(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Or maybe it's because you literally live in a fantasy land where college =/= education and don't even get me started on your delusional concept on what tolerance is.

Fantasy land? You're uneducated, yet claim to have attended college. How many more people like you, dmac, Memphis, jdtulane are needed to prove the point?

Meanwhile, you would be ridiculed in previous eras because because so many people were more educated than you.

I only appear "uneducated" because you disagree with me politically and any logical, educated, or truthful post goes right through one ear and out the other.

You don't do logic. You just parrot simple-minded platitudes and believe that's "educated".

Quote:Oh and just an FYI I never brag about my education level on here, LSU was the one who mentioned it on here.

I have no idea of what your credential level is b/c I don't really care enough about you to pay attention.

(10-30-2014 03:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:22 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I agree. The "states' rights" viewpoint won't work for the GOP on either gay marriage or abortion. You might get a little more leeway from young people on drug laws to defer to the states. However, gay marriage and abortion are complete national across-the-board liberty issues - they're looked at no different by young people as "state issues" than when Southern states tried to pose segregation as a states' rights issue over 50 years ago.

Instead, if the GOP can't bring itself to affirmatively support gay marriage in its platform, it should just simply remove any reference to it whatsoever. Don't even address it. Announce that the party no longer has a stance on the issue because of changing times and it's up to the individual candidates to decide. Of course, in practicality, the smart thing to do is to get party leadership to put message control into place where no politician (regardless of his or her personal views) says a single thing about it publicly. We've seen individual Republican candidates already do this (such as Bruce Rauner running for governor here in Illinois) and that mitigates the ability for the Democrats to use social issues to deflect from economic issues. If the Christian Right wants to threaten to leave, let them. They're not voting for Democrats, so why the GOP continues to be beholden to them is beyond me from a global perspective. The goal is to win 270 electoral votes, not an impassioned 268.

This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

blah blah blah kids these days. We're going the one's stuck with your generation's mess.

Yeah! There's that tolerance!!! And education too! Where did you learn how to write like that anyways?

Who cares how well written anonymous forum posts are?

Anybody participating in a thread about "education" should at least give a half of a sh*t. But hey, that's just my opinion. Continue stepping on your feet if it helps your case.

(10-30-2014 03:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The kind of people that Frank-the-Tank is urging the GOP to focus on, will not be appeased by the "States' Rights" thing.

I agree. The "states' rights" viewpoint won't work for the GOP on either gay marriage or abortion. You might get a little more leeway from young people on drug laws to defer to the states. However, gay marriage and abortion are complete national across-the-board liberty issues - they're looked at no different by young people as "state issues" than when Southern states tried to pose segregation as a states' rights issue over 50 years ago.

Instead, if the GOP can't bring itself to affirmatively support gay marriage in its platform, it should just simply remove any reference to it whatsoever. Don't even address it. Announce that the party no longer has a stance on the issue because of changing times and it's up to the individual candidates to decide. Of course, in practicality, the smart thing to do is to get party leadership to put message control into place where no politician (regardless of his or her personal views) says a single thing about it publicly. We've seen individual Republican candidates already do this (such as Bruce Rauner running for governor here in Illinois) and that mitigates the ability for the Democrats to use social issues to deflect from economic issues. If the Christian Right wants to threaten to leave, let them. They're not voting for Democrats, so why the GOP continues to be beholden to them is beyond me from a global perspective. The goal is to win 270 electoral votes, not an impassioned 268.

This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

blah blah blah kids these days. We're going the one's stuck with your generation's mess. I know plenty of millennials that are liberal, but it's straight up bull**** to call us all liberal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/6577645/

You are no longer a "kid". Grow up. That is our point. Never before in our history has "kids these days" been 25-30 years old.

I bet you don't realize the difference between 25-32 year olds and the millennials you talk **** about.

(10-30-2014 03:32 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I agree. The "states' rights" viewpoint won't work for the GOP on either gay marriage or abortion. You might get a little more leeway from young people on drug laws to defer to the states. However, gay marriage and abortion are complete national across-the-board liberty issues - they're looked at no different by young people as "state issues" than when Southern states tried to pose segregation as a states' rights issue over 50 years ago.

Instead, if the GOP can't bring itself to affirmatively support gay marriage in its platform, it should just simply remove any reference to it whatsoever. Don't even address it. Announce that the party no longer has a stance on the issue because of changing times and it's up to the individual candidates to decide. Of course, in practicality, the smart thing to do is to get party leadership to put message control into place where no politician (regardless of his or her personal views) says a single thing about it publicly. We've seen individual Republican candidates already do this (such as Bruce Rauner running for governor here in Illinois) and that mitigates the ability for the Democrats to use social issues to deflect from economic issues. If the Christian Right wants to threaten to leave, let them. They're not voting for Democrats, so why the GOP continues to be beholden to them is beyond me from a global perspective. The goal is to win 270 electoral votes, not an impassioned 268.

