Republicans likely to lose again in the next election of 2016.

Ted Cruz: Hillary Clinton will win in 2016 if GOP nominates another Dole, McCain or Romney

Thats a no brainer and I agree with the statement. However, the problem is that he left himself out of the statement.

The reason McCain and Romney lost was because their voting record did not appeal to a large portion of their party:

The fiscal conservative , libertarian leaning republicans, and independent registered republicans. These 3 sub republicans are smart enough to vote on the issues and not solely the party elected candidate.

Ted Cruz would attract the GOP cheerleaders that votes solely on party lines , but so would any other GOP candidate. However, due to his voting records he will not get the win because conservatives , libertarian leaning republicans, independent registered republicans , independents and libertarian will not support him or will they likely vote for him.

Ted Cruz may have a tea party and libertarian leaning watermark posted on them by the MSM, but his voting record says something else.

1. He was against state rights when he voted to not allow states to decide if they wanted to label GMO products.
2. He voted to keep a Oligopoly in place versus allowing for a free market to flourish when he voted against net neutrality.

I wrote the following before Romney was picked and I think the same thing will happen again to the GOP. They are picking the candidate that is going to cost them the most votes within their own party like Romney Did.

Why if the GOP picks Romney they will lose the election against Obama.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: interupt42

I trust the tea part for fiscal responsibility and I trust the democrats for civil rights except for nanny state issues, which they are terrible on (security should never trump liberty). Anyway, both parties are junk, and even the libertarian party has been corrupted (Bob Barr, really?). I slightly favor Democrats more than normal republicans, but I slightly favor libertarian Republicans more than normal Democrats, so it is a toss up for me.

If libertarians could go back to being classical liberals and work within the Democratic party to change it, I'd be 100% for that. Why they chose the most traditionalist least flexible of our two political parties to change from within is beyond me. If you look at the Neo-Con agenda that the libertarians began with when they first backed Ron Paul, the Republicans were practically fascists at that era in our history. I don't see how that was ever logical to their brains, but to each his own.

What if we got someone like Governor Lynch from New Hampshire to run for public office under a libertarian campaign? If we put as much effort into changing the Democratic party as the Tea Party and Libertarians have put into changing the Republican party, this country would be on a much different trajectory right now, but instead they are trying to conjure up an unstoppable force against an immovable object, which is just useless in my mind.

a reply to: interupt42

I would prefer neither party to win and shake things up by voting in a 3rd party candidate. It's the only way for voters to send a clear message that the public doesn't approve of the way both parties are being corrupted by corporations and lobbyists. It will also send a message that the two party system no longer has a strangle hold on who can win the presidency.

a reply to: Nechash

Why would democrats be more trustworthy with civil rights than Republicans or the Tea Party? Because they tell you they are? Civil rights are civil rights no matter who is in power, and remember the Civil Rights Act? More democrats were against it than for it, and more Republicans were for it than against it.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

These labels from the 1960s no longer mean what they mean today. Republicans used to be pro-union. They are no longer. From what I can tell, Republicans hated slavery and Democrats supported it up until about about 1970 and then things changed to reflect a new era of ideologies when Democrats realized they had to adapt to survive. The problem is that people get pigeonholed into being a Republican or a Democrat because that is who their father and grandfather was, and have no idea what the governing philosophy of their party is today.

The Democrats were developed from the ideology of Thomas Jefferson originally, if they were still what he set out to create, I'd never be anything but a Democrat, but that is not what they are today.

Democrats get civil rights better than Republicans do, because they understand social justice and positive liberty better than Republicans do, whereas most Republicans who are in favor of civil rights are still trying to defend them from a purely anarcho-capitalistic negative rights platform which makes no sense in a world of social conformity pressures and institutional discrimination against minorities.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

That is one guy's opinion.

Of course it is, that is why I didn't create the thread under dreams & predictions.

However, I did back up my opinion with some reason as to why I thought that if Romney was elected the primary candidate the GOP would lose. I turned out to be right, whether it was pure luck or not who knows?, but I think my reasons were valid as to why he lost.

In Cruz case, I think the same will likely happen. His voting records is not strong enough to appease the republicans that vote on record versus rhetoric.

He will no doubt get the GOP Political cheerleaders of the party , but not the voters that care more about the issues then the party: such as the (R) fiscal conservatives, (R) libertarians, (R) independents nor the actual libertarian or independent party members.

"The fiscal conservation,libertarian leaning republicans" do a collective groan when faced with "family values", "true conservative" candidates, because we don't believe the government should tell people how to live, nor do we believe such efforts are of any benefit to society. The alternative, liberal candidates are unpalatable as wel, as they want more and more funding for their social engineering projects. It's not that anyone wants a lassez-faire government anymore, but the gargantuan scope and constant intrusion of the government now is something I for one feel should be scaled back and refocused towards attainable goals. la reply to: interupt42

a reply to: Nechash

Anyway, both parties are junk, and even the libertarian party has been corrupted (Bob Barr, really?)

