At a debate last week in Las Vegas, Jeb Bush went after Trump directly: "So Donald, you know, is great at the one-liners, but he's a chaos candidate. And he'd be a chaos president. He would not be the commander-in-chief we need to keep our country safe."
Trump’s response was to mock Bush for being behind in the polls: "Jeb doesn't really believe I'm unhinged. He said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. It's been a total disaster."
I rolled with laughter at that exchange.
So has Hillary Staff come up with a video of Trump being used as a recruitment tool for ISIS?
She can't stop herself either... claiming that ISIS has recruitment videos of Trump in the last debate. O.o
I'm not a Hilary fan but let's be fair here; she didn't actually say that they have recruitment videos of Trump. What she said was:
ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
And she did get that bit of information from fairly credible sources:
Rita Katz with the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the social media activities of Islamic terrorist groups.
They love him from the sense that he is supporting their rhetoric. They follow everything Donald Trump says. When he says, 'No Muslims should be allowed in America,' they tell people, 'We told you America hates Muslims and here is proof.
David Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights.
Trump's comments undermine efforts to drain the swamp of support for radical Islamists by stoking rage that inspires jihad against the West. Trump's incendiary anti-Muslim comments will surely be used by ISIS social media to demonize the United States and attract recruits to fight in Iraq and Syria. His comments may also stir debate in countries with large Muslim populations about joining a U.S.-led drive against ISIS.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
We firmly believe that Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS.
So, is there literal proof of ISIS going to people and showing videos of Trump and his comments? Nope. Is it likely that they are doing so based upon the analysis by experts in the field? Yep.
agnosto wrote: So, is there literal proof of ISIS going to people and showing videos of Trump and his comments? Nope. Is it likely that they are doing so based upon the analysis by experts in the field? Yep.
Staaaaahp, I want to compare a (allegorical) jaywalker and axe murderer and say they're all bad.
All the while dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and blaming some obscure youtube videos on your failures.... right?
She can't stop herself either... claiming that ISIS has recruitment videos of Trump in the last debate. O.o
I'm not a Hilary fan but let's be fair here; she didn't actually say that they have recruitment videos of Trump. What she said was:
ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
And she did get that bit of information from fairly credible sources:
Rita Katz with the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the social media activities of Islamic terrorist groups.
They love him from the sense that he is supporting their rhetoric. They follow everything Donald Trump says. When he says, 'No Muslims should be allowed in America,' they tell people, 'We told you America hates Muslims and here is proof.
David Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights.
Trump's comments undermine efforts to drain the swamp of support for radical Islamists by stoking rage that inspires jihad against the West. Trump's incendiary anti-Muslim comments will surely be used by ISIS social media to demonize the United States and attract recruits to fight in Iraq and Syria. His comments may also stir debate in countries with large Muslim populations about joining a U.S.-led drive against ISIS.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
We firmly believe that Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS.
So, is there literal proof of ISIS going to people and showing videos of Trump and his comments? Nope. Is it likely that they are doing so based upon the analysis by experts in the field? Yep.
Unfortunately, CAIR as a source is not gonna win over anyone who understands even a bit about this, and Katz frankly is talking out of her ass too. You can look at what DaIsh uses as recruiting material, it focuses on 'duty to support caliphate', 'adventure and proving self', 'helping fellow Muslims within the caliphate'. Nothing Trump says or does is gonna get the kid who was looking to get his associates degree to instead travel to Syria and joining DaIsh. Just as folks will have a hard time showing 'GITMO' as a recruiting theme, you'll have a hard time showing 'Halt Muslim Immigration' as a recruiting theme. If anything, propaganda using those types of themes is not targeted towards potential recruits/populations which may support, but instead it is directed against Western nations/media in an attempt to influence policy/western population support to policy.
Shows of power and control (burning the Jordanian pilot for example, blowing up a Syrian tank for example) and shows of mercy/public works (distributing aid within the Caliphate for example) are much much more common as recruiting themes.
whembly wrote: All the while dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and blaming some obscure youtube videos on your failures.... right?
EDIT: dammit, you edited that...
Let me know when she starts approaching 75% false\pants-on-fire on politifact, was my point.
Obviously "someone else lies more" isn't really an adult rationalization for untruth, but trying to pretend they're more or less equivalent is a little too simplistic for me.
She can't stop herself either... claiming that ISIS has recruitment videos of Trump in the last debate. O.o
I'm not a Hilary fan but let's be fair here; she didn't actually say that they have recruitment videos of Trump. What she said was:
ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
And she did get that bit of information from fairly credible sources:
Rita Katz with the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the social media activities of Islamic terrorist groups.
They love him from the sense that he is supporting their rhetoric. They follow everything Donald Trump says. When he says, 'No Muslims should be allowed in America,' they tell people, 'We told you America hates Muslims and here is proof.
David Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights.
Trump's comments undermine efforts to drain the swamp of support for radical Islamists by stoking rage that inspires jihad against the West. Trump's incendiary anti-Muslim comments will surely be used by ISIS social media to demonize the United States and attract recruits to fight in Iraq and Syria. His comments may also stir debate in countries with large Muslim populations about joining a U.S.-led drive against ISIS.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
We firmly believe that Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS.
So, is there literal proof of ISIS going to people and showing videos of Trump and his comments? Nope. Is it likely that they are doing so based upon the analysis by experts in the field? Yep.
K...
So when you condemn's Trumps rhetoric, in fear that it'll further incite the baddies, will you also condemn Obama and Bill Clinton? As they actually appeared in a recent ISIS recruitment video.
So... yeah... keep in mind that you're trying to defend a habitual liar (who really doesn't need to, but just can't help herself).
whembly wrote: All the while dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and blaming some obscure youtube videos on your failures.... right?
EDIT: dammit, you edited that...
Let me know when she starts approaching 75% false\pants-on-fire on politifact, was my point.
Obviously "someone else lies more" isn't really an adult rationalization for untruth, but trying to pretend they're more or less equivalent is a little too simplistic for me.
In any event, I hardly have the inclination or endurance to try and outlast you slamming your Hillary hate-boner in this thread, so if you'd like to take my further silence on the topic as a victory you are welcome to do so.
whembly wrote: All the while dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and blaming some obscure youtube videos on your failures.... right?
EDIT: dammit, you edited that...
Let me know when she starts approaching 75% false\pants-on-fire on politifact, was my point.
Man... do you really want me to dig up all the lies Hillary Clinton was caught up in? Or, you want to keep parroting that disengenuos politifact point on the lies this year?
Please note, that I'm not a Trump supporter at all. But, Trump get's roundly dog-piled for his BS (and deservedly so).
Clinton? Nah it's totes 'cuz she's on the blue team.
She can't stop herself either... claiming that ISIS has recruitment videos of Trump in the last debate. O.o
I'm not a Hilary fan but let's be fair here; she didn't actually say that they have recruitment videos of Trump. What she said was:
ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
And she did get that bit of information from fairly credible sources:
Rita Katz with the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the social media activities of Islamic terrorist groups.
They love him from the sense that he is supporting their rhetoric. They follow everything Donald Trump says. When he says, 'No Muslims should be allowed in America,' they tell people, 'We told you America hates Muslims and here is proof.
David Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights.
Trump's comments undermine efforts to drain the swamp of support for radical Islamists by stoking rage that inspires jihad against the West. Trump's incendiary anti-Muslim comments will surely be used by ISIS social media to demonize the United States and attract recruits to fight in Iraq and Syria. His comments may also stir debate in countries with large Muslim populations about joining a U.S.-led drive against ISIS.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
We firmly believe that Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS.
So, is there literal proof of ISIS going to people and showing videos of Trump and his comments? Nope. Is it likely that they are doing so based upon the analysis by experts in the field? Yep.
K...
So when you condemn's Trumps rhetoric, in fear that it'll further incite the baddies, will you also condemn Obama and Bill Clinton? As they actually appeared in a recent ISIS recruitment video.
So... yeah... keep in mind that you're trying to defend a habitual liar (who really doesn't need to, but just can't help herself).
I'm not defending anything. I'm saying that in all fairness she never actually said that they are putting Trump in recruitment videos. I couldn't care less about the whole hooplah of this election and give precisely two gacks and a damn about either party, they're all a bunch of liars and charlatans to me, but lying about what a liar said doesn't improve anyone else's credibility, does it?
She can't stop herself either... claiming that ISIS has recruitment videos of Trump in the last debate. O.o
I'm not a Hilary fan but let's be fair here; she didn't actually say that they have recruitment videos of Trump. What she said was:
ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
And she did get that bit of information from fairly credible sources:
Rita Katz with the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the social media activities of Islamic terrorist groups.
They love him from the sense that he is supporting their rhetoric. They follow everything Donald Trump says. When he says, 'No Muslims should be allowed in America,' they tell people, 'We told you America hates Muslims and here is proof.
David Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights.
Trump's comments undermine efforts to drain the swamp of support for radical Islamists by stoking rage that inspires jihad against the West. Trump's incendiary anti-Muslim comments will surely be used by ISIS social media to demonize the United States and attract recruits to fight in Iraq and Syria. His comments may also stir debate in countries with large Muslim populations about joining a U.S.-led drive against ISIS.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
We firmly believe that Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS.
So, is there literal proof of ISIS going to people and showing videos of Trump and his comments? Nope. Is it likely that they are doing so based upon the analysis by experts in the field? Yep.
K...
So when you condemn's Trumps rhetoric, in fear that it'll further incite the baddies, will you also condemn Obama and Bill Clinton? As they actually appeared in a recent ISIS recruitment video.
So... yeah... keep in mind that you're trying to defend a habitual liar (who really doesn't need to, but just can't help herself).
I'm defending anything. I'm saying that in all fairness she never actually said that they are putting Trump in recruitment videos. I couldn't care less about the whole hooplah of this election and give precisely two gacks and a damn about either party, they're all a bunch of liars and charlatans to me, but lying about what a liar said doesn't improve anyone else's credibility, does it?
*You* even quoted what she said, and I'm pretty sure that everyone understood what Clinton meant.
Even CNN wanted to NOT go down that route by saying "we'll leave that aside":
'
Just acknowledge that some candidates are treated differently than others for different reasons.
I only saw a bit of the big Republican debate, in that there was... Who I've now figured out to be Rubio (I think...), talking. He seemed kinda more factual focussed than some of the others, who were more rhetoric focussed. - What's he like?
*You* even quoted what she said, and I'm pretty sure that everyone understood what Clinton meant.
Even CNN wanted to NOT go down that route by saying "we'll leave that aside":
Spoiler:
'
Just acknowledge that some candidates are treated differently than others for different reasons.
And you know just as well that there's a huge difference between going to people and saying, "See, I told you that these Americans are the great Satan." which is what she said and what was said by the sources she got that from (doesn't matter what you think of the sources, they're much more reliable than the thousands of muslims partying in the streets of New Jersey that Trump personally saw, himself) rather than this nonsense about creating recruiting videos with trump in them which is what she's been misquoted as saying.
But whatevs, don't let actual facts get in the way of your partisan hateraid-fest.
I don't like Clinton but I don't actually have to make gack up to make her look bad, she's done plenty of that herself, there's no need to lie to help her along with it.
Compel wrote: I only saw a bit of the big Republican debate, in that there was... Who I've now figured out to be Rubio (I think...), talking. He seemed kinda more factual focussed than some of the others, who were more rhetoric focussed. - What's he like?
Rubio, Christie, Kasich, and Jeb Bush are the "establishment candidates". Meaning if they win the election, there is a Republican "government in waiting" that will take over the country. Trump would draw from this pool largely, but also bring in his own people. Cruz has pissed everyone off, so who knows if they would follow him into office, or if he would have to rely on Texas people. The rest of the candidates aren't serious contenders. And it's worth emphasizing and re-emphasizing that the Republican voters always vote for establishment candidates.
If you vote for Hilary, you get the government you have.
So, I have a question, considering fepublicans where on Obama's case about sharing a room with a possible terrorist, why isnt anyone on Trumps case about his friendship with jerry epstein?
whembly wrote: Rubio is the establishment? I guess he sorta is as the establisment-types are gravitating to him now that Jeb! is tanking.
