Rhetorical quesitons abound

Who honestly thinks republicans could win this election by fronting a man?

Because Hillary is in and they're going to use money prepared for this election. I don't think we stand a chance without a woman running for the top office. Fiorina is our current best bet. Condoleeza Rice would be my choice, but Fiorina would be equally as good.

We already know how dems set the tone both with a "minority" nominee and then televised worship of him.

We should put Fiorina or Rice in and drag the dems and the msm through the muck with utter disdain and zero remorse. The dem machine has gone after families of nominees, friends of nominees... they would raise the dead to speak for them if they could. It's high time we demoralize the party from the top to the bottom. It's time we broke the veritable back of the donkey in such a way as to restore our borders and take back our lands, where our founding fathers planted a decidedly free western European culture and society.

H

Harv

C'mon now... no one wants to debate me on this one?

please?

Harv

I think it's sexist to assume that women will vote for the bag simply because she is a female. That's identity politics, and that market is cornered by the libs. So regardless of qualifications, integrity or ethics, the left will run lemming-like to the polls and pull the lever for Piano-Legs, just as they did for Zero. Low-infos, guilty white libs, welfare brood sows, fruits, layabouts, illegals, the dead. Quite a proud coalition the left has assembled.
And all will vote for the dim....no matter what. Remember what they did to Palin before you think that doing things their way will work out well for the Republicans.

What they did to Palin?  Oh, I'm counting on it.  We need to remember no matter who we nominate, the dems will do exactly the same thing to that person.  So why not take a person like Fiorina or Rice and watch what happens when the dems use the arguments we already know they're going to use, on essentially the same type of person they're running?

I know what you're thinking; that no one we could run would be like Hillary or any of the other dems.  That would be overthinking it.  Way overthinking it.  Only political wonks like us are going to debate the esoterics, as most people would see it.

You have to force the issue.  Most people, as you explained, don't like H. Clinton.   So mirror her image (woman) with a diametric political philosophy and you've given white guilt sexists and racists a real conundrum.  I would wager most are going to continue voting with their emotions, which, as you proved, aren't exactly flowing in compassion toward Hillary Clinton.

In other words, take the dem voters' white guilt sexuism and racism, offer them a similar looking candidate (nothing to think about too deeply-woman versus woman all of a sudden) and give them a chance to follow their emotions and vote against the woman they really don't like.  Because they will.

Before we can enact or repeal a goddamn thing we have to win office.  In order to do that we have to accept why we're losing and change our tactics to reflect how the side whose winning, is playing the game.  

Sun Tzu didn't win wars by battling on some childish ideal.  He won by recognizing how to demoralize the enemy and he didn't care what anyone thought or said about his ways of doing things.  And now he's the most revered tactician in history.

If you accept or try to disprove what someone is saying about you, you've given weight and the right to win, to the opponent.  If you ignore them and continue your assault or turn it to a place where the opponent's flanks are less guarded, you can win and also take their assault off of yourself.  

The dems intend money to win this election.  We can beat them by putting a female republican in every commercial opposing them.  This is war Chris.  if we can't outfund them, we need to beat them in the war of public image.  And no man, certainly not another Bush (we lose if he takes the nomination-foregone and intended conclusion) is going to be able to go head to head against a woman.  Every argument against a female dem would be called sexist, racist and probably some things we haven't heard yet.

We really have no choice but to run a woman against the dems.

Harv

Harvey wrote:

We really have no choice but to run a woman against the dems.

Harv

Not necessarily Harv.

Option #3


http://healthyblackmen.org/2011/08/12/6-things-transgender-persons-should-discuss-with-their-doctor/

Another unknown Black person, Only this time with a twist.

Mike, why do you have to jump into a good discussion with such stupid shit?

Honestly, I wish Chris would delete your post and this reply. Fucking stupid.

Harv

Harvey wrote:Mike, why do you have to jump into a good discussion with such stupid shit?

Honestly, I wish Chris would delete your post and this reply.  Fucking stupid.

Harv

This political circus is all Bullshit, Thus the Bullshit reply.

No meaningful changes will ever occur, Regardless of the inconsequential "good discussions".

"Politicians aren't born--they're excreted"

Seriously? It's all bullshit and you don't have a good answer so you post some dumbshit shit bomb and we're supposed to think it's funny.

You don't have anything useful to add. Got it.

H

We should run a woman and then Allen West as vice prez !! just my 2 cents !! keep posting brother !!

Harvey wrote:Seriously?  It's all bullshit and you don't have a good answer so you post some dumbshit shit bomb and we're supposed to think it's funny.  

You don't have anything useful to add.  Got it.

H

Obviously, It was beyond your perception, It wasn't intended to be funny.

4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they're incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.

Think about it Harvey.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full

Two of my mentors when I was young, Both first cousins.

http://scar.gmu.edu/dennis-sandole

After you enlighten me with your temporal bureaucratic expertise, Perhaps you can give me a music lesson as well since Dennis passed on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWtaeOGxh_A

BTW, Don't just have Chris delete my post, Have him silence me with an outright ban, Since i'm so Fucking stupid.

I put my cowboy hat on !!!!!!!!! take the hint !!!!

Rubbing the sweat off your cousins' work doesn't make you them, Mike. Obviously you missed that if the ridicule was personal, I would ignore it because my aim wasn't at you but the utter fucking stupidity of what you wrote.

But you can change that. Because everyone does stupid shit sometimes.

It wasn't me who missed the point, but you.

Harv

By the way, Sandole was and still is a great teacher. But Bostic imparted the lessons which made Coltrane who he was. And it was Bostic who played Parker under the table. It's the difference between teaching English and being the inspired author.

Harv

MikeSandy wrote:

Harvey wrote:Seriously?  It's all bullshit and you don't have a good answer so you post some dumbshit shit bomb and we're supposed to think it's funny.  

You don't have anything useful to add.  Got it.

H

Obviously, It was beyond your perception, It wasn't intended to be funny.

4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they're incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.

Think about it Harvey.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full

Two of my mentors when I was young, Both first cousins.

http://scar.gmu.edu/dennis-sandole

After you enlighten me with your temporal bureaucratic expertise, Perhaps you can give me a music lesson as well since Dennis passed on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWtaeOGxh_A

BTW, Don't just have Chris delete my post, Have him silence me with an outright ban, Since i'm so Fucking stupid.