Is Newt Right?

Geeko Sportivo said:
I am going to call your comment WISHFULL THINKING!

It sure would be nice, if every time we wished something would come true- it would! BUt in life, we don't always get what we wish for!

Cycles are somewhat predictable, however, I believe America has crossed a threshold- and that is- there is now a provable Majority of Democrats willing to vote- than there are Republicans.

On November 4th, 2020, 85 Million Democrats voted- yet only 74.2 million Republicans voted!

One trend says that not all the same voters show up to the mid-terms, as they do in the Presidential elections.

AND YES, the red states will RE-DRAW their districts by gerrymandering them to make less minority votes count, as they always do.

AND YES, HR-1 will go into affect to prevent a lot of the STATE VOTING LAWS intended to suppress minority votes in the red states.

But given these two variables, they will probably offset each other for the mid-terms.

AND clearly, the Democrats are gaining more votes than the Republicans are- even though the Republicans are gaining votes as well.

The Democrats are confident now more than ever about the number of Democrat voters participating in elections, and we like our chances on winning back the House Seats in the upcoming Mid-Terms!

Even if the Democrats win the Mid Terms, I'm not ready to call the Democrats a dynasty as of yet, but I'll just say that there will be a lot of new recruits and registrations between now and 2022 in NOT JUST THE RED STATES, BUT IN ALL STATES.

Most People will be voting their paychecks in 2022- and the Democrats intend to increase these over the next 18 months.

There is an old saying that SUCCESS BREEDS SUCCESS!

AND IT SURE IS GREAT BEING A DEMOCRAT AND WATCHING THE DEMOCRATS SUCCEED- in spite of the Republicans trying their best to OBSTRUCT THEIR PROGRESS!
Click to expand...

Progress to what, exactly?
 
Matt Dillon said:
Progress to what, exactly?
Click to expand...

That's for us to know and for you to find out! AND WE DON'T NEED YOUR Approval TO CARRY out the progress!!

If you don't like Biden's or the Democrat's policies- I would advise you to select better candidates and GET YOUR VOTE OUT NEXT TIME!

Because, when you don't do that- YOU LOOSE ELECTIONS- AND LOSING ELECTIONS HAS CONSEQUENCES YOU MAY NOT LIKE!

AnnualSmugDungenesscrab-size_restricted.gif
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
He just said on Tucker that the D's already know that they will lose the house in two years, so they simply dont give a fuck, they are ramming through the Revolution now..."GIVE IT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE GOT.....IT IS EITHER NOW OR NEVER!!!"

I am skeptical.
Click to expand...


Fuck Newt
 
Is Newt Right?

Hawkeye10 said:
He just said on Tucker that the D's already know that they will lose the house in two years, so they simply dont give a fuck, they are ramming through the Revolution now..."GIVE IT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE GOT.....IT IS EITHER NOW OR NEVER!!!"

I am skeptical.
Click to expand...

No, Newt isn't right. The vote is rigged.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And there is a well thought out plan to make sure that R's never have national power again. Maybe it works and maybe it does not but Newt sounds Naive.
Click to expand...

I think Newt is the main reason we have the problem we have right now. Back in 1994 that guy was all about top-down power. He was a destructive force in American politics IMHO.
 
Guille said:
I think Newt is the main reason we have the problem we have right now. Back in 1994 that guy was all about top-down power. He was a destructive force in American politics IMHO.
Click to expand...


I agree that Newt sucks, he has a fair amount of the destruction of Washington and the downward spiral of Congress on his hands.


Since I got you on the horn do you see yet that Cuomo is leaving?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
He just said on Tucker that the D's already know that they will lose the house in two years, so they simply dont give a fuck, they are ramming through the Revolution now..."GIVE IT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE GOT.....IT IS EITHER NOW OR NEVER!!!"

I am skeptical.
Click to expand...

I still remember Gingrich predicting that Obama will lose badly... TWICE!!! He has no credibility with me.

Democrats look almost certain to keep both houses until at least 2024. It would take a lot to shake that.
 
Walt said:
I still remember Gingrich predicting that Obama will lose badly... TWICE!!! He has no credibility with me.

Democrats look almost certain to keep both houses until at least 2024. It would take a lot to shake that.
Click to expand...

