Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Social conservatives to RNC chairman Reince Priebus: We could leave the GOP. Seriously, we'd just walk out. We mean it. No, we really mean it. Why are you holding open the door, jackass, we're serious here? Stop pushing, man   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 191
    More: Unlikely, Priebus, GOP, RNC, social conservatives, Log Cabin Republicans, faith-based  
•       •       •

5157 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Apr 2013 at 8:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-11 10:14:48 AM  

This text is now purple: Power vacuums fill quickly in a two-party system. If the present form of the Republican party implodes, something new will take up the mantle, and likely reshuffle somewhat from various factions of the Democrats -- who are far from a monolithic entity themselves. A simple refocus onto fiscal conservatism alone would likely break up the rural-urban split that defines the present relationship.


This is true, but you also have to factor in the monumental shift in social issues that pull those center left and center right dems into the coalition. There is also a growing Latino population that increasingly leans left as well.

The GOP is fastly becoming a regional congressional party, and not a national one.
 
2013-04-11 10:16:23 AM  
Republicans are spending a lot of time lately telling me about how they're holding the door open so the Social Conservatives can leave. Usually when Republicans spend a lot of time telling me something, it turns out to be a lie. Of course, if the GOP finally stands up to the Social Conservatives that will prove me wrong, so in a sense that would be "sticking it to a Lib" (hint hint).
 
2013-04-11 10:16:40 AM  

Xythero: Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.

Social conservatives may have a skewed veiw of morality, but Randians have none at all.  Without the social conservatives, the Republicans would just be money grubbing sociopaths.  I think that is much more terrifying.

Even if the party splits and Democrats win most elections for a few decades, it won't matter.  For some reason, conservatives set the policy conversation in this country, regardless if they are in power or not.  Whoever "wins" the GOP civil war is going to set the country's agenda.


Talking loudest does not mean that they are winning an argument.  Point and case....gay marriage.
 
2013-04-11 10:16:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm sure you will take it as a compliment when I tell you that you are as stupid, shortsighted and counterproductive as a Tea Party member.


At least I'm a true liberal isn't of one that just pretends to be one.
 
2013-04-11 10:17:06 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Too late Republicans. The social conservatives are too deeply embedded for you to ever be able to remove them without destroying yourselves entirely.


Please sit down Mr. GOP. I have some bad news. To put it bluntly, the cancer is inoperable.
 
2013-04-11 10:17:54 AM  

lolpix: Outrageous Muff: No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.

Perhaps, but they want to overturn Citizens United, end the Drug War, get out of Middle East politics, scale down Homeland Security, regulate industries capable of disrupting our national and even world economy, and do away with the for-profit prison system. These are issues I care about. And frankly, I'm tired of politics being about gays, God and abortion. It's exhausting. But the Greens came down on the better side of those arguments for me too.  I cared about health care too, but then my health insurance costs and copays doubled overnight. So I figure voting for a third party devoted to issues I care about, rather than for the strongest party who pays them lip service in between "Greatest Nation on Earth" speeches,  is the ethical thing for me to do, even if a few W's get elected in the process.


Ah, so  not only do I get to blame the likes of you for 8 years of W, I can also tell you to "F off" because you're not serious about getting candidates to move me into voting for Green.

Good to know.
 
2013-04-11 10:18:30 AM  

Zagloba: Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else? One idea is, given 10 or 15 key issues or values, candidates declare where they stand and enter the race. Instead of evaluating the candidate partly on party, you evaluate them on what they stand for.

You can't replace the two-party system on its own. You have to change the voting system: if every seat in Congress is elected by plurality vote, with one seat per district, then you're practically guaranteed two macro-parties.


Before you can have a more sophisticated electoral system, you need a more sophisticated electorate.  There is hope.
 
2013-04-11 10:19:36 AM  

TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.


Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.
 
2013-04-11 10:22:18 AM  
In totally unrelated news, the following announced 13 new talk shows, all with 7 figure salaries for their hosts, based on the novelty of dissing the mainstream Republican party, all funded by mysterious donors who will be crippled if they ever have to pay taxes.


Gary Bauer, President, American Values
Paul Caprio, Director, Family-Pac Federal
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List - QUE?!?
Dr. James Dobson, President and Founder, Family Talk Action
Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition
Tom Minnery, Executive Director, CitizenLink
William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Sandy Rios, VP of Government Affairs, Family-Pac Federal
Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle ForumRev.
Louis P. Sheldon, Founder, Traditional Values Coalition
Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association
 
2013-04-11 10:22:50 AM  

Citrate1007: Even if the party splits and Democrats win most elections for a few decades, it won't matter. For some reason, conservatives set the policy conversation in this country, regardless if they are in power or not. Whoever "wins" the GOP civil war is going to set the country's agenda.

Talking loudest does not mean that they are winning an argument. Point and case....gay marriage.


