The Case Against Marco Rubio And For Ted Cruz

meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

It’s easy to pick Ted Cruz if the choices are, well, everyone else still running for the GOP nomination. As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate, I will focus on why conservatives should pick Cruz over Marco Rubio.

First, let me say it if it isn’t clear…if I were a Republican who could vote in a GOP primary, I’d vote Cruz. He’s not my first choice, in fact he’s my 5th of this cycle, but here we are.

It’s Not Just Amnesty
The easy knock on Rubio is his flip-flop-flip from 2010. At that time he ran against “comprehensive immigration reform” with a pathway to citizenship and then embraced it when Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama came courting him. Now he still supports amnesty (by his own 2010 definition) but swears this time he’s all about security first (which was very different than what he said in 2013). If you believe this latest iteration, well sometimes hope triumphs over experience.

But it’s not just amnesty. Rubio is a big-government “compassionate conservative” who is very fond of using the tax code to push society in directions he likes. I would never say he’s not a conservative but it’s not a brand of conservatism I adhere to. We’ve tried his approach before and government expanded and expanded.

On ObamaCare he’s once again shown his big government instincts. Is the approach he’s outlined better than what we have now? Yes. Could there be a lower bar? I doubt it. Bobby Jindal, one of the GOP’s leading health care figures, called Rubio’s approach of turning health insurance into a new government entitlement, “ObamaCare lite”. Yes, Jindal has subsequently endorsed Rubio but his critique still stands.

On foreign policy, if you think someone who supported the war in Libya and thinks we need to remove Assad (and deal with the US occupation that would be required) is the man to lead the nation, then Rubio is for you. If you think we’ve learned or should have learned something from multiple wars in the Muslim world over the last 15 years, then you should look elsewhere.

The Establishment
Rubio supporters will say it’s laughable that Rubio is part of “The Establishment” (however you chose to define it). For purposes of this post, I will concede only an insane, crazy person would think such a thing about Rubio.

When pressed on why he’s not a member of “The Establishment”, Rubio points to his race against Charlie Crist and not waiting his turn to run for President. Notably absent from this defense and any offer of proof I’ve ever seen are actual policy objections. The only disagreement I’ve seen anyone suggest there is between him and “The Establishment” is on how quickly Marco Rubio should rise to the top. There’s no suggestion of any major philosophical disagreements on substantive issues, just on where in line Rubio should be. Sure he’s more conservative than “The Establishment” on things like guns and abortion. So was…George W. Bush. Do you want to argue he’s not an “establishment” figure?

Is Rubio "The Establishment's" first choice? No. Jeb is next in line. Are members of "The Establishment" comfortable with him as a second choice? I'd say it seems so. Is there any doubt that in a Rubio-Cruz showdown "The Establishment" would go with Rubio? So, yeah.

Yes, Rubio supporters can trot out his Heritage Action score but that only shows he goes along, not that he’s going to lead anywhere. They simply can't show a single time he's bucked the party, not just with a vote but by publicly putting his neck on the line. I simply don't believe that when push comes to shove a President Rubio will be any more forceful in breaking up the consensus than Senator Rubio has been.


The reasons to support Ted Cruz

As I said, Cruz was not my first choice by a long-shot but here we are.

His past support for significantly higher legal immigration levels, his lack of details on an ObamaCare replacement and my general preference for governors give me pause. But assuming he doesn’t come up with a Rubio-like ObamaCare replacement plan, I’m willing to take the chance. And ultimately every vote is an act of faith informed by past behavior.

I am however heartened by his lack of enthusiasm for remaking the Mideast into some sort of liberty oriented paradise. It's not happening and I'm not willing to see thousands of Americans killed or wounded trying to prove a failed point.

Mostly it’s Cruz’s “behavior” that is the line of attack many of his detractors focus on. It’s something I like a lot.

Cruz is a bastard, of that I have no doubt. But he’s our bastard. He fights the fights I want fought. Has he won many of these fights? No. Does that matter to me? No.
He’s a single freshman Senator swimming against the tide of his party. How exactly was he supposed to win? What he has spent his time in the Senate doing is preparing the battlefield. He’s laid down markers forcing people to take sides and identifying the terms of the battle.

I understand why this alone isn’t enough for people to vote for him but the reality is if you want someone to change DC and the direction of the country, you have to elect someone who has shown they understand that there’s a problem, someone who has shown a willingness to point at people in his own “leadership” and say, “they have no clothes”.

Cruz’s detractors will say that he can’t get along and make deals. I say, good. Yes, deals will have to be made but too often the deals that are made are being made by people who agree on too much to begin with. I want a guy like Cruz who isn’t buying into the basic assumptions of DC and the permanent government class. I want a guy who sees himself as representing a group of people opposed to many of the bi-partisan, political class assumptions that underlie so much of what happens in DC.

Cruz opponents have claimed there’s so much bad blood between him and the GOP leadership in Congress he’ll never get what he wants. This argument amuses me to no end. After years of rolling over for Harry Reid and Barack Obama, the Republicans in Congress are finally going to find their spine by opposing…a President Cruz? That’s says more about Republicans in Congress and their supposed conservatism than it does Ted Cruz. And if you’re telling me this means a Republican President might veto a bloated spending bill passed by a Republican Congress, I say, “Bring it on!”

And when it comes to the ability to move legislation, the only example we have for Rubio was a disaster and one he's walked away from. That doesn't fill me with confidence for a potential President Rubio.

“But it’s an act!”, they’ll say. “Cruz’s resume is as conventional as they come!”

So?

I don’t mind a guy pretending to be with me in spirit (if that's what's going on and I'm not saying it is) as long as he’s with me in action. If we’ve learned nothing else about Ted Cruz it’s that he’s very protective of his political brand and that brand isn’t “go along to get along”.

Will a President Cruz disappoint me and other conservatives? Sure. Will he have to deal with the reality that Presidents have to accept some lousy things to keep the machine working? Sure. And will events ultimately intrude on the fine theories of a campaign in ways we can’t imagine and won’t like? Absolutely.

But as we’re repeatedly told, there are no perfect candidates and you have to take the good with the bad. On balance, there’s far more good with Ted Cruz and the potential for more than with anyone else currently on offer.

Cruz 2016!

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:45 AM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 If you refuse to consider Trump as a serious candidate worth talking about, why should the people who consider Trump as serious as any other candidate care at all what you have to say? By dismissing him so out-of-hand you dismiss the judgement of his supporters and their reasons for supporting him. So you come across like just another judgemental-knowitall-prick (sorry, that's the technical term) instead of engaging people.

Posted by: major major major major at February 09, 2016 10:48 AM (BI/k4)

2 OT: If you want to keep your breakfast down, do not click on Drudge. Horrifying picture that can not be unseen.

Posted by: Cheri at February 09, 2016 10:49 AM (oiNtH)

3 As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate
***************
Seriously, go fuck yourself Drew.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 09, 2016 10:49 AM (qHgBB)

4 Neither are natural born citizens -- both Cubans who pretend to be Americans and with Cruz hails from Canada, too. Only gave up his Canadian citizenship right before he ran for Senator. Please look very carefully into Cruz's background. You will find his wife comes from Goldman Sachs and helped write the report on the All American continent, disappearing American borders. Cruz has had many tricky, smarmy votes in the Senate. Look below the surface. New World Order in conservative-wolf's clothes.

Posted by: pyromancer76 at February 09, 2016 10:50 AM (sPfLU)

5 Welcome to the party Drew.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 10:51 AM (gmeXX)

6 You'll get Rubio and like it.

Don't forget to donate.

Posted by: GOP Big Money Donors at February 09, 2016 10:51 AM (MJuTN)

7 Here - let me help get the fire started...

As it stands today (and for the less educated, this means my intentions are not solidified), if neither Cruz or Trump are nominated, I intend to write-in Trump in the general.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at February 09, 2016 10:51 AM (4ng05)

8 All this time posting and Drew still hasn't figured out the quote thing.

I'm looking for a Republican candidate who can keep Hillary and Bernie and whoever the Dems shove into final nominee spot out of the White House. That's the bottom line. Trump can do it, Cruz can't.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 10:53 AM (JBggj)

9 Yup. this here thread is gonna get ugly.

*puts Cloak of Lurking back on*

Posted by: Pug Mahon at February 09, 2016 10:54 AM (RwwCT)

10 Trump came in a close second in Iowa, he'll likely win NH and SC, but he's not a serious candidate? Are you stupid?

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 09, 2016 10:55 AM (qHgBB)

11 THUNDERDOME!

Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commentor with equal or greater value at February 09, 2016 10:55 AM (evdj2)

12 Let me first say that I dislike Trump a bunch, but why would you start a post that's trying to advocate for a certain candidate by indirectly insulting another candidates supporters? In undermines your whole argument and pisses people off.

Posted by: Nonapod at February 09, 2016 10:56 AM (CLP9I)

13 Trump can do it, Cruz can't.

------------

You have no way of knowing that. And neither do I, nor anyone else. But you can easily make an argument that Trump is way more unelectable than Cruz. I can say that from my own first hand experience. I am not voting Trump - because I am not going to vote for someone as liberal as him.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 10:56 AM (gmeXX)

14 #1 times a fucking million

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 09, 2016 10:57 AM (QPdNE)

15 Trump can do it, Cruz can't.
*****************

I honestly don't get this line of thinking either. Out of all the GOP candidates, Cruz has the highest favorability ratings I believe, rebuffing the notion that he's unlikeable and therefore unelectable. He may not have the best charisma but I really think he's far more electable than people give him credit for.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 09, 2016 10:57 AM (qHgBB)

16 Whoa! Black diamond course!
Wish I was an ortho dr.!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 10:58 AM (Y42RP)

17
That picture on drudge looks like it was taken seconds after-


Hillary! finally decided she'd have to go down on Bill to get his help campaigning.


Posted by: naturalfake at February 09, 2016 10:58 AM (0cMkb)

18 He may not have the best charisma but I really think he's far more electable than people give him credit for.

--------------

May I remind everyone that we are running against Hillary - who has no political talent.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 10:58 AM (gmeXX)

19 Posted by: Burn It Down at February 09, 2016 10:57 AM (qHgBB)

If I could hold my nose and vote for McCain, and do it again for Romney, I shouldn't have a problem taking a deep cleansing breath and voting for Cruz.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:00 AM (wYnyS)

20 Let me tell you who I believe is a serious candidate irrespective of poll standing (which is somewhat synonymous popularity) with then whittle down the choices to whom I believe is worthy.

Kind of sophistic, illogical and intellectually inconsistent- don't you think?

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:00 AM (GGCsk)

21 He may not have the best charisma but I really think he's far more electable than people give him credit for.

--------------

May I remind everyone that we are running against Hillary - who has no political talent.
Posted by: SH



But she has a fraud machine that is hard to beat.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:00 AM (Y42RP)

22 I can't wait to vote for Trump.

Posted by: rightwingva at February 09, 2016 11:00 AM (12N38)

23 But she has a fraud machine that is hard to beat.

----------

Then let's just pack our bags and go home.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:00 AM (gmeXX)

24 I'm just happy that Cruz was not close to being DrewM's first choice. It makes me not to have to question my support.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:01 AM (AEEhl)

25 Drew, insulting the folks who support Trump is a poor way to start an essay.

Posted by: eman at February 09, 2016 11:01 AM (MQEz6)

26 Big Sugar

Posted by: tmitsss at February 09, 2016 11:01 AM (Lx18F)

27 Even Conservative Review gives Rubio a 79% (one point below Sessions).

Yes, I know the Saintly Cruz gets a 97%. But it's not like we're dealing with a conservative anathema.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (GGCsk)

28 It would hardly matter who's president or in congress if the voters took their role seriously. You don't just vote every couple years --- you tell your idiot representatives how THEY should vote!! We act like we're helpless victims of circumstance here.

Posted by: jd at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (MTWhU)

29 Cruz is a bastard, of that I have no doubt. But hes our bastard. He fights the fights I want fought. Has he won many of these fights? No. Does that matter to me? No.

This whole thing is trolling, right?

Posted by: Lea at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (lIU4e)

30 I fathered a bunch of kids on my mail route. Don't like John? I got 36 more sons.

Posted by: Kasich's Dad at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (u0o1v)

31 May I remind everyone that we are running against Hillary - who has no political talent.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 10:58 AM (gmeXX)

Actually, I think we should be running not against Hillary specifically, but rather against the totalitarian uber-state the Progressives have in mind for us. Never forget that "Freedom from freedom!" is really their motto!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:03 AM (wYnyS)

32 "Can I hump your leg?"
No!
"Oh, but you see, I look like a dog, but I identify as a shin guard!" --humps leg.


Go watch that insult dog video from the sidebar.
Tis funny, it is.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 09, 2016 11:03 AM (kKHcp)

33 Cruz isn't "your bastard"

He winds up doing what the GOP asks, all the while loudly yelling the opposite stance.

Whatever, sorry to dump on your boyfriend I guess.

Posted by: Bigby's Fistful of Dice at February 09, 2016 11:03 AM (3IsdE)

34 Go Cruz!

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (VAsIq)

35 Drew, insulting the folks who support Trump is a poor way to start an essay.

That might be true, but it will draw a lot of comments which will provoke even more comments.

It's those New York Values; eff this, eff that, and eff U2. Those effers don't know effing music.

Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (uvzBK)

36 And then the fight started...

Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (kTF2Z)

37 I picture "Cruz is better than Rubio" essays being written as Trump is taking the oath of Office.

Posted by: eman at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (MQEz6)

38 I might add, that if black diamonds were worth as much as the clear or blue diamonds, Ace would be rich.


That must say something about our racist society.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (kKHcp)

39 Cruz is unelectable.

While I think he would make a good president, and I would vote for him, his personality (and his looks to some extent) alienates a lot of people.

If you really want an outsider who has a shot at winning, I would go with Trump and let the chaos begin!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (so+oy)

40 Rubio...you could have stopped at the illegal alien issue. That is the big issue to me, because it effects so many other problems; crime, government spending, the rule of law, car insurance, property taxes, cost of health care, schools, voter fraud, and national security.