He was a Tea Party candidate ya'know?
He was a Tea Party candidate but he didn't toe the line on immigration and was part of the "Gang of Eight" who attempted to make immigration reform. That's why the hard right prefer Cruz.
whembly wrote: Rubio is the establishment? I guess he sorta is as the establisment-types are gravitating to him now that Jeb! is tanking.
He was a Tea Party candidate ya'know?
Yes, believe it or not, the Republican establishment would fall in line after a a successful Rubio candidacy. They've already admitted they would fall in line for a successful Trump candidacy. The only question that remains is if they'd fall in line for a successful Cruz candidacy.
In any case, they all lose to Clinton in the polls, so I guess it's just kabuki theater..
whembly wrote: Rubio is the establishment? I guess he sorta is as the establisment-types are gravitating to him now that Jeb! is tanking.
He was a Tea Party candidate ya'know?
He was a Tea Party candidate but he didn't toe the line on immigration and was part of the "Gang of Eight" who attempted to make immigration reform. That's why the hard right prefer Cruz.
Pretty much. Rubio lost his crazy badge of achievement when he had a moment of rationality. Or he thought it might help him get elected down the line. Either way, he is toast with the crazies. Limbaugh, Levin, all the radio yo hoos are done with him. And they pull a lot lot of sway.
On a side note, went to my in laws for early Christmas and met my first in person trump supporter. Wanted to know what I thought. I said welcome Madame Clinton.
whembly wrote: Rubio is the establishment? I guess he sorta is as the establisment-types are gravitating to him now that Jeb! is tanking.
He was a Tea Party candidate ya'know?
Yes, believe it or not, the Republican establishment would fall in line after a a successful Rubio candidacy. They've already admitted they would fall in line for a successful Trump candidacy. The only question that remains is if they'd fall in line for a successful Cruz candidacy.
In any case, they all lose to Clinton in the polls, so I guess it's just kabuki theater..
Is it really that questionable? Watch the the debates back to back. One of them seems like it was written by the South Park guys on a bad day. One of them has adults in the room. Not saying they are responsible adults.
Meh. the Democratic debates heretofore have been pretty soft and smooshy with no real ponderance of or discussion on the hardcore issues of the day, like domestic and foreign terrorism, domestic surveillance, ISIS, etc.
Trump shlong comment has me rolling on her loss to Obama
Now the Media is is coining its not Presidential talk
Kurt Shlicter(?) on some live interview with Don Lemon said something about Presidential, intern, and a humidifier
In what is sort of a new low, I think, the WaPo ran this cartoon depicting Ted Cruz and his daughters. From Brietbart:
Pretty poor judgement to publish that in my opinion. They wound up retracting it and replacing it with an editor's note, but personally, I think you need to respect the idea that even if a candidate is willing to drag his or her family on-stage, they're not part of the campaign and should be totally off limits for this sort of thing.
Ouze wrote: In what is sort of a new low, I think, the WaPo ran this cartoon depicting Ted Cruz and his daughters. From Brietbart:
Pretty poor judgement to publish that in my opinion. They wound up retracting it and replacing it with an editor's note, but personally, I think you need to respect the idea that even if a candidate is willing to drag his or her family on-stage, they're not part of the campaign and should be totally off limits for this sort of thing.
Ouze wrote: In what is sort of a new low, I think, the WaPo ran this cartoon depicting Ted Cruz and his daughters. From Brietbart:
Spoiler:
Pretty poor judgement to publish that in my opinion. They wound up retracting it and replacing it with an editor's note, but personally, I think you need to respect the idea that even if a candidate is willing to drag his or her family on-stage, they're not part of the campaign and should be totally off limits for this sort of thing.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I would be more sympathetic if Cruz hadn't twittered the image himself with a message of "outrage" at the "mainstream media".
Well... it doesconfirms what he’s been yammering about all along about media bias. The cartoon is just one example that there’s one media standard for conservatives and another for liberals.
He'll milk this dry like what's Trump is doing now.
Kanluwen wrote: Putting it rather bluntly, when you go out of your way to put your family into the limelight like Cruz has been doing--you don't get to complain.
And really, that cartoon isn't a huge deal. It's satire and it really isn't that far off the mark from what I've seen from Cruz's campaign.
Yeah. It's like complaining that the media noticed that Palin's daughter was pregnant out of marriage at the same time that Palin was harping on about abstinence only education as being best for young people.
Kanluwen wrote: Putting it rather bluntly, when you go out of your way to put your family into the limelight like Cruz has been doing--you don't get to complain.
And really, that cartoon isn't a huge deal. It's satire and it really isn't that far off the mark from what I've seen from Cruz's campaign.
Sorry, but no.
While it's true that political cartoonists have a wide berth when depicting their toon candidates, as they should.
But kids are always, always, always off the table. Kids don't have any means to defend themselves.
Regardless of political party or affiliation. And I'm glad that there's wide condemnation on this.
Kanluwen wrote: Putting it rather bluntly, when you go out of your way to put your family into the limelight like Cruz has been doing--you don't get to complain.
And really, that cartoon isn't a huge deal. It's satire and it really isn't that far off the mark from what I've seen from Cruz's campaign.
Yeah. It's like complaining that the media noticed that Palin's daughter was pregnant out of marriage at the same time that Palin was harping on about abstinence only education as being best for young people.
Except that it isn't anything like that at all. But go ahead and keep believing.
Jihadin wrote: Trump shlong comment has me rolling on her loss to Obama
Now the Media is is coining its not Presidential talk
Kurt Shlicter(?) on some live interview with Don Lemon said something about Presidential, intern, and a humidifier
Comedy Foxtrot GOLD
The Trump spokeswoman trying to pretend like she didn't know what 'schlong' meant was one of the most obnoxiously disingenuous things I've ever seen. Kept pulling for one of the other people on the screen to have the guts to call her bluff on air.
Well, what do you expect? The only reason they're so worked up about Clinton's case it that it's Clinton's case. I'm not fan of her, but it's partisan politics, nothing more, nothing less.
Good for McCain to push the investigation on Carter.
Spillage is a big dealio.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well, what do you expect? The only reason they're so worked up about Clinton's case it that it's Clinton's case. I'm not fan of her, but it's partisan politics, nothing more, nothing less.
Tell that to NGA and NSA when they triple-downed that Clinton had Top Secret info on her homebrew box.
But kids are always, always, always off the table. Kids don't have any means to defend themselves.
Which is why their parents shouldn't be using them in their politics. DO NOT mistake me on this, as I, too, agree this cartoon should not have been done and should be condemned. But if you're going to say kids are "off the table", then that must also apply to the kids' parents using them for political purposes, as well.
But kids are always, always, always off the table. Kids don't have any means to defend themselves.
Which is why their parents shouldn't be using them in their politics. DO NOT mistake me on this, as I, too, agree this cartoon should not have been done and should be condemned. But if you're going to say kids are "off the table", then that must also apply to the kids' parents using them for political purposes, as well.
Politicians love to involve their family, as it's an age old strategy to humanize themselves.
Ouze wrote: In what is sort of a new low, I think, the WaPo ran this cartoon depicting Ted Cruz and his daughters. From Brietbart:
Pretty poor judgement to publish that in my opinion. They wound up retracting it and replacing it with an editor's note, but personally, I think you need to respect the idea that even if a candidate is willing to drag his or her family on-stage, they're not part of the campaign and should be totally off limits for this sort of thing.
If I were Cruz I'd find the chick who did this art and punch her lights out. If you mess with someone's family, even Cruz's you should pay.
There is a difference between doing the traditional "posing with your kids" routine, and using your kids as active participants in your campaign. Don't put your kids through that drama.
If they are old enough and want to be a part (Clinton, Romney, McCain) that's fine.
d-usa wrote: There is a difference between doing the traditional "posing with your kids" routine, and using your kids as active participants in your campaign. Don't put your kids through that drama.
If they are old enough and want to be a part (Clinton, Romney, McCain) that's fine.
Um... posing with your kids vs active participants in your campaign is the same thing. Unless, you're for dividing the person from the family?
The point is, you'd give politicians the opportunity to shelter their kids from politics if they so desire. Even then, when they are active participants in a campaign, we all should be grown ups and not be big bags of dicks to any politicians kids.
“It’s a way to humanize them, and it’s also a way to signal youth and vitality,” Gillespie said. “It helps when you have an attractive family to use as a backdrop.”
If you are unwilling, or unable, to see the difference between posing with your kids and having them act in your adds, then it's probably best for me to stop wasting both of our time.
Humor is about pushing boundaries. You can sputter at me till youre blue in the face and I'll still find dead babyjokes humorous. Just like I can see the humor in this cartoon.
And lets face it. If the image was of Hilary making her daughter dance for amusement alot of you mooks would be toutng it as comedy gold.
If I were Cruz I'd find the chick who did this art and punch her lights out. If you mess with someone's family, even Cruz's you should pay.
Ah yes, satirical cartoons should be met with violence. Now where have we seen that before?
Obviously you confused me with someone who gives a damn. Again, mess with family and you pay.
Ctrl-H -family -Islam
Hey, what do we have here?
Not to say that you are a terrorist or anything (far from it) but it's the same sort of thing. "You purposefully insulted by family/religion, I'll come over can knock your lights out/shoot you an your colleagues."
I realize it's just you being you, but you are smarter than that.
d-usa wrote: If you are unwilling, or unable, to see the difference between posing with your kids and having them act in your adds, then it's probably best for me to stop wasting both of our time.
What was so reprehensible about that ad that warranted that toon?
d-usa wrote: If you are unwilling, or unable, to see the difference between posing with your kids and having them act in your adds, then it's probably best for me to stop wasting both of our time.
What was so reprehensible about that ad that warranted that toon?
EDIT: This is what a toon should be:
Hillary and her lapdogs:
Notice what's missing?
As a Rubio dude, nice mic drop Cruz...
Ted Cruz daughters birth year I think is the issue
Did I say anything was wrong about his ad? Nope.
Did I defend the cartoon? Nope.
Did I say "stick to the traditional 'I'm a family man, look at my Christmas card picture' routine and don't use your kids as pawns"? Yes.
Should all sides (candidates/opponents/media) leave the kids alone? Yes.
Ann Telnaes has been drinking "Big D" Kool-aid for a while now. This cartoon demonstrates how vapid and ugly her reasoning has become when even her own Editor didn't have her back.
Threw the age in because some people might not know how old Cruz kids are. Since we're like a page into it or something and no age was mention I figure I toss the info in.
If I were Cruz I'd find the chick who did this art and punch her lights out. If you mess with someone's family, even Cruz's you should pay.
Ah yes, satirical cartoons should be met with violence. Now where have we seen that before?
Obviously you confused me with someone who gives a damn. Again, mess with family and you pay.
Ctrl-H -family -Islam
Hey, what do we have here?
Not to say that you are a terrorist or anything (far from it) but it's the same sort of thing. "You purposefully insulted by family/religion, I'll come over can knock your lights out/shoot you an your colleagues."
I realize it's just you being you, but you are smarter than that.
Your intentional mixing of family and religion is just utterly stupid. People having been avenging family before government or religion existed. In the words of the immortal bard: "My name is Inego Montoya, You killed my father. Prepare to die."
I agree with the sentiment but think that the cartoon could have avoided reference to his children. There was plenty of material to mock in the video as it was with the kids.
agnosto wrote: I agree with the sentiment but think that the cartoon could have avoided reference to his children. There was plenty of material to mock in the video as it was with the kids.
Indeed, if you can't find a way to mock Cruz himself you suck at commentary and should immediately go back to your job at McDonalds.
agnosto wrote: I agree with the sentiment but think that the cartoon could have avoided reference to his children. There was plenty of material to mock in the video as it was with the kids.
Indeed, if you can't find a way to mock Cruz himself you suck at commentary and should immediately go back to your job at McDonalds.
Concur...
It isn't like there's a real lack of things to ding Cruz. I mean... c'mon guys.
