Why we lose elections to liberals and democrats

We lose elections because the other side got more votes.
So how do we remedy this?
People need to move to states with the intention of offsetting the votes of the left. People who own businesses need to tell like minded folks, If you move here I have a job waiting for you.
A little careful planning and no election is unwinnable (is that a real word?).
The real question is not can the left be defeated, it is what are you willing to do to insure victory at election time.
So far all I have seen is people willing to flap their gums and believe somehow they are making a change, yet you go to any forums and you know in your heart that you can not, the left is too enlightened to pay heed to anyone who disagrees with them.
If the Right wants to take control of things, the only way this will happen is to study the population data and relocate in sufficient numbers to control the election state by state. Make one state at a time a place the left runs from like cockroaches when the light comes on. Push them slowly and methodically into California and let them craft laws to govern themselves as they see fit
Those who are on the Right and who are right of center can happily live with each other, those on the Left and left of center can happily live with each other.
Why in the name of God do we insist on living amongst each other and making each other miserable 24/7. It makes no sense at all and leads to nothing positive for anyone.
We need to separate ourselves from each other while we can still be friends.
Every day it is getting harder and harder to stand the mere sight of each other...ever seen that work out well?
I see Harry Reid open his mouth and I want to choke the life from him, I hear Nancy Pelosi speak and I want to make her afraid to leave her home.....and I see the president and all I can do is wish God would call him home.
This breaks my heart, I shouldn't feel this way. I should not detest the Left so much that I wish harm befall them, Nor should they feel the same way towards me.....but it is, what it is.
Laws will not change this, only make it worse. Protest will not make my heart change only heighten my rage.
Both sides need a corner to retreat to, like a boxing ring has. That one place we can retreat to that is beyond the reach of the other fighter. We need a Federal Branch that stands in the middle and insures a clean fight so to speak.
There is nothing wrong with splitting the country into a left and right political ideology, as long as one side is there to catch the other should their ideals fail.
There is a good chance that if each side is allowed to put their beliefs to practice, they would both evolve into the same entity. They would both arrive at the same political conclusions just take a different road to get there

so why don't you move out into your own little island? Our founding fathers gave every citizen of the US the freedom of speech and to support whichever political party they like.

Originally posted by muse7
so why don't you move out into your own little island? Our founding fathers gave every citizen of the US the freedom of speech and to support whichever political party they like.

If you are a liberal, freedom of speech only applies when said speaker supports your issues. Those speaking in opposition are labeled "racist", "homophobic" or some other name in order to cause others to dismiss them. CFA being a recent case in point.

So we're advocating a further divide of the country? I guess we're not divided enough as it is, so lets create a concrete tangible divide between the citizens.Hey, while we're at it let's create different areas for Christians, Muslims, Atheists, ect within that left/right paradigm. After all we don't want to make anyone uncomfortable by being in the presence of someone else with a different point of view.

reply to post by muse7


That's a good idea. The problem is liberals will go there to live off of someone else's hard work.

Originally posted by ronnieray123
We lose elections because the other side got more votes.

"We?" Who's we? Some of us are liberals/Democrats.

People who own businesses need to tell like minded folks, If you move here I have a job waiting for you.
A little careful planning and no election is unwinnable (is that a real word?).

You say that like liberals don't own businesses, that only conservatives are business owners. Is that what you think? Tell that to my father who is a liberal Democrat and has owned his own business since 1978.

the left is too enlightened to pay heed to anyone who disagrees with them.

I'm glad you see us on the left as being enlightened, it's much appreciated. I do however take umbrage with the notion that we're unwilling to listen to other points of view and weight these arguments. I'm sure there are some like that, but what you state is a gross generalization.

If the Right wants to take control of things, the only way this will happen is to study the population data and relocate in sufficient numbers to control the election state by state. Make one state at a time a place the left runs from like cockroaches when the light comes on. Push them slowly and methodically into California and let them craft laws to govern themselves as they see fit

Hmmm, a few problems with your plan: a) if you leave one state to try and take control of another state, then the state you leave risks becoming more liberal as the conservative population decreases. b) why should liberals flee their homes just because hordes of non-liberals are coming their way? People just don't do that sort of thing. There's a lot more than politics that determine where people live. c) if you push everyone you don't like into California, you just add electoral votes to California, and all anyone needs to do is win that state to become President, pretty much.

Why in the name of God do we insist on living amongst each other and making each other miserable 24/7. It makes no sense at all and leads to nothing positive for anyone.

Ah, so you are suggesting secession? Okay, but why do liberals have to give up most of the country and only get Cali? Do you really think you can turn a state like Maryland, "the bluest of the blue," as it's been called conservative? New York? Illinois? Right now far more Americans identify as Democrats than they do as Republicans. I don't think 180 million Americans want to all pack up and move to California at once. Where would they all fit?

A "Typical" reply. Nothing ever gets solved. Gridlock.

reply to post by GD21D


There's no need for people to divide themselves.

Well, no real need.

There is an artificial need though.

It's ones desire to live ones life as they see fit. It's the whole reason this country exists.

Trouble is somebody always wants to tell me or you how to live their life and sets up little rules and walls for that life. That's what makes it artificial. See, there's no real need for all the walls and rules.

The need wasnt there until somebody came along and created it.

And there is nowhere to escape to anymore. There isnt any place you can go and be left alone anymore.

So trying to segregate into like-minded communities is the peaceful way to accomplish the same goal we all want or at least should want. To be left the hell alone.