He didn't say they set the policy. He said they set the policy conversation.
 
2013-04-11 10:22:57 AM  

bmongar: Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.

Remove all the vowels from his name and it RNC PR BS  now tell me he isn't an engineered life form created with the purpose of leading the RNC


mindblown.jpg
 
2013-04-11 10:27:38 AM  
"We respectfully warn GOP Leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support,"

Well, actually the influx of "Social COnservatives" and "religious right" was a move to reinforce the base with a voting block that was easily lead and riled up. Basically it consisted of Southern Demacrats and religious fiundamentalists...  basically the same group of people who could see and hear everything people like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart did, you know corruption in Christs name, taking money from the poor to line their own pockets, talk to a 900 foot jesus and claim that if you were not able to raise a few million dollars from pensioners and Social security collectors among others because they believed you actually talked to 900 foot jesus, and so on...     so basically, the GOP in the 80's invited the hard religious conservatives because they were easy dupes with a completely dedicated ignorant but stalwart and stubborn base to draw from. However, the leaders of that group hunger for power, so in that the cracks were formed.

so anyway, the religious right is actually anathema to what the actual Republican party was supposed to be about. Excusing the Religious right from the GoP would actually be more of a return to the core values of the party, and could possibly bring back legislators akin to Olympia Snow who acted pragmatically and responsibly, and were actually able to help govern the country.
 
2013-04-11 10:30:59 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: Strong willed candidates that got destroyed in the general election and ensured that the Democrats retained control of the Senate.

I'm not talking about the Senate. I'm talking about the House, where dozens of Tea Party candidates won over the democratic candidate.


The districts elected batshiat crazy Tea Partiers in the general election and you think "real liberals" would have been able to compete there?

Newsflash:  the reason why moderate and conservative Democrats are nominated in places like South Dakota and Nebraska is that they're the only Democrats that have a chance in hell of winning a general election there.  A liberal Democrat isn't going to beat Steve King in Iowa.  His district is as conservative as it gets.
 
2013-04-11 10:31:44 AM  

This text is now purple: dickfreckle: Smart people understand that if social conservatives create their own faction, Dems will win for at least 20 years.

The reality of political parties has never worked like that.

The Whigs blew apart in 1856. By all rights, that should have meant the Democrats would run things well into the next century. Except the Republican party formed from the remnants of that and of disaffected Democrats. They would win 10 of the next 12 elections -- and both Democrat wins were Grover Cleveland.

Power vacuums fill quickly in a two-party system. If the present form of the Republican party implodes, something new will take up the mantle, and likely reshuffle somewhat from various factions of the Democrats -- who are far from a monolithic entity themselves. A simple refocus onto fiscal conservatism alone would likely break up the rural-urban split that defines the present relationship.


The Democrats were laboring after the Civil War under the handicap of having been the rebel's party. Very few Union veterans were going to vote for them, and most voters were veterans. Special circumstances that don't apply today.

I think the Democratic Party might splinter between Social Democrat and Modern Whig wings, if there were no wingnut Republicans to unite them against craziness. But I don't think the Republicans are going to break up any more than Kim Jong Un is going to invade South Korea. While most politicians sell out to corporate money in order to stay in office, the core Republican value is embracing corporate rule, and blaming all social ills on laziness. That's a powerful combination of money and prejudice that's going to continue to create a united "conservative" movement.

You're going to see a shrinking Republican base, because they're older than Democrats. If Democrats continue to run from the center a la Clinton and Obama, they'll continue to dominate. California is the bellwether; there's a supermajority in both houses of the legislature, and a Democratic governor. Expect to see more of that in other states.
 
2013-04-11 10:33:16 AM  
"The fact that the party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans"

Oh, you mean those guys you wouldn't let attend CPAC? I can't help but notice that no one from either of those organizations co-signed your letter.
 
2013-04-11 10:37:08 AM  
If the Republicans want to actually be a viable entity in the future it's time they told their ignorant douchebag loudmouth party-members to take a walk. They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name. These old fogey sourpuss soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur Republicans coerce the up-and-coming Republicans into fighting losing battles over meaningless issues. Let the dickbags leave. You might go through a lean period for a bit because of the money that will go with them, but believe me, in no time at all you'll be enjoying newfound riches as your party heals and begins to grow again.

Stop tilting at windmills and get your heads on right, damn. Grow the hell up and stop acting like a bunch of babies.
 
2013-04-11 10:45:49 AM  

jgbrowning: Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else?

You may be interested in what good 'ole New Zealand did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representatio n


Which can work in a parliamentary system, because legislators must form a majority coalition.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but a multi-party system would be a disaster for Congress.  You think you have gridlock now?  Imagine six, eight, ten parties.  Each has anywhere from 10 to fifty seats, each has its own purity tests and all the usual party bs. Try to get that many factions to agree on, say, a package of spending cuts.

You'd never get another budget passed.  Yeah, I know, not like they're getting passed now, but it would be far harder to get agreement on anything.
 
2013-04-11 10:48:20 AM  

lewismarktwo: No way becuz Merica can only be a two party system!  (If we give them actual choices there's an outside chance we might have to serve the populous as a whole)


I'm fine with a two party system that marginalizes social conservatives
 
2013-04-11 10:51:23 AM  

lewismarktwo: No way becuz Merica can only be a two party system!  (If we give them actual choices there's an outside chance we might have to serve the populous as a whole)


The two party system has nothing to do with the number of choices. It's got to do with the mathematics of voting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
 
2013-04-11 10:56:18 AM  

The Snow Dog: If the Republicans want to actually be a viable entity in the future it's time they told their ignorant douchebag loudmouth party-members to take a walk. They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name. These old fogey sourpuss soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur Republicans coerce the up-and-coming Republicans into fighting losing battles over meaningless issues. Let the dickbags leave. You might go through a lean period for a bit because of the money that will go with them, but believe me, in no time at all you'll be enjoying newfound riches as your party heals and begins to grow again.

Stop tilting at windmills and get your heads on right, damn. Grow the hell up and stop acting like a bunch of babies.


1) continued intolerance will result in the gradual demise of the GOP party
2) the GOP cannot become more tolerant without splitting
3) a split in the GOP will result in a long term political losses

It is easy to see why voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering is currently the best strategy the GOP has.
 
2013-04-11 10:59:20 AM  

The Snow Dog: If the Republicans want to actually be a viable entity in the future it's time they told their ignorant douchebag loudmouth party-members to take a walk. They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name.


...so the ten bad apples are poisoning the one good one?  Good to know.

/This is not an "isolated incident". It's endemic to the Republican Party.
 
2013-04-11 11:03:05 AM  

pciszek: TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.

Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.


My wife is going to vote this Sunday for the next Liberal party leader in Canada.  She can then vote for the Liberal party.  Pretty much as close as you can get to picking the equivalent of a Canadian "President".

Of course Canada is just 1/10th the size of the US so it would be hard to do the same thing.
 
2013-04-11 11:05:08 AM  
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
 
2013-04-11 11:05:23 AM  
Well if that isn't a succinct list of douchebaggery, then I do not know what is.
 
2013-04-11 11:12:04 AM  

The Snow Dog: They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name.


The rest? What rest? I have no idea what the nutjob-to-normal ratio among rank and file Republicans is, but among the people they elect to office it's approaching 1 to 0.
 
2013-04-11 11:12:08 AM  
media.tumblr.com

and

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-11 11:12:20 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: I would love a party that represents my views but given the way politics is structured in this country, I only have two options.  Should I just give up on the idea of a viable 2nd party and vote Democrat or continue not voting?


Get involved with, and vote in, primary campaigns.

As a poll worker I see firsthand how painfully low turnout is in primary elections, so I bet activists can make a difference. (That's how the inmates are taking control of the GOP asylum; maybe it can be used for good).

Voting for sane candidates in GOP primaries, and/or actual liberals in Democratic primaries, could be useful.

There are also more elections than President (another pet peeve of poll workers). Inattention to gubernatorial and State legislative elections in 2010 is going to hurt us all for the next 10 years.
 
2013-04-11 11:14:29 AM  
While their points can be debated against, the republican party can run, and win, on its economic, international, and military policies. However, they will lose EVERY TIME if they keep holding onto their social policies.
 
2013-04-11 11:14:34 AM  
Also:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-11 11:14:51 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.


One of this week's Doonesburies has a guy taking a call from Reince Priebus and asks his secretary "who?" She replies "GOP chairman" and he says "Oh, *that* Reince Priebus". Cracks me up.
 
2013-04-11 11:14:57 AM  

Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.


This.  There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years.  This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.
 
2013-04-11 11:16:35 AM  

skozlaw: Good, GTFO. It would be nice to have a reasonable opposition to the democrats. Maybe then we could actually have a liberal alternative to vote for instead of just center-right and batshiat-donkey-farking-crazy.

/ if you promise never to come back I'll buy you idiots the plain tickets to Afghanistan. If you can get over the fact that you named your religion differently you'd fit in a lot better with the Taliban anyway


Moran...the Democrats in this country are Republican "lites", almost all of them skew to the right of center in the political spectrum.

Learn to learn noob.
 
2013-04-11 11:17:23 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: The Southern Logic Company: I would love a party that represents my views but given the way politics is structured in this country, I only have two options.  Should I just give up on the idea of a viable 2nd party and vote Democrat or continue not voting?

Get involved with, and vote in, primary campaigns.

As a poll worker I see firsthand how painfully low turnout is in primary elections, so I bet activists can make a difference. (That's how the inmates are taking control of the GOP asylum; maybe it can be used for good).

Voting for sane candidates in GOP primaries, and/or actual liberals in Democratic primaries, could be useful.

There are also more elections than President (another pet peeve of poll workers). Inattention to gubernatorial and State legislative elections in 2010 is going to hurt us all for the next 10 years.


As a Californian, state proposition elections always have a bigger effect on day-to-day happenings than the presidential election. Prop 13, Prop 187, Prop 8, etc usually bring out the big guns, though.
 
2013-04-11 11:18:17 AM  
Ya know... There are a LOT of inbred "pro-family" voters.... A LOT of them... if they leave the Republicans in a huff, and their own party that advocates against aborting their inbred cranially malformed flipper babies.. which goes no where except in local elections... SOMEONE is going to mine those votes. It might be the republicans again, or it might be the Dems.

They USED to be Democrats, then the republicans stole them... They might poison your well again. All for some stinking votes.
 
2013-04-11 11:19:20 AM  

dustygrimp: This. There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years. This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.


Most of the technocrats have already moved on over to the bigger Dem tent.
 
2013-04-11 11:24:41 AM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one noone on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one Noone who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one noone cares to tow toe the line around here!


ftfy.  Pet-peeve.
 
2013-04-11 11:25:26 AM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!


www.artfulgamer.com
 
2013-04-11 11:36:22 AM  
Forget about it Jake; It's the GOP.

3.bp.blogspot.com

It's their party now.
 
2013-04-11 11:45:25 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: [1]- I say borderline bigoted because I think its quite harsh to paint an entire party with the opinions of a few crazy ass members.  I know its easy to point and laugh at the Huffington Post article about the next dumb thing a Republican said (I do it too) but the entire party isn't this way.


Yeah, but those "few crazy ass members" aren't anonymous bloggers, they're party leaders.
 
2013-04-11 11:46:38 AM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!


Something something for all intensive purposes
 
2013-04-11 11:48:50 AM  
I know its easy to point and laugh at the Huffington Post article about the next dumb thing a Republican said (I do it too) but the entire party isn't this way.

Maybe not, but nearly everyone they elect to office is.
 
2013-04-11 11:56:05 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!

Something something for all intensive purposes


Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.
 
2013-04-11 11:56:40 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.


Actually the RT guys are like the Maytag repairman, throwing cards into a hat, listless, on the verge of suicide.
 
2013-04-11 11:59:41 AM  

dustygrimp: Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.

This.  There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years.  This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.


See, I knew they were not actually serious about governing, winning the presidential election when Huntsman was almost completely ignored outright and a dope like Perry was propped up as a legitimate choice. 1 man had serious cred as a diplomat and governer, the other is a clown running on liking prayer and guns who could barely put a thought together if he happened to be chewing gum at the same time.

The last two election cycles for President, the GoP has, IMO, run looking to lose. The choices were so poorly put together, that it almost seemed they did not want to win. It certainly makes the choice of Palin seem competent if they were running to lose, the same with Romney. With people like Bachmann and Perry getting pushed to the forefront, it sure didn't look like they were advertising sensible governing, more like ads for reality tv shows.
 
2013-04-11 12:00:09 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.


We should have a grammar party. Please RSVP.
 
2013-04-11 12:02:40 PM  

pciszek: TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.

Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.


There are numerous types of alternative vote, approval vote, instant run off voting, and ranked voting systems around - all of those can be used to avoid two party metastasis as they avoid the issue that voting your first preference often acts as a passive vote in favor of your least preferred option whenever your first choice doesn't win or come second.

Australia I seem to remember as using AV, I don't remember if there are many others at the top level.

Parliamentary systems you are effectively voting for who is the Prime Minister, as that is a part of the party platform/manifesto before you vote, so effectively you are voting for both your local candidate, and implictly that will carry over to voting for the PM elect of that same party (of course in some cases that could mean you are forced to vote for a local MP that you don't like in order to support a potential PM you do, or vice versa).
 
2013-04-11 12:05:48 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Is there no-one noone on Fark who can spell this word?

www.parsec-santa.com


OK, maybe he can spell.

As for:

Vodka Zombie: tow toe the line


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-04-11 12:10:16 PM  

PapaChester: Well if that isn't a succinct list of douchebaggery, then I do not know what is.


Before I even read the list, I knew there would be multiple groups with the word "family" in their name (this usually denotes a right-wing hate group).  I was not disappointed.
 
2013-04-11 12:25:38 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!

Something something for all intensive purposes

Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.


[twitch]
 
2013-04-11 12:38:34 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dustygrimp: This. There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years. This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.

Most of the technocrats have already moved on over to the bigger Dem tent.


Doesn't mean they can't move back.
 
Displayed 50 of 191 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report