This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

blah blah blah kids these days. We're going the one's stuck with your generation's mess. I know plenty of millennials that are liberal, but it's straight up bull**** to call us all liberal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/6577645/

You are no longer a "kid". Grow up. That is our point. Never before in our history has "kids these days" been 25-30 years old.

I bet you don't realize the difference between 25-32 year olds and the millennials you talk **** about.

Do you care to address my point that your generation are now adults that see themselves as kids and act like kids? 25, 29, 30, 32, 22, 18... it really doesn't make a difference. Grow up.

(10-30-2014 03:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:32 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

blah blah blah kids these days. We're going the one's stuck with your generation's mess. I know plenty of millennials that are liberal, but it's straight up bull**** to call us all liberal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/6577645/

You are no longer a "kid". Grow up. That is our point. Never before in our history has "kids these days" been 25-30 years old.

I bet you don't realize the difference between 25-32 year olds and the millennials you talk **** about.

Do you care to address my point that your generation are now adults that see themselves as kids and act like kids? 25, 29, 30, 32, 22, 18... it really doesn't make a difference. Grow up.

Yes it does. People my age barely relate to those who are under 21, and certainly don't see themselves as children. I know a couple people that are living at home, but for the most part people my age just want to make their nut. Nobody wants to be that guy.

(10-30-2014 03:32 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I agree. The "states' rights" viewpoint won't work for the GOP on either gay marriage or abortion. You might get a little more leeway from young people on drug laws to defer to the states. However, gay marriage and abortion are complete national across-the-board liberty issues - they're looked at no different by young people as "state issues" than when Southern states tried to pose segregation as a states' rights issue over 50 years ago.

Instead, if the GOP can't bring itself to affirmatively support gay marriage in its platform, it should just simply remove any reference to it whatsoever. Don't even address it. Announce that the party no longer has a stance on the issue because of changing times and it's up to the individual candidates to decide. Of course, in practicality, the smart thing to do is to get party leadership to put message control into place where no politician (regardless of his or her personal views) says a single thing about it publicly. We've seen individual Republican candidates already do this (such as Bruce Rauner running for governor here in Illinois) and that mitigates the ability for the Democrats to use social issues to deflect from economic issues. If the Christian Right wants to threaten to leave, let them. They're not voting for Democrats, so why the GOP continues to be beholden to them is beyond me from a global perspective. The goal is to win 270 electoral votes, not an impassioned 268.

This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

blah blah blah kids these days. We're going the one's stuck with your generation's mess. I know plenty of millennials that are liberal, but it's straight up bull**** to call us all liberal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/6577645/

You are no longer a "kid". Grow up. That is our point. Never before in our history has "kids these days" been 25-30 years old.

I bet you don't realize the difference between 25-32 year olds and the millennials you talk **** about.

Maybe not, but the people that act like the OP are definitely Millennials.

Notice how when the E-gang gets involved the quality of conversation goes to hell? I mean seriously, we were having a decent conversation with frank about the direction the GOP should be heading and instead it turns into a millennial bashing, personal insults, all around s*** show. Seriously guys, take the new set of rules here seriously or just stick to the WWE room.

(10-30-2014 04:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Notice how when the E-gang gets involved the quality of conversation goes to hell? I mean seriously, we were having a decent conversation with frank about the direction the GOP should be heading and instead it turns into a millennial bashing, personal insults, all around s*** show. Seriously guys, take the new set of rules here seriously or just stick to the WWE room.

If not for our infamous "gang," Frank wouldn't have even made a comment. Also, disproving the OP doesn't mean the conversation turns into a sh*t show.

(10-30-2014 04:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 04:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Notice how when the E-gang gets involved the quality of conversation goes to hell? I mean seriously, we were having a decent conversation with frank about the direction the GOP should be heading and instead it turns into a millennial bashing, personal insults, all around s*** show. Seriously guys, take the new set of rules here seriously or just stick to the WWE room.

If not for our infamous "gang," Frank wouldn't have even made a comment. Also, disproving the OP doesn't mean the conversation turns into a sh*t show.