Failing that it devolves into a shooting war sooner or later.

reply to post by ronnieray123

If the Right wants to take control of things, the only way this will happen is to study the population data and relocate in sufficient numbers to control the election state by state.

I thought only evil liberals advocated social engineering.

reply to post by ronnieray123


Why do you lose elections? First, you win about as many as you lose, but second, maybe its because your kind thinks things like this:

"I see Harry Reid open his mouth and I want to choke the life from him, I hear Nancy Pelosi speak and I want to make her afraid to leave her home.....and I see the president and all I can do is wish God would call him home."

Why would anyone of sound mind (all us independents that make the majority of the voting population) want people like you anywhere near the reigns of power?

Originally posted by RELDDIR
reply to post by muse7

 

That's a good idea. The problem is liberals will go there to live off of someone else's hard work.

exactly this statement above is why liberals call you names and think you are not too bright.
these kind of statements are what liberals having been listening to for decades.
you not only imply, but come right out and say, liberals as a group do not work hard, are lazy, and steal your money.
you say it so often now that most conservatives believe it, and then when a liberal gets tired of hearing it and starts standing up for himself, somehow that is seen as being elitist.
guess what....the vast majority of liberals work their butts off, love the constitution, and want to hang on to the freedoms our country has.

Originally posted by jimmyx

exactly this statement above is why liberals call you names and think you are not too bright.

Well that and George W. Bush & Co. I mean, c'mon. How stupid do conservatives have to be?

reply to post by jimmyx


Democrats work hard at protesting and always trying to be right. Look at California, I lived their for over 30 years. They ran off all the businesses and it has become a WELFARE STATE. If, you think CONSERVATIVES ARE DUMB, STOP TAKING THEIR TAX MONEY THEN.

reply to post by RELDDIR


I'm ASIAN BTW. So, don't call me a RACIST!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So trying to segregate into like-minded communities is the peaceful way to accomplish the same goal we all want or at least should want. To be left the hell alone.

Failing that it devolves into a shooting war sooner or later.

What you create with this idea are two completely different entities with two different ideals. Sooner or later one side will begin to push while the other pushes back. Before you know it you have another civil war (civil war seems inevitable at this point anyway).There are better ways to accomplish the intent of this idea. I think the main goal of this idea is to create more social mobility in general. As I've stated before different states, different cultures, different issues take precedence. Thus what we have today is a system with very rigid social mobility.The best way I see a streamlined approach is to give more flexibility within states rights. I think just about everything should be decided at the state level. Taxes (maybe you go with a 5-10% income to fund federal level), gay rights, abortion, education, healthcare, drugs, ect. Now you create much more social mobility. If you don't like how they do things in New York you can move to California. Now you also create more leader accountability as well, as it makes it much more difficult for state representatives to differ responsibility for decisions made.When we look at the mess that is the healthcare system this system could work out fairly well as you would have states trying many different approaches to the issue. Someone is bound to find a good way of conducting healthcare. When someone finds an effective healthcare plan others will follow suit or risk losing citizens, thus losing tax revenue. Same goes for education and such.Government at the federal level should only be there to ensure there are no severe civil rights violations and corruption at the state levels, as there will definitely be corruption. They also still have control over military, and the monetary system. I'm talking about real control over the monetary system and not the farce known as the FED. I admit it's a rough analysis, but if put into effect correctly with the right measures and thought, it could be an extremely effective system.

The republicans will lose the election this year because they nominated Mitt Romney. He is perhaps the most unprincipled, most out of touch person to ever run for the presidency, and thats saying something. Besides helping the richest of the rich, I seriously have no idea what Romney truly stands for and believes in. Say what you will about Obama (who I am highly critical of), but at least you know where he actually stands on a wide range of issues. Romney is the definition of a political opportunist.

reply to post by kimar


I am not even sure, if I'm going to vote. Romney and Obama are almost the same. My fear about a 2nd Obama term is that he push through his real agenda. I think the best strategy going towards election day is to "box" up "0bama." Concentrate on winning the Senate and House, forget Romney...Unless Romney comes up with an extremely viable VP.

Just food for thought Romney might not even be the nominee.

How long is going to take before the rest of you people FINALLY wake-up and realize that this whole 2-party, 2-sides thing is a flaming crock. Neither side gives a rat's behind about you or anything you believe. They are in it solely for THEIR sponsors and THEIR cronies. You all are pawns. Meaningless, insignificant pawns. Does it really matter what banner is carried by the peson that rapes you? You're still getting raped. Your country is still being dismantled right before your eyes. The only thing that could possibly save us is if the MAJORITY of The People wake-up and realize --- finally --- that it's THEM against US. No right/left, red/blue, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, Obama/Romney... THEM v. US. We are rapidly running out of time. We NEED you deluded sheep to wake-up and get a clue. BOTH sides are working to eviscerate the populace and these kinds of arguments are engineered to keep us focused on fighting amongst ourselves while they continue running roughshod over our rights and The Constitution. For the love of God and Country will you PLEASE get a clue.

Stop listening to the distraction and lies both sides ar feeding you. Do some research. Learn what both sides have been up to over the last couple decades and it will become abundantly clear that everything you have been lead to believe --- by BOTH sides --- has been fabricated and distorted in order to get you to take sides. We're doomed if you all can't get past this.

reply to post by jtma508


I've realized it. Republicans buy us more time, so I have to disagree with you a tad bit.