Newt's greatest days were in the 1990s when he helped set the Republicans on the path to Trump. Since then, he's become as increasingly irrelevant as Karl Rove.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Newt's greatest days were in the 1990s when he helped set the Republicans on the path to Trump. Since then, he's become as increasingly irrelevant as Karl Rove.
Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich's lone national election success was 1994. He swore that the Republicans would storm up the Capitol steps in 1995, only to find the Capitol steps were being remodeled. Gingrich swore he would destroy the career of whatever Congressman sponsored the bill to remodel the Capitol steps... Not remembering that it was Gingrich himself who sponsored the bill. He went on to keep his word, and destroy his own career.
 
Walt said:
Newt Gingrich's lone national election success was 1994. He swore that the Republicans would storm up the Capitol steps in 1995, only to find the Capitol steps were being remodeled. Gingrich swore he would destroy the career of whatever Congressman sponsored the bill to remodel the Capitol steps... Not remembering that it was Gingrich himself who sponsored the bill. He went on to keep his word, and destroy his own career.
Click to expand...
...and the Republican Party along with it.
 
Walt said:
The Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last 28 years. They can only come up with tricks to get around that so many times. It does not look good for them.
Click to expand...
Statistics are funny, but are often misused. Example; all the Presidents who got the US involved in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were Democrats.

Like your "popular vote" comment, the statement is true....but it doesn't tell the full story and can be deceptive. :)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Statistics are funny, but are often misused. Example; all the Presidents who got the US involved in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were Democrats.
Click to expand...

Eisenhower Administration, with Nixon as his point man, committed us to Vietnam. Of course, JFK and LBJ could have ignored that commitment, but it was Nixon who both started the war (threw out the peace treaty), and made the commitment to unlimited aid.

Arguably the Japanese got us involved with WWII by attacking us, and the Germans got us involved in the war in Europe by declaring war on us, and attacking the shipping off our coast. Likewise, North Korea did attack American troops when they invaded South Korea.
 
Walt said:
Eisenhower Administration, with Nixon as his point man, committed us to Vietnam. Of course, JFK and LBJ could have ignored that commitment, but it was Nixon who both started the war (threw out the peace treaty), and made the commitment to unlimited aid.

Arguably the Japanese got us involved with WWII by attacking us, and the Germans got us involved in the war in Europe by declaring war on us, and attacking the shipping off our coast. Likewise, North Korea did attack American troops when they invaded South Korea.
Click to expand...

Committing advisors is not the same as committing the Marine Corps to a beach landing.

You are oversimplifying the situation to justify Democrats from involving the US into the greatest wars of the 20th Century.

The "popular vote" talking point is a canard when discussing Presidential elections because, outside of a state itself, the total US popular vote is irrelevant per the rules. Don't like it? Change it. Until then, just saying "popular vote" is a canard intended to mislead.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Committing advisors is not the same as committing the Marine Corps to a beach landing.
Click to expand...

VP Nixon decided to throw away the peace treaty in Vietnam, and start the Vietnam War, he committed the USA to complete military backing. He thought in terms of the Korean War, and spoke of tanks and division strength movements, but he was willing to have the USA in the war that he had just started.

That being said, JFK and LBJ could have just walked away from the war Nixon started. They did not have to commit US troops. That basically concedes your point, but the war started under Eisenhower(Nixon), and the initial promises of unlimited military forces were made by Nixon.

It is interesting that Nixon wanted control over Northeast Asia (Korea), and Europe for the Eisenhower Administration. Instead, he was given the Caribbean(Cuba), and Southeast Asia(Vietnam), both of which collapsed under his watch.

Dutch Uncle said:
The "popular vote" talking point is a canard when discussing Presidential elections because, outside of a state itself, the total US popular vote is irrelevant per the rules. Don't like it? Change it. Until then, just saying "popular vote" is a canard intended to mislead.
Click to expand...

In one election, the popular vote is unimportant. In multiple elections, it shows the direction the people are going. If a party cannot win the popular vote, they may win an election or two, but they are headed for irrelevant. To make it worse, it usually is part of a trend.

Republicans are locked into a minority demographic that is shrinking as a percent of the voting population. They almost lost Texas now several times in a row, and have lost Georgia... When Texas and Georgia are battleground states, they are in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top