Im sorry, but in my opinion, if you involve your kids in politics before they are old enough to understand politics, you do not get to complain when someone makes fun of your kids, yes it is a low blow, but so is appeal to emotion that using kids in attack ads.
So now the Cruz daughters are considered monkey's now for the rest of their lives. So when either of them get to an age where they cannot stand being referred to as monkey's on social media and in school and they opt out (suicide) we shall blame Mr Cruz for sharing a reading event with his kids in a commercial that a cartoonist saw an opportunity to mock him and his young daughters. Outstanding.
I would like to volunteer my experience to help Cruz daughters to develop very thick skin and ensure they kick the crap out of any would be bullies in school. That's another thread onto itself entirely.
Just as a curiosity. For I do not remember media going after politicians kids at this young age does anyone else know young kids of Republicans and Democrats getting used like this by the media?
Palin daughter was of age on the attacks
Chelsea Clinton I do not remember at all being attacked by the media (though back in 90's when we saw a pic of her she was one geeky/nerdy/braces wearing teen)
Obama kids have not been used like this
I know I'm....45 (new 21) and spent quite a few more time watching elections of this scale.
Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush, Obama
Either I don't pay attention to these type of attacks or its coming to be norm now. Though I think 3 and 5 is way to low to involve them and make them "guilty by association"
I agree with this.... But to the rest of the post:
I don't actually recall Obama using his kids in that way for campaign ads. I mean, I do recall them and Michelle going on stage at the end of a debate, or the end of inauguration, etc. to give hugs and wave. But, IMO that is quite a bit different from actually using kids in ads.
Jihadin wrote: So now the Cruz daughters are considered monkey's now for the rest of their lives. So when either of them get to an age where they cannot stand being referred to as monkey's on social media and in school and they opt out (suicide) we shall blame Mr Cruz for sharing a reading event with his kids in a commercial that a cartoonist saw an opportunity to mock him and his young daughters. Outstanding.
I would like to volunteer my experience to help Cruz daughters to develop very thick skin and ensure they kick the crap out of any would be bullies in school. That's another thread onto itself entirely.
Just as a curiosity. For I do not remember media going after politicians kids at this young age does anyone else know young kids of Republicans and Democrats getting used like this by the media?
Palin daughter was of age on the attacks
Chelsea Clinton I do not remember at all being attacked by the media (though back in 90's when we saw a pic of her she was one geeky/nerdy/braces wearing teen)
Obama kids have not been used like this
I know I'm....45 (new 21) and spent quite a few more time watching elections of this scale.
Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush, Obama
Either I don't pay attention to these type of attacks or its coming to be norm now. Though I think 3 and 5 is way to low to involve them and make them "guilty by association"
Well there where two incidents with obamsa kids I recall
1: when their school lunch got published, an ad campaign went up saying that if they get a good lunch, why cant inner city kids
2: the recent state of the union where one senator made fun of them for being disrespectful.
Jihadin wrote: My boss inform me it was during a SNL event? A skit?
Negative.
It's an actual Ted Cruz campaign ad, put forth by his campaign, that paid for ad time during SNL.
Spoilering the ad in question in case anyone would like to see it.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well there where two incidents with obamsa kids I recall
1: when their school lunch got published, an ad campaign went up saying that if they get a good lunch, why cant inner city kids
2: the recent state of the union where one senator made fun of them for being disrespectful.
Hell, there were more than that--but they weren't strictly targeting the kids.
After Sandy Hook and a few of the other shootings, ads were run that mentioned that the kids had bodyguards with guns so "why can't your kids" and other drivel of that type.
Jihadin wrote: For I do not remember media going after politicians kids at this young age does anyone else know young kids of Republicans and Democrats getting used like this by the media?
Palin daughter was of age on the attacks
Chelsea Clinton I do not remember at all being attacked by the media (though back in 90's when we saw a pic of her she was one geeky/nerdy/braces wearing teen)
Obama kids have not been used like thise
The Bush daughters also had some stories published when they got caught drinking, but that was a bit less political in nature as I recall; in the same vein that when Naomi Bush's arrests were sort of "newsworthy".
In my opinion, it doesn't even matter if they are adult children or not, unless the kids run for office or something along those lines I don't think there's any real reason to even mention them, let alone treat them as fair game. Just because a teenager got caught drinking - which is a pretty damn common teenage activity - doesn't mean you should be on the national news. Agreeing to appear on stage or in a commercial for your mom or your dad isn't deciding to become a political target, at least it shouldn't.
Co'tor Shas wrote: He's running to force Hillary to the left. I don't think he expected to get the response he got.
Yeah, he primarily just didn't want her to go completely unchallenged and to try to get some attention to the issues he believed in. He certainly got more than he expected.
Let's not miss the fact that the one guy showed up to an event in the middle of weather that was bad enough that O'Malley almost canceled the event and other candidates did cancel theirs. He's almost certainly not going to rise above "no chance" status, but this one event has little to do with it.
You know I didn't even think of that - this is the day we had that huge ice storm (I didn't read the story until just now). I live in Iowa, and it was one of those bad ones where it rains for a bit and then the temperature drops and it transitions to ice, and then back to freezing rain. Tons of stuff got cancelled, and a bunch of people couldn't make it to work which necessitated SOME PEOPLE BEING CALLED INTO WORK ON THEIR DAY OFF IN HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE WEATHER.
Not that those people are bitter
Automatically Appended Next Post: they are a little bitter
He checks that "box" for me by having been a governor... but, *meh* can we have a serious non-northeast governor candidate????
Does Jeb Bush not count? Or, you know, that other Bush who was Governor of Texas and went on to serve two terms as President?
Either way, the answer is probably "no", at least not in the current political climate. Not that it really matters, as there is no evidence to suggest that gubernatorial experience correlates with Presidential success.
Hey... I've always stated that Dubya did a decent job.
But, I'm talking about currentcandidates.
I believe the refrain was "Anyone but Jeb!" And let's not forget Scott Walker.
While you may think gubernatorial experience is important, it seems that many people disagree with you. Rightly so, because it isn't important at all.
I dunno... I think many are coming to the realization of how fethed up this Obama administration has been... you'd want someone with a little more executive experience in the Oval Office.
I dunno... I think many are coming to the realization of how fethed up this Obama administration has been... you'd want someone with a little more executive experience in the Oval Office.
The Obama Administration hasn't really been that bad. I would put it roughly on par with the Bush Administration. It is hated by the opposition, and its supporters are nonplussed.
Either way, Governors generally have a much easier job than the President as they are subject to far less scrutiny, and generally don't have to work with a legislature that is bent on discrediting them. And that's before we get into whether or not any given governor plays the same role within their State government as the President does within the Federal one.
Frazzled wrote: I don't see why you would say he's an ass. Support please.
I still think its a Rubio for Pres candidacy. Cruz is a possible though, sadly. Either would be excellent in debates against Clinton, Cruz especially.
Still thinking when people go to the cast votes, Bush's lot will improve greatly by his association with W, who many feel was effective against terrorism. Rubio and Cruz are plausible.
Cruz would probably do the worst in debates against Clinton because he has very little appeal outside the Christian conservative base. Rubio and perhaps Bush are the only folks capable of swaying the middle voters. Cruz would drive them away in herds.
It doesn't help that he resembles Joe McCarthy so much, even down to the way he speaks. But who knows if people even remember Joe McCarthy anymore.
Frazzled wrote: I don't see why you would say he's an ass. Support please.
He's a pompous ass and prone to self-inflicted wounds...
Like calling for a government department pushing Judeo-Christian liberal values to authoritarian states. I mean... really? The what the feth is the States Dept's job under the Kasich Administration?
He doesn't do well in defending his state's participation in PPACA... he won't defend it and gets angry. (He should've did what Christie said, in that his constituents wanted it).
I still think its a Rubio for Pres candidacy.
At this point, man I really hope so... the other schlubs really don't stand a chance against HRC and the old-guard media.
Cruz is a possible though, sadly.
I'd vote for him in a heart beat. Problem is, he's only popular in Texa and deeeeep red-state areas. He won't inspire the swingers like I believe Rubio can.
Either would be excellent in debates against Clinton, Cruz especially.
True. The difference between Rubio and Cruz is that Rubio is more inspirational (aka, like Reagan). Cruz is more aptly described as the 'Happy Warrior' who can really dish out red-meat without the screaming.
I dunno... I think many are coming to the realization of how fethed up this Obama administration has been... you'd want someone with a little more executive experience in the Oval Office.
The Obama Administration hasn't really been that bad. I would put it roughly on par with the Bush Administration. It is hated by the opposition, and its supporters are nonplussed.
Yeah... I wouldn't go that far.
Either way, Governors generally have a much easier job than the President as they are subject to far less scrutiny, and generally don't have to work with a legislature that is bent on discrediting them. And that's before we get into whether or not any given governor plays the same role within their State government as the President does within the Federal one.
In a Democrat dominated state of Illinois... you're pretty much spot on.
But, on states where the legislature and Governorship are held by different parties... you damn well would have fireworks like at the federal level. Missouri is just like that. (not that I'd vote for Gov. Nixon (D) ).
Frazzled wrote: I don't see why you would say he's an ass. Support please.
I still think its a Rubio for Pres candidacy. Cruz is a possible though, sadly. Either would be excellent in debates against Clinton, Cruz especially.
Still thinking when people go to the cast votes, Bush's lot will improve greatly by his association with W, who many feel was effective against terrorism. Rubio and Cruz are plausible.
Cruz would probably do the worst in debates against Clinton because he has very little appeal outside the Christian conservative base. Rubio and perhaps Bush are the only folks capable of swaying the middle voters. Cruz would drive them away in herds.
It doesn't help that he resembles Joe McCarthy so much, even down to the way he speaks. But who knows if people even remember Joe McCarthy anymore.
Actual I think Cruz would be very entertaining in a debate. He may not be popular, but debate is partly what he did for a living. The Democratic coronation has done the future Democratic candidate no favors.
I do think Cruz can be pretty entertaining at debates. What I don't think people who agree with him realize is that while hes currently playing the part of hero to conservative Christians, he's simultaneously playing the part of villain to most of the rest of us. And demographics show a successful Republican candidate will need to make serious inroads with moderate voters to hope to compete.
Now all that's left is to get rid of Kasich, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Carson, and the rest of the also-rans so we can see just how big a piece of the pie Trump has.
Of course you wouldn't. Your position regarding the Obama Administration is about as nuanced as the one held by many reflexively anti-Republican people regarding the Bush Administration.
In a Democrat dominated state of Illinois... you're pretty much spot on.
But, on states where the legislature and Governorship are held by different parties... you damn well would have fireworks like at the federal level. Missouri is just like that. (not that I'd vote for Gov. Nixon (D) ).
Illinois frequently has governors who are at odds with the legislature for a number of reasons, not simply partisan ones.
Regardless, the main reason that governors don't have to deal with an openly hostile legislature is that the majority of people don't pay attention to state politics. This fact alone allows for greater compromise, as the lack of scrutiny lets legislators vote in a manner that isn't strictly in line with the desire of their constituents. Combine that with an overstated incumbent effect and you have a situation where combativeness is largely mollified.
Of course you wouldn't. Your position regarding the Obama Administration is about as nuanced as the one held by many reflexively anti-Republican people regarding the Bush Administration.
If it were only that simple. But, go ahead and believe what you will. It's obvious that I won't ever change your mind.
In a Democrat dominated state of Illinois... you're pretty much spot on.
But, on states where the legislature and Governorship are held by different parties... you damn well would have fireworks like at the federal level. Missouri is just like that. (not that I'd vote for Gov. Nixon (D) ).
Illinois frequently has governors who are at odds with the legislature for a number of reasons, not simply partisan ones.
Regardless, the main reason that governors don't have to deal with an openly hostile legislature is that the majority of people don't pay attention to state politics. This fact alone allows for greater compromise, as the lack of scrutiny lets legislators vote in a manner that isn't strictly in line with the desire of their constituents. Combine that with an overstated incumbent effect and you have a situation where combativeness is largely mollified.
I get what you're saying... and the degree of difficulties are different between state governors & US Presidency.