Couldn't agree more.

Both parties suck because the GOP and DNC are part of the Corporate Oligopoly tool set. They pick the candidates for you to chose from in order to make sure who ever you pick , you get their guy.

That is why I felt that GOP purposely picked the guy (Romney) that was obviously going to cost them the most vote. They didn't care who really won as long as it was one of their GUY.

a reply to: interupt42

I think the majority of the constituent support was behind Ron Paul, but the GOP establishment wanted a Yes Man, so they fraudulently derailed his campaign.

The left didn't want him, either, because he probably would have beat Obama. That's why THEY loved Romney and downplayed Paul. I am freaking tired of the MSM propagandists shaping public opinion.

a reply to: interupt42

If you think there was an uproar about Obama and his Natural Born Citizen status...just imagine what would happen if Cruz were allowed to run or elected. He was born in Canada to a Cuban and a US citizen and lived in Canada several years. I can't wait for the chaos...

It isn't even 2015 yet and everyone is talking presidential candidates and have been since the beginning of the year. A lot can happen in a year before caucuses and primaries begin.

a reply to: interupt42

I think they picked Romney so that Obama could be reelected. When they were down to just five candidates, I would have voted for any of the other four over Obama. Romney was the only one that was terrible enough to keep me at home on election day.

Yes , they will win again.Bush jr screwed republicans in at least next 20 years.

a reply to: Nechash

Listen, "social justice" is a euphemism for socialism. The new democratic party are socialists, regardless of what label they apply to themselves. there is nothing good about socialism, and you can't be thinking that it will be better here because this is America - it will no longer BE America if that happens. The GOP is now largely a neocon fascist war machine, so they aren't much different.

This is why Ron Paul was so popular last election cycle. It's too bad it was his last shot.

Time for new blood all around.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: interupt42

I would prefer neither party to win and shake things up by voting in a 3rd party candidate. It's the only way for voters to send a clear message that the public doesn't approve of the way both parties are being corrupted by corporations and lobbyists. It will also send a message that the two party system no longer has a strangle hold on who can win the presidency.

Couldn't agree with you more.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I'm an economic mutualist. The only difference between me and a socialist is that I believe the people should have individual rights protected, that government should be decentralized, and that while businesses should be mutually owned, property rights should still be protected so that sole-proprietorships can still exist. I would like to see the economic model of capitalism brought down by outlawing corporate personhood and allowing mutually owned businesses to begin to compete with corporations on a free market model.


I believe that over time, people would prefer to work at a company where they accrued ownership instead of just getting a paycheck, and people would prefer to save money and/or buy a better product locally made instead of lining the pockets of international corporations. I do not like the atomistic model of anarcho-capitalism. While I do not believe I owe my life to my fellow human being, I also do not want to live in a world where the destitute are just left to their own devices. I think we can and should work together to create a better world for everyone, not just so that the poor can be better off, but so that we can live in a happy, prosperous, creative and free society where all people are relatively equal to one another, or at least to where they are as equal as the natural division of talent, creativity and leadership abilities will allow for.

originally posted by: interupt42

Couldn't agree with you more.

Wait didnt we have that?
Ron Paul much?

The all favorite question they asked him in 08..

What make you think you are electable? Followed by tons and tons and tons of laughter from the commentators...

Oh ya there is that other problem that he had to.. No face time in the debates on tv, or any talk time on TV.. hell they had one night where they only mentioned him once..

Also let us not forget about all the cheating that was done to him to the point where RP himself started questioning all the bs before he gave up...

But ya 3rd party.. Ralph Nader much? (Not knocking him just saying..)

originally posted by: xavi1000
Yes , they will win again.Bush jr screwed republicans in at least next 20 years.

IMO the real culprit is the internet that screwed republicans the most because it exposed the B$. The republican ideal is for small gov't , state rights, and individual freedoms.

The GOP selected candidates who all speak of those things but do the opposite. With the internet you can easily and quickly see that their voting records don't match their rhetoric. Therefore, conservative republicans , Libertarians and fiscal conservative independents who tend to vote on issues rather than party see through the B$ and either don't vote in protest or just don't bother.

The Democrats aren't getting as hurt by the effect of the internet because they wan't big gov't . Sadly , Democrats wan't big gov't, because they haven't figured out that Big gov't works for the Lobbyist . Hence, regardless which is in power Republican or Democrat we continue to get Big Gov't and Corporate friendly laws.

But we have a new person running that most do not know about yet. Dennis Michael Lynch (“DML”) He has never served as a politician. He plans to announce his candidacy in 2015 and then to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

Does he have a chance? Not sure but his web site is pretty impressive, Your voice link is where he talks directly to the people on different issues they have.

Nothing like I have seen before in a man running for president. He is bringing hope to the american people so he may have a chance considering all the chaos we have going on as of now.

a reply to: RunForTheHills

Thank you for the Info/ I will definitely check him out, because I really can't see any body running that would actually make a difference in either party at any level.