They say it ain't so but then this…
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...clap-and-cheer-for-him.2536373/#post-39293556
They say it ain't so but then this…Same step the GOP has been doing. The Goosestep.
"Ouick, boys - we gotta get to the Trump rally!"
You run another candidate, any candidate, not nazi not pedo.
The alternative of doing nothing just shows the people that you are done pretending to care.. like at all. Which is nice in its own way, true colors and all that. You have Trump now, no need to hide anymore.
He's no more a republican than antifa is democrat. The problem is that people like to present story's like this and pretend they represent rank and file members of whichever party is being portrayed. Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows it's not so, but it makes for good theater.
And what answer will they give about the GOP'ers who vote for him?
It seems to be a much bigger issue for the GOP.
How can you possibly be so blind? “Yeah well, we aren’t going to win so who cares if a self-professed Nazi is representing our party or not?”
Hint: the answer is that every decent person cares. If you are alright with a Nazi repressing your party because he won’t win, you are not a decent person. If your party is too lazy to run someone against a Nazi to keep him off the ballot they are not a decent party.
Even from a practical sense how can this be acceptable? Do you think anyone on the fence regarding other races is going to be more or less likely to vote republican after they do as little as possible in the face of an actual Nazi? Not exhausting every legal option leaves me concluding that republicans, or at least the ones in that district, don’t find Nazis all that objectionable.
Talking about silly. No Republican is going to win in that district. Why throw money down a rabbit hole. Just because you are dumb enough to do it doesn't mean much.
They have free speech and can denounce him publicly. I wonder why they don't do that though?
Yep, because if you fail, instead of trying again, you should give up. None of this "where did I go wrong? How should I alter my approach? Is there something wrong with the message I'm putting forward" and "learning from experience" nonsense, just give up. That sounds like the point of view that any candidate and political party capable of handling the changing times should adopt.
IMO it sounds more like the action of a party incapable of positive change accepting the inevitable result of their inadequacy.
All parties do this. Concentrate on your strengths and not waste resources in areas where there is no or very little chance of winning. Hillary did the same and it backfired on her. You have to know where to choose your battles.
But you will spin it however you want.
When you say "all parties do this", I assume you mean "all two", because what you're saying certainly isn't true in the UK. I live in a conservative stronghold yet there are always several candidates to choose from and all the prominent English parties represented.
I wasn't spinning anything, I'd say the same of any party in any country, with a few exceptions such as "putting yourself up for election will likely result in you being maimed or killed", and even then, idealists will put themselves up for election because they feel their cause is that worthy.
Election time is about putting forward an ideal and standing on that platform. If you don't think you have an ideal worth standing for, then don't stand for it. If you do, then do so. Acting like votes are one's only currency is a sure-fire way to ensure that one's values will be utterly corrupted in the process, because then it doesn't matter who one panders to in order to accumulate the necessary number of votes. I can't believe anyone who has actually fought for something truly worth fighting for would have an attitude of "if I don't win then there's no point", nor can I imagine how on earth a party thinks they might ever possibly get to have any say in how that state is run if they don't bother to say anything at all.
When you mention Hillary, I assume you mean about her choosing which states to visit, which is a completely different form of prioritisation and reasoning than a local candidate bothering to stand.
The funny thing is, the UK has strict laws about how much funding can be used in elections yet the prominent parties have no problems fielding candidates for every seat. On the other hand AFAIK the US has no such rules, the big two parties pump millions to their campaigns, neither are at risk of going broke, yet you're arguing as if the situations are reversed.
And now your party is the party of pedos and nazis.. CONGRATULATIONS clap clap clap clap.... clapTalking about silly. No Republican is going to win in that district. Why throw money down a rabbit hole. Just because you are dumb enough to do it doesn't mean much.
So you concede I wasn't spinning anything?
And now your party is the party of pedos and nazis.. CONGRATULATIONS clap clap clap clap.... clap
No, I am not conceding the point about you spinning. I am agreeing to the point about campaign spending limits are an issue in the USA. We should limit the amount that can be used.
You quoted my post saying:
" Yep, because if you fail, instead of trying again, you should give up. None of this "where did I go wrong? How should I alter my approach? Is there something wrong with the message I'm putting forward" and "learning from experience" nonsense, just give up. That sounds like the point of view that any candidate and political party capable of handling the changing times should adopt.
IMO it sounds more like the action of a party incapable of positive change accepting the inevitable result of their inadequacy."
That was your spin on my point which was not the point at all. What I am saying is that this particular district is so far into the Democrats that money that could be used here is better spent elsewhere or not spent at all. Another point would be why would someone spend a massive amount of time and effort into what is almost a sure loss. It doesn't make any sense. The only reason this jackass is running is for the news and TV Coverage, well that and he obviously isn't wrapped too tight in the head.
You want to compare apples to oranges as in US to UK politics. It doesn't work.
Still a false equivalency.He's no more a republican than antifa is democrat. The problem is that people like to present story's like this and pretend they represent rank and file members of whichever party is being portrayed. Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows it's not so, but it makes for good theater.
Pedos and Nazis.What is the GOP the party of now?
Why would they need to answer for any private individuals vote?
He's no more a republican than antifa is democrat. The problem is that people like to present story's like this and pretend they represent rank and file members of whichever party is being portrayed. Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows it's not so, but it makes for good theater.
Ah, therein lies the point of my confusion. Facts are something that politicians "spin" to their own ends, whereas you're equating your opinion to a fact. Interesting. So no, I didn't spin anything, you gave your opinion as to why a political party might not field a candidate in a particular area, and gave my opinion in counter to yours. There's nothing here to discuss since you've added nothing to counter my opinion (though perhaps now you realise why I thought you had conceded your point, since you didn't even respond to my counter-point).
Though I have to say it's amusing for you to assert that comparing UK to US politics "doesn't work" (no clue given as to why) until you want it to though.
The article stated the reasons they didn't have a candidate.