But, let's not discount the experience learned in dealing with leglisatures and operating an office in charge of the state as the executive head.
If it were only that simple. But, go ahead and believe what you will. It's obvious that I won't ever change your mind.
It really is that simple. Much of the hate directed towards Bush was grounded in Administration policies which went against ideals held by many leftists, which in turn led to anything Bush did being characterized as bad. Pretty much the exact same thing has happened with regard to Obama, hence all the tongue in cheek remarks about how he is history's greatest monster.
But, let's not discount the experience learned in dealing with leglisatures and operating an office in charge of the state as the executive head.
That's my fething point.
The problem with your point is that there is no historical evidence to suggest that gubernatorial experience correlates with Presidential efficacy. As such we can discount that experience, at least if we're speaking generally.
If it were only that simple. But, go ahead and believe what you will. It's obvious that I won't ever change your mind.
It really is that simple. Much of the hate directed towards Bush was grounded in Administration policies which went against ideals held by many leftists, which in turn led to anything Bush did being characterized as bad. Pretty much the exact same thing has happened with regard to Obama, hence all the tongue in cheek remarks about how he is history's greatest monster.
But, let's not discount the experience learned in dealing with leglisatures and operating an office in charge of the state as the executive head.
That's my fething point.
The problem with your point is that there is no historical evidence to suggest that gubernatorial experience correlates with Presidential efficacy. As such we can discount that experience, at least if we're speaking generally.
I beg to differ...
Both Bushes, Billy Clinton, Reagan and even Jimmy Carter... having gubernatorial experience, were better Presidents than Obama.
Both Bushes, Billy Clinton, Reagan and even Jimmy Carter... having gubernatorial experience, were better Presidents than Obama.
The first Bush was never a governor.
In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.
Oops... you're right about Bush H.W., however, he'd been VP for 8 years so that's like the best on-the-job-training you can get.
Again, between FDR to Carter, those are different eras.
Sooooo, Biden gets your support?
But, yeah, it seems like the era between WWII and up to and through Vietnam was a somewhat simpler time, politically. We knew who our enemies were ("better dead than red" and all that). Today, our politicians have to create enemies, instead.
Oops... you're right about Bush H.W., however, he'd been VP for 8 years so that's like the best on-the-job-training you can get.
Eh, not really. The qualities that make for a particularly good VP are very different from those that make for a particularly good President. Most notably VPs don't really need to be charismatic.
In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.
However, between those guys, Ike was a 5 star General (and that is nothing to do with Chrysler's 5-star service ), which I think for the level of responsibility someone with that many stars has, is as close to gubernatorial experience as you can get without being elected.
In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.
However, between those guys, Ike was a 5 star General (and that is nothing to do with Chrysler's 5-star service ), which I think for the level of responsibility someone with that many stars has, is as close to gubernatorial experience as you can get without being elected.
Pretty sure being the Supreme Allied Commander in Western Europe is more experience than many Presidents have had TBH.
Again, between FDR to Carter, those are different eras.
Ok. When did the current era begin, to your mind?
I'll offer my opinion, might be interesting to see how it compares to Whembly's. I'd say somewhere in the Reagan years. Basically, the Cold War ceased to rule our daily lives, the "commies" weren't the big bad they used to be anymore, and personal technology really became widespread (personal computers, video game consoles, portable music players, etc.). At some point, our politicians had to start creating enemies in order to further their political goals/power, as the Cold War essentially gave way to the "War on [insert any one of them here]" becoming the political expedient of the day.
It was a lot simpler to govern when you could point across the ocean to say "that's our enemy". But when you now start pointing that finger somewhere within our own country, that's when the divisions started
You know how Trump wasn't featured in any recruitment videos? Well, he is now, albeit not by IS.
Al Qaeda’s branch in Somalia released a recruitment video on Friday that criticized racism and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States and contained footage of the Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump announcing his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country.
The video, released by the militant group Shabab, appeared to be the first time that Mr. Trump was featured in jihadist recruitment material. During a Democratic presidential debate last month, Hillary Clinton said that Mr. Trump had been used in a recruitment video for the Islamic State, a claim that was later debunked.
Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are rival jihadist groups that compete for recruits and money among radicalized Muslims.
Representatives for the Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.
The video was part of a series dedicated to Somali-American jihadists from Minnesota and one Canadian who died on the battlefield in Somalia. The video was authenticated by the SITE Intelligence Group, which studies jihadist propaganda, and it appeared to be aimed at the African-American community.
Citing “historical injustices” against African-Americans, including police brutality and racial profiling, the video urged them to convert to Islam and engage in jihad at home or abroad.
In addition to footage of Mr. Trump, the video, which is 51 minutes long, included excerpts from speeches by Malcolm X and unnamed white supremacists, as well as footage of white police officers, African-Americans protesting police brutality and African-American men in prison. Some appeared to be performing Islamic prayers.
Using footage of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American member of a Qaeda affiliate who was killed in an American drone attack in 2011, the video also said the United States was gripped by a “malignant hatred” of Islam. It warned American Muslims that “there are ominous clouds gathering in your horizon.”
“Yesterday, America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching and Ku Klux Klan, and tomorrow, it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps,” Mr. Awlaki said in the previously recorded footage.
The video includes footage of Mr. Trump in front of a poster with his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”
“So remember this, so listen, Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Awlaki then reappeared on the video.
“The West will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens,” he said, jabbing his finger toward the camera. Only two choices remained for Muslims in the United States, he said.
“You either leave or you fight,” he said. “You leave and live among Muslims, or you stay behind and follow the example of Nidal Hasan and others who fulfilled their duty of fighting for Allah’s cause.”
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was an Army psychiatrist who staged a one-man attack at Fort Hood in Killeen, Tex., in November 2009, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others. He once attended a mosque in Virginia where Mr. Awlaki had preached and exchanged messages with him before committing his attack.
Al Qaeda is in many ways the parent organization of the Islamic State, which split from the group over differences in strategy in the war in Syria. The two groups now compete for influence among radicalized Muslims, a competition that the Islamic State has dominated in recent years.
That contest has played out in acts of spectacular violence around the world. Analysts have said that recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Mali have been partly driven by the desire of one group to outdo the other.
Maybe they don't actually need to make any recruitment videos at all? Just tell potential recruits to watch American news networks and that will accomplish the same thing.
I was listening to the R response on the radio today, and apparently the first thing the house is going to vote on is a bill that would defund PP and repeal the individual mandate. Good to know that congress is going to be just as productive as last year.
See. Now that's why I'm voting for Trump besides the major fact he makes me laugh. He's a wild card that so not politician that he might actually get something done. He might actually get Congress, SCOTUS, EPA, DOJ, USCIS, DoS etc etc to work for him instead of with him
What politician has experience more then Trump with debt eh
I definitely think electing a guy who both sides hate is the best way to get your agenda pushed forward, because in the real world, the President operates in a total vacuum of power.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I was listening to the R response on the radio today, and apparently the first thing the house is going to vote on is a bill that would defund PP and repeal the individual mandate. Good to know that congress is going to be just as productive as last year.
To be fair, the Ds would do their own version of "no-chance-in-hell-of-passing-legislation" given the chance. It's all just the usual politics. Because now they can say they tried, but they need more R butts in Congress (and the White House) so vote R in 2016!
Really, the ACA has been more successful (politically) for the Republicans than it has for the Democrats.
We elect those individuals...or Electoral votes win the election. We deserve the government we voted in. So if Trump gets the nomination for the GOP the candidates that lost are not going to back him? Pretty much suicide there being its the people who voted for him so if they don't work with him I can see their political career getting determined by the people who voted them in in the next cycle of elections.
Also everyone here who is so against Trump and think mean things about him....you know damn well you be waiting on Trump/Hillary debate in the General election
Ouze wrote: I definitely think electing a guy who both sides hate is the best way to get your agenda pushed forward, because in the real world, the President operates in a total vacuum of power.
Seems like President Cruz would fit that bill...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: We'll see - I think it's possible the Democrats could re-take the senate in 2016.
Interesting article on 538 about how national polls are negativeindicators for Iowa and New Hampshire.
However... here's a NYT editorial about how Trump is pulling in some traditional Democrats and if he's the nominee (shudders), he's in play for New York.
Given that Trump actually polls extremely well in Florida, and in a hypothetical matchup against Hillary... if Trump secures both NY and Florida... does he have a chance?
<--- just got some heebeejeebees for typing that.
Anyhoo... for those Dakkaroos who lives (or had) in New York (Ouze? Co'tors?), is Trump popular enough to carry New York?
With Putin declaring the US a threat against Russian national security (apparently) and with Putin declaring he would 'totes' be bros with Trump (apparently) is Putin trying to influence the US election?
We all know Trump's foreign policy (lol) is to hug it out with anybody that wants to throw their weight around. Trump having said that he and Putin would be great together, has Putin returned the favor by adding to Trump's PR machine?
I could see Putin hoping for a nice weak malleable mook to be POTUS and make favorable decisions towards Russia.
I know a lot of Putinofiles (sp?) were very happy with his nod to their new hero Trump.
Ouze wrote: I definitely think electing a guy who both sides hate is the best way to get your agenda pushed forward, because in the real world, the President operates in a total vacuum of power.
On the positive, we could finally get a President successfully impeached.
whembly wrote: Anyhoo... for those Dakkaroos who lives (or had) in New York (Ouze? Co'tors?), is Trump popular enough to carry New York?
In my dated, anecdotal experience, Donald Trump was fairly unpopular well before he ran for President. One notable exception was my grandmother, who would often talk about how he got Wollman Rink fixed when no one else could.
On the other hand, in a national election? My gut feeling is that New Yorkers would be more inclined to vote for an actual New Yorker like Donald Trump vs a fake one like Hillary Clinton.
whembly wrote: Anyhoo... for those Dakkaroos who lives (or had) in New York (Ouze? Co'tors?), is Trump popular enough to carry New York?
In my dated, anecdotal experience, Donald Trump was fairly unpopular well before he ran for President. One notable exception was my grandmother, who would often talk about how he got Wollman Rink fixed when no one else could.
On the other hand, in a national election? My gut feeling is that New Yorkers would be more inclined to vote for an actual New Yorker like Donald Trump vs a fake one like Hillary Clinton.
Really?
I thought NY'er loved Hillary as their Senator...
Shoot... now I'm starting to see a "path" for Trump to win. feth me... hold me Ouze!
Ouze wrote: I definitely think electing a guy who both sides hate is the best way to get your agenda pushed forward, because in the real world, the President operates in a total vacuum of power.
On the positive, we could finally get a President successfully impeached.
I haven't lived in NYC since before Hillary moved to the state, so I definitely wouldn't give my opinion any weight. I think there is at least one Dakkaroo who lives in NYC currently whose opinion would be a lot more up to date.
Ouze wrote: I haven't lived in NYC since before Hillary moved to the state, so I definitely wouldn't give my opinion any weight. I think there is at least one Dakkaroo who lives in NYC currently whose opinion would be a lot more up to date.
Fair enough... I think we're thinking of Co'tors?
Traditionally, the Democrats enjoys near slam-dunk support from CA and NY.
I can't see CA ever going to a Republican. Same with NY... however, if Trump's the nominee.
O.o
With the weird strength of Trump in SEC country... uh... man, I'm going have to start drinking more.
Will we see the same criticisms lashed on Hillary as those who lambasted Carson's Pyramid Graneries theory? Stay tuned!
No, because the granary theory is demonstrably incorrect.
So are any claims of aliens.
You do understand the difference between "I think that aliens may have visited us already"(Clinton's statement) and "the pyramids were built to store grain"(Carson's statement), right?
There is no real demonstrable proof that we have not been visited by extraterrestrials. It is just highly unlikely that we have been, and a large number of the so-called "smoking gun" bits of evidence have either been disproven or have no reasonable explanation.
I don't see Hillary Clinton speculating on the existence of aliens to be any more laughable then every single Republican candidate repeatedly invoking God. ayyyyyy
Ouze wrote: I don't see Hillary Clinton speculating on the existence of aliens to be any more laughable then every single Republican candidate repeatedly invoking God. ayyyyyy
Well, an invisible, all powerful deity is much more believable than the concept that there are other sentient beings in the universe....obviously. Besides, outside of Church of Scientology (gasp, Hillary's a Scientologist!), there's no holy book pointing to aliens and Americans can't believe anything that's not written in a poorly translated holy book.
Ouze wrote: I don't see Hillary Clinton speculating on the existence of aliens to be any more laughable then every single Republican candidate repeatedly invoking God. ayyyyyy
Ouze wrote: I haven't lived in NYC since before Hillary moved to the state, so I definitely wouldn't give my opinion any weight. I think there is at least one Dakkaroo who lives in NYC currently whose opinion would be a lot more up to date.
Fair enough... I think we're thinking of Co'tors?
Traditionally, the Democrats enjoys near slam-dunk support from CA and NY.
I can't see CA ever going to a Republican. Same with NY... however, if Trump's the nominee.
O.o
With the weird strength of Trump in SEC country... uh... man, I'm going have to start drinking more.
Nah, I live in mid-state NY (Hudson Valley, Hurley specifically), hate the city. It's a dump, and it's politics rival Texas for insanity but on the other side of the spectrum. Nice museums/art galleries though.
He defiantly has support up here, and in up-state (tends to be pretty conservative), but I'm not sure he's be able to get NYC on board, and you need the city to win NY. Although he is from NYC, so there chance, albit as small one. It is also possible that with Hillary on the ticket, some progressives/Bernie supporters will stay home. If that happens, I could defiantly see him having a chance at NY. And if he picks up Florida, and doesn't do too poorly on the rest of the battleground states he could win.
Ouze wrote: I don't see Hillary Clinton speculating on the existence of aliens to be any more laughable then every single Republican candidate repeatedly invoking God. ayyyyyy
It's actually pandering...
Note where she says this.
Regarding aliens visiting us, well, I'm with Calvin on this one:
Spoiler:
But, that might also be the only explanation for why the Trump Train keeps chugging along (or, at least, it explains his hair).
Ouze wrote: I don't see Hillary Clinton speculating on the existence of aliens to be any more laughable then every single Republican candidate repeatedly invoking God. ayyyyyy
It's actually pandering...
Note where she says this.
Regarding aliens visiting us, well, I'm with Calvin on this one:
Spoiler:
But, that might also be the only explanation for why the Trump Train keeps chugging along (or, at least, it explains his hair).
One has to consider the possibility that as a former First Lady who shared a bed with a President*, she probably knows the truth about Roswell and Area 51.
The truth about those got revealed a long time ago. Area 51 was where they were working on stealth Aircraft. Roswell was a high altitude parachuting testing ground using dummies.
Grey Templar wrote: The truth about those got revealed a long time ago. Area 51 was where they were working on stealth Aircraft. Roswell was a high altitude parachuting testing ground using dummies.
So, if he is elected to the Presidency, he will be unable triple the Border Patrol by himself? Sounds like bloviation to me, not to mention stereotypical "tough talk".
As much as I loathe and despise Cruz, I feel the only possible reaction to Trump's latest comments regarding Cruz's citizenship issues is best expressed by:
MATTHEWS: OK, last question, we’re running out of time. I want to try to help you for this audience tonight, our audience, locate yourself politically in this country. Now, we have Trump out there and we have Bernie out here. Now, Bernie calls himself a socialist. Nobody uses a derogatory term anymore. He loves to have that label. He’s never ran as a Democrat, he runs against Democrats up there in Vermont. You’re a Democrat. I would say you’re a pretty typical Democrat, in the traditional Democratic Party. And Humphry and the rest of them. Scoop [Jackson], not even Scoop, I’d say Rondale, you’re somewhere in there. What’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Is that a question you want to answer or you’d rather not, politically.
CLINTON: Well, you’d have to –
MATTHEWS: Well, see, I’m asking you. You’re a Democrat, he’s a socialist. Would you like somebody to call you a socialist? I wouldn’t like somebody calling me a socialist.
CLINTON: But I’m not one. I mean, I’m not one.
MATTHEWS: What’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. That’s the question.
CLINTON: I can tell you what I am. I am a Progressive Democrat.
MATTHEWS: How is that deferent than a socialist?
CLINTON: I’m a Progressive Democrat who likes to get things done and who believes that we are better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings and I respect that, from, you know, the far right, the far left, libertarians, whoever it might be. We need to get people working together. We’ve got to get the economy fixed, we’ve got to get all of our problems, you know, really tackled and that’s what I want to do.
MATTHEWS: I think the difference is, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t answer the question either when I asked her. Because I know politically you have to keep together the center-left and the left has to work together. I know all of that.
Academically I can crack open some textbooks to show that there *is* a different between Bernie's view of Socialism and the modern Democratic Party.
In practice in American politicks... is there a difference?
agnosto wrote: Other than knee-jerk Cold War garbage, what's wrong with being a Socialist?
Well, if you're talking about a "pure" socialist, there's quite a bit wrong.... There's very little room for democratically elected officials and the like.
If you're talking about a democratic socialist (as in much of Scandinavia), then I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
agnosto wrote: Other than knee-jerk Cold War garbage, what's wrong with being a Socialist?
Too much power for the government to abuse. Even in so called "Democratic Socialism"
Meh. Versions of it seems to work OK in other countries. And before you jump on that statement, know that every political or social policy has issues. Believe it or not, the US even has socialist type policies/programs in place, minimum wage being an example.
agnosto wrote: Other than knee-jerk Cold War garbage, what's wrong with being a Socialist?
Too much power for the government to abuse. Even in so called "Democratic Socialism"
Meh. Versions of it seems to work OK in other countries. And before you jump on that statement, know that every political or social policy has issues. Believe it or not, the US even has socialist type policies/programs in place, minimum wage being an example.
Some socialist policies are ok, like Minimum Wage as a concept(but its often wrongly implemented). Many are not. And yes, I actually have huge issues with many policies that are in place in the US. Too many of them are unsustainable, like Social Security.
agnosto wrote: Other than knee-jerk Cold War garbage, what's wrong with being a Socialist?
Too much power for the government to abuse. Even in so called "Democratic Socialism"
Meh. Versions of it seems to work OK in other countries. And before you jump on that statement, know that every political or social policy has issues. Believe it or not, the US even has socialist type policies/programs in place, minimum wage being an example.
Some socialist policies are ok, like Minimum Wage as a concept(but its often wrongly implemented). Many are not. And yes, I actually have huge issues with many policies that are in place in the US. Too many of them are unsustainable, like Social Security.
Other than the creation of poor houses or Logan Run-esque culling, what alternative would you recommend for social security to help prepare people who are living check-to-check for retirement?
I would rather see it be more like a government mandated savings account. Your actual money goes into an actual account which you cannot access until you retire, or something else like a disability triggers it. IE: You get out what you put into it, and could put additional money in if you wanted. The main problem with social security is the draw on it is much larger than what is getting put into it at the moment. It was created with the assumption that the population would have a pyramid shaped distribution, with a growing younger generation putting more in than is currently being drawn out. It doesn't account for a population with roughly equal distribution(Or more old people than young as is currently the case) that modern societies resemble.
Grey... the problem with SS is that Congress changed it over the years to basically a "tax" that it all goes into the General Funds™, and the congress-critters swearsies that they'll "fund" it.
It evolved from an actual savings plan to an unfunded liability. Defacto description of a ponzi scheme.
Oh thats a problem too. They definitely shouldn't be treating it as a pool they can "borrow" from at will. But SS did have a fundamental population distribution flaw to begin with, though to be fair this population shifts wasn't obvious at the time they created it.
Social Security as it was originally envisioned might have worked ok in the 1700-1800s when populations were continuously growing.
The problem is that politicians are afraid to touch it for reform because there is absolutely no way of making everyone happy.
I actually agreed with Trump's statement that he thinks multi-millionaires shouldn't receive SS benefits and he'd be happy to give his up.
I don't know what the answer is but I strongly believe that a system that is dependent upon interest rates, like a savings account, or the vagaries of the stock market, like a 401k are both wrong.
I wish people would stop bringing up 'borrowing' from Social Security. It's a bit of a red herring.
Social Security invests the money they have in US bonds which pay interest at the normal rate to Social Security.
The only reason Social Security has any issues with running out of money is the fact that there is an upper limit on how much can be taxed and that not all income types are taxed.
With more of the money in the US going to the people already above the taxing limits, that causes a lower percentage of money to go into Social Security.
Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with Social Security, Welfare, EITC, etc and replace it with a guaranteed income.
With the Fed running the printing presses full speed over the last decade and artificially keeping interest rates low, the dollars coming out of those bonds are worth less than the dollars that bought them.
When the gov't can buy its own debt to the extent we are doing , lack of tax revenue is not the problem.
skyth wrote: I wish people would stop bringing up 'borrowing' from Social Security. It's a bit of a red herring.
Social Security invests the money they have in US bonds which pay interest at the normal rate to Social Security.
The only reason Social Security has any issues with running out of money is the fact that there is an upper limit on how much can be taxed and that not all income types are taxed.
With more of the money in the US going to the people already above the taxing limits, that causes a lower percentage of money to go into Social Security.
Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with Social Security, Welfare, EITC, etc and replace it with a guaranteed income.
I honestly haven't thought of that, very good point. I think social safety nets are needed for people with disabilities and the aged though.
whembly wrote: Grey... the problem with SS is that Congress changed it over the years to basically a "tax" that it all goes into the General Funds™, and the congress-critters swearsies that they'll "fund" it.
It evolved from an actual savings plan to an unfunded liability. Defacto description of a ponzi scheme.
whembly wrote: Grey... the problem with SS is that Congress changed it over the years to basically a "tax" that it all goes into the General Funds™, and the congress-critters swearsies that they'll "fund" it.
It evolved from an actual savings plan to an unfunded liability. Defacto description of a ponzi scheme.
So Whembly, you are in favor of a Lockbox?
IF we're gunna do it, aye. Or even Bush's partial privatized SS plan.
'Cuz, as it stands now... my generation would be lucky to see a penny from it.
whembly wrote: Grey... the problem with SS is that Congress changed it over the years to basically a "tax" that it all goes into the General Funds™, and the congress-critters swearsies that they'll "fund" it.
It evolved from an actual savings plan to an unfunded liability. Defacto description of a ponzi scheme.
It didn't really even evolve.... In order to pass it in the first place, FDR had to give concessions on the funding for it, and thus it has been near continuously raided and "borrowed" against for other pet projects.
That is something I think needs to be gotten rid of entirely.
Paul Ryan wrote:“I mean, how many times have we been saying we want to put bills on his desk that say who we are and what we believe versus what he believes,” Ryan (R-Wis.) told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday night. “We have to go on offense in 2016, and we have to offer a bold agenda to the country.”
That's why I said the ACA has done more for the Republican party than for the Democrats. With this latest, they can now say "oh well, we tried (again), but you didn't elect enough of us into office in 2014, so vote for more of us in 2016!"
I wonder, though, if they'll still find some way to "fail" to repeal it so they can use it in 2018.
For the 80th time. Quit grandstanding and do the People's business. Your paid to work. DO IT.
Jeez if HRC wasn't anti gun I'd vote partyline Demo just to get these welfare queens out.
I agree. Grand gestures are all well and good but they're just wasting time. If they don't have anything better to do, send them home and cut their pay.
It is more than a grand gesture. It made several vulnerable Democratic congress critters put their name to a vote on it which will be used in the upcoming elections.
Both sides do this. Crap Bags like Rubio avoid hard votes (like the Omnibus) to protect their record.
Did anyone see the recent Frontline program on Netanyahu? It was an iteresting program in general, but particlarly interesting to me as a contrast between the perhaps bleak fatalism of a fortress mentality foreign policy with the perhaps naive optimism of a young leader trying to reset the US image with the Muslim world.
In any case it was a good documentary. Plenty for both foreign policy hawks and doves to sink their teeth into regarding the current situation in the middle east, and th current relationship between the US and Israel.
CptJake wrote: It is more than a grand gesture. It made several vulnerable Democratic congress critters put their name to a vote on it which will be used in the upcoming elections.
hotsauceman1 wrote: God I hope the ACA doesnt get repealed if republicans take office. It has done alot to help my family out.
Personally, I think that it has helped enough people that if it were repealed, it would have to quickly be reinstated, or something better passed. I think there would be mass recall elections and mass rioting over something like that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: God I hope the ACA doesnt get repealed if republicans take office. It has done alot to help my family out.
Personally, I think that it has helped enough people that if it were repealed, it would have to quickly be reinstated, or something better passed. I think there would be mass recall elections and mass rioting over something like that.
It has helped me family out a lot too.
I seriously doubt your point Ensis. The Republican plan after repeal is..... Tort Reform (i.e. harder to sue Docs for malpractice) and allowing Health Insurance companies to be sold across state lines and going back to the way it was before.
No one would be recalled and no one would riot... at least no one who is a hard scrabble, boot strapping, patriot openly carrying a firearm. The people in the streets would just be people we can demonize as thugs and vandals(BLM), filthy, college idiot, punks (OWS), and unAmerican pinko-commies (Leftists).
CptJake wrote: It is more than a grand gesture. It made several vulnerable Democratic congress critters put their name to a vote on it which will be used in the upcoming elections.
Both sides do this. Crap Bags like Rubio avoid hard votes (like the Omnibus) to protect their record.
Vs. the same vote last week and two weeks ago? To quote The Last Dragon: "sucker please."
For the 80th time. Quit grandstanding and do the People's business. Your paid to work. DO IT.
Jeez if HRC wasn't anti gun I'd vote partyline Demo just to get these welfare queens out.
IT does 2 things:
1) They've made campaign promises to put one on his desk. If it's such a gakky law, make Obama/Democrat defend it.
2) It telegraphs the voters that they *can* repeal ACA just as long as there's a Republican president. (won't help as HRC isn't going to be beaten).
Paul Ryan wrote:“I mean, how many times have we been saying we want to put bills on his desk that say who we are and what we believe versus what he believes,” Ryan (R-Wis.) told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday night. “We have to go on offense in 2016, and we have to offer a bold agenda to the country.”
I hope Obama let's it go through. If it's really that bad then we'll be better off. More likely Republicans will have to deal with the crapstorm that follows. They have so thoroughly put Obama and Democrat's name all over the thing that even they won't be able to shift enough blame.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I dont know, it is looking like a fight between Cruz and Trump right now. and im not sure cruz has the momentum.
I'll be honest with American dakka members. If Trump becomes president, I don't care what he does to the USA. Sorry!
I just don't want the 101st and 82nd airborne heading Britain's way!
If Trump becomes president the I think the 101st and 82nd will be coming over to join us and plan a new British invasion of the USA rather than conquer
For the 80th time. Quit grandstanding and do the People's business. Your paid to work. DO IT.
Jeez if HRC wasn't anti gun I'd vote partyline Demo just to get these welfare queens out.
IT does 2 things:
1) They've made campaign promises to put one on his desk. If it's such a gakky law, make Obama/Democrat defend it.
2) It telegraphs the voters that they *can* repeal ACA just as long as there's a Republican president. (won't help as HRC isn't going to be beaten).
He doesn't need to defend gak, he just needs to not sign it. Pocket veto.
He's in the last year of a 2nd term, it's his signature achievement, and there aren't votes to overturn in: there's no reason to use a pocket veto when he can use a regular veto while holding a press conference denouncing it as a giant waste of time, which it was.
It's not going to "hurt" Obama to defend it, the general public is pretty aware of how he feels about it already. Similarly democrats running for re-election. The last drop of blood has been beaten from this horse's corpse, in my opinion.
1) They've made campaign promises to put one on his desk. If it's such a gakky law, make Obama/Democrat defend it. 2) It telegraphs the voters that they *can* repeal ACA just as long as there's a Republican president. (won't help as HRC isn't going to be beaten).
But they've already done that before. newsflash it just makes them look stupid, incompetent, and lazy (not necessarily in that order).
Put up a freaking BUDGET like you are required to do. Repeal some admin laws. Repeal the freaking honey subsidy from WWI. Do your job.
It just seems cruel at this point to attempt to repeal the ACA without a replacement plan. I'm inclined to agree with those that noted that it's probably not even the GOPs desire to repeal it, because they would face a huge backlash, and if they keep it alive they can try and use it as a perpetual wedge issue like abortion.
I'll be interested to see what Paul Ryan comes up with, whenever that might be
The guy who always points to the benefits of the ACA and makes jokes about it being called "Obamacare" really needed the republicans to force him to defend it...
Real-estate tycoon Donald Trump took a mocking jab at Macy's on Thursday, a day after the department-store giant announced plans to eliminate thousands of jobs.
According to The New York Times, Macy's said it would eliminate 4,500 jobs, or 3% of its workforce, after disappointing holiday-season sales.
Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, declared on Twitter that the company's cratering stock was "another win for Trump!"
1) They've made campaign promises to put one on his desk. If it's such a gakky law, make Obama/Democrat defend it.
2) It telegraphs the voters that they *can* repeal ACA just as long as there's a Republican president. (won't help as HRC isn't going to be beaten).
But they've already done that before.
newsflash it just makes them look stupid, incompetent, and lazy (not necessarily in that order).
Put up a freaking BUDGET like you are required to do. Repeal some admin laws. Repeal the freaking honey subsidy from WWI. Do your job.
It's not going to "hurt" Obama to defend it, the general public is pretty aware of how he feels about it already. Similarly democrats running for re-election. The last drop of blood has been beaten from this horse's corpse, in my opinion.
I think it's elevated to the big wedge issues such as gun control or abortion.
It'll be used as Republicans try to keep the Senate (which is a challenge at the moment). Hence, why they're doing this as a standalone.
To Frazzle's point, they *couldn't* add it to the omnibus because of Democrat's opposition. Unless, you'd want them to nuke the filabuster as a whole?
Do none of the GOP realize that they'll have to present an option to replace the ACA at some point? I think that axing the healthcare of millions of people might upset some few....at least.
agnosto wrote: Do none of the GOP realize that they'll have to present an option to replace the ACA at some point? I think that axing the healthcare of millions of people might upset some few....at least.
That would require critical and logical thinking which, if the Republican presidential nomination campaign is anything to go by, is very much lacking in the party leaders.
agnosto wrote: Do none of the GOP realize that they'll have to present an option to replace the ACA at some point? I think that axing the healthcare of millions of people might upset some few....at least.
Plenty have done so.
Most of the current plans are essentially really expensive catestrophic plans (high mo premiums and insanely high deductable).
agnosto wrote: Do none of the GOP realize that they'll have to present an option to replace the ACA at some point? I think that axing the healthcare of millions of people might upset some few....at least.
That would require critical and logical thinking which, if the Republican presidential nomination campaign is anything to go by, is very much lacking in the party leaders.
Someone responded to a post of mine with the republican "plan"... a thing which I've never heard nor seen anything about until that post.
Making Heath insurance transportable? It'd be nice, but it's a pipe dream, the way things are now.
Going back to "the way things were before"?? Yeah... that's an excellent fething idea. Let's make millions of Americans "uninsurable" again, that'll lower the cost of healthcare in the country
I'm with a number of folks here who wish the GOP would face the fething music, and realize that ACA and healthcare in general is here to stay. The ONLY way you're gonna get rid of it, is to pass something that's actually BETTER than ACA.
agnosto wrote: Eventually....I'm sure that comforts the people he would prefer to rob of healthcare today. So genius.
Um... the PPACA repeal would simply be that the enrollment in November wouldn't happen. It wouldn't *just* render the plans defunct if a repeal does goes through.
From what I can see... this repeal leaves in the more popular stuff, like:
-no insurance to deny on pre-existing conditions
-no lifetime maximum
-others...
agnosto wrote: Do none of the GOP realize that they'll have to present an option to replace the ACA at some point? I think that axing the healthcare of millions of people might upset some few....at least.
That would require critical and logical thinking which, if the Republican presidential nomination campaign is anything to go by, is very much lacking in the party leaders.
Someone responded to a post of mine with the republican "plan"... a thing which I've never heard nor seen anything about until that post.
Making Heath insurance transportable? It'd be nice, but it's a pipe dream, the way things are now.
Going back to "the way things were before"?? Yeah... that's an excellent fething idea. Let's make millions of Americans "uninsurable" again, that'll lower the cost of healthcare in the country
I'm with a number of folks here who wish the GOP would face the fething music, and realize that ACA and healthcare in general is here to stay. The ONLY way you're gonna get rid of it, is to pass something that's actually BETTER than ACA.
Transportable healthcare isn't a pipe dream.
Most large healthcare organizations would rather have a large pool of patients over a geographical region not dictated by state boundries.
I think the absolute first step, is for voters/politicians to unequivocally decide whether or not "healthcare" and "insurance" is a state or a federal thing.
agnosto wrote: Eventually....I'm sure that comforts the people he would prefer to rob of healthcare today. So genius.
Well lets be real, the ACA is a walking gak storm of gakky gak. Obama just putting ona crown and EOing that "I declare Henceforth that Medicare Shalt cover all and verily AHAHAHAHAHAH!" would be spades better.
whembly wrote: Transportable healthcare isn't a pipe dream.
Most large healthcare organizations would rather have a large pool of patients over a geographical region not dictated by state boundries.
I think the absolute first step, is for voters/politicians to unequivocally decide whether or not "healthcare" and "insurance" is a state or a federal thing.
I think the problem is, in many ways, a number of health insurance companies have nearly the same sort of local monopolies as companies like Comcast and other cable companies do.
Yes, insurance companies want larger pools of customers, but at the same time, I think they rather enjoy that virtual monopoly, even if it means less in the way of potential income by way of "competition" Additionally, there are places where, insurance board commissioners are former CEOs and executives of the very companies they are supposed to be regulating, it's actually a pretty nasty little circle.
whembly wrote: Transportable healthcare isn't a pipe dream.
Most large healthcare organizations would rather have a large pool of patients over a geographical region not dictated by state boundries.
I think the absolute first step, is for voters/politicians to unequivocally decide whether or not "healthcare" and "insurance" is a state or a federal thing.
I think the problem is, in many ways, a number of health insurance companies have nearly the same sort of local monopolies as companies like Comcast and other cable companies do.
Yes, insurance companies want larger pools of customers, but at the same time, I think they rather enjoy that virtual monopoly, even if it means less in the way of potential income by way of "competition" Additionally, there are places where, insurance board commissioners are former CEOs and executives of the very companies they are supposed to be regulating, it's actually a pretty nasty little circle.
Yup. You got it.
Thus, if we were to allow transportable insurance, that'll force those previous monopolies to... ya know... compete.
I'm just hoping that some day, the laws would allow Healthcare providers to service the patient populations by offering that Provider-owned health plans (quasi-insurance) by region. Not there yet...
It cuts medicaid/medicare/private insurance middle man out.
agnosto wrote: Do none of the GOP realize that they'll have to present an option to replace the ACA at some point? I think that axing the healthcare of millions of people might upset some few....at least.
Let's be honest. If the GOP would actually suspect that Obama wouldn't veto the thing they would have never passed it. They know that they can repeal it all they want because they don't have to actually come up with an alternative because they know he will veto it anyway. If it wouldn't feth over the majority of Americans it would he hilarious if Obama would simply sign the repeal, hand it back to Congress and tell them "there guys, now you do better".
Remember the Birthers, the people who claimed Obama was ineligible to be elected President because he was born in Kenya? Well, they're back and they're setting their sites on Senator Ted Cruz. None of this is surprising, really, but the long knives of the Republican "establishment" are out for our beloved Senator and the Democrats really don't have to do anything except sit back and watch. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.
Chris Cillizza wrote:John McCain’s cold-blooded revenge on Ted Cruz
A great man once said: The arc of the moral universe is long, and it bends toward revenge.
John McCain proved the power of revenge on Wednesday night when asked about his longtime nemesis Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president, despite being born in Canada.
