Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jesus guys...

Marco has just destroyed Trump and really REALLY got under his skin.

As far as I'm concerned, this race has been reset with Rubio/Cruz vs Trump.

That was impressive.

Indeed, Rubio is seriously one of the better extemporaneous speaker than I've ever seen. There’s no “Uhhhhh,” “I dunnoknow,” or “Ummmmm…”

@sebster... I'll respond, but my neurons ain't firing much and I need my full attention. Maybe tomorrow.

 whembly wrote:
Jesus guys...

Marco has just destroyed Trump and really REALLY got under his skin.

As far as I'm concerned, this race has been reset with Rubio/Cruz vs Trump.

That was impressive.

The "debate" on the whole is still pretty damn pathetic. I don't think those of us who lean left have much to worry about, especially after the kind of childish shenanigans we're seeing tonight.


I will applaud Rubio's comments regarding where Trump's clothing line is made... Donny sniped back with "that's a nice sound bite" and Rubio kept up with "well, it's the truth"

Rubio did have a few pretty good zingers, but didn't exactly make himself look good in the process. Kasich seemed like the only adult on the stage, other than Carson who once again looked like he was up past his bedtime. At this point I'm not really sure it will help Rubio though. As we have seen before, nothing stupid Trump says or does really will sway his supporters. They are like a cult and attacking their guy only seems to make them more rabid. Rubio would really need to expand his own voter pool to catch up to Trump and I'm not sure there is enough water in the pool to help him overtake Trump at this point. Even if Cruz gets out right now (which he won't anytime soon as he will likely win TX on Tuesday), I would guess a majority of his supporters go to Trump, not Rubio. I guess we will find out on Tuesday, but I would bet Rubio's only shot at a state on Tuesday will be Virginia. Granted, the primaries are still proportional at this point, and narrowing the margin will help with delegate count, but if Rubio can't win more than one state on Tuesday, look for Florida to be even more out of reach for Rubio than now due to the media narrative.

One thing I did get a chuckle out of was Rubio's comment about how if Trump hadn't inherited a fortune, he would be selling cheap watches in New York. On Rubio's website, he is offering broken "Trump watches" for donations for $10.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The "debate" on the whole is still pretty damn pathetic.

As summed up by this one screen capture:

 whembly wrote:

If Trump's the nominee... then the Democrat constituents have already won.

Who you gunna vote for? A Democrat-Populist or a Democrat-EveryOneHates?

You're going to try and reskin the RINO argument? Really?

 whembly wrote:

Okay. Here's a challenge. Point out the next factually wrong thing I post. I'll either walk it back, or counter-challenge you on the basis of such 'facts' you posted.

We'll keep a tally... shall we?

You're starting with 'facts'? That, in and of itself, implies deflection.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
As we have seen before, nothing stupid Trump says or does really will sway his supporters. They are like a cult and attacking their guy only seems to make them more rabid.

There’s an old line in politics that if you’re going to attack, attack early before the electorate has made it’s mind up about someone. If voters have already decided they like someone, the attacks are only going to make them turn on you. The Republican field missed the boat on Trump, they needed to attack him last year – I still think back to Christie ignoring his claim about NJ muslims – that was the real moment to call Trump on his bs. But he let it slide.

Anyhow, I agree that the 30 something percent of voters that for Trump will probably be there to the end, no matter how witty Rubio’s script writers are. But maybe they can stop that number growing – it gets up much higher and this primary is done.

Or will it possibly just help isolate Trump from the rest of the field? That might put pressure on the remaining candidates to drop out, and on the base to focus behind either Rubio or Cruz, to put up one alternative to Trump.

 dogma wrote:
You're going to try and reskin the RINO argument? Really?

It took until 2006 for Republicans to start trying to dump Bush on Democrats. Trump's achieved it before he's even reached the general election. That goes to show how much faster things work when you've got a businessman at the helm.

If Trump is a closet Democrat and RINO, how come he is so popular with a hard core of Republican voters?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Trump is a closet Democrat and RINO, how come he is so popular with a hard core of Republican voters?

Populist rhetoric?

Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?

Trump isn't really popular because of his policies.

He's popular because he's "TV-Trump" and is perceived as an outsider.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If Trump's the nominee... then the Democrat constituents have already won.

Who you gunna vote for? A Democrat-Populist or a Democrat-EveryOneHates?

You're going to try and reskin the RINO argument? Really?

Yeah... he may be a recent "convert", but based on his pre-campaign record he'd definitely be a RINO.

I heard on the radio this morning that Lindsey Graham was at some event last night and said something awesome:
For me "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you."
And for Whembly "The most dishonest person in America is a woman who is about to be president. How could that be? My party has gone batsh** crazy."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?