If all Donald Trump did was enforce the current laws, all those other issues would improve, which would make him a better President than the last two Bush's.

Of course I still choose Cruz, but Trump is also acceptable if he keeps strong on the enforcement of our borders.

Posted by: Dogbert at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (DE7CU)

41 As with any other campaign to diminish an opponent, Cruz's detractors have thrown out the unlikable , no charisma meme repeatedly and unfortunately it has stuck. Perception is stronger than the truth in this case.



Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (AEEhl)

42 We act like we're helpless victims of circumstance here.


Posted by: jd at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (MTWhU)


Yeah, I know the two Dem Senators gifted to Virginia by the complicit GOP Establishment don't make a move until they've thoroughly read my emails and responded to me personally!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (wYnyS)

43 Even though I know the leading candidate by far is mostly underwritten by the plebes and the forlorn, let me tell you who smart people will vote for.

Honestly, do you really believe people will take you serious? I'm not even a big Trump supporter, but that's probably the "stoopidist", intellectually challenged piece I've every read.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (GGCsk)

44 his personality (and his looks to some extent) alienates a lot of people.

----------

Same here, though I did win the largest electoral landslide in history.

Posted by: Zombie Nixon at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (gmeXX)

45 It's those New York Values; eff this, eff that, and eff U2. Those effers don't know effing music.
Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (uvzBK)

Well if we're talking NY/NJ...it's more of a "Fuckin AAAA" while you grab your crotch.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (mw8Dm)

46 It would hardly matter who's president or in congress if the voters took their role seriously.

You don't just vote every couple years --- you tell your idiot representatives how THEY should vote!!


We have. They aren't listening!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:06 AM (Y42RP)

47 No hate for Trump here. He's made Ted Cruz look completely sane. I do prefer Cruz, but I'd bet Trump more likely to achieve the goals that might give the middle class of this country some hope for a better future -- not the steady drip drip drip of financial torture our political class has inflicted upon us as they have furthered their own goals.

Posted by: zika bearing mosquito at February 09, 2016 11:06 AM (fbovC)

48 You have no way of knowing that. And neither do I, nor anyone else.
But you can easily make an argument that Trump is way more unelectable
than Cruz. I can say that from my own first hand experience. I am not
voting Trump - because I am not going to vote for someone as liberal as
him.
===============

I dunno. Where I work, I see hundreds of people every week, from retired Fortune 100 CEOs to unemployable street people. There is a thick vein of sullen outrage in this country and people are looking for a champion, or at least someone who will fire up the private sector so that folks don't have to work two or three part-time jobs in order to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 11:06 AM (JBggj)

49 Oh, this one's going to be fun. Thank goodness I've got a root canal to get to.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 09, 2016 11:07 AM (LA7Cm)

50 Drew, serious question - if Cruz your fifth-best preference, who do you like better (assuming you weren't sarcastic) after Jindal? Also, if I may add something, what I like best about Cruz is that he seems like the only MF'r on either side to actually think strategically - that he can process a timeframe beyond the end of a particular news cycle.

Posted by: Peoples Republic of Baltimore at February 09, 2016 11:07 AM (Zyu7U)

51 If you refuse to consider Trump as a serious candidate worth talking about, why should the people who consider Trump as serious as any other candidate care at all what you have to say? By dismissing him so out-of-hand you dismiss the judgement of his supporters and their reasons for supporting him. So you come across like just another judgemental-knowitall-prick (sorry, that's the technical term) instead of engaging people.

Posted by: major major major major at February 09, 2016 10:48 AM (BI/k4)


Agreed. Not a good tone for a post.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:07 AM (Z8fuk)

52 Trump obviously isn't a serious candidate because his mouth breathing supporters won't be able to stop humping their cousins for long enough to vote on election day. And even if they did, it's not like they can read well enough to pick his name out on the ballot.

Seriously, every snide little dismissal pushes me farther onto the "fuck it, Trump" side of things.

Posted by: Jake at February 09, 2016 11:07 AM (cRCUJ)

53 Stridex Medicated Pads can help you get rid of all of those unsightly black diamonds.

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 09, 2016 11:08 AM (maOV6)

54 The Cruz critics in my life can't name what they dislike about him. I think Donald's "unlikeable" jabs for whatever reason were taken to heart without being substantiated. Donald's whole campaign is about being bold and dismissive, so at most all you've got is a talking head saying "These are bad character traits (on which I am worse)." Likeable internally? If the GOP won't support Cruz if he comes into executive authority because he's kept it real, the GOP doesn't deserve to exist.

"He supported H1B visas" - yes, so clearly Rubio or Jeb are the pick now? Bad to worse.

"He's too religious" - okay, almost everyone does some religious pandering, and let's be honest, if you're this die-hard pro-choice free-BC anti-religion person, you're not breaking red anyway. There's minimal contrast between other candidates and it shouldn't be a disqualifier even if you're not Christian.

What else is there?

Here's what resonates with me - the guy leads an elite team at an elite firm. You don't get there if you can't research, pitch, persuade, prepare for the big show, and then deliver on those promises. It takes a lot of hours, a lot of effort, and a lot of brains. He's proven he can actually work for a living, definitely unlike Rubio.

I believe he resents big government. I believe he'll put some humility back into those who wish us harm. I believe he's not wedded exclusively to the interests of big money in big coastal cities. I believe he'll stand athwart the establishment of both parties on conservative terrain that every other candidate will abandon after the election. Not perfectly, not always, but acceptably better than others remaining.

Agree that he wouldn't have been my first choice, but with where the field's at, he's the last best hope. I can't hold my nose again. We deserve what we get if the establishment continues to pretend core values don't exist and that middle America is too stupid to understand their righteous grand plan. Cruz or bust.

Posted by: 0302 at February 09, 2016 11:08 AM (wx6iv)

55 I would vote for a shoe over The Lying Disingenuous Hag®

But, you knw, you sit home if Cruz isn't the candidate. Because that's wht keeps giving us this string of winners. Tribal fanboi-isim

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:08 AM (GGCsk)

56 ... just another judgemental-knowitall-prick


Just my opinion, but having an audience member repeatedly call Cruz a pussy is a little prickish and insulting no?

Posted by: Cheri at February 09, 2016 11:09 AM (oiNtH)

57 Cruz's detractors have thrown out the unlikable , no charisma meme repeatedly and unfortunately it has stuck. Perception is stronger than the truth in this case.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (AEEhl)


Yeah, I have never seen an actual example of him being 'unlikeable'. Nerdy? Yes. Kind of looking like count chocula or that guy from the munsters? Yes.

Posted by: Lea at February 09, 2016 11:09 AM (lIU4e)

58 I'd like to see a bumper sticker that read:

Trump
Because fuck you,that's why!

Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 09, 2016 11:09 AM (kTF2Z)

59 There is a thick vein of sullen outrage in this country and people are looking for a champion,

----------

That is probably true. But I'm not sure why you think a crony capitalist is more electable than someone who has actually tried to cause a government shutdown.

FTR - I think whoever the GOP nominates will win.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:10 AM (gmeXX)

60 this is politics

as has been said, Trump moves the Overton Window and makes Cruz look rational

whether he makes Cruz look acceptable is another question

my guess is no, and that Cruz has moved into Santorum territory for a lot of people who might've voted GOP

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:10 AM (mrHIi)

61 Funny how Democrats never have to compromise, never have to make deals, and get everything they want.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 09, 2016 11:11 AM (B8JRQ)

62 So, what candidate is causing more pain for the GOPe, Cruz or Trump?

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 09, 2016 11:11 AM (maOV6)

63 >>Drew, insulting the folks who support Trump is a poor way to start an essay.

Yea Drew, it was only cool when you trashed mouth breathing Romney supporters on a daily basis.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 11:11 AM (/tuJf)

64 Drew, insulting the folks who support Trump is a poor way to start an essay.

Ya, keep voting for the least worst candidate who is the best we can get this cycle. Casting your one vote out of 160 million will give you the same satisfaction as buying a lottery ticket. For a brief instant, you'll have hope. Then reality sets in and you realize you have been played again.

Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:12 AM (uvzBK)

65 is this just the AOS version of clickbait? Whether serious or just calculated, boo on this post.

Posted by: major major major major at February 09, 2016 11:12 AM (BI/k4)

66 The unelectable meme is another false meme. The winner will be determine only by a handful of swing states. Being able to win those states is the only criteria that should be considered on whether someone is electable. Cruz can carry those states.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:13 AM (AEEhl)

67 "Cruz can carry those states"

I'd like to see the data, it would be a powerful argument

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:13 AM (mrHIi)

68 does Cruz appeal to enough women?

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:15 AM (mrHIi)

69 Cruz may be unelectable, but the other side of that coin is that the people we will be told who are electable will be no better than Hillary or Bernie.

None - and I don't mean to be redundant, but NONE of the Republicans in the field should be as unelectable as either Hillary OR Sanders.

Hillary is, at the very least, untrustworthy, and at the most probable, a criminal, and Sanders is a socialist. If this country is really ready to go openly socialist, like Europe, than it deserves to be left to burn - and - it should be given what ever accelerant it needs in order to make certain that the fire is good and hot and consumes completely.

So instead of focusing on who in the Republican camp is unelectable, it should be time to focus on WHY either of the two Dems should be unelectable.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at February 09, 2016 11:15 AM (4ng05)

70 My God! It's full of black diamonds!!






And TDS too!

Posted by: Dave Bowman at February 09, 2016 11:15 AM (JO9+V)

71 >>The unelectable meme is another false meme. The winner will be determine only by a handful of swing states. Being able to win those states is the only criteria that should be considered on whether someone is electable. Cruz can carry those states.

I don't know what election some people are watching but seeing Hillary Clinton get schlonged by an aging communist when this was supposed to be a coronation leads me to believe that just about any Republican could win this cycle. She is a horrible candidate.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 11:16 AM (/tuJf)

72 Yeah, I know the two Dem Senators gifted to Virginia
by the complicit GOP Establishment don't make a move until they've
thoroughly read my emails and responded to me personally!


Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:05 AM (wYnyS)
That's the spirit!!

Posted by: jd at February 09, 2016 11:16 AM (MTWhU)

73 moved into Santorum territory for a lot of people who might've voted GOP

=====

Cruz is Gingrich.

Posted by: Bigby's Fistful of Dice at February 09, 2016 11:16 AM (3IsdE)

74 For what it's worth, I don't read Cruz as nasty or think he is a bastard. He seems to me to be an extremely decent guy who is more committed to doing the right thing than to making unprincipled people happy. And while some may find the Republican failure theater endearing because it's somehow mean to actually accomplish your goals, Cruz knows how to succeed and is disciplined about doing what it takes.

Posted by: Emmie at February 09, 2016 11:16 AM (ezXrF)

75 "Cruz's detractors will say that he can't get along and make deals. I say, good. Yes, deals will have to be made by too often the deals that are made are being made by people who agree on too much too begin with."

Drew you make a great point in this section.
I'd rather have a Cruz as President, and not make any deals and also not get any reverse progress being made to undo the crap were in now as long as Cruz can keep it from getting worse. This "deal making" keeps pushing us towards the point of no return. For once can we just push the brakes on full?

Posted by: Janir at February 09, 2016 11:16 AM (vzyrh)

76 As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate, I will focus on why conservatives should pick Cruz over Marco Rubio

Denial.... which stage is that....

Lets see... to not even TALK about the Front runner.... because to talk about him would be an INSULT???

OK then...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:16 AM (f7rv6)

77 Lot's of black diamonds out there.

*looks around*

Are we in West Virginia? I thought it was New Hampshire that was voting today.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:17 AM (hLRSq)

78
Out of all the GOP candidates, Cruz has the highest favorability ratings I believe, rebuffing the notion that he's unlikeable and therefore unelectable.
Posted by: Burn It Down



If that were the case, wouldn't he be -- you know -- winning?* Running away with the race, instead of hoping to hang on until Trump gets hit by a streetcar or something.

*Yes -- Iowa. Now look at the next 20 states.



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 11:17 AM (kdS6q)

79 And let us not forget the way George the W was treated by the democrats and their propagandists.

The next GOP president is going to get it worse than that.

Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:17 AM (uvzBK)

80 Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 09, 2016 11:11 AM (B8JRQ)

Whatever do you mean?

Posted by: Borhner/Ryan/McConnell Troika LLC at February 09, 2016 11:17 AM (wYnyS)

81 How did George Wills ' hairpiece come into your possession?

Posted by: mike191 at February 09, 2016 11:18 AM (XKC1/)

82 we live in bizarro world

Hillary = unindicted felon, unlikeable, untrustworthy, with no serious accomplishments

Bernie = old ideological socialist, zero success in the private sector, who promotes policies proved laughable by the real world experience of millions

that these are even candidates for a US presidential election speaks volumes about how utterly shitty our political system has become

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:18 AM (mrHIi)

83 So, it's been a half hour now - what's the casualty count on this thread so far?

Posted by: Chi at February 09, 2016 11:18 AM (OUpHg)

84 Cruz has shown he gets along with people who are actually trying to do something other than protect corrupt arrangements.

Posted by: Emmie at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (ezXrF)

85 Cruz is consistent and has done exactly what he told the people of Texas he'd do when voted to the Senate. When has another politician you can remember did that, even when they were slammed or called a whacko bird by their fellow Senators?

If Cruz had a better personality and was able to read a teleprompter better, he'd be leading in every poll by double digits in every state.

Posted by: Arnold Schwartzenegger at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (8852Y)

86 Welcome to the party Drew.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 10:51 AM (gmeXX)


I know, it's been so long since the Ungrateful Loaf of Bread left, we really haven't had a good attack on a cob-logger.

Bless you for stepping up like that Drew, you're a real stand-up fellow.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (hLRSq)

87 Both parties are 100% committed to fucking productive, responsible American citizens.

Pardon me if I find it difficult to get excited about the prospect of voting for that.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (u5gzz)

88 Trump, as lead blocker for Cruz, still has juice in his legs. Let him keep on making holes and opening gaps.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (JO9+V)

89 In a less crazy time, the election could be analyzed in the following manner--Short version.

The democrats are running 2 horrible candidates, and have no plan B any better than who is already running.
Therefore, conservatives have a once in a generation opportunity to push a "real" conservative, and not compromise on ideology for the sake of electability.
That would lead one to Cruz, or Walker if he were still in.