“I don’t know the answer to that,” McCain said on the "Chris Merrill Show" on Wednesday. “I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the Canal Zone, which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964."
Boom goes the dynamite.
It's no secret that Cruz is hated by McCain and lots and lots of the Washington establishment. McCain famously/infamously called Cruz (and a few other tea party types) "wacko birds" — he later apologized — and has repeatedly clashed with the Texas senator over what he believes to be the latter's tendency to grandstand. (McCain detractors will roll their eyes at the idea of him being apoplectic over other people grandstanding.)
What has been less clear is how the GOP establishment's white-hot hatred for Cruz could manifest itself in the Republican presidential primary. This is how.
By McCain giving a "you know, that's a good question" response to the question of whether Cruz is eligible to be president, he keeps the story — not a good one for the Texas senator — very much alive.
Now, the media narrative becomes that it's not just Donald Trump saying things because (a) he's Donald Trump and (b) it's in Trump's political interest to attack Cruz since he trails him in Iowa. It's the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who, oh by the way, went through a very real back and forth over his own eligibility to run back then.
McCain shivving Cruz won't drastically damage the Texas senator's strength in the race. For some, it will affirm that Cruz is the anti-establishment force they love. But, McCain's comment shows how the establishment can influence the race — by using the platform senators (and others) have to kill or boost stories.
Expect more of this. And the establishment will relish every minute of it.
Wow. Much revenge. Such Establishment. Very shivving.
Hold on a sec, I know I've heard all this "revenge" talk before somewhere... Oh, yea...
He is the most hated man in Washington, and he isn’t riveting record crowds like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are out on the campaign trail. But Ted Cruz is running one of the best presidential campaigns of 2016.
After spending what will likely amount to the most money and most time in Iowa by any GOP candidate, Cruz is now the front-runner for the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1. The Texas senator has proven his hunger to Iowa Republicans with late-night stops and an effort to visit to all 99 counties, with 28 stops this week alone.
Throughout, Cruz has made a few mistakes — like making a Joe Biden joke days after the vice president’s son died of cancer — but he has otherwise exhibited impressive discipline as a candidate.
He has used humor on Twitter and flagrant flattery to deflect provocations from the press to criticize Trump. He appreciates the value of timing; though he started wooing Iowa conservatives just months after being elected senator in 2012, he kept his now years-old presidential campaign quiet until March.
During several early debates, Cruz — a former debate champion — held back, aware that peaking too soon is one of the easiest ways to lose. And while Cruz was working to win the most critical endorsements of social conservative leaders in Iowa, which he has now received, he was also building formidable operations in the southern states that vote March 1, when more delegates will be awarded than on any other day.
A win in the first contest, previously written off as less significant than the second one, in New Hampshire, now appears likely to create powerful momentum for Cruz. Should he head straight to South Carolina to plant the first flag before its Feb. 20 vote, a nightmare scenario could result for establishment Republicans, who could end up splitting the vote in New Hampshire on Feb. 9 and serving as spoilers for a Trump victory in the state. To date, none of them have landed on a potent line of attack to stop Cruz in Iowa. Conceding the Hawkeye State could mean conceding the Palmetto State, too: in 2012, 65 percent of South Carolina GOP primary voters identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.
So far Cruz’s plan is working, though history may prove it laughably futile. That’s because the senator doesn’t intend to win over the electorate, he plans to try to change it — like Barack Obama did. “Obama ran a masterful campaign,” he has said. “It was a grassroots guerilla campaign, encircled the Hillary campaign before they knew what hit them.”
The path to victory, Cruz insists, is through conservatives — not swing voters in the “mushy middle.” He thinks there are millions of white evangelical Republicans he can inspire who sat out elections in 2012 and 2008, when the GOP nominated moderate Republicans. He maintains “if the body of Christ rises up as one and votes our values we can turn this country around.” (The number crunchers disagree: voters who stayed home did so in red or blue states, not in battleground states, therefore they weren’t decisive in GOP losses.)
To meet his goal, Cruz is dispatching a data analytics firm to reach millions of potential supporters, through data gathered mostly from Facebook without their knowledge. Through “psychographic targeting,” his team is trying to locate possible Cruz voters based on five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Perhaps recognizing he may not be the best messenger, Cruz intends to be the best marketer. After all, winning the presidency is just a numbers game. The candidate with the most numbers wins, and Cruz thinks he knows how to find them.
In my experience, Most evangelical christians tend to not vote much at all. God, Are elections supposed to fill you with dread more than hope?
Cause 2016 looks like we are all screwed no matter what.
hotsauceman1 wrote: In my experience, Most evangelical christians tend to not vote much at all. God, Are elections supposed to fill you with dread more than hope?
Cause 2016 looks like we are all screwed no matter what.
There is nothing illegal about distributing blank registration forms including an already stamped business envelope with the county election office already written, right? I want to encourage people in my school to register to vote.
I think that if bernie wins the primaries we might have a good candidate. He is a hardcore social liberal and while I think he needs to think through his economic policies, he isn't a elephant in donkey's clothing like hillary.
hotsauceman1 wrote: In my experience, Most evangelical christians tend to not vote much at all. God, Are elections supposed to fill you with dread more than hope?
Cause 2016 looks like we are all screwed no matter what.
Honestly, I think this is one of the most tense and tenuous campaign "seasons" that I can remember. Obviously, there's one candidate that I support, but there seems to be an entire "half" of the race that just scares the bejeesus out of me.
Cruz has convinced me of three things in his short career:
1. He's a slippery, unlikable, untrustworthy jackanapes that I can never support.
2. He's going to adopt and forcefully advocate for policy ideas I believe in.
3. He is running the smartest campaign in the Republican presidential race. (Damn it.)
He has a path too.
Even with his national polling lead, Donald Trump still seems to be hitting a ceiling in the race. That means one of the other candidates will likely beat him by consolidating support among anti-Trump Republicans. The best bets look like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. But is it really fair to equate the two? Cruz has already surged ahead of Donald Trump in Iowa. He is polling second in New Hampshire and South Carolina (though far behind Trump, admittedly). Cruz is better positioned than Rubio in the polls and is consistently getting the better of Rubio each time they jockey for position.
Let's take each part in turn.
First Trump, who has been bleeding support over to Cruz in Iowa. You can see why in Cruz's ad "Invasion" which features mostly white and black characters in office wear hopping over a fence and desperately crossing a river in the desert. It asks the viewer to imagine the politics of immigration if it were bankers and lawyers crossing the border. Cruz narrates: "Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press, then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation." It's a funny ad in which Cruz promises a "wall that works." It's able to invoke the chaos of America's immigration problem, without the kind of images California's governor Pete Wilson got called a demagogue for using. Like the candidate, the message is populist, clever, and perfectly anti-Washington. It doesn't make you feel slimy for agreeing with it.
Next up, Rubio, who has engaged Cruz by trying to enhance his own supposed advantage on foreign policy. Of the USA Freedom Act, Rubio recently said, "If ISIS had lobbyists in Washington, they would have spent millions to support the anti-intelligence law that was just passed with the help of some Republicans now running for president." One of those Republicans is Ted Cruz. It's a wild attack to suggest a law Congress passed is what ISIS wants. Because it was supported by some of his closest Senate colleagues, like Utah's Mike Lee, it also does collateral damage.
Cruz has been direct and effective in countering Rubio here. In the past I've suggested that candidates facing Hillary Clinton should talk about her leading role in advocating military intervention in Libya. Ted Cruz is already linking Marco Rubio to the disaster there — and to Democrats. "Senator Rubio enthusiastically supported Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in toppling the government in Libya," Cruz said, "The result was Libya became a lawless war zone governed by radical Islamic terrorists and that has profoundly endangered our national security."
Cruz's lines on these issues, like many of his lines, feel practiced. But practice makes perfect. And the more-in-sorrow tone of Cruz's criticism of Rubio is right on pitch, "We shouldn't engage in the kind of military adventurism that has characterized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and sadly, far too many establishment Republicans including Marco Rubio."
Cruz spokeswoman Alice Stewart was even more acid:
So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem," [The Guardian]
That's a devastating line of attack in the GOP primary.
And it has the virtue of being utterly true. Rubio is a candidate who embodies a Washington consensus that believes U.S. leaders, by virtue of their merit and good intentions, can positively reshape the body politic of just about any nation if we just ship enough firepower into moderate-enough rebels. At the same time this consensus holds that securing the border of our own country is a hopeless and immoral effort. Cruz is willing to call out Rubio in precisely these terms. It's glorious.
Until you remember that you are an irredeemable Cruz-hater. Like me.
It's kind of hilarious. I mean, Pelosi did say something on its face stupid, but at least when you sit down and read the entire bit it kind of makes sense and she had a point, not that anyone cares when someone who makes a gaffe might have had a point.
SB 571 is like, some kind of blatant message screaming "karma's a <bleep> ain't it" XD
Republicans added over 40 pages of new stuff to the bill, didn’t hold a single hearing, didn’t solicit any input from the public at all, and told their caucus members that there was nothing to worry about and that they should feel totally comfortable voting for it without reading the extra 41 pages of stuff.
Reminds me of the brinksmanship by Democrats behind Obamacare.
There is something deeply satisfying about remembering how bitterly Republicans complained about how the Democrats used budget reconciliation to get the ACA to the president's desk when the current focus of the thread is that Republicans have used budget reconciliation to get a repeal of the ACA to the president's desk. It's like a perfect circle made of poop.
Ouze wrote: There is something deeply satisfying about remembering how bitterly Republicans complained about how the Democrats used budget reconciliation to get the ACA to the president's desk when the current focus of the thread is that Republicans have used budget reconciliation to get a repeal of the ACA to the president's desk. It's like a perfect circle made of poop.
All poop is equal, but some poop is more equal than others.
And years later, millions of Americans have health care that didn't before. Not perfect but something is better than nothing.
I always thought it was funny that they added a bunch of stuff that the republicans put in a bill during Clinton's presidency when they thought he was going to try for single-payer then turned around and said the entire ACA was poo. Even funnier is that some of the stuff that they say they hate the most started as a republican idea. Kind of like common core, they all say that they hate it but they started it and pushed it up until someone with a D next to their name agreed with them.
agnosto wrote: And years later, millions of Americans have health care that didn't before. Not perfect but something is better than nothing.
I always thought it was funny that they added a bunch of stuff that the republicans put in a bill during Clinton's presidency when they thought he was going to try for single-payer then turned around and said the entire ACA was poo. Even funnier is that some of the stuff that they say they hate the most started as a republican idea. Kind of like common core, they all say that they hate it but they started it and pushed it up until someone with a D next to their name agreed with them.
What may be even more ironic is that we have a very good estimate of what it would have cost to impliment "Hilarycare" or "Clintoncare" (one of my recent text books stated that as first lady, Hilary strongly championed the healthcare thing at the time), and it is bucket-loads cheaper than ACA has been from its outset. (The irony being that, the things the Republicans originally wanted end up being more expensive than the "too expensive to pass" bill from a long time ago)
Yep. Like removing the mandate and NOT expecting healthcare costs to skyrocket. I know they expect the veto but at least pretend that you're doing your job.
The dems tried to make the bill bipartisan by adding in things that they thought would be acceptable to republicans but didn't count on being stonewalled so instead of a finished Bill that had been dealt on and fine tuned, we wound up with a hodge podge pos.
agnosto wrote: Eventually....I'm sure that comforts the people he would prefer to rob of healthcare today. So genius.
Um... the PPACA repeal would simply be that the enrollment in November wouldn't happen. It wouldn't *just* render the plans defunct if a repeal does goes through.
From what I can see... this repeal leaves in the more popular stuff, like:
-no insurance to deny on pre-existing conditions
-no lifetime maximum
-others...
This. is. stupid.
How do they actually expect things to work if they keep the stuff everyone loves, but takes out the part that actually funds it? I know, "Unfunded Liability!" that's how. It will make Medicare Part D look like a grade-school raffle.
And they say Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. By the maker!
Trump supporters sue Virginia over GOP loyalty pledge
RICHMOND — Three African American pastors who support Donald Trump filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday over a requirement that GOP primary voters sign a statement affirming that they are Republicans — a plan the presidential front-runner has condemned.
The plaintiffs say the loyalty pledge will discourage minority voters and those who are poor from casting ballots in Virginia, where voters do not register by party. Signing the vow will create long lines at the polls, imposes “the burden of fear and backlash” and amounts to a literacy test, according to the lawsuit.
The Virginia Republican Party recently decided voters who want to help choose the Republican presidential nominee must first sign a statement that says: “My signature below indicates I am a Republican.”
Virginia Beach attorney Chester Smith said his clients — Stephen A. Parson Sr., Bruce L. Waller Sr. and Leon Benjamin — are Richmond-area pastors who decline to say if they have supported Democrats in the past. The complaint was filed in Newport News, but it will be heard in Richmond, he said.
“I imagine they ascribe to a lot of the message that Donald Trump brings and . . . the idea of making the country great again and making values important again,” Smith said.
The lawsuit names the three members of Virginia’s Board of Elections as defendants because they finalized and will oversee the administration of the pledge at the polls. Martin Mash, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Elections, declined comment.
Trump brought the issue to national prominence last week when, in a series of tweets, he called the oath a “suicidal mistake” that would “disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!”
In a statement from Trump’s campaign, the celebrity billionaire said he had nothing to do with the lawsuit but that he supports the pastors’ cause.
“If they don’t stop excluding people, the party is doomed,” Trump said. Democratic presidential candidate “Hillary [Clinton] and the Democrats love this. The Republican Party in Virginia keeps losing. They really need to be smart and win for a change.”
The pledge could be particularly damaging to Trump, whose unorthodox candidacy has attracted voters disenchanted with traditional party politics, experts have said.
Trump’s criticism has exacerbated division within the state GOP, whose governing body voted for the pledge in September. Several activists who previously supported the pledge have since reversed their position and advised the party to withdraw it.
“It’s time to pull the plug on this disaster,” Russ Moulton, an influential conservative activist, said of the oath last week.
Despite recent attempts to impose a pledge in presidential primaries, the last one was instituted in 2000, according to party officials.
GOP officials declined to comment Wednesday on whether the public outcry and the lawsuit have caused them to reconsider.
Last week, John Findlay, executive director of the Virginia GOP, sent party officials talking points insisting that the pledge, which the party calls a “statement of affiliation,” is intended to prevent Democrats from choosing the party’s nominee.
“For reasons unknown to our Party at this time, Donald Trump has decided that this [is] an attack against his campaign,” he said in the email. “Let me be very clear, the statement of affiliation is not designed to favor or hurt any candidate whatsoever.”
The lawsuit, which was first reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, says the pledge violates the Voting Rights Act, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment and state law.
The pledge will cause long lines, the suit says, and poor people, who the lawsuit says are disproportionately black and Hispanic in Virginia, cannot afford to wait for hours to vote. The lawsuit also says the problems are exacerbated by Virginia’s history of slavery, poll taxes and school segregation.
Trump supporters sue Virginia over GOP loyalty pledge
RICHMOND — Three African American pastors who support Donald Trump filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday over a requirement that GOP primary voters sign a statement affirming that they are Republicans — a plan the presidential front-runner has condemned.
The plaintiffs say the loyalty pledge will discourage minority voters and those who are poor from casting ballots in Virginia, where voters do not register by party. Signing the vow will create long lines at the polls, imposes “the burden of fear and backlash” and amounts to a literacy test, according to the lawsuit.
The Virginia Republican Party recently decided voters who want to help choose the Republican presidential nominee must first sign a statement that says: “My signature below indicates I am a Republican.”
Virginia Beach attorney Chester Smith said his clients — Stephen A. Parson Sr., Bruce L. Waller Sr. and Leon Benjamin — are Richmond-area pastors who decline to say if they have supported Democrats in the past. The complaint was filed in Newport News, but it will be heard in Richmond, he said.
“I imagine they ascribe to a lot of the message that Donald Trump brings and . . . the idea of making the country great again and making values important again,” Smith said.
The lawsuit names the three members of Virginia’s Board of Elections as defendants because they finalized and will oversee the administration of the pledge at the polls. Martin Mash, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Elections, declined comment.
Trump brought the issue to national prominence last week when, in a series of tweets, he called the oath a “suicidal mistake” that would “disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!”
In a statement from Trump’s campaign, the celebrity billionaire said he had nothing to do with the lawsuit but that he supports the pastors’ cause.
“If they don’t stop excluding people, the party is doomed,” Trump said. Democratic presidential candidate “Hillary [Clinton] and the Democrats love this. The Republican Party in Virginia keeps losing. They really need to be smart and win for a change.”
The pledge could be particularly damaging to Trump, whose unorthodox candidacy has attracted voters disenchanted with traditional party politics, experts have said.
Trump’s criticism has exacerbated division within the state GOP, whose governing body voted for the pledge in September. Several activists who previously supported the pledge have since reversed their position and advised the party to withdraw it.
“It’s time to pull the plug on this disaster,” Russ Moulton, an influential conservative activist, said of the oath last week.
Despite recent attempts to impose a pledge in presidential primaries, the last one was instituted in 2000, according to party officials.
GOP officials declined to comment Wednesday on whether the public outcry and the lawsuit have caused them to reconsider.
Last week, John Findlay, executive director of the Virginia GOP, sent party officials talking points insisting that the pledge, which the party calls a “statement of affiliation,” is intended to prevent Democrats from choosing the party’s nominee.
“For reasons unknown to our Party at this time, Donald Trump has decided that this [is] an attack against his campaign,” he said in the email. “Let me be very clear, the statement of affiliation is not designed to favor or hurt any candidate whatsoever.”
The lawsuit, which was first reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, says the pledge violates the Voting Rights Act, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment and state law.
The pledge will cause long lines, the suit says, and poor people, who the lawsuit says are disproportionately black and Hispanic in Virginia, cannot afford to wait for hours to vote. The lawsuit also says the problems are exacerbated by Virginia’s history of slavery, poll taxes and school segregation.
The pastors will lose that lawsuit. The primary isn't public it belongs to the Republican Party and they can make whatever rules they want. It only affects registered Republicans and having a political affiliation isn't required for participation in the actual general election which is where the state and federal election laws are applicable.
And open primaries allow activists to influence a Party decision they have no intention of following through with.
Prestor Jon wrote: It only affects registered Republicans and having a political affiliation isn't required for participation in the actual general election which is where the state and federal election laws are applicable.
No, it also affects anyone who isn't registered as a Republican but still wants to vote for a Republican in the Primary.
He didn't even do an Oval Office speech defending the ACA before ceremoniously feeding the bill to a bald eagle? I thought that was the whole point, make him defend it.
d-usa wrote: He didn't even do an Oval Office speech defending the ACA before ceremoniously feeding the bill to a bald eagle? I thought that was the whole point, make him defend it.
That'll be something to see for sure...
What a failure by the GOP.
Nope. That's a success. It telegraphs the voters that had there been a Republican President, it would've been repealed.
Just wait for the tsunami of political ads about this...
Nope. That's a success. It telegraphs the voters that had there been a Republican President, it would've been repealed.
What does that actually accomplish? The only people who have a rabid enough hatred for Obamacare that they'll vote solely for whoever pledges to repeal it are the those who would vote Republican no matter what anyway.
If anything, all it shows is that the GOP continues to be out-of-touch. They shouldn't be catering to the deep-Republican base, they should be catering to the moderate and moderate-democrat crowd.
Nope. That's a success. It telegraphs the voters that had there been a Republican President, it would've been repealed.
What does that actually accomplish? The only people who have a rabid enough hatred for Obamacare that they'll vote solely for whoever pledges to repeal it are the those who would vote Republican no matter what anyway.
If anything, all it shows is that the GOP continues to be out-of-touch. They shouldn't be catering to the deep-Republican base, they should be catering to the moderate and moderate-democrat crowd.
Nah... this is good. It’s promising that the GOP House and Senate did this.
Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.
But given that shutdown theaters is unpopular across the political spectrum, this is a great precedent for them to follow one year from now with a Republican President. (as unlikely that to happen).
Nope. That's a success. It telegraphs the voters that had there been a Republican President, it would've been repealed.
What does that actually accomplish?
Gives the Republicans something to use in contested elections. It is useful in local as well as national campaigns. It also puts vulnerable Democrats on the spot in areas where the ACA is unpopular.
This is actually useful, unlike Ted Cruz's government shutdown stunt which pretty much backfired.
I agree. In modern elections the game is to motivate your base, and this Repeal thing gives a glimmer of hope tot eh base. it will motivate them to get out there. However, it might do the same to the Dems base as well.
It reminds me of the time they put Same-Sex Marriage Ban as a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in Minnesota in a non-election year. It motivated the R base to go out and vote, but it motivated the D and I base more and the R's were crushed. They lost both houses where they once had comfortable control of both, in an off election year too. Without the Amendment, i am pretty sure things would have been different since R's are more motivated in off year elections.
Easy E wrote: I agree. In modern elections the game is to motivate your base, and this Repeal thing gives a glimmer of hope tot eh base. it will motivate them to get out there. However, it might do the same to the Dems base as well.
It reminds me of the time they put Same-Sex Marriage Ban as a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in Minnesota in a non-election year. It motivated the R base to go out and vote, but it motivated the D and I base more and the R's were crushed. They lost both houses where they once had comfortable control of both, in an off election year too. Without the Amendment, i am pretty sure things would have been different since R's are more motivated in off year elections.
The knife cuts both ways. The dems can say, "They want to take your healthcare away!"
Easy E wrote: I agree. In modern elections the game is to motivate your base, and this Repeal thing gives a glimmer of hope tot eh base. it will motivate them to get out there. However, it might do the same to the Dems base as well.
It reminds me of the time they put Same-Sex Marriage Ban as a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in Minnesota in a non-election year. It motivated the R base to go out and vote, but it motivated the D and I base more and the R's were crushed. They lost both houses where they once had comfortable control of both, in an off election year too. Without the Amendment, i am pretty sure things would have been different since R's are more motivated in off year elections.
The knife cuts both ways. The dems can say, "They want to take your healthcare away!"
Well.......does that mean more Bills are going across Obama desk that he either veto's or signed. Republican House and Senate are going to try to put more Bills on his desk then the Harry Reid? I think I remember that Ryan said something about more Bills on Obama desk then Harry Reid, even the ones Reid had on his desk collecting dust?
Jihadin wrote: Well.......does that mean more Bills are going across Obama desk that he either veto's or signed. Republican House and Senate are going to try to put more Bills on his desk then the Harry Reid? I think I remember that Ryan said something about more Bills on Obama desk then Harry Reid, even the ones Reid had on his desk collecting dust?
Ryan plans do do what the Republicans did to Clinton in his last term. Push a bunch of legislation favored by the Republican base as well as moderate/undecided voters and let the President either veto them (campaign issue) or pass them (huzzah! we win). This is how Clinton would up with a balanced budget and welfare reform.
It's funny because the Republican Party of Virginia tried to do this before a primary in 2011 but scrapped it after they got serious backlash. I wouldn't be surprised if they renege on this, too.
This is the same guy who is also under fire over the lead poisoning in the water right ?
Yes, the same guy.
He switched Flint, Mi's water from the Detroit river to the Flint river. Then he switched it back when it was proven that led levels had skyrocketed. But damage was done and the pipes are ruined.
As someone who works for a library in Michigan, this frightens me and infuriates me.
He is limiting the access to information and the ability for people to educate themselves on matters that affect them and that they can vote on. He is making it so that a librarian, and library, could face legal repercussions for providing information to the tax paying public about what is on the ballot. The people pay for us to be there to help them access all the tools/information they need to understand certain subjects better.
A thought occurred to me today. The whole point of that Republican pledge to support whomever the party nominates was basically to keep Trump in line, to prevent him from spinning off into a 3rd party candidacy when he inevitably doesn't get the nomination, thus splitting the Republican vote. But...what if it goes the other way? What if Trump actually does win the nomination? Can you just imagine Rubio, Jeb, and others being forced to publicly support Trump?