I never said left-wing. I said populist. Or were you directing that to someone else?

Trump's picking up +30% in the polls because the Republicans (in general) haven't been keeping their campaign promises. Before Ryan became Speaker, there was a sense (right or wrong) that the Republicans couldn't get anything passed so why even try? It was that seeming lack of effort that hacked off the grass roots voters. There is also the perception that voters gave Republicans control of Congress but still very little is happening regarding what the voters were promised. Yes, they know the President will veto it all but the Republicans look like they aren't trying very hard in the first place. Donald Trump has tapped into this frustration and given it voice. The Republican candidates are regurgitating the same old tired rhetoric. Is it really any wonder Trump is so far ahead in polling?

Then there's the issue that you have to be FOR something in order to win. You can't just be against President Obama or Obamacare or Immigration and expect that to carry you across the finish line. Like it or not, Trump is out there effectively saying 'I will do these things' and the other candidates are out there effectively saying 'elect me because Obama and Hillary are bad'.

It's almost like this current batch of Republican candidates just don't know how to inspire people.

I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.

I haven't been watching the debates lately. Have any of the candidates given an indication of how they'll handle foreign affairs such as Russian expansion, ISIS, the Kurds, North Africa, Chinese activity in disputed waters, etc? Have any put forward an outline of how to put the economy back on track?

 sebster wrote:
You had claimed that Obama was unique in being unable to pass a law with support from the other side.

Please don't attribute statements to me that I did not write.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?

I never said left-wing. I said populist. Or were you directing that to someone else?

Trump's picking up +30% in the polls because the Republicans (in general) haven't been keeping their campaign promises. Before Ryan became Speaker, there was a sense (right or wrong) that the
…
...
It's almost like this current batch of Republican candidates just don't know how to inspire people.

Whembly said Trump is democrat-populist. I know that the Democrat party is what passes for left-wing in the US.

Obviously Trump’s main asset is high media exposure from being on The Apprentice. Presumably people have confused that with being competent.

It still seems impossible that 30+ percent of Republican party members apparently see him as a credible candidate for president. Don’t people think about how their candidate will play with the wider electorate, or is it just that someone has to win however bad the field might be, so you might as well pick someone you like? And what does that say about people who like Trump?

The R's really are going to miss Obama when he's gone, they basically ran on "stop Obama" for the last 6 years.

I feel sorry for the republican voters with this lot. Rubio is about the only decent one with a chance, and the other two are maniacs. Trump is, well, trump, and Crus is just as bad, but in a different way. "The only thing worse than a stupid donkey-cave is a clever one." about sums up by opinion on Cruz.

 Breotan wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.

I haven't been watching the debates lately. Have any of the candidates given an indication of how they'll handle foreign affairs such as Russian expansion, ISIS, the Kurds, North Africa, Chinese activity in disputed waters, etc? Have any put forward an outline of how to put the economy back on track.

So far, I've only seen two things to answer that.
1. They're going to tear up every agreement/deal Obama made (all on Day One, too).
2. They're going to rely on America being so fething awesome that the rest of the world will just kneel before us and give us whatever we demand.

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You had claimed that Obama was unique in being unable to pass a law with support from the other side.

Please don't attribute statements to me that I did not write.

"Over the course of seven years, President Obama seems to be uniquely unwilling to reach out across the isle for virtually anything. Harry Reid really isn't helping the situation, either."

You can quibble over some details if you want, but please don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?

It turns out that some of the sacred cows of Republican leadership. Trump said he wouldn't cut Social Security - and the GOP leadership expected Trump to drop off in the polls. Bill Kristol said he was sacrificing the primary to win in the general. But Trump's numbers went up. TUrns out that cutting social security, a sacred cause of the party elite, isn't actually a vote winner on the ground.

Trump dared challenge the party position on Iraq - he said people were misled by Bush in to supporting that war. You just aren't supposed to be able to question the party position but... nothing happened to Trump's numbers.

The GOP has over the course of it's very strange last 25 years become a party fixated on loyalty and unquestioning observance of very specific political points. Without any kind of real internal debate they seemed to have just assumed all their positions were very popular, and managed to miss any sign to the alternative. Grover Norquist got almost every Republican member of congress to sign his no tax pledge, but when the Bush tax cuts were rolled back in part in a deal with Obama and the Democrats, the Republican base reacted with... nothing. Whether the base agreed to restore higher taxes on the very rich or just weren't that bothered we don't know, but we certainly could see that a sacred cow of the Republican leadership had nothing like the same importance among the base.

The Southern Democrats used to fill a certain place in US politics, overtly racist, but also in favour of the New Deal. They're now pretty gone from the scene, but I don't think anyone would honestly expect that every single person who was racist and supported a social safety net simply disappeared. Trump has found those people.

Well, he's found at least 30% of the Republican base seems to hold to those ideas. Probably there's a % of the Democratic base that also think similarly. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, we'll get to find out.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... he may be a recent "convert", but based on his pre-campaign record he'd definitely be a RINO.

What do you consider a Republican, not in name only, to be?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I heard on the radio this morning that Lindsey Graham was at some event last night and said something awesome:
For me "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you."

Graham is an donkey-cave. But, he's prolly right.

And for Whembly "The most dishonest person in America is a woman who is about to be president. How could that be? My party has gone batsh** crazy."

He ain't wrong there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.

I haven't been watching the debates lately. Have any of the candidates given an indication of how they'll handle foreign affairs such as Russian expansion, ISIS, the Kurds, North Africa, Chinese activity in disputed waters, etc? Have any put forward an outline of how to put the economy back on track?

Rubio has... but, I don't like it. He's a neocon Bushivite with regards to Foreign Policy.

Cruz is still agressive, but much more reserved and deliberate than Rubio.

I'll see if I can dig some info up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The R's really are going to miss Obama when he's gone, they basically ran on "stop Obama" for the last 6 years.

I feel sorry for the republican voters with this lot. Rubio is about the only decent one with a chance, and the other two are maniacs. Trump is, well, trump, and Crus is just as bad, but in a different way. "The only thing worse than a stupid donkey-cave is a clever one." about sums up by opinion on Cruz.

Don't worry... Hillary Clinton will take over that spot.

I think all of the people disparaging Trump's not insubstantial base as "cultlike" or "racists" are missing the bigger picture. Trump is touting a nationalist populist platform that appeals to a broader base than just the traditional Republican "conservative".

Republicans have traditionally formed a coalition between cultural conservatives and business interests. Their plank has varied on international interventionism. While traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist and disfavor international interventionism and military action as it tends to be very expensive, the so called neo-conservatives tend to take an interventionist approach and favor military solutions. They also don't mind the large expenditures that drive tradition economic conservatives nuts. Likewise, many of the newer Republicans are in the camp of business interests who favor softer immigration enforcement and globalization, much to the anger of cultural conservatives and nativists.

Currently, economic concerns and domestic terror/safety issues seem to be larger issues to those who identify as Republicans. They are largely dissatisfied with the current party leadership who seem to be ineffective in articulating and achieving goals consistent with these issues. The so Tea Party movement was the first salvo in this conflict, but most who rode what little success that movement could muster were either quickly incorporated into the current structure and viewed as a sell out (Rubio), or became uncooperative obstructionists pushing a gambit that ultimately proved costly to the party (Cruz).

Trump offers credentials as an outsider and his bombastic style appeals to those who want to shake up the current structure. His business background appeals to Republicans not looking for another career politician. Since national politics is largely style over substance and he is riding an anti-establishment horse, his lack of political experience and unworkable stances don't really count against him all that much. Ironically, it is a lot of the same momentum that is driving Bernie Sanders campaign, just from a different angle.

In another bit of irony, Bernie's views are much more in line with those of the corporate entertainment media (and less directly confrontational), so he doesn't earn the same level of ire. Even the legitimate critiques of Trump seem unable to disengage from comparisons to Hitler and similar hyperbole. Which, of course, only serves to strengthen him with much of his base who view it as attacks by the "establishment" and provides fodder for his populist appeal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The R's really are going to miss Obama when he's gone, they basically ran on "stop Obama" for the last 6 years.

I feel sorry for the republican voters with this lot. Rubio is about the only decent one with a chance, and the other two are maniacs. Trump is, well, trump, and Crus is just as bad, but in a different way. "The only thing worse than a stupid donkey-cave is a clever one." about sums up by opinion on Cruz.

Sorry to say this, but I am very disappointed in you

Of all the people on Dakka, I thought you would be somebody to appreciate the comedy potential of President Trump in the same room as President Putin


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
I think all of the people disparaging Trump's not insubstantial base as "cultlike" or "racists" are missing the bigger picture. Trump is touting a nationalist populist platform that appeals to a broader base than just the traditional Republican "conservative".

Republicans have traditionally formed a coalition between cultural conservatives and business interests. Their plank has varied on international interventionism. While traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist and disfavor international interventionism and military action as it tends to be very expensive, the so called neo-conservatives tend to take an interventionist approach and favor military solutions. They also don't mind the large expenditures that drive tradition economic conservatives nuts. Likewise, many of the newer Republicans are in the camp of business interests who favor softer immigration enforcement and globalization, much to the anger of cultural conservatives and nativists.

Currently, economic concerns and domestic terror/safety issues seem to be larger issues to those who identify as Republicans. They are largely dissatisfied with the current party leadership who seem to be ineffective in articulating and achieving goals consistent with these issues. The so Tea Party movement was the first salvo in this conflict, but most who rode what little success that movement could muster were either quickly incorporated into the current structure and viewed as a sell out (Rubio), or became uncooperative obstructionists pushing a gambit that ultimately proved costly to the party (Cruz).

Trump offers credentials as an outsider and his bombastic style appeals to those who want to shake up the current structure. His business background appeals to Republicans not looking for another career politician. Since national politics is largely style over substance and he is riding an anti-establishment horse, his lack of political experience and unworkable stances don't really count against him all that much. Ironically, it is a lot of the same momentum that is driving Bernie Sanders campaign, just from a different angle.

In another bit of irony, Bernie's views are much more in line with those of the corporate entertainment media (and less directly confrontational), so he doesn't earn the same level of ire. Even the legitimate critiques of Trump seem unable to disengage from comparisons to Hitler and similar hyperbole. Which, of course, only serves to strengthen him with much of his base who view it as attacks by the "establishment" and provides fodder for his populist appeal.

Disagree with this. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin - they have more in common with each other than they'd care to admit.

Both are outsiders. Both are loathed by the more mainstream elements of their respective parties, and both appeal to the left behind who want to strike a blow against corporate interests and a system of elites who have nothing in common with ordinary Americans.

That's why their respective populism is winning votes.

Biggest exchange between Rubio and Trump:


I'd be like:

Now we know why Christie didn't knock Trump for the Muslims in NJ thing:
Christie just endorsed Trump.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Now we know why Christie didn't knock Trump for the Muslims in NJ thing:
Christie just endorsed Trump.

Okay guys... Trump/Christie is truly the GOP's "Clown Show".

 jmurph wrote:
Since national politics is largely style over substance and he is riding an anti-establishment horse, his lack of political experience and unworkable stances don't really count against him all that much.

National politics in the media focuses on style over substance, especially during election season. When it comes to actual work, politicians still need the substance to do anything. If you look at the schedules of the presidents, a vast majority of their time is spent with substance, not style. It may seem like Obama is constantly in front of the cameras because that is all we largely ever see because that is what television demands. In reality, most of a Presidents' Day is filled with meetings with policy advisors, planners, other politicians security briefers, etc., not in front of cameras. The problem with Trump is he has none of the substance at all. He has no actual plans other than slogans that are ridiculous "we will build a big wall and make Mexico pay for it". Mexico won't pay. "The wall just got ten feet taller". We will "win so much you will get sick of winning". The list goes on. When asked how he will do any of this, he has no answer, he just says "Believe me". Other than a tax plan, which the CBO has said will increase our deficit tremendously and lower our revenue because it is a cut across the board, he has given absolutely no details on how any of his bumper stickers will actually work. People knocked Obama for the "hope and change" bumper sticker, which the words themselves were. But Obama actually had specific plans with details on his website during the election on what he wanted to do. Obamacare was spelled out there, the actual plan, not just the slogan. Clinton has her plans on her website, Bush did before he dropped, Romney did when he ran, Cruz does. Trump has slogans and ugly hats. The reason I called his followers a cult is because cultist demand no evidence for their allegiance, they accept what their leader says blindly. And when someone challenges their belief, instead of questioning it and looking for answers, they double down on the platitudes. That is what Trump voters do. They are a cult.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant national *election* politics. Once the election is over, the party ends and the hangover and the buyer's remorse sets in :-)

Anyway, I am awaiting Trump's pick for VP. Hoping for a wrestler and a Brawndo endorsement.

I knew cruz looked like a serial killer

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-ted-cruz-the-zodiac-killer-maybe-say-38-percent-of-florida-voters-20160226

More interestingly, there seems to be a robust Sunshine State debate over whether Ted Cruz is the infamous Zodiac Killer. Asked, point blank, "Do you think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, or not?" ten percent of voters said they think he is, and 28 percent said they were not sure. About two-thirds of voters expressed confidence that the Texas senator is not the serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the Sixties and Seventies, killing as many as 37 people.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-ted-cruz-the-zodiac-killer-maybe-say-38-percent-of-florida-voters-20160226#ixzz41JppUsKm
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Yes, but is that a commentary about Cruz? Or about Florida?