But, forget it Jake, it's crazy-town.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (kKHcp)

90 >>And let us not forget the way George the W was treated by the democrats and their propagandists.


They perfected their media-entertainment industry attack on Palin.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (NOIQH)

91 No casualties, but it seems people are staying away in droves.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (Z8fuk)

92 You know what, blank this Drew guy in particular.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 09, 2016 11:20 AM (MbrzC)

93 Even Conservative Review gives Rubio a 79% (one point below Sessions).

Yes, I know the Saintly Cruz gets a 97%. But it's not like we're dealing with a conservative anathema.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (GGCsk)
_____

All these precious show votes...

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 09, 2016 11:20 AM (p1OSH)

94 call me Cruz Curious

just not sure how or why he can win those states

the GOPe hates him and he has not FU money

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:20 AM (mrHIi)

95 I thought Black Diamond shot were illegal.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:20 AM (n22zQ)

96 #59

That is probably true. But I'm not sure why you think a crony
capitalist is more electable than someone who has actually tried to
cause a government shutdown.



FTR - I think whoever the GOP nominates will win.

=========================

Whatever kind of capitalist Donald Trump is, he's not a Barry Crony Capitalist. Donald Trump is also NOT a US Senator. Ted Cruz is. Washington, DC is the problem and anyone, especially a politician working there, starts with a major hurdle when making his/her pitch to the voters.

It's incredible here in fly-over country how many Americans are getting by working two or three part-time jobs. If Trump or Cruz could come up with a viable plan where people can see a path to a "normal" full-time job with decent benefits, that person would have a clean shot at the White House. Especially with women voters.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 11:21 AM (JBggj)

97 I've been a Cruz guy since Perry augered in.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:21 AM (n22zQ)

98 I'm sorry but Cruz is owned lock, stock and barrel by Goldie Sacks. This is common knowledge in business circles in Houston. His wife is North American Union back about 15 years or more. This was carefully covered up in his Senate run because Dewhurtst was too. No. Cruz. No. Rubio. No. Jeb. Just NO.

Posted by: Lester at February 09, 2016 11:21 AM (2UPXV)

99 No casualties, but it seems people are staying away in droves.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (Z8fuk)

You know, I'm beginning to think I could have a life if I turned off this computer!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:22 AM (wYnyS)

100 Note. after Iowa we no longer hear the Religious 'Body of Christ' Cruz....


just as some of us predicted

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:22 AM (f7rv6)

101
"if I were a Republican who could vote in a GOP primary"



As someone who won't soil his ideological purity to vote in the GOP primary, let me lecture you at length what you should to do.



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 11:22 AM (kdS6q)

102 "As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate, I will focus on why conservatives should pick Cruz over Marco Rubio."

How droll. Refusing to insult "fellow citizens" by insulting "fellow citizens" who do back Trump.

Ironic, given Trump is the only nakedly America-First and pro-citizen candidate of any party.

And who are these people who think Trump is not "serious"? I would be tired of the dismissive thinking were it not for the pwnage that occurs every time attorneys underestimate him.

Not a surprise the most dismissive out there are also the least informed.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:22 AM (cWiA2)

103 Therefore, conservatives have a once in a generation opportunity to push a "real" conservative, and not compromise on ideology for the sake of electability.
That would lead one to Cruz, or Walker if he were still in.

But, forget it Jake, it's crazy-town.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 09, 2016 11:19 AM (kKHcp)


The flaw in that analysis is the tacit assumption that the GOP is a "conservative" party. It's not. It's a center-left party at best, which harbors a few token conservatives.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:23 AM (Z8fuk)

104 That DrewM is a nasty guy , right?

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:23 AM (AEEhl)

105
Note. after Iowa we no longer hear the Religious 'Body of Christ' Cruz....

just as some of us predicted
Posted by: Don Quixote




Tres suprise, n'est pas?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 11:23 AM (kdS6q)

106 There was a famous bank robber who was once asked why he robbed banks. His reply was simple, direct, and accurate, 'Because that's where the money is'.

Do you all realize that 'where the money is' in this country is the middle class? The poor don't pay, and despite the magical thinking of leftists there simply are not enough wealthy in this country to sustain this size government, this level of handouts, even if you appropriated their every dollar.

So I have a simple question, which candidate is going to remove the bullseye from our backs? Or put millions of Americans back to work to sustain the social programs the political class has deemed so necessary?

Posted by: ugg boots at February 09, 2016 11:23 AM (fbovC)

107 The very same people who say they don't want any more DC deals, decry the idea that he won't be able to make deals.

Posted by: Abby Normal at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (5VZqJ)

108
I'm sorry but Cruz is owned lock, stock and barrel by Goldie Sacks. This
is common knowledge in business circles in Houston. His wife is North
American Union back about 15 years or more. This was carefully covered
up in his Senate run because Dewhurtst was too. No. Cruz. No. Rubio. No.
Jeb. Just NO.


Illuminati!

Protocol of the Elders of Zion!

Skull and Bones!

Boo!

Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (N8hFs)

109 Posted by: Lester at February 09, 2016 11:21 AM (2UPXV)

If having a wife in a senior position at Goldman Sachs doesn't shriek "Uniparty Establishment", I don't know what other signifier would!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (wYnyS)

110 So, it's been a half hour now - what's the casualty count on this thread so far?
Posted by: Chi
---------------

*huddles, quivering, in safe space*

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (n22zQ)

111 But, you knw, you sit home if Cruz isn't the
candidate. Because that's wht keeps giving us this string of winners.
Tribal fanboi-isim
Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:08 AM (GGCsk)


I dunno. I see all the Bernie supporters around here and I can predict that they will line up passively for Hillary when told to do so.

If that is what you are suggesting for conservatives, I am not sure I want to be that type of conservative.

If, on the other hand, you are saying this because you think your candidate will win the primary but not the general because smearing and name calling and "virtue-shaming" reduces the numbers turning out for the primaries and in turn suppresses the votes in the general, then maybe the fault lies in your electioneering tactics and not in the voters you dissuade from voting.

Remember this, and I mean ALL OF YOU.

If you get your particular candidate to win by dissuading the supporters of other Republican candidates from voting as they wish, THEY . PROBABLY . WON'T . VOTE . IN . THE . GENERAL . EITHER

Posted by: Kindltot at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (q2o38)

112 If Trump or Cruz could come up with a viable plan where people can see a path to a "normal" full-time job with decent benefits, that person would have a clean shot at the White House.

------------

While I understand the need to appeal to those voters. I am very dubious of any politician who actually has a "plan" for that. Because governmental plans usually just make things worse. If that plan is reducing the size of government, count me in. I'm under no illusions that anyone will be able to significantly reduce the size of government. But I'd bet more on Cruz making some sort of movement in that direction than anyone else running.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (gmeXX)

113 "As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate, I will focus on why conservatives should pick Cruz over Marco Rubio"


Those delegates he has are a powerful reason to take him seriously. To do otherwise is folly.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:26 AM (hLRSq)

114 "I will focus on why conservatives should pick Cruz over Marco Rubio...."

That's as far as I've read so far. Hard to think about reading on because it's like, why one should prefer wine over vinegar as a beverage. But, I'll try, Drew. For old times' sake.

Posted by: mindful webworker - Cruz/Bridenstine 2016 at February 09, 2016 11:26 AM (wmyHK)

115
As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate, I will...

I'm already insulted by your fukcing condescension.

Look - ideologically Cruz is clearly the best conservative candidate. Arguing that here is a waste of electrons.

But he also has a terrible voice, looks like Johnny Cash met Frankenstein and has less charisma than Bob Dole.

We've become so ill as a country in the last few decades that we're in a delirium. Delirious people don't think straight and their tastes are altered. Which is why I think Cruz is unelectable.

Trump may be a blustering fool but he can beat Hillary. I doubt that Cruz can. If Trump and/or Hillary implodes I'll reevaluate my position. But until then I'll pull for Trump.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 11:26 AM (RcpcZ)

116 So, if Rubio beats Cruz today, with Trump in 1st, what happens next?

We know that the media and the GOPe will all claim the race is over, with Rubio the candidate.

But, IIRC, it took McCain winning NH, SC and FL to knock Romney out; who at that point had some 60+ delegates to McCain's 30. (Of course, there's no MI, WY or NV this year before SC.)

So, what happens in SC? Who is positioned to win there?

Because there is no FL to save the anointed GOPe here--after SC is NV, then Super Tuesday (with nearly all of those awarding on proportional.)


Posted by: RoyalOil at February 09, 2016 11:26 AM (fQ/0p)

117 So "deal making"in Washington DC always seems to be:

'You want to expand government by 60%, I want to expand it by 20%, so let's compromise at 40%'

So, year by year, government grows and grows. How come the "deal-making" never goes like this:

'You want to cut government by 20%, I want to cut it by 60%, so we can compromise at 40%''

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (maOV6)

118 It's a center-left party at best, which harbors a few token conservatives.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:23 AM (Z8fuk)

More like

It's a center-left party at best, which harbors trys its best to distance itself from a few token conservatives.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (wYnyS)

119 From Donald Trump's book written in the 80's.

"Ronald Reagan is another example. He is so smooth and so effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there's anything beneath that smile"

wtf does that even mean? 7 years in? Hadn't it be evident to Trump by that time how well Reagan's policies had worked?

Posted by: Reality Man at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (9AQdP)

120 tries

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (wYnyS)

121 How might the Democrats run against Donald Trump as the Republican nominee? He's a one percenter, a billionaire, will line the pockets of his wall street buddies which might benefit his companies too; and perhaps it would be a huge conflict of interest for his businesses to have benefited from eminent domain and be in the position as president of the United States to have his companies benefit from his pro-eminent domain stance....

Posted by: Jenny at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (U2Pgy)

122 93
Even Conservative Review gives Rubio a 79% (one point below Sessions).



Yes, I know the Saintly Cruz gets a 97%. But it's not like we're dealing with a conservative anathema.



Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (GGCsk)

_____



All these precious show votes...

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 09, 2016 11:20 AM (p1OSH)

Conservative Review bases Senate votes on the final vote, not the vote for cloture.... you know... the one that really means something?
Not hard to game that system...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (f7rv6)

123 Note. after Iowa we no longer hear the Religious 'Body of Christ' Cruz....

just as some of us predicted
Posted by: Don Quixote




Tres suprise, n'est pas?

------------

You mean - in an effort to win an election - a politician pandered a little to reach the likely voters of that state? And it worked. Color me shocked. A good thing Trump would never stoop to such tactics.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (gmeXX)

124 110 So, it's been a half hour now - what's the casualty count on this thread so far?
Posted by: Chi
---------------

*huddles, quivering, in safe space*
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (n22zQ

I wish to thank you two for the smile i just had.

I'm torn about voting this upcoming November. By the time our primary will take place the GOPe will have their guy fully in front.

It really doesn't matter if a (R) wins in November, it's just a speed bump to the SHTF.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 11:28 AM (voOPb)

125 Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:22 AM (cWiA2)

As a Trump supporter you have to consciously dismiss everything Trump has said and stood for in the recent past. That's what most people not supporting Trump on the Right don't understand about the support for Trump.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (AEEhl)

126 I could vote for Cruz happily. I will vote for Trump if only because he moved the immigration argument forward. God help me I could even vote for Rubio. Kasich, Christie, Jeb, I will stay home with a nice drink and ignore the world for as long as I can

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (zOTsN)

127 I can't tell you just how sick of yhe word "unelectable"I am.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her 1.21 Gigawatt Sanity Prod (tm) at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (QjxTy)

128 I can't tell you just how sick of yhe word "unelectable"I am.

---------

Here here.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:30 AM (gmeXX)

129 I'm sorry but Cruz is owned lock, stock and barrel by Goldie Sacks. This is common knowledge in business circles in Houston. His wife is North American Union back about 15 years or more. This was carefully covered up in his Senate run because Dewhurtst was too. No. Cruz. No. Rubio. No. Jeb. Just NO.

Posted by: Lester at February 09, 2016 11:21 AM (2UPXV)


Trump guy, I take it? Is it Trump's staunch conservative record? His amazing depth of policy knowledge? His family-friendly language, charm, demeanor?

This personality cult vibe Trump supporters are giving off just creeps me the hell out.

Posted by: troyriser at February 09, 2016 11:30 AM (WuTfJ)

130 The flaw in that analysis is the tacit assumption that the GOP is a "conservative" party. It's not. It's a center-left party at best, which harbors a few token conservatives.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:23 AM (Z8fuk)

Yep. I know. But like Richard Gere crying in the rain after a good beating...."I got nowhere else to go"

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 09, 2016 11:30 AM (kKHcp)

131 Posted by: Jenny at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (U2Pgy)


Your concern is:

Not Noted [ ]

Noted [ X ]

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 11:30 AM (JO9+V)

132 This is crazy. I have met Cruz. I have donated to Cruz. There are good things about Cruz. He will get destroyed in a general election. DESTROYED.


The snake handling preacher routine plays in Iowa. Nowhere else.


There also is a serious legal question as to whether he is eligible. It is not as clear cut as the liars on the right would have you believe.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (7QkL1)

133 Drew Cruz actually does have fleshed out ideas on healthcare reform. Here is information on the bill he introduced last March: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_releaseid=2251


And here is the description of all parts of his plan by the Motley Fool: http://tinyurl.com/zkgyvdz

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (NPofj)

134 105
Note. after Iowa we no longer hear the Religious 'Body of Christ' Cruz....

just as some of us predicted
Posted by: Don Quixote

So what? Cruz tailors his message to different audiences. Everyone does that - do you address great-aunt Hilda the same way you address your 15 year old niece? News flash - Iowa is different from NH. Different audiences have different concerns and different priorities.

Cruz came out against enthanol in Iowa and still one. Honest Donnie pandered to the food for fuel lobby for votes.

But Cruz is the phony. Right.

