the checks stop, where do these people turn, the Republican party?

ilbegone 11-26-2012 07:48 PM

I'll make it clear from the outset that there is no one type of "Hispanic" or "Latino" no more than there is no one type of "White" or "Anglo". The American brown racist faction is but one type which seeks to manipulate the many other types to a racial agenda and they have been very successful in the political arena. Not all "Hispanics" or "Latinos" buy into it by any means. Actually, brown racists and white racists are the same people differentiated mostly by skin color, under the skin they are the same people with the same type of racial goals. Neither the Republican nor the Democrat "elites" seem to understand the differences concerning the people termed "Latino" or "Hispanic", both parties deal in stereotypes. One party "organizes" by pandering, the other repels through general ineptitude. Pandering might result in gains during good times, pandering doesn't guarantee loyalty when the chips are down.

Otherwise, you miss the point, when it crashes the concept of either Republican or Democrat parties will be irrelevant.

The French Revolution was not so much about the benign despotism of Louis the 16th as it was in a large part about peasants who disregarded the royal attempt to introduce new crops in a time of climate change. They were starving, they blamed the crown, and radicals took advantage of and hijacked the disturbance. The French Revolution ate its own children and eventually resulted in wholesale European continental death via the Napoleonic wars.

As mighty as Rome was, no dictator could rule without buying off the poor of the City of Rome with bread and entertainment. When the empire finally imploded and barbarians filled the void no one in the Roman Senate at that time mattered.

Jose Angel Gutiererrez in the interview referenced above sees Aztlan established when the US fails through going broke. Whether or not that is a brown racist pipe dream is beside the point, the fact is that Washington of Republicans and Democrats won't matter anymore no regardless of who or what fills the void.

There will be a lot of starving people regardless of whether they were producers or users. Both parties will be blamed for the problem, and otherwise it will be "interesting times".


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState 2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved