If You Can't Beat 'Em - Cheat

[Ryantology]

Oh yes, the "come on, get real" argument. That's always a knock-out punch in any logical argument. Here we have Ryantology suggesting that we recognize "that Republicans have little chance of ever winning national elections in the current system," despite the fact that over the last half century, Republicans and Democrats have split the national election pretty much down the middle.

Which ignores three important facts.

#1: Straight White Christians have been the majority voting bloc over the last half-century. This is quickly changing.
#2: Republicans have been, and continue to be, openly hostile to non-whites, non-Christians, women, and homosexuals over the last half-century. All of these are growing demographics.
#3: Republicans have secured the majority of the popular vote only once in the last six election cycles (2004).

I'm suggesting we recognize facts.

[Minimalist]

If you aren't going to pay attention to what the fuckheads themselves say, Apo, there isn't much more I can tell you.

THey have two choices.

They can try to appeal to the broader demographics which are taking over the country...which would entail them not being the racist, sexist, cocksuckers that they are now, or,

They can try to game the system so that they can steal elections.

The fucker is telling you that they want Plan "B" and if you don't want to believe it, I can't help you.

I guess this is all fiction too, huh?

http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-i...-pa/37153/

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.

The law was overturned and Obama carried Pennsylvania. That does not mean that the fuckheads did not try. It just means that the good guys won one for once.

[Angrboda]

Here we have Ryantology suggesting that we recognize "that Republicans have little chance of ever winning national elections in the current system," despite the fact that over the last half century, Republicans and Democrats have split the national election pretty much down the middle.

Which ignores three important facts.

#1: Straight White Christians have been the majority voting bloc over the last half-century. This is quickly changing.
#2: Republicans have been, and continue to be, openly hostile to non-whites, non-Christians, women, and homosexuals over the last half-century. All of these are growing demographics.
#3: Republicans have secured the majority of the popular vote only once in the last six election cycles (2004).

I'm suggesting we recognize facts.

That's a nice bit of selective reporting, considering that Republicans have only won two elections out of the last six, it's hardly surprising that five out of six of those elections favored the Democrat in the popular vote. In the 47 elections for which we have a count of the popular vote, only four were decided against the popular vote, so Bush's 2000 election was distinctly unusual. (And the average margin in the popular vote for the last six cycles is under 5%, making them all close elections.) Moreover, as our Presidents are elected on the basis of the electoral college system, the fact that the popular vote may have swung one way or the other is irrelevant, as campaigns aren't geared to winning the popular vote, so losing the popular vote isn't an unambiguous sign of failure or even lack of support. And if you know enough about the recent trends as you seem to be implying, then you know enough to know that reporting this fact in the way you have is misleading and dishonest. Perhaps you should put your own house in order before crying about what other people do.

And I don't have the patience to address your other bollocks. You asked us to recognize your inference based upon your selective and biased interpretation of what you call "facts". Facts as such only came into it as you pulled the appropriate strings to get the conclusion you had already decided upon.

[Ryantology]

That they are facts is irrefutable. Even Republicans understand that. If you think I am giving incorrect or dishonest information, you are free to demonstrate just why, but my delivery of these facts is irrelevant. I'm not a journalist, I do not have to present facts without bias.

If you ignore the information so that you can criticize how I deliver it, then you have no argument.

Republicans CAN win future elections, but it will require a total policy shift on their part, a shift I nor anybody else assumes is anywhere in the near future. The far-right Tea Party-dominated GOP has no chance unless they change the rules, or if some completely unforseeable disaster occurs which affects the political climate in a huge way.