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (u0lmX)

135 Posted by: Jenny at February 09, 2016 11:27 AM (U2Pgy)

And the Trump counter attack? He did NOT benefit from the emminent domain case... he lost... and the Poor Widow ended up with NOTHING, instead of the millions he tried to pay her....

As to the Capitalism case?

Who would be better to put a monkey wrench in that system... the one who was BUYING the Politicians.... or the Politicians who had been BOUGHT?


Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (f7rv6)

136 Trump came in a close second in Iowa, he'll likely win NH and SC, but he's not a serious candidate? Are you stupid?

Posted by: Burn It Down
=====
Without the vitriol, that's what I'm saying--it doesn't matter who wins today or on Feb 20 in SC: Super Tuesday is it--March 1, 2016.

Whoever wins then is the candidate.
(And Cruz has bragged he has a county chair in every county in the nation, right?)

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (fQ/0p)

137 I like both Cruz and Rubio. But I think Trump can create a coalition of citizens that share traditional American values and help heal the country.

He appeals to the type of Democrat that existed before the Left came to power, a JFK/Tip O'Neill type.

We'll need social cohesion if we're to successfully fight ISIS.

Posted by: ahem at February 09, 2016 11:32 AM (lKGzI)

138 112 If Trump or Cruz could come up with a viable plan where people can see a path to a "normal" full-time job with decent benefits, that person would have a clean shot at the White House.

------------

While I understand the need to appeal to those voters. I am very dubious of any politician who actually has a "plan" for that. Because governmental plans usually just make things worse. If that plan is reducing the size of government, count me in. I'm under no illusions that anyone will be able to significantly reduce the size of government. But I'd bet more on Cruz making some sort of movement in that direction than anyone else running.
Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (gmeXX)

I don't know about Trump except his protectionist rhetoric but Cruz's plan is to reform the tax code and do away with regulations that stymie business growth.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:32 AM (AEEhl)

139 Aliens :

Lt. Ripley - "These people are here to protect you. They're soldiers."

Newt : "It won't make any difference."

No need to worry about who you are going to vote for in November, because it won't make any difference.

Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (uvzBK)

140
You mean - in an effort to win an election - a politician pandered a little to reach the likely voters of that state? And it worked. Color me shocked.
Posted by: SH



So -- how do you know the positions that Cruz is espousing that you like are anymore truthful?



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (kdS6q)

141 93 Even Conservative Review gives Rubio a 79% (one point below Sessions).
Yes, I know the Saintly Cruz gets a 97%. But it's not like we're dealing with a conservative anathema.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:02 AM (GGCsk)


Maybe Rubio does get 79%, but on the one issue that is upmost in the concern of most Americans, that is, immigration, he is 100% in line with the Establishment. And by that I mean lip service for enforcement of immigration law and de facto open borders.

That's the position of the GOPe, the entire Democratic Party, and Marco Rubio. For that reason, he can take his 79% and shove it up his ass sideways.

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (maOV6)

142 As a Trump supporter you have to consciously dismiss everything Trump has said and stood for in the recent past. That's what most people not supporting Trump on the Right don't understand about the support for Trump.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (AEEhl)


And your analysis fails because of the unstated assumption that Trump supporters are all about policy. Trump supporters support Trump because they believe that Trump is the only one who will throw a spine-shattering fuck into the GOPe, and by extension, the whole festering mess in DC.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (Z8fuk)

143
ARnews 1936 @ARnews1936

JUST IN: PM Netanyahu says we'll surround Israel with fences 'to defend ourselves against the wild beasts'.

===========

Considering how successful the wall (which is almost all fencing) is, I hope they do extend it.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (iQIUe)

144 #8 - mrp -"I'm looking for a Republican candidate who can keep Hillary and Bernie
and whoever the Dems shove into final nominee spot out of the White
House. That's the bottom line. Trump can do it, Cruz can't."

Even if Trump could win, which I highly doubt because he's a frickin' liberal that will alienate a large percentage of the base, he's already stated that he can cut deals with the likes of Reid and Pelosi. How often do these deals work out for conservatives? And given Trump's desire to be the world's greatest deal-maker, how often do you think he'll let a hastily crafted position interfere with satisfying his outsized ego?

If Trump is the nominee, I'll go third party rather than vote for the 'best' of the liberals, Hillary!, Bernie, or The Donald.

Some stenches don't wash off.

Posted by: Long Running Fool at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (L0bUn)

145 This is crazy. I have met Cruz. I have donated to
Cruz. There are good things about Cruz. He will get destroyed in a
general election. DESTROYED.





The snake handling preacher routine plays in Iowa. Nowhere else.





There also is a serious legal question as to whether he is eligible.
It is not as clear cut as the liars on the right would have you
believe.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (7QkL1)

You concern is:[x] noted[ ] other than noted

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (NPofj)

146 That wacko bird can't make deals like the rest of us, for us, to enrich us.
I've been in Congress since 1983 so I know. Also, I'm up for re-election this year so yes, "build the dang wall".

Posted by: John McCain's Punk-Lindsey at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (8852Y)

147 Lester I need your help. I'm in Houston. We run in business type circles. And no one anywhere has ever said or implied or in any way mentioned that Cruz is "owned by Goldie Sachs". In fact, the higher up you go, they want Bush, Rubio or Hillary. Not Cruz.


Can you tell me the source of your "common knowledge".

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 11:34 AM (zOTsN)

148 The people that vote for Cruz and Trump think Obama doesn't know what he's doing. But let me tell you, Obama knows exactly...

knows exactly ....

knows exactly ....

knows exactly .... ** someone kicks Marco**

what he's doing.

Posted by: Marco Rubio at February 09, 2016 11:34 AM (TQxRy)

149 I can't tell you just how sick of yhe word "unelectable"I am.

---------

Here here.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:30 AM (gmeXX)


Electable and Unelectable are words that are used when someone is desperately trying to find a reason to vote for/not vote for a candidate and this is all they have left. They can't actually think of a reason and don't want to admit that it is their gut they are following, so the words Electable or Unelectable are used.

That way the speaker passes the buck to "what other people believe" and away from what he actually believes and how he believes and why he believes.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:34 AM (hLRSq)

150 /breathes deeply
I will not pontificate on why Trump is a thing.
I will not pontificate on why Trump is a thing.
I will not pontificate on...
/exhales

...um, yeah, good post, Drew.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 09, 2016 11:35 AM (9krrF)

151 God help me I could even vote for Rubio. Kasich, Christie, Jeb, I will stay home with a nice drink and ignore the world for as long as I can

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (zOTsN)
______

I would actually prefer Jeb over Rubio (not that I will vote for either). He is at least honest about his useless centrism and there is a chance that conservatives know by now that the base wont be happy if they blindly follow a guy named Bush.

Rubio is still seen as a conservative for some reason and that makes cooperation with him much easier for other conservative pols.

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 09, 2016 11:35 AM (p1OSH)

152 Here in Atlanta, I heard my first Cruz radio ad. last Friday.

Nothing from any of the others, so far.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at February 09, 2016 11:35 AM (bpn7O)

153 "If you refuse to consider Trump as a serious candidate worth talking
about, why should the people who consider Trump as serious as any other
candidate care at all what you have to say?"

This.

If Drew's going to use the NYT/WaPo approved reframing tactic of "among ACCEPTABLE choices which REASONABLE people COULD POSSIBLY consider..." I'm not interested in what he has to say.

Ignoring the 33% in New Hampshire gorilla in the room (2x+ what 2nd place Rubio pulls at 14%) b/c "cooties" and "bad manners" amounts to flawed wishcasting, not political analysis.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:35 AM (1stCn)

154 Cruz is not our bastard. He is owned by the same big money interests Rubio is. You people kill me.

Posted by: Chris Vaughn at February 09, 2016 11:35 AM (nYbfE)

155 So -- how do you know the positions that Cruz is espousing that you like are anymore truthful?

-------

In the end, I don't know. But Cruz has been much more consistent on his overall belief system than Trump has. Cruz has basically been conservative his whole career. We can all quibble with some positions. Trump has been all over the map, and often on the liberal side of the equation.

If Trump has converted - great. We need more on our side.

But as people keep reminding me, he has FU money.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:36 AM (gmeXX)

156 "Trump can do it, Cruz can't.
Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 10:53 AM (JBggj)"

So Trump can keep a Democrat out of the White House?

Ok, what do you call a guy who supports single payer HC and a wealth tax to strip the rich of assets and give the government more power and control?

If Sanders were running for the GOP; with no policy change, he'd be 95% in agreement with Trump.

But good luck electing a Liberal Democrat with the goal of stopping Liberal Democrats.

Maybe next we can set the house on fire because it's too warm in here.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 09, 2016 11:36 AM (kq7Of)

157

Why all the hubbub? I've sooooooo got this entire thing...

*hic*

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 09, 2016 11:36 AM (HSmrB)

158 Cruz came out against enthanol in Iowa and still one. Honest Donnie pandered to the food for fuel lobby for votes.



But Cruz is the phony. Right.





Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (u0lmX)

The key is that I am NOT arguing that Trump does not pander... he does...
But many who dismiss him, do so for pandering... as if THEIR candidates do not.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:37 AM (f7rv6)

159 Trump supporters support Trump because they believe that Trump is the only one who will throw a spine-shattering fuck into the GOPe, and by extension, the whole festering mess in DC.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (Z8fuk)

So what you're saying is that they are chiefly ruled by emotion and the desire to LIB, not reason?

Yeah, I've noticed.

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 11:37 AM (u0lmX)

160 Lester I need your help. I'm in Houston. We run in business type circles. And no one anywhere has ever said or implied or in any way mentioned that Cruz is "owned by Goldie Sachs". In fact, the higher up you go, they want Bush, Rubio or Hillary. Not Cruz.


Can you tell me the source of your "common knowledge".

-------------

Don't ask those in the energy business who were big supporters of Cruz in his senate run.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:37 AM (gmeXX)

161 #58 I'm with you! Trump has my vote! I don't care for the dismissing him out of hand. I am from Texas, like
Cruz, don't think he can win. I want to win! Simple.

Posted by: AnnaS at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (P+I7L)

162 "Cruz is a bastard, of that I have no doubt. But he'ss our bastard. He fights the fights I want fought. "

Yes!

I'm, so tired of hearing how Cruz is too mean or not nice or whatever. You don't win political battles by being a nice guy.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (0LHZx)

163 oh come on Mikey

I use "unelectable" myself and it has nothing to do with me

I'll pull for Cruz or Trump, and I'll stump for either

Rubio and the Rest are squishes

I'll never pull for a Dem, even out of spite for the GOPe

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (mrHIi)

164 Oh, and can we knock off the birther crap? Cruz is eligible. Period. Quit the circular argument that ignores the very clear facts of the matter. It doesn't help your arguments.

Seriously, no wonder I've graduated from "Let it Burn" to "Pass the Kerosene".

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (9krrF)

165 I didn't think Obama was a serious candidate in 2008, but he won anyway.

So why shouldn't Republicans embrace an unserious socialst of their own? NH loves them some socialism, Trump and Sanders are killing it there. Why not, you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart just from their stump speaches.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (09f2I)

166 nice of Drew to add the taint of his support to Cruz. Now he'll definitely not win.

Posted by: Drew's Crystal Ball at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (3UFS9)

167 Toga! Toga! Toga!


Trump! Trump! Trump!


I think they like the idea, Hoov Drew.

Posted by: Eric "Otter" Stratton at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (JO9+V)

168 I suggest taking the comment section to DEFCON 2

Posted by: MrKnowItAll at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (egzLR)

169
Hey guys......

Did you know Texas is the largest state in the Union???

Cuz Alaska really isnt a serious state.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:39 AM (8XRCm)

170 And given Trump's desire to be the world's greatest deal-maker, how often do you think he'll let a hastily crafted position interfere with satisfying his outsized ego?



To ask is to answer.
"The world's greatest deal maker" is gonna make a deal and lose?

Srsly? You're gonna go with that?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:39 AM (Y42RP)

171 "Ironic, given Trump is the only nakedly America-First and pro-citizen candidate of any party.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:22 AM (cWiA2)"

Right Trump is all for the government ignoring private property rights, an taking the land from the less affluent to benefit the profits of the rich. (Eminent Domain for private property, he's 100% behind that).

IS there anything more American than having a royalty caste with special rights that the leader works to benefit at the expense of the people?

I think not, Royalty is the most American thing ever...
God Save The Queen!

Oh, and we need Single Payer Health care; where the Government cares for, and pays for everyone.
Totally American.

You've got a guy who never saw a problem he doesn't think Government could be increased in size & scope to handle...
That's fine, Bernie thinks the same way.
I'm just not sure why you think that's a good GOP candidate.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (kq7Of)

172 Because governmental plans usually just make things worse. If that plan
is reducing the size of government, count me in. I'm under no
illusions that anyone will be able to significantly reduce the size of
government. But I'd bet more on Cruz making some sort of movement in
that direction than anyone else running.
=======================

It's not so much the objective - I believe both Trump and Cruz believe that building up the private sector with substantial gains in job growth is in America's best interest. What differentiates them is how they make the pitch to the voters. Trump can do it from the position of a practical man of business. Cruz, as far as I know, has very little private sector experience, so his view is one of observation. This makes Ted vulnerable to the ideologue argument from the Left.

And yeah, I think either Trump or Cruz would RIF the hell out of the federal government voter base.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (JBggj)

173 Huh, turns out that Trumptards are just as thin skinned as their hero.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (1RNgT)

174 If that were the case, wouldn't he be -- you know -- winning?* Running away with the race, instead of hoping to hang on until Trump gets hit by a streetcar or something.

*Yes -- Iowa. Now look at the next 20 states.



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 11:17 AM (kdS6q)



The problem with the next 20 states is that Trump has no ground game in those either.

Maybe that'll fly in a tiny coin pocket state like NH, but it's unlikely to elsewhere.

This's why Jeb! is still staying in and Rubio stands a good chance of taking the whole show with the GOPe backing.


Cruz is both a better shot at winning and would be a better president IMHO, but I could live with Trump.

However, unless Trump actually shows he is serious about winning and establishes a ground game and organizations in every state to make sure the polls translate into votes,

he's not only unlikely to win a clear victory but to throw the convention into a deadlock with Rubio and Cruz and possible Christie or Kasich in the mix-

in that case we wind up with Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, or Christie in some mix as the "consensus candidate".


Choose wisely.


For me, Trump isn't a serious player until he starts spending the money necessary to insure a victory and stops trying to do it on the cheap.



Posted by: naturalfake at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (0cMkb)

175 All these precious show votes...

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 09, 2016 11:20 AM (p1OSH)

Conservative Review bases Senate votes on the final vote, not the vote for cloture.... you know... the one that really means something?
Not hard to game that system...
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:27

79% WOW, because he missed 82 bazillion votes. Had he attended every vote Rubio's record would look like Jeff Flake's or John McCain, ya know the 2 mavericks from AZ

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (voOPb)

176 "I'll never pull for a Dem, even out of spite for the GOPe"

I haven't ruled it out. I probably won't vote, but I admit it'll be tempting to vote against every Republican on the ballot.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (u5gzz)

177 why is NH so socialist? are they all trustafarians?

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (mrHIi)

178 Hey guys......

Did you know Texas is the largest state in the Union???

Cuz Alaska really isnt a serious state.

Posted by: fixerupper


California's so unserious it should be stricken from Congress and the Electoral College.

...I'm only half being facetious there, actually.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (9krrF)

179 This black diamond pattern is classified "Top Secret." Please remove from your server immediately.

Posted by: The NSA at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (UzPAd)

180 Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and
Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:34 AM
(hLRSq)

concur.... electable and unelectable are like using the term 'Government Interest'...



You no longer have to make an argument... by using a standard that really means nothing....

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (f7rv6)

181
nice of Drew to add the taint of his support to Cruz. Now he'll definitely not win.
Posted by: Drew's Crystal Ball



OK, he was a little wide of the mark by going all in for Rand Paul -- but now he's got the path to victory all figured out.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (kdS6q)

182 And given Trump's desire to be the world's greatest deal-maker, how often do you think he'll let a hastily crafted position interfere with satisfying his outsized ego?

-----

**looks at Boehners deals

**looks at Mitchs deals

**clears throat



"I can live with that".

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (8XRCm)

183 Appropriate to a heated political thread, today is the anniversary of of the birth of Gypsy Rose Lee (1911-1970)

"I wasn't naked. I was completely covered by a blue spotlight." - Gypsy Rose Lee

You can pull all the stops out
Till they call the cops out,
Grind your behind till you're banned,
But you gotta get a gimmick
If you want to get a hand.

You can sacrifice your sacro
Working in the back row,
Bump in a dump till you're dead
Kid, you gotta get a gimmick
If you wanna get ahead.

- Steven Sondheim and Jule Styne
("You Gotta Get a Gimmick" from Gypsy* (1959))


"The difference between burlesque and the movies politics is that the former never pretended to be performing a public service by exposure." - Shamelessly stolen and modified by Mike Hammer

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (n22zQ)

184 I don't think I could pull the trigger for Rubio. Think, at least.

I abhor what he's done with immigration and universal healthcare, abhor it.

That said, I truly appreciate his devout pro-life stance. So many conservatives say they are pro-life almost as an apology. But, then scream at the top of their lungs, "except for rape, incest, and health of the mother!!!" I like that Rubio is proudly pro-life.

Ted Cruz seems like a slime, and I can trust him about as far as I could throw him.


Posted by: TickledPink at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (RLFFI)

185 >>Electable and Unelectable are words that are used when someone is desperately trying to find a reason to vote for/not vote for a candidate and this is all they have left. They can't actually think of a reason and don't want to admit that it is their gut they are following, so the words Electable or Unelectable are used.

I don't agree with this. Electability absolutely goes into the mix and it does for the candidates too.

It's why Cruz went all in in Iowa and barely visited NH. His evangelical push played in Iowa, it doesn't in NH. Different places will value candidates differently.

I just don't think it's as big a deal this cycle when you have two unlikable twats on the Dem side. Nobody like Hillary save for the 50+ pants suit crowd and Bernie peaks with college kids. This is not like running against an incumbent Obama that the msm adores.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (/tuJf)

186 This personality cult vibe Trump supporters are giving off just creeps me the hell out."

And the "Ted Cruz is God's choice for America, Second Coming of George Washington, talks to Jesus over his cornflakes every morning, only TRUE CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE" vibe creeps the hell out of general election voters.

I like Ted. His policies are closer to my ideal than Trump. But Ted will get crushed in the general. He has no support outside the GOP base whatsoever, and certainly doesn't have monolithic support even within the GOP.

I know many Dems in California who are at least "Trump curious." They listen to what he's saying and some have already admitted to me they're voting for him - first Republican ever. 100% of them hate Ted Cruz with a passion.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (1stCn)

187 The Energy business, the big ones, wanted Dewhurst not Cruz. This time they wanted Jeb, and now Rubio, some even Hillary

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (zOTsN)

188 Politico has an article confirming what we thought: During her speeches Hillary praised Goldman Sachs for doing God's work. Which is why she won't release the transcripts.

Too good to use now?

Like the tape of Hillary cackling over how she got the savage rapist of a 12-year girl off on an evidentiary technicality and her withering cross-examination. Wait until young women hear that.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (r1fLd)

189 Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (Z8fuk)

Yes that is usually the argument made when you can't support Trump policy except when you want to base your support on his 'immigration policy and executive business experience' . Trump supporters are just like Trump.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (AEEhl)

190 181
nice of Drew to add the taint of his support to Cruz. Now he'll definitely not win.
Posted by: Drew's Crystal Ball



OK, he was a little wide of the mark by going all in for Rand Paul -- but now he's got the path to victory all figured out.

Cough Gingrich...cough cough...Jindal...cough

Posted by: Drew's Crystal Ball at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (3UFS9)

191 159 Trump supporters support Trump because they believe that Trump is the only one who will throw a spine-shattering fuck into the GOPe, and by extension, the whole festering mess in DC.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:33 AM (Z8fuk)

So what you're saying is that they are chiefly ruled by emotion and the desire to LIB, not reason?

Yeah, I've noticed.



It's gonna burn. $19 trillion debt. $200+ trillion in unfunded liabilities. Oh yeah, it's gonna burn.

I'D rather it burn now while I am relatively young and can help put it back together, than in 15 or 20 years.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (Y42RP)

192 What differentiates them is how they make the pitch to the voters.

--------------

I do not disagree that Trump can pitch things differently, and that probably does appeal to many. If we are being honest, it will turn some off too. Will the ones he bring in outnumber the ones he turns off? I don't know.

I just don't believe in theory that Trump would really attempt to change things.

As I have said, if you want a wrecking ball, you should want Cruz - not Trump.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (gmeXX)

193 Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:31 AM (f7rv6)

Trump, as president, would now be in a position to take advantage of eminent domain situations.... YUGE conflict of interest as a billionaire business owner and pro-eminent domain stance. I used to be a Hillary campaigner - I would definitely use that against Trump, if he's the nominee.

Posted by: Jenny at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (U2Pgy)

194 If having a wife in a senior position at Goldman
Sachs doesn't shriek "Uniparty Establishment", I don't know what other
signifier would!
Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:24 AM (wYnyS)
_______

Just want to point out that Trump's wife(ves) are not from the US -- two out of three, as far as I know. How seriously can we take his immigration stance given his personal choices. Oh, but they are GOOD immigrants. Fine, but enforce our laws first.

Posted by: mustbequantum at February 09, 2016 11:43 AM (MIKMs)

195 Ghaddafi still around, Assad propped up with Iranian largesse, soldiers, and Russian arms.

Yeah, no idiot foreign policy quandaries there.

Assuming Cruz doesn't actually believe this hands-off, no-loaf Buchanan Doctrine BS, he'll be a better bet than Rubio, sure.

Posted by: Gaywad McGee at February 09, 2016 11:43 AM (M7Ze9)

196 It seems to me that I know all Establishment candidates are lying about their past, present, and future positions.

I know "Conservative Republican" Rubio embraced the "Democrat Sleazoid" Schumer and "Traitorous Republican" McCain concept of free and easy immigration. This says to me either he believes in that immigration stance, or he's too stupid to be in the Senate, let alone the White House, or probably both.

I know Trump has said he is willing to consider a total halt of immigration until things can get sorted out and build a wall, which is a far more definitive plan of action that any other I have heard. So even if he is lying about both of them, he could still move to the "center" and still have a better center-right immigration plan than anybody else.

I'm still thinking and reviewing the Cruz position.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:43 AM (wYnyS)

197 Only an "insane, crazy person" would think Rubio is an Establishment Republican. You heard it here first. Why? Well, because Jeb is the Establishment's first choice.

My brain shutdown after that sentence and I'll refuse to insult my fellow citizens by considering this article worthy of serious debate.

Posted by: Gone On Holiday at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (QgEWC)

198 Yup. this here thread is gonna get ugly.
*puts Cloak of Lurking back on*
Posted by: Pug Mahon at February 09, 2016 10:54 AM

Smartest thing said here so far. Tho I'm only on #9.

Post appears normal on the main page but when I click on comments it appears loaded w/ black diamonds. Anyone else see his?

Posted by: Farmer at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (3hlFs)

199 What this place needs is more Andie MacDowell.

And puppies. Puppies are always good.

Posted by: Chi at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (OUpHg)

200 I can't tell you just how sick of yhe word "unelectable"I am.
Posted by: DangerGirl and her 1.21 Gigawatt Sanity Prod (tm) at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (QjxTy)


Me too. All the 'electable' candidates in the past seem to have sucked big time, right?

Let's pick someone good and then work on selling them.

Posted by: Lea at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (lIU4e)

201 so the Dem side sucks

Q: why not then run an inoffensive GOP guy as the Reasonable Alternative?

A: because it will depress voter turnout when the country is in a state of social, economical, and political collapse

the Dems have a machine, and the only way to beat that machine beyond the margin of fraud is to turn out in YUUGE numbers

who will turn it out? Cruz, or Trump?

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (mrHIi)

202 Oh, but they are GOOD looking immigrants.
...


Posted by: mustbequantum at February 09, 2016 11:43 AM (MIKMs)

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (wYnyS)

203 I'm looking for a Republican candidate who can keep
Hillary and Bernie and whoever the Dems shove into final nominee spot
out of the White House. That's the bottom line. Trump can do it, Cruz
can't.


Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 10:53 AM (JBggj)


mrp... the favorability numbers say you have that exactly backwards. Trump is seen unfavorably by 60% of the country (according to Gallop's latest 2 week rolling numbers released Jan 27th). Cruz unfavorability is 37%... as a point of reference the establishment's darling Rubotio has a 33% anfavorability rating.
Cruz can win.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (NPofj)

204 The last time I heard we needed to vote for X was because the others couldn't win in the general. Yeah, Mitt did a bang up job.

Posted by: John McCain's Punk-Lindsey at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (8852Y)

205 California's so unserious it should be stricken from Congress and the Electoral College.



...I'm only half being facetious there, actually.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (9krrF)

No.... what we need to do is get rid of the 'winner take all' crap in both the Primary, and General Elections.

There are actually quite a few fairly conservative places here in Calif... but their votes are swamped by the cities.
I would add... that by getting rid of winner take all NATIONALLY... you would actually have a Constitutional method of having a general election... Make each Congressional district a mini election... with whoever wins the State getting the votes for the Senators.Suddenly, my vote here in Calif would MEAN something.... instead of the election being decided by a few swing States.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (f7rv6)

206 It's funny how we can look at the left making a risk/benefit evaluation of whether they can actually get an out of the closet socialist elected while we convince ourselves that we're operating in a completely different paradigm. If Hillary weren't a crook, they'd all be lining up behind her.

Posted by: Crr6 at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (Vqcn4)

207 So what you're saying is that they are chiefly ruled by emotion and the desire to LIB, not reason?

You remember those British Marines in Iraq? They were out of ammo, surrounded, and they fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. You remember those guys? That wasn't reasoned debate, that wasn't an intellectual exercise in logic, that was pure fucking emotion.

You've seen all the great war movies where the Supreme Leader gives an impassioned speech to his troops to get them fired up? Not intellectual, not reason, pure emotion.

That's where we are now, in an existential fight for survival and you can take your great intellect and stay back where it's safe and you can write the history of the fucking war you fucking watched from the sidelines with your cynical condescension and self appointed superiority while the rest of us dumb bastards fix bayonets and charge the fucking enemy.

Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (uvzBK)

208 I suggest taking the comment section to DEFCON 2

Posted by: MrKnowItAll at February 09, 2016 11:38 AM (egzLR)


I suggest that it be covered in molten sulfur as the skies above it ignite, the charred husks of all vegetation as withered as the hopes of the Horde as black steeds with eyes as red as furnaces gallop paste endlessly, the sparks struck from their iron hooves burning through the souls of the damned.

Seriously - Flames: On!
Target: Lock!

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (hLRSq)

209 Posted by: Jenny at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (U2Pgy)


The larch.

Posted by: Monty Python at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (JO9+V)

210 Just want to point out that Trump's wife(ves) are not from the US -- two out of three, as far as I know. How seriously can we take his immigration stance given his personal choices. Oh, but they are GOOD immigrants. Fine, but enforce our laws first.
Posted by: mustbequantum at February 09, 2016 11:43 AM (MIKMs)

----

What part of illegal do you not get.

Unless you can show that his wives are illegal.... or ISIS agents using refugee status to invade.... your point is..... s[spectacularly breathtakingly stupid.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (8XRCm)

211 Anyone else see his?



Posted by: Farmer at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (3hlFs)


Pixy feature, definitely not a bug!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (wYnyS)

212 I agree that Drew's comments re Trump were impolitic, I think I would have stated that Tucker Carlson made the case for Trump as good as anyone could already. Otherwise, excellent analysis.

Posted by: Farmer Bob at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (mN+tK)

213 This personality cult vibe Trump supporters are giving off just creeps me the hell out."
----------------

Seems perfectly fine to me.

Posted by: Channeling Ross Perot at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (n22zQ)

214 Let's pick someone good and then work on selling them.



Posted by: Lea at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (lIU4e)


An idea so not crazy it just might work!

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (NPofj)

215 the Dems have a machine, and the only way to beat that machine beyond the margin of fraud is to turn out in YUUGE numbers

who will turn it out? Cruz, or Trump?

-------------

Cruz. Next question.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (gmeXX)

216 152
Here in Atlanta, I heard my first Cruz radio ad. last Friday.



Nothing from any of the others, so far.
============
You break 50% in GA, you get all 73 delegates. Otherwise, it's proportional.

You break 50% in TX, you get 152 delegates, or it's proportional.

Do you see Cruz getting 50% in TX on Super Tuesday?

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (fQ/0p)

217 Yes that is usually the argument made when you can't support Trump policy except when you want to base your support on his 'immigration policy and executive business experience' . Trump supporters are just like Trump.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (AEEhl)


Keep working that circular logic, and you're going to auger yourself right down to the mantle.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (Z8fuk)

218 No.... what we need to do is get rid of the 'winner take all' crap in both the Primary, and General Elections.

----

Sorry... but thats how a Republic works

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (8XRCm)

219 someone mentions Gingrich

interesting, but probably a non-starter at this point

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:47 AM (mrHIi)

220 I enjoyed the read and after considering the arguments of which I am in full agreement, I like Trump. I like Cruz too. The rest are better than Hillary, Sanders or Biden. I think the wall and getting tough on illegal immigration is the only issue at this point. No more Bushes. Trump/Cruz 2016.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (QdAXQ)

221 You've seen all the great war movies where the Supreme Leader gives an impassioned speech to his troops to get them fired up? Not intellectual, not reason, pure emotion.



Braveheart.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (Y42RP)

222 Watch the Triumph the Dog link in the sidebar for a good laugh. I'm still crying.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (GGCsk)

223 Do you see Cruz getting 50% in TX on Super Tuesday?

------------

No I don't. But depends on how many are still running as to how close he can get.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (gmeXX)

224 I used to be a Hillary campaigner - I would definitely use that against Trump, if he's the nominee.

Posted by: Jenny at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (U2Pgy)


Hmmm.... OK then.... Concern is noted...
/facepalm

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (f7rv6)

225 I really don't get the Goldman Sachs thing. Cruz borrowed money from the guys who have money. Then paid them back, if I'm not mistaken? Where's the "owning"? Does Chase bank own me?

Posted by: jd at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (MTWhU)

226 So you guys decided not to keep it, and after all the work we did!

Posted by: B Franklin at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (wYnyS)

227 8 All this time posting and Drew still hasn't figured out the quote thing.

I'm looking for a Republican candidate who can keep Hillary and Bernie and whoever the Dems shove into final nominee spot out of the White House. That's the bottom line. Trump can do it, Cruz can't.


Posted by: mrp

Agreed.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (QdAXQ)

228 that's the spirit, Brian, and that's also what bow-tie conservatives don't get

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (mrHIi)

229 DrewM is a joke. Excluding the front-runner??

Posted by: gh at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (YlqSL)

230 You've seen all the great war movies where the
Supreme Leader gives an impassioned speech to his troops to get them
fired up? Not intellectual, not reason, pure emotion.







Braveheart.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (Y42RP)

Independence Day

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 11:50 AM (JO9+V)

231 Trump may be a blustering fool but he can beat Hillary. I doubt that
Cruz can. If Trump and/or Hillary implodes I'll reevaluate my position.
But until then I'll pull for Trump.


Funny, the polls say just the opposite.

I know, general election polls this far out are meaningless, but Trump has higher negatives than even W at any point in his presidency, and 60% of people polled say they would never vote for him.


That's an awful deep hole to be starting from if you're going to ride the "He's the most electable" pony.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 11:50 AM (N8hFs)

232 "Assuming Cruz doesn't actually believe this hands-off, no-loaf Buchanan Doctrine BS, he'll be a better bet than Rubio, sure."

Better to start another cold proxy war with Russia as they fight the same Muslims who're invading Europe and demanding welfare as we send OUR soldiers to fight for THEIR countries?

We cannot hope to micromanage world events to the degree neocon warhawks like Rubio and Christie pretend in their stump speeches. Even if we could, there's little to no carrot there for us.

Stop worrying about how the rest of the world is governed until we get our own house in order. The world needs to save itself while we take some long-deferred "me time" and reassess our strategic priorities for the first time since the Roosevelt Administrations.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:50 AM (1stCn)

233 I'm with Ted. Moo moo can scarf donkey weinie.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 09, 2016 11:50 AM (xWW96)

234 I have no doubt Trump will make deals and bring people together. Deals in which he will come out saving face or looking good.

The problem is I'm not exactly what kind of deal he's going to make in my favor. It may turn quickly into a situation where a democrat politician and a federal union come to a deal in determining how much more of my money they are going to take.

I don't mind Trump, I like how he's rattled the right cage, but I have zero certainty that the deals he will make as president will come from a conservative position at all.

Posted by: Reality Man at February 09, 2016 11:50 AM (9AQdP)

235 Cruz all the way!

I see a number of Trump supporters pissed that Drew dismissed Trump out of hand. I'll tell you why Trump gets dismissed: because he's a double talking celebrity blowhard. Every position he takes he's taken the opposite position at some point. Abortion? Amnesty? Eminent domain? National security? Not only is his position on any of those topics not especially conservative, but it's not even consistent.

I mean, seriously, how could you possibly think Trump will do any particular thing once elected since he's constantly walking back his positions and saying something different? If you're voting for Trump you're essentially saying you just believe that he'll do what you want once elected even though he has no previous record of doing so.

That takes a lot more faith than I've got.

Posted by: OSUsux at February 09, 2016 11:51 AM (DFXmi)

236 177 why is NH so socialist? are they all trustafarians?

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (mrHIi)


I've heard NH used to be pretty conservative. And then liberals from Massachusetts (called "Massholes"), tired of the high tax, high unemployment, high crime state created by politicians they had voted for, moved to low tax, low unemployment, low crime NH and are now voting for politicians and policies that will result in the high tax, high unemployment, high crime they were running away from.

In other words, having shat their own nest, they're now shitting in their new one.

Posted by: OregonMuse at February 09, 2016 11:51 AM (maOV6)

237 I don't mind Trump, I like how he's rattled the right cage, but I have zero certainty that the deals he will make as president will come from a conservative position at all.

-------------

He has FU money, so don't worry.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:51 AM (gmeXX)

238 Trump is an asshole, and he's NOT our asshole.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 09, 2016 11:51 AM (xWW96)

239 Cruz all the way!


Don't see it... Unless things change, He doesn't garner the votes from those icky Independents...

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (/dSsq)

240 DrewM is a joke. Excluding the front-runner??

Posted by: gh at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (YlqSL)

-----

Common trait among the self appointed king makers.

Cant have an icky non establishment guy be the nominee.... so we.just.cross.them.out.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (8XRCm)

241 If by some miracle the Dem candidate were Sanders or Biden, I dunno. But I will vote for ANYONE against Hillary.

My main concern about Trump is that I believe he is unelectable in the general. His negatives are sky-high and not likely to go down. The media has already branded him as a vulgar clown and, more importantly, has branded his supporters as knuckle-dragging fascists.
You think they'll let up on this narrative if he gets the nomination?

When Hillary beats him easily in the general --- and IMO she will, even without 3rd party interference --- the media will spin this as a popular repudiation of his opposition to open borders. The Uniparty will seize the moment and give us policy that will make the Gang of Eight crap look like vanilla ice cream.

In any case, I do not favor Trump in the primaries because I think he is BY FAR the weakest candidate against the Bitch of Benghazi.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (T/5A0)

242 #182 - fixerupper -
**looks at Boehners deals



**looks at Mitchs deals



**clears throat



"I can live with that".
______________

So you're so used to get screwed over, you decide you want more of it? Trump will make the same deals or worse and crow about his magnificence as he does.

I don't want a dealmaker. I want a conservative who will stand on principle, not moan about how this isn't the hill to die on, or a fake who will sell the people out because he's filled with contempt for them.

I'm not sure one of those is in the race, but I know damn sure that Trump ain't it.

Posted by: Long Running Fool at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (L0bUn)

243 No.... what we need to do is get rid of the 'winner take all' crap in both the Primary, and General Elections.

____

Give the winner of each CD 1 EV and the winner of the state gets the 2 extra EVs per state. It has the effect of putting every state in play, so a candidate actually has to campaign in NY and CA and IL and TX.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (0LHZx)

244 You've seen all the great war movies where the

Supreme Leader gives an impassioned speech to his troops to get them

fired up? Not intellectual, not reason, pure emotion.
Braveheart.


Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (Y42RP)
Independence Day>>>

The Apple Dumpling Gang

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (XtAzU)

245 Post appears normal on the main page but when I click on comments it appears loaded w/ black diamonds. Anyone else see his?

Posted by: Farmer at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (3hlFs)


Nope. It must be your platinum membership.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (RcpcZ)

246 I hope Hillary likes a good schlonging. 'Cause today I am giving it to her good and hard.


Posted by: Bernie Sanders at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (1ijHg)

247 Sorry... but thats how a Republic works

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:46 AM (8XRCm)

Actually... no.... its up to the States individually.... some States are NOT winner take all.
Maine and Nebraska are NOT winner take all....

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (f7rv6)

248 "I really don't get the Goldman Sachs thing."

It's unfair but that's politics. Ted's wife had to keep their stock holdings at Goldman. That's an industry practice to allow monitoring for any illegal insider trading. They took out a margin loan with the stock as collateral. Straightforward industry practice which caps the loan at no more than 50% of the stock value.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (r1fLd)

249 The problem is I'm not exactly what kind of deal he's going to make in my favor. It may turn quickly into a situation where a democrat politician and a federal union come to a deal in determining how much more of my money they are going to take.

Right now what I'm getting in return for the money being taken is nearly a joke. Either take less or I get something.

Look, if there was at least some advantage to being a taxpaying American citizen in good standing, I doubt anyone would be nearly as pissed off as they are. And yet, here we are. Basic customer service, how's it effin' work...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (9krrF)

250
I've been a Cruz supporter since he announced.

Troubling votes and decisions? To be sure.
But they are more "acceptable" than any of the other candidates.

On balance, good and bad, his positives outweigh his negatives far more than any other candidate.

Cruz '16.

And if Trump gets the nod, then I hope he picks Cruz as veep. He has a war-cock and brains that can really be quite effective with Trump.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (zLP1L)

251 *opens door. Looks in* Wow. This place is a mess. And so early. Those Mehican housekeepers aren't going to be happy. No sir, not at all.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (Fmupd)

252 >>Braveheart.

>>Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (Y42RP)

>>Independence Day

Miracle. Kurt Russell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpTj_Z9v-c

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (/tuJf)

253 ok, deadlock

so who's the Ace of Spades Dream Candidate? someone who's not in the race

Sowell?

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 11:53 AM (mrHIi)

254 I like Ted. His policies are closer to my ideal than
Trump. But Ted will get crushed in the general. He has no support
outside the GOP base whatsoever, and certainly doesn't have monolithic
support even within the GOP.

I know many Dems in California who
are at least "Trump curious." They listen to what he's saying and some
have already admitted to me they're voting for him - first Republican
ever. 100% of them hate Ted Cruz with a passion.


Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (1stCn)

Wow Drew... you sure did bring the concern trolls out in force. I am having Luap Nor flashbacks.
And Society... your argument would mean more if 60% of the country wouldn't vote for Trump on a dare.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 11:54 AM (NPofj)

255 Does Chase bank own me?


Posted by: jd at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (MTWhU)


*checks paperwork*

Uh oh....

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:54 AM (hLRSq)

256 Cruz wrote an op-ed with Paul Ryan in the WSJ lauding the TPA and TPP.



You know, the biggest trade deal of all time that would give Obama dictatorial powers. It would destroy the USA.


But yeah, he's the "consistent conservative" we need. LOL. Spare me the Planned Parenthood rants, we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Only one guy is for stopping the TPP and that man is Trump.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 11:54 AM (7QkL1)

257 ? someone who's not in the race



I would prefer a do-over with some better Candidates...

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 11:54 AM (/dSsq)

258 i'm a cruz support....and my first choice, rick perry supports him too...

it's almost time for the weekly prayer.......it's starts in 5 min....


Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 09, 2016 11:54 AM (0O7c5)

259 You've seen all the great war movies where the

Supreme Leader gives an impassioned speech to his troops to get them

fired up? Not intellectual, not reason, pure emotion.
Braveheart.


Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:48 AM (Y42RP)
Independence Day>>>

The Apple Dumpling Gang


Animal House.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 11:54 AM (RcpcZ)

260 And also Drew is a pussy who can't debate shit on twitter without blocking people on a whim.


Not a deep thinker that guy.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (7QkL1)

261 As a Trump supporter you have to consciously dismiss everything Trump has said and stood for in the recent past. That's what most people not supporting Trump on the Right don't understand about the support for Trump.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 11:29 AM (AEEhl)

Trump could have SAID anything he wanted in the past. He was a businessman speaking in the capacity of a private citizen.

Most people get this because most people are A) Private citizens and B) not attorneys.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (cWiA2)

262 254
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:42 AM (1stCn)

That's what everyone said about Ronald Reagan, who 1 day before election 1980 was losing to Carter by 6 points.

'nuff said, and thanks for your "concern."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (zLP1L)

263 I'm kind of surprised Drew didn't pick me, based on my foreign policy and domestic economic record of agreement with Rand Paul.

Oh well! On to serfdom!

Posted by: Bernie! at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (TxJGV)

264 Great analysis Drew. I really enjoyed this on several levels. And as a nice bonus, you've unmasked a whole lot of Trump shills!

Posted by: db at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (T4wme)

265 One last on electability and negatives. My lying eyes and ears tell me Democrats and Indys hate Cruz with a passion and like the populist side of Trump. I'm basing this mainly on conversations here in CA as well as in OH and NY (upstate, not NYC). I don't see how the type of campaign Ted ran in Iowa (the Full Glenn Beck) sells to America in general.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (1stCn)

266 260 And also Drew is a pussy who can't debate shit on twitter without blocking people on a whim.


Not a deep thinker that guy.



Now, now lets not be nasty...

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 11:56 AM (/dSsq)

267 You've seen all the great war movies where the
Supreme Leader gives an impassioned speech to his troops to get them
fired up? Not intellectual, not reason, pure emotion.





Admiral Lutjens from Sink The Bismark.




Oh wait, that didn't turn out so well for them.






Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 11:56 AM (JO9+V)

268 And puppies. Puppies are always good.
Posted by: Chi


https://youtu.be/5E9H_DvwOVc

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 09, 2016 11:56 AM (FkBIv)

269 so who's the Ace of Spades Dream Candidate? someone who's not in the race

AtC 2016 - All shall love her and despair!

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 09, 2016 11:56 AM (9krrF)

270 Seriously, would you all relax?

This isn't 2008 or 2012--the race won't be decided today or on the 20th in SC.

After today, there will be 50 delegates awarded.

After SC, there is 97.

Then NV gets us 124.

Then March 1, and it leaps to 774.

Out of 2,472 to be awarded.

Calm down.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 09, 2016 11:56 AM (fQ/0p)

271 Post appears normal on the main page but when I click on comments it appears loaded w/ black diamonds. Anyone else see his?



Posted by: Farmer at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (3hlFs)



Nope. It must be your platinum membership.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 11:52 AM (RcpcZ)

Farmer, I am seeing black diamonds with question marks in them.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 11:56 AM (NPofj)

272 ust want to point out that Trump's wife(ves) are not from the US -- two out of three, as far as I know. How seriously can we take his immigration stance given his personal choices. Oh, but they are GOOD immigrants. Fine, but enforce our laws first.
Posted by: mustbequantum at February 09, 2016 11:43 AM (MIKMs)

Trump's wives emigrated legally to the US. Ivana became a US citizen in 1988. Melania Knauss also legally emigrated to the US and became a naturalized US citizen in 2006.

How is the fact that Trump married two immigrants, who entered the country legally, worked, paid taxes and then became US citizens demonstrates that he is unserious about enforcing our laws.

Posted by: Jen the original at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (K0Iz7)

273 dead babies.....take a back seat...we have more important issues... material issues....good Lord......

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (0O7c5)

274 I don't see how the type of campaign Ted ran in Iowa (the Full Glenn Beck) sells to America in general.

--------------

Because it is more important to appeal to your base in these base election times. See Mitt Romney.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (gmeXX)

275 Seems to me that a lot of "deep thinkers" around here couldn't wet both sides of a hook in the depth of their thought.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (xWW96)

276 They took out a margin loan with the stock as collateral. Straightforward industry practice which caps the loan at no more than 50% of the stock value.
Posted by: Ignoramus
-----------------

I am currently encumbered with just such a loan. Does that make me untrustworthy? Does it mean that I owe a political debt to the brokerage? Or, does it mean that I needed a new roof?

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (n22zQ)

277 Miracle. Kurt Russell.

====================

Used Cars. Kurt Russell

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (JBggj)

278
Posted by: TickledPink at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (RLFFI)


Yes, Rubio is aggressively Pro-Life just as he was aggressively Anti-amnesty, until he wasn't.

Rubio understands the value of the Pretty Lie Aggressively Stated.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (0cMkb)

279 That's what everyone said about Ronald Reagan, who 1 day before election 1980 was losing to Carter by 6 points.

----

At this time... the polling had Reagan down by 16 points.


He would be ... and was.... deemed "enelectible" by our betters.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 09, 2016 11:57 AM (8XRCm)

280 "Most people get this because most people are A) Private citizens and B) not attorneys."

Thank you for saying this. Say it again.

Ted can't win an election like a Supreme Court case. Emotion, likeability and leadership matter more than forensic and rhetorical skills to everyone who isn't a moot courter or a debate team member. Even Ted's supporters admit he's not exactly a hearthrob charisma-wise.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 11:58 AM (1stCn)

281 Naturalfake:


I do agree with you re Trump's ground game. However, Roger Stone (dude is Lee Atwater protege - one of best killer operatives out there) has said Trump's SC ground game is second to none.


FWIW

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 11:58 AM (7QkL1)

282 "My main concern about Trump is that I believe he is unelectable in the general. His negatives are sky-high and not likely to go down."

This is a fair question. If Trump can't increase from 35% in Republican primaries as the field winnows it's a tell that he'll have a problem in the general.

Cruz's negatives will go up once his positions on things like abortion get better known. Sorry, but true.

Rubio may have skeletons in his closet. We'll now better in the day whether he's lost his MoJo.

Trump can win a general even with high negatives by making it a Mud Slinging Match to drive up the other's negatives and chill their turnout. YMMV.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 11:58 AM (r1fLd)

283 And as a nice bonus, you've unmasked a whole lot of Trump shills!

Posted by: db at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (T4wme)


Unmasked?

This place?

Having them put on pants when company comes over is a big hassle. No body hides anything here and I have the therapy bills to prove it!

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Ashes, Sackcloth, Woe and Despair! Election and Lenten Specials at the Outrage Outlet! at February 09, 2016 11:58 AM (hLRSq)

284 This makes Ted vulnerable to the ideologue argument from the Left.(as opposed to Trump-sic)

Someone actually typed this in all seriousness.


SMDH

Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (N8hFs)

285 You've got a guy who never saw a problem he doesn't think Government could be increased in size & scope to handle...
That's fine, Bernie thinks the same way.
I'm just not sure why you think that's a good GOP candidate.
Posted by: gekkobear at February 09, 2016 11:40 AM (kq7Of)

Was that lifted straight from NR?

You know, you could *research* his policy proposals.

Then at least you would be an informed vanquisher of straw men.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (cWiA2)

286 Post appears normal on the main page but when I click on comments it appears loaded w/ black diamonds. Anyone else see his?
Posted by: Farmer
---------------
Happens all the time for me, T.
Usually on a thread that ace posts.

Hope you & J are doing well! Bailey recovered completely?

Posted by: Chi at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (OUpHg)

287 225 I really don't get the Goldman Sachs thing. Cruz borrowed money from the guys who have money. Then paid them back, if I'm not mistaken? Where's the "owning"? Does Chase bank own me?



Is you wife as senior vp pulling down six figures from them?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (Y42RP)

288 Having them put on pants when company comes over is a big hassle. No
body hides anything here and I have the therapy bills to prove it!>>>

Does your therapist use puppets?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (XtAzU)

289 Calm down.
Posted by: RoyalOil
------------------

This is AoSHQ, the angst must flow!

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (n22zQ)

290 225
I really don't get the Goldman Sachs thing. Cruz borrowed money from the
guys who have money. Then paid them back, if I'm not mistaken? Where's
the "owning"? Does Chase bank own me?


Posted by: jd at February 09, 2016 11:49 AM (MTWhU)

Cruz literally SLEEPS with a Goldman Sachs Executive.As Texas IS a community property State... he has money going into HIS account, from Goldman Sachs.If you do not believe that will impact his actions in any way? You have much more faith in his character than I...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (f7rv6)

291 Emotion, likeability and leadership matter more than forensic and rhetorical skills to everyone who isn't a moot courter or a debate team member. Even Ted's supporters admit he's not exactly a hearthrob charisma-wise.

-------------

Exactly. That's how I won the largest electoral landslide in history. It was my personality.

Posted by: Zombie Nixon at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (gmeXX)

292 I think it is instructive of the attitudes here that "hill to Die on" is the phrase of choice.

Whatever happened to Hill to Win on?
Or Hill to fight on?

They're not all death traps. If fighting one time and losing means the end, I guess there wasn't much of an army to begin with.

But, winning begets winning, and that means you have to fight somewhere.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (kKHcp)

293 Is you wife as senior vp pulling down six figures from them?
Posted by: rickb223
-------------

No. Dammit.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (n22zQ)

294 Trump could have SAID anything he wanted in the past. He was a businessman speaking in the capacity of a private citizen.



Most people get this because most people are A) Private citizens and B) not attorneys.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (cWiA2)


That is grade A illogic. You either hold people responsible for their statements and positions or you don't. There is no OllyOllyOxenfree for businessmen to lie with impunity.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (NPofj)

295 You give your fellow citizens a lot more credit than I do.

Posted by: a phoenician sailor at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (uEmgg)

296
Alex the Chick/SMOD '016!

That's a ticket I can get behind beneath. Soul-crushing Despair followed immediately by all my atoms 'splodin' at the speed of light.

It'd be better that what we have now.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (LUgeY)

297 179 This black diamond pattern is classified "Top Secret." Please remove from your server immediately.
Posted by: The NSA at February 09, 2016 11:41 AM (UzPAd

Thats for you little people
Posted by: Hillary Clinton & Her Posse

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (voOPb)

298 In the general, it doesn't really matter who our nominee is - his likeability rating will be at parity or slightly above. So, all this talk about Trump as being un-electable because of his "likeability" is pure horse-shit.

Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (rZJS9)

299 Is you wife as senior vp pulling down six figures from them?

----------

No, but it would be nice.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (gmeXX)

300
60% of people polled say they would never vote for him.
Posted by: Weirddave



Then, problem solved. If he's so darn unelectable, he won't win the primaries.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (kdS6q)

301 Ted Cruz is a genius level litigator from Harvard.


He told everyone a tale about how he and Heidi sold all of their assets and put that $ in his campaign.


His FEC disclosure form is one page. He failed to disclose the GS low interest loan and the Citibank low interest loan.


That is borderline criminal. It was only disclosed via a Senate form no one reviews about a week before his primary against Dewhurst.


This will be a problem.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (7QkL1)

302 >>Cruz literally SLEEPS with a Goldman Sachs Executive.As Texas IS a community property State... he has money going into HIS account, from Goldman Sachs.If you do not believe that will impact his actions in any way? You have much more faith in his character than I...

Do you have any idea how much Trump owes to various banks for all his projects? Millions and millions of dollars.

If we are going to play the guilt by association game then Trump is much more in debt to big banks than any candidate save for Hillary!

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:02 PM (/tuJf)

303 293 Is you wife as senior vp pulling down six figures from them?
Posted by: rickb223
-------------

No. Dammit.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (n22zQ

From what we have gathered your lucky if she feeds the vicious cat and walks the psycho puppy

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:02 PM (voOPb)

304 I don't buy Trump as extra electable. He generates a lot of buzz, lot of it is negative that I see on FB, scares white suburban mom liberals a lot and will motivate a lot of votes 'against that scary dude"

If I can't have Cruz, Trump is my 2nd choice because at least he is not pushing for one world, no borders crap + in the pocket of donor class like Rubio but I would say to anybody 'don't set aside who you want for *electable* - that burned the Dems with Kerry and burned us big time with Romney, its a dumb and losing strategy.'

Posted by: PaleRider at February 09, 2016 12:02 PM (chkUd)

305 Then, problem solved. If he's so darn unelectable, he won't win the primaries.

----------

On that I agree. He will not win the primaries.

Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 12:02 PM (gmeXX)

306 Oh and Mr. Hammer

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (voOPb)

307 Having now read the whole post, twice, a comment, about style, not content.

A single speed bump on a residential street is just a little annoying. A long series of them is truly aggravating and begins to distract attention from careful driving. Or, attention to reading, in this case.

"not a brand of conservatism I adhere too."
to, not too

"only an insane, crazy person"
redundant

"deals will have to be made by too often"
but, not by

"too much too begin with"
too, not to, again

"Republicans in Congress will finally going to find"
are, not will; else, leave out "going to"

"the reality that President's have to accept"
plural, not possessive

And, for my taste, you could use at least a dozen more commas, Oxford and otherwise.

I just keep telling myself, it's only a hasty blog post. It's not like careful, serious writing with an editor...

Posted by: The 8th Grade English schoolmarm who lives in mindful webworker's head at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (wmyHK)

308 Today I am wearing my human suit

Posted by: MIRROR UNIVERSE ROBO RUBIO at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (XzRw1)

309 "Wow Drew... you sure did bring the concern trolls out in force. I am having Luap Nor flashbacks.And Society... your argument would mean more if 60% of the country wouldn't vote for Trump on a dare."

If Ted wins the nomination, I'll vote for him and go down in flames with the rest of the Tea Party ship. We'll get beat worse than Romney, lose the <100k/year income vote by 4/1 again and just to add insult to injury, pull record lows in Hispanic votes despite "Cuban."

Once again, my lying eyes ears tell me Trump's the better choice. I trust my own observations more than stat-fu.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (1stCn)

310 In the general, it doesn't really matter who our
nominee is - his likeability rating will be at parity or slightly above.
So, all this talk about Trump as being un-electable because of his
"likeability" is pure horse-shit.

Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (rZJS9)
AND YET you and your ilk keep insisting that Cruz is so unelectable cause nobody likes him.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (NPofj)

311 From what we have gathered your lucky if she feeds the vicious cat and walks the psycho puppy
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian
----------

S'ok. She keeps my toes warm at night.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (n22zQ)

312 There is no OllyOllyOxenfree for businessmen to lie with impunity.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (NPofj)


???

I live in America. How about you?

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 12:04 PM (RcpcZ)

313 You either hold people responsible for their statements and positions or you don't. There is no OllyOllyOxenfree for businessmen to lie with impunity.


Why not? We allow politicians to.
All. The. Time.
And then vote for them again.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:04 PM (Y42RP)

314 So lemme get this straight...

The guy running around calling people names, being a general dick, blowhard, narcissistic celebrity with the ever bending political positions, the guy insulting women, making fun of people with disabilities, the guy with the highest negatives of any candidate ever polled...that guy is electable. The guy who just last night called another candidate a pussy during a speech. THAT guy is electable.

The other guy is not.

This is insane.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 09, 2016 12:04 PM (2PHKP)

315 Well said Drew, I don't expect politicians to agree with me on everything or on every policy preference. What I do expect is that the policy preferences of myself and fellow citizens be taken seriously and not dismissed by insults or rhetorically dismissed as simplistic.

FWIW, in my candidate calculus Cruz is the best of who is left as a candidate and probably Nixonian enough not to piss off basic nationalistic and conservative voters through insulting them or secretively ramming through liberal policies and/or sacrifice national interests for those of the global community even if that is not his personal policy preference in a given circumstance.