I'd say frank would of commented anyways seeing how often he talks about this stuff. You guys didn't prove/disprove anything. all you guys did was focus on the kinda of talking points that need to be reserved for WWE forum banter that don't provide anything to the argument. all you did was attack education, pull the age old (and never logical) "your intolerance to my intolerance is unfair" talking point, and did nothing but randomly categorize an entire generation of people as "this or that" and even named specific posters. You are completely out of it especially when you think your personal stigmatized opinion of millennials is a legitimate counter argument to the factually proven comment that millennials are indeed more tolerant & more educated than previous generations. your talking point is just the response.

I have no problems engaging you in legitimate discussion about this issue. but when you resort to personal insults, take your personal stigmatizing opinions and presenting them as if they are factually correct, and torch adding the "you have never made a single logical post on csnbbs (paraphrase)" comments...

then yeah, I think I am totally justified in saying that this thread has effectively gone to hell.

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

I've voted Republican in every single election since I've been old enough to vote. That includes having outspokenly voted against Obama twice despite being a lifelong Chicagoan, which is about as popular of a position as voting for Ralph Nader in Mississippi. So, I'm a lifelong suburban Republican under 40 that is a fiscal conservative and, even more clearly, has a 100% financial incentive to vote Republican in my tax bracket.

If you're saying that it's all about "me me me", well, in this case, yes, I'm exactly the type of person that Republicans need to be holding onto. I don't say that out of hubris - it's a statistical fact that suburban voters that are fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal are the ones that decide elections in the swing states. That has been the case in every single presidential election since 1992. It applies even more so to my wife - suburban women voters are even more critical. Winning 80%-20% in Alabama is irrelevant. What matters is how to win 51%-49% in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, etc.

I'm not sitting here thinking that I can convince anyone to change their minds about gay marriage, abortion or any other issues. However, we should all be smart enough to decipher objective voting data. This year's midterm elections are the preseason. For the season that really matters, Republicans can't win the White House in 2016 with the numbers that they have received from Millennials up to this point. Period. Without some massive changes in the next 2 years, we are effectively guaranteed 8 years of Hillary. Too many other Republicans don't want to believe it because they think anti-Obama sentiment will be enough, but the Clintons are one of the few Democratic brands out there that is completely distinct from Obama.

As a lifelong Republican subjected to living in a blue state, I see a massive disconnect and problem that people in the red states don't seem to see (or acknowledge). The fact that Republicans didn't trounce Obama in 2012 with such a horrific economic and regulatory record is a testament to the fact that there is a large segment of the population that straight up won't even listen to the GOP's fiscal message because they can't get past the social views.

Some Republicans are at least internalizing that fact. Rand Paul seems to get it - he's a social conservative overall, but he appears to understand that pushing those viewpoints isn't going to win elections compared to economic policy. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie seem to acknowledge it, as well. So, not all is lost. I just fear that the base will use a loud-mouthed vehicle like Ted Cruz to force the aforementioned people above to move right socially in the primaries, which will kill their chances in the general election (just like McCain and Romney). I'm complaining now because I *DON'T* want 8 years of Hillary. Heck, it will be tough enough to beat Hillary even if the Republicans do *everything* perfectly (and the GOP are FAR from putting together a perfect game plan).

Frank, have you ever considered going into political blogging now that conference realignment seems unlikely for the next few years? kinda off topic but you do seem to make some intriguing points about it.

(10-30-2014 04:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Frank, have you ever considered going into political blogging now that conference realignment seems unlikely for the next few years? kinda off topic but you do seem to make some intriguing points about it.

Before conference realignment, I posted a handful of times on politics. To be honest, the resulting comments were horrific (both from the right and left), which pretty much dissuaded me from blogging about it again. Commenters have generally been very good about being civil and somewhat objective in their discussions about college sports even when they disagree, but they've unfortunately been shown to be incapable to see politics the same way. I follow politics quite closely, so if I could create a forum where the commenters were just as civil and objective about politics as they are about college sports issues, I'd love it, but that's REALLY tough. I haven't found one on the web yet and I've been looking for one for many years. As a result, this board is one of my few outlets for political writing.

(10-30-2014 05:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 04:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Frank, have you ever considered going into political blogging now that conference realignment seems unlikely for the next few years? kinda off topic but you do seem to make some intriguing points about it.

Before conference realignment, I posted a handful of times on politics. To be honest, the resulting comments were horrific (both from the right and left), which pretty much dissuaded me from blogging about it again. Commenters have generally been very good about being civil and somewhat objective in their discussions about college sports even when they disagree, but they've unfortunately been shown to be incapable to see politics the same way. I follow politics quite closely, so if I could create a forum where the commenters were just as civil and objective about politics as they are about college sports issues, I'd love it, but that's REALLY tough. I haven't found one on the web yet and I've been looking for one for many years. As a result, this board is one of my few outlets for political writing.

i can only imagine the backlash from that. but yeah politics is without a doubt a monster compared to sports.

(10-30-2014 04:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  This posts epitomizes millenials. They think that their small share of the vote is the deciding factor in elections when the share has always been small and always been liberal. It is me me me me me me me. I doubt the GOP really cares how much leeway you give them. You aren't voting for them anyway.

I've voted Republican in every single election since I've been old enough to vote. That includes having outspokenly voted against Obama twice despite being a lifelong Chicagoan, which is about as popular of a position as voting for Ralph Nader in Mississippi. So, I'm a lifelong suburban Republican under 40 that is a fiscal conservative and, even more clearly, has a 100% financial incentive to vote Republican in my tax bracket.

If you're saying that it's all about "me me me", well, in this case, yes, I'm exactly the type of person that Republicans need to be holding onto. I don't say that out of hubris - it's a statistical fact that suburban voters that are fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal are the ones that decide elections in the swing states. That has been the case in every single presidential election since 1992. It applies even more so to my wife - suburban women voters are even more critical. Winning 80%-20% in Alabama is irrelevant. What matters is how to win 51%-49% in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, etc.

I'm not sitting here thinking that I can convince anyone to change their minds about gay marriage, abortion or any other issues. However, we should all be smart enough to decipher objective voting data. This year's midterm elections are the preseason. For the season that really matters, Republicans can't win the White House in 2016 with the numbers that they have received from Millennials up to this point. Period. Without some massive changes in the next 2 years, we are effectively guaranteed 8 years of Hillary. Too many other Republicans don't want to believe it because they think anti-Obama sentiment will be enough, but the Clintons are one of the few Democratic brands out there that is completely distinct from Obama.

As a lifelong Republican subjected to living in a blue state, I see a massive disconnect and problem that people in the red states don't seem to see (or acknowledge). The fact that Republicans didn't trounce Obama in 2012 with such a horrific economic and regulatory record is a testament to the fact that there is a large segment of the population that straight up won't even listen to the GOP's fiscal message because they can't get past the social views.

Some Republicans are at least internalizing that fact. Rand Paul seems to get it - he's a social conservative overall, but he appears to understand that pushing those viewpoints isn't going to win elections compared to economic policy. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie seem to acknowledge it, as well. So, not all is lost. I just fear that the base will use a loud-mouthed vehicle like Ted Cruz to force the aforementioned people above to move right socially in the primaries, which will kill their chances in the general election (just like McCain and Romney). I'm complaining now because I *DON'T* want 8 years of Hillary. Heck, it will be tough enough to beat Hillary even if the Republicans do *everything* perfectly (and the GOP are FAR from putting together a perfect game plan).

You are seeing it from Illinois, I am seeing it from Virginia. Can't speak for CO or OH, but a repubpican that could get elected in Illinois or New Jersey has no shot here or NC.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(10-30-2014 12:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 12:51 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 12:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 12:21 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 12:09 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  No it's not. And even if it were, the statement they made is still wrong.

Care to keep going, since you're only proving that you like arguing when you're wrong? Or perhaps you're not fully literate. You wouldn't be the only one on this board.


Maybe words have meanings, and you don't know what they are.

Maybe you're a cranky old d-bag.

A college degree demonstrates that you received some sort of higher education. You can't argue that college isn't "education".

I most certainly can

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/students-k...ars/62901/

And the reason that I can is that I'm educated. Not simply credentialed.

And I'm not cranky. I'm right. You OTOH are looking much like a whiny *****.

Quote:maybe we should have a discussion as to why the dictionary definition of education is wrong?

Maybe, but you'd first have to learn what the definition is. And that apparently seems to be too much of a task for you.

Yeah, you too:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/education
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/education
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def.../education
http://www.businessdictionary.com/defini...ation.html
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona.../education
http://www.yourdictionary.com/education

Thanks for demonstrating that I was right. But I already knew that.

You seem to think everyone but you doesn't understand the English language. Yet you seem to only have a limited grasp yourself. Quite strange indeed.

(10-30-2014 03:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:32 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  blah blah blah kids these days. We're going the one's stuck with your generation's mess. I know plenty of millennials that are liberal, but it's straight up bull**** to call us all liberal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/6577645/

You are no longer a "kid". Grow up. That is our point. Never before in our history has "kids these days" been 25-30 years old.

I bet you don't realize the difference between 25-32 year olds and the millennials you talk **** about.

Do you care to address my point that your generation are now adults that see themselves as kids and act like kids? 25, 29, 30, 32, 22, 18... it really doesn't make a difference. Grow up.

Yes it does. People my age barely relate to those who are under 21, and certainly don't see themselves as children. I know a couple people that are living at home, but for the most part people my age just want to make their nut. Nobody wants to be that guy.

Reminds me of a Lombardi quote, "Everybody has the will to win, few people have the will to prepare to win."

Yeah, all your peers want to "make their nut" but few are willing to do the hard things to get there. That's why they're not yet adults.

(10-31-2014 01:03 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  You seem to think everyone but you doesn't understand the English language. Yet you seem to only have a limited grasp yourself. Quite strange indeed.

PUOSU. What don't I grasp? I notice that none of you post the actual definitions, because they'd prove me right. You just dance around links like they're sacred, but you avoid the actual content.

You can't get the simple things right, yet you believe you can build a sound and valid logical argument on all these flaws.

Your time in school has done nothing but fill your heads with prejudices and superstitions. You lack the ability to research, to deduce, to synthesize new ideas. You parrot tired canards that are tiresome, pedestrian and most importantly, wrong.

(10-30-2014 04:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 04:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 04:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Notice how when the E-gang gets involved the quality of conversation goes to hell? I mean seriously, we were having a decent conversation with frank about the direction the GOP should be heading and instead it turns into a millennial bashing, personal insults, all around s*** show. Seriously guys, take the new set of rules here seriously or just stick to the WWE room.

If not for our infamous "gang," Frank wouldn't have even made a comment. Also, disproving the OP doesn't mean the conversation turns into a sh*t show.

I'd say frank would of commented anyways seeing how often he talks about this stuff. You guys didn't prove/disprove anything. all you guys did was focus on the kinda of talking points that need to be reserved for WWE forum banter that don't provide anything to the argument. all you did was attack education, pull the age old (and never logical) "your intolerance to my intolerance is unfair" talking point, and did nothing but randomly categorize an entire generation of people as "this or that" and even named specific posters. You are completely out of it especially when you think your personal stigmatized opinion of millennials is a legitimate counter argument to the factually proven comment that millennials are indeed more tolerant & more educated than previous generations. your talking point is just the response.

I have no problems engaging you in legitimate discussion about this issue. but when you resort to personal insults, take your personal stigmatizing opinions and presenting them as if they are factually correct, and torch adding the "you have never made a single logical post on csnbbs (paraphrase)" comments...

That's factually correct too.

Quote:then yeah, I think I am totally justified in saying that this thread has effectively gone to hell.

Because it doesn't align with your bias, and you don't have the education to present your case, nor do you have the tolerance to accept others' beliefs.

(10-30-2014 06:41 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  You are seeing it from Illinois, I am seeing it from Virginia. Can't speak for CO or OH, but a repubpican that could get elected in Illinois or New Jersey has no shot here or NC.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

That's thinking of voting patterns from 15 years ago. Virginia and North Carolina have demographically changed pretty massively since then. Sure, a hard right conservative can win the Republican *primary* there. However, Democrats are definitely competitive in statewide elections. How can you say that the type of Republican that gets elected in Illinois and New Jersey wouldn't get elected when Virginia voted for Obama TWICE? That indicates that a more moderate Republican is EXACTLY the formula to win Virginia and North Carolina consistently in today's environment. Maybe you live in the more conservative portion of Virginia so it *seems* like a conservative state, but that voice is getting overwhelmed by the number of people moving to Northern Virginia (meaning that you're eventually going to have as much power as the very conservative Downstate Illinois... meaning very little because the population isn't there).

(10-31-2014 08:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 06:41 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  You are seeing it from Illinois, I am seeing it from Virginia. Can't speak for CO or OH, but a repubpican that could get elected in Illinois or New Jersey has no shot here or NC.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

That's thinking of voting patterns from 15 years ago. Virginia and North Carolina have demographically changed pretty massively since then. Sure, a hard right conservative can win the Republican *primary* there. However, Democrats are definitely competitive in statewide elections. How can you say that the type of Republican that gets elected in Illinois and New Jersey wouldn't get elected when Virginia voted for Obama TWICE? That indicates that a more moderate Republican is EXACTLY the formula to win Virginia and North Carolina consistently in today's environment. Maybe you live in the more conservative portion of Virginia so it *seems* like a conservative state, but that voice is getting overwhelmed by the number of people moving to Northern Virginia (meaning that you're eventually going to have as much power as the very conservative Downstate Illinois... meaning very little because the population isn't there).

None of this is accurate. Cuccinelli lost b/c people like you in the GOP abandoned him, not b/c the state is more moderate. Even at that, it took 6 months of expensive, inflammatory mud-slinging TV ads from McAullife to make progress, and despite all of that PLUS charges against McDonnell, the election was close.