Cruz: Obama is an "unmitigated socialist"

[Landslide Lyndon]

The race to the bottom for the Republican nomination has began in earnest.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/ted-cruz-says-president-obama-is-an-unmitigated-socialist-

“Obama is not a disaster because he was a senator. Obama is a disaster because he’s an unmitigated socialist, what he believes is profoundly dangerous, and he’s undermined the Constitution and the role of America in the world.”

[The Free North]

Cue the 'if only' comments from our resident true leftists

[King]

Cruz is an antisocial-ist.

[Zioneer]

Well Obama is a socialist

How so?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Cruz would know about having profoundly dangerous beliefs.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Cruz is an antisocial-ist.

Hey, he's just following his religion.

As Jesus Christ* himself said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

_{*Supply-Side Jesus.}

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well Obama is a socialist

Passing Obamacare /=/ being a socialist.

[CountryClassSF]

He will be our next President unless the establishment RINOs hand it to the Democrats again!  Cruz will be able to get the millions of real conservatives that have stayed home

[Flake]

Lol @ Cruz

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He will be our next President unless the establishment RINOs hand it to the Democrats again!  Cruz will be able to get the millions of real conservatives that have stayed home

LOLOL. With him at the top, Hillary could win GA, AZ, MT, MO, and maybe even  IN/NE-2. The hidden conservative majority doesn't exist.

[Sumner 1868]

He will be our next President unless the establishment RINOs hand it to the Democrats again!  Cruz will be able to get the millions of real conservatives that have stayed home

LOLOL. With him at the top, Hillary could win GA, AZ, MT, MO, and maybe even  IN/NE-2. The hidden conservative majority doesn't exist.

Yes it does. They won six whole states in 1964.

[RINO Tom]

Well Obama is a socialist

How so?

Obama certainly isn't a socialist, but he pretty much is compared to Ted Cruz.

[Maxwell]

Compared to some things some in the party have called Obama, this is a compliment.

[SWE]

Well Obama is a socialist

Stop posting

[SWE]

Well Obama is a socialist

Stop posting

That's ironic coming from you.

You got me!

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then let's give it a try and we'll just see, won't we?

[RINO Tom]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then let's give it a try and we'll just see, won't we?

By the time McCain and Romney won the nominations, they were seen as nothing but conservative to swing voters.  To say otherwise is simply delusional.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, many who identify as politically conservative (up to 10-15% per exits, I think I've seen it as high as 20% in some races, but I may be mistaken) vote Democrat. That's a problem isn't it? Don't you think we should try to get  those voters back? Or at minimum analyze why they're voting Democrat?

[RINO Tom]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, many who identify as politically conservative (up to 10-15% per exits, I think I've seen it as high as 20% in some races, but I may be mistaken) vote Democrat. That's a problem isn't it? Don't you think we should try to get  those voters back? Or at minimum analyze why they're voting Democrat?

Sure.  But conversely, Republicans barely ever win a majority of those who identify as "Moderate."  Naturally, you'd probably rather add more conservatives to the coalition and I'd probably like to add more moderates.  I happen to believe that we're losing more moderates than conservatives in the big EV states that matter/we need to pick up.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you make a good point.  Republicans spend a lot of time thinking about "independents" when "moderates" go Democrat by double digits.  But what more can Republicans do? They've ignored social issues since 2004, possibly alienating the conservadems. The obsessive socially liberal left has shown unwillingness in federal races to support non-Democratic candidates. Yes, it's true, in your state for example, that Bruce Rauner had a lot more support in the collar counties-maybe it has something to do with being pro-abortion but maybe it also has something to do with being a better campaigner and fundraiser.

We're losing moderates, there's no doubt about it.  But we're running moderate candidates, by most measures.  Candidates who likely won't seek to overturn Roe or overturn SSM.  What more do social liberals want?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you make a good point.  Republicans spend a lot of time thinking about "independents" when "moderates" go Democrat by double digits.  But what more can Republicans do? They've ignored social issues since 2004, possibly alienating the conservadems. The obsessive socially liberal left has shown unwillingness in federal races to support non-Democratic candidates. Yes, it's true, in your state for example, that Bruce Rauner had a lot more support in the collar counties-maybe it has something to do with being pro-abortion but maybe it also has something to do with being a better campaigner and fundraiser.

We're losing moderates, there's no doubt about it.  But we're running moderate candidates, by most measures.  Candidates who likely won't seek to overturn Roe or overturn SSM.  What more do social liberals want?

Let's look at Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee

Did he ignore social issues? No. While he was careful to not bring up SSM on the campaign trail, his website stated his opposition to it, and the party platform supported a constitutional amendment banning it. As far as Abortion goes, Romney not only advocated overturning Roe vs. Wade on the campaign trail, he also advocated ending planned parenthood.

Let's look at John McCain, the 2008 nominee

Did he ignore social issues? Not sure about SSM, but he was definitely very vocal on his pro-life position on Abortion on the campaign trail, culminating in a moment during one of the debates where he supported banning abortion under all circumstances, even when it is done to save the Mother's Life.

So, yeah, so much for republicans ignoring social issues.

[Ronnie]

We're losing moderates, there's no doubt about it.  But we're running moderate candidates, by most measures.  Candidates who likely won't seek to overturn Roe or overturn SSM.  What more do social liberals want?

Even if a Republican President was "committed" to overturning Roe v. Wade or SSM (assuming the Supreme Court legalizes it across the country in June), how exactly do you expect they would be able to do such a thing in reality?  There is no chance in hell that they would be able to get three fourths of state legislatures to vote to overturn the rulings, unless public opinion on both of those issues shifts in a radical manner.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By getting Supreme Court justices confirmed that would overturn them and return the issue of marriage to the states.  The pro-life issue is feasible if we win the presidency in 2016. It's not if we don't.

Although I'd prefer marriage be left to the states, even I would be reluctant to overturn a ruling in favor of national SSM, on the basis of dignity

The best option now is  20 week bans which are popular with the electorate

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you make a good point.  Republicans spend a lot of time thinking about "independents" when "moderates" go Democrat by double digits.  But what more can Republicans do? They've ignored social issues since 2004, possibly alienating the conservadems. The obsessive socially liberal left has shown unwillingness in federal races to support non-Democratic candidates. Yes, it's true, in your state for example, that Bruce Rauner had a lot more support in the collar counties-maybe it has something to do with being pro-abortion but maybe it also has something to do with being a better campaigner and fundraiser.

We're losing moderates, there's no doubt about it.  But we're running moderate candidates, by most measures.  Candidates who likely won't seek to overturn Roe or overturn SSM.  What more do social liberals want?

Let's look at Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee

Did he ignore social issues? No. While he was careful to not bring up SSM on the campaign trail, his website stated his opposition to it, and the party platform supported a constitutional amendment banning it. As far as Abortion goes, Romney not only advocated overturning Roe vs. Wade on the campaign trail, he also advocated ending planned parenthood.

Let's look at John McCain, the 2008 nominee

Did he ignore social issues? Not sure about SSM, but he was definitely very vocal on his pro-life position on Abortion on the campaign trail, culminating in a moment during one of the debates where he supported banning abortion under all circumstances, even when it is done to save the Mother's Life.

So, yeah, so much for republicans ignoring social issues.

But they do.  Romney pretty much had the same view as Obama did on SSM other than personal opinion.  Neither proposed federal legalization. I'm saying that relentlessly avoiding these issues cost them conservative voters.

The truth is that these social activists would not even vote for a socially liberal Republican. They're going after a demographic they think are swing voters but aren't.

[badgate]

oh my god