See his winning action in the Supreme Court upholding the sovereignty of Texas versus the Vienna Convention on execution of a mass murderer who the World Court ruled should be released for a new trial.

Posted by: whig at February 09, 2016 12:05 PM (mlyQI)

316 That is borderline criminal. It was only disclosed via a Senate form no one reviews about a week before his primary against Dewhurst.


This will be a problem.
Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (7QkL1

It will be if:
1) you let it
2) if you don't fight

Cruz wont
And
Cruz will

There's enough guilt by association on both sides of the aisle. Bernie didn't get to be a career long politician without some shady associations.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:05 PM (voOPb)

317 The Goldman thing is like the Natural Born thing. It shouldn't be an issue but it is.

Cruz's wife is not anywhere close to Goldman's nerve center. She's got a semi-senior position in "wealth management" in Texas. That means she networks with rich people in Texas, the same people who donated to the Bushes and now donate to Ted.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:05 PM (r1fLd)

318 What this place needs is more Andie MacDowell.

And puppies. Puppies are always good.

Posted by: Chi at February 09, 2016 11:44 AM (OUpHg)



What's the color blue taste like? Bubba knows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQMEOp04Iw

Posted by: Kindltot at February 09, 2016 12:06 PM (q2o38)

319 Cruz is unelectable.



While I think he would make a good president, and I would vote for
him, his personality (and his looks to some extent) alienates a lot of
people.



If you really want an outsider who has a shot at winning, I would go with Trump and let the chaos begin!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 09, 2016 11:04 AM (so+oy)


Based on what evidence (for any of those three claims)?

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:06 PM (NPofj)

320 Do you have any idea how much Trump owes to various banks for all his projects? Millions and millions of dollars.

If we are going to play the guilt by association game then Trump is much more in debt to big banks than any candidate save for Hillary!




If you owe the bank a million dollars, it owns you.
If you owe the bank 100 million dollars, you own the bank.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:06 PM (Y42RP)

321 Posted by: The 8th Grade English schoolmarm who lives in mindful webworker's head at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM

Are you available to edit poorly written SciFi novels?

Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 12:06 PM (uvzBK)

322 If Ted wins the nomination, I'll vote for him and go down in flames with the rest of the Tea Party ship.
-------------

At a recent gun show that I attended, the Tea Party folk had a large Cruz poster. Pic:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/zbu3xqt

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 12:07 PM (n22zQ)

323 S'ok. She keeps my toes warm at night.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (n22zQ

And hasn't poisoned your morning coffee all is good



Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:07 PM (voOPb)

324 "Exactly. That's how I won the largest electoral landslide in history. It was my personality."

Reagan v. Carter. Reagan v. Mondale. Bush I v. Clinton. Dole v. Clinton. W v. Gore Kerry. Obama v. McCain. Personality matters.

The Nixon electorate was justifiably scared shitless by the lunacy of McGovern. The present tranny-friendly electorate is supporting an avowed socialist on the Dem side in huge numbers. Nixon's an outlier example here.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 12:07 PM (1stCn)

325 I fully agree with this endorsement.

I would also add this, since the "did he or didn't he endorse amnesty" question has been hanging around for a while. Yes, Cruz did come off as more "moderate" on immigration in the past, when he was coming up through the ranks, and yes, that could mean he'll turn around and make a deal with the GOPe as President. But there are at least two ways to read that. The other is that he actually is against illegal immigration and amnesty, and merely said and did what he had to to rise into a position of power and later come out against it.

I could be wrong, but I suspect it's this way for Cruz; that he actually is with the base in spirit, has been all along, and was merely telling the establishment what they wanted to hear for a while, rather than vice versa. Being in academia, I can appreciate that kind of balancing act you have to pull off sometimes. Just my impression of the guy, that's all.

Posted by: T at February 09, 2016 12:07 PM (NctcF)

326 PLEASE CAN WE... JUST CALM... THE FUCK... DOWN!!

Posted by: Liz, Shaun's ex-girlfriend at February 09, 2016 12:07 PM (JO9+V)

327 FNC calling NH the first primary of 2016 campaign. I'm laughing. Nobody respects the stupid IA caucesses as legit.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (Fmupd)

328 Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (rZJS9)
AND YET you and your ilk keep insisting that Cruz is so unelectable cause nobody likes him.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:03 PM (NPofj)

---------

I have never said that. I would vote for Cruz if he is the nominee. But, I am voting for Trump on super-Tuesday.

Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (rZJS9)

329 Serious question: is a President allowed to continue operating his business enterprises while serving? Or the spouse of a President?


Is there a law or protocol that governs this?

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (Z8fuk)

330
"If you refuse to consider Trump as a serious candidate worth talking
about, why should the people who consider Trump as serious as any other
candidate care at all what you have to say? By dismissing him so
out-of-hand you dismiss the judgement of his supporters and their
reasons for supporting him."

A sufficient reason to eliminate Trump from the discussion is for brevity. Trump supporters can certainly take this as a personal rejection (and respond in the comment manner that Ace has explicitly said he will not tolerate*), but why not, for example, include Fiorina in the discussion? Perhaps because she is not polling high enough, and so you are using poll numbers as a criterion for "serious candidate."

Drew is free when he writes to choose his own. The subject of the post is Rubio versus Cruz only.

*If he says "Trump is not a serious candidate," that is a criticism of Trump. He may think Trump cannot rise above his 35 percent slice just as others think Fiorina can never rise above her 2 to 3 percent. Several comments, however, have responded by making it heatedly personal.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (MhGOw)

331 I WANT TO CHANGE THE TV CHANNEL NOW NURSE

Posted by: MIRROR UNIVERSE ROBO RUBIO at February 09, 2016 12:09 PM (XzRw1)

332 In the "Votes that Might Matter" department, get a $25 Cabela's gift card by joining NRA or extending your membership. You have to sign up at a Cabela's store on Saturday or Sunday.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 09, 2016 12:09 PM (u5gzz)

333 They are finding ISIS commanders living as refugees in Germany. What a freaking mess! Shows you that gov does not give a shit about the safety of their citizens and we're not better. And the UK banning people like Geller et al., both with terrorists coming and going and preaching in their mosques.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 09, 2016 12:09 PM (iQIUe)

334 The Goldman thing is like the Natural Born thing. It shouldn't be an issue but it is.



Cruz's wife is not anywhere close to Goldman's nerve center. She's
got a semi-senior position in "wealth management" in Texas. That means
she networks with rich people in Texas, the same people who donated to
the Bushes and now donate to Ted.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:05 PM (r1fLd)

Only in the minds of rabid Trump supporters are either of those things an issue.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:09 PM (NPofj)

335 S'ok. She keeps my toes warm at night.
Posted by: Mike Hammer
------------
The wife? Or the cat?

Posted by: Chi at February 09, 2016 12:10 PM (OUpHg)

336 I just completed my early voting here in Georgia, and I picked Trump. He's my F U candidate to the establishment.

Posted by: ALH at February 09, 2016 12:10 PM (JrKKc)

337 "Drew is free when he writes to choose his own. The subject of the post is Rubio versus Cruz only."

If the subject was Rubio v. Cruz, why mention Trump? And yes, we all recognize Drew's "right to write" what he wants - but I thought part of the exercise was to get us to read it and listen, not make us stop reading in the lead paragraph.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 12:10 PM (1stCn)

338 Soona: LOL, yep.



If Cruz wins I will fight hard for him as the nom. Which makes me hate those who slam Trump constantly just that much more.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (7QkL1)

339
314 So lemme get this straight...

The guy running around calling people names, being a general dick, blowhard, narcissistic celebrity with the ever bending political positions, the guy insulting women, making fun of people with disabilities, the guy with the highest negatives of any candidate ever polled...that guy is electable. The guy who just last night called another candidate a pussy during a speech. THAT guy is electable.

The other guy is not.

This is insane.


Yes, it is insane.

But as the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (RcpcZ)

340 That is grade A illogic. You either hold people responsible for their statements and positions or you don't. There is no OllyOllyOxenfree for businessmen to lie with impunity.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:00 PM (NPofj)

Truly? Because the 80's were a long time ago. I was a card-carrying pro-choice Democrat then.

But I changed.

What is illogical is the idea that you "hold" someone responsible for shooting the breeze about politics nearly thirty years ago.

But you willfully fail to so much as address a single policy issue as detailed in his book or website.

I know if I wanted to defeat someone I would study the relevant stuff.

Like many people, Trump was more liberal a while back. But his policies, which are more detailed and sound than most of his competitors, are not steeped in the statist leftism you claim. So when you criticize his opinions from 30 years ago, confuse them with policy recommendations, all while ignoring the reality of RE in NY, you only highlight your own insincerity.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (cWiA2)

341 As an aside, I am enjoying the fact that many Liberals will be torn between Bernie and Hill on Primary day. I just imagine their febrile agony, and feel warm inside.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (n22zQ)

342 Electability can be assessed by answering this question: Which Republican has the best shot at winning swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida?

I say Trump but YMMV.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (r1fLd)

343 Someone actually typed this in all seriousness.


SMDH


Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (N8hFs)

==========Why yes I did, Weird. Because I'm looking forward to the general, when the LIVs will be paying attention. The MSM already have their playbook set for Cruz and if he is the GOP nominee, he will be typecast 24/7 with the MSM's torch blast. Only the political activists and those of us with an interest in politics know who Ted Cruz is. If, as it seems, his own party elders can neuter his political maneuvers, the Dems figure they've got him right where they want him.
Trump already has a high recognition percentage. He's slippery and the Left can't box him in as easily as they and their GOPe allies have done with Cruz. Trump's a private sector guy and right now the private sector is taking it in the chops.
So, yes, Weird, I'm serious.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (JBggj)

344 It's one thing to messed professionally, make a mistake, not have your feet under you at first in the Senate... like Rubio did in his first moves in the Senate... and he learned. What Rubio did was a stupid mistake, not a show of his character.


It's another to reveal your soul by claiming to be God's candidate and then to cheat in the name of God. No Cruz is a fraud, trying to bring a theocracy to America, what does it mean to dominate the government? Every villain, in every modern fairytale, is seeking World Domination... like Cruz.

And fighting fights just to fight, is stupid and counterproductive. Cruz can't work strategically, he ruins everything he touches.

Rubio is the only choice between these two.

I'll vote for the flawed man Rubio, over the Flawed man with the god complex, Cruz.

I'm just not interested in a Theocracy, especially one seeking world domination. Especially, by one who is such a jerk,personally.

Posted by: petunia at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (VoCyE)

345
Serious question: is a President allowed to continue operating his
business enterprises while serving? Or the spouse of a President?





Is there a law or protocol that governs this?

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (Z8fuk)

All personal assets have to go into a blind trust (or maybe it is just that former presidents before Obama have done that voluntarily).

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (NPofj)

346 Cruz's wife is not anywhere close to Goldman's nerve
center. She's got a semi-senior position in "wealth management" in
Texas. That means she networks with rich people in Texas, the same
people who donated to the Bushes and now donate to Ted.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:05 PM (r1fLd)
per wiki...
Conway would later recommend her to lead the office. Cruz used politics to gain common ground with her clients and deployed her husband to join her in meeting with potential investors.[17] She had served as vice president for seven years before the promotion in 2013



She is a HEAD of her division.. This will be used by the Democrats.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 12:12 PM (f7rv6)

347 I just don't see how Trump, one half step to the right of Clinton, can be the savior so many seem to think. Winning isn't worth it if you don't get anything you want. I'd rather go with Cruz, and if he loses, the burning starts. I'm not in the mood for another four years of getting by, and not getting any relief. We need to begin dismantling the federal monster, or else get it to crash asap.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 09, 2016 12:12 PM (Qvgg/)

348 Can either strums or Cruz carry battleground states?

Posted by: Bubba at February 09, 2016 12:12 PM (n6Omg)

349 Trump donating to Hillary Clinton in order to get favors: No biggie.

Heidi Cruz working for GS: OMG guys!!!! Did you hear??!?

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 09, 2016 12:12 PM (2PHKP)

350 too many diamonds...


Posted by: redc1c4 at February 09, 2016 12:13 PM (Eq8if)

351 Wow, The Goldman-Sachs thang is really bringing out the paranoia and stupid in select members of the moron horde.

Like so:

Cruz literally SLEEPS with a Goldman Sachs Executive


Ahem.


Trump literally SLEEPS with women who came from East Block Communist countries dominated by Russia!!!!!1111!!!!

There can be no doubt that they used their SLEEPER AGENT talents-

to influence Trump.

Trump is under Russian influence!!!!!111!!!1!!!!

Trump is controlled by Putin!!!11!11!!!!!


Yep, just as reasonable.

People get a grip.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 09, 2016 12:13 PM (0cMkb)

352 Cruz cannot win the election. You would have to be an idiot to vote for him in the primary. The Dems will tear the Canadian to pieces

(Drew, you insulted a lot of us. Screw you.)

Posted by: Nomennovum at February 09, 2016 12:13 PM (0z+LY)

353 Turns out the Rubio campaign is behind the voter-shaming letters sent out to New Hampshire voters this week.

Link to story in my nic

Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (rZJS9)

354 Marc Anthony's concert at MSG did not help Trump's efforts to get the Lantino vote. I have greatly disliked Trump for forever and I wanted to punch Anthony in the throat repeatedly.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (AEEhl)

355 We can all argue till were blue in the face,but I for one will vote for any of the Candidates with the exception of Jeb! and Kasich....

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (/dSsq)

356 Petunia's concerned about "theocracy."

This is what used to be called mental retardation.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (u5gzz)

357 The lede says Cruz or Rubio? and Trump's not worth talking about.

Right now, Rubio would get killed in his home state of Florida, Cruz might not win his home state of Texas. Ponder on that.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (r1fLd)

358 Wow, lots of trolls in this thread.

Hey y'all, is it as cold in Russia in the winter as I've heard?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (LUgeY)

359 301 Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 12:01 PM (7QkL1)
-------------------------------------------------

I think everything in that comment is probably wrong. He didn't sell his assets: he borrowed against their securities accounts. Secured loan. Since repaid. He did it because his wife is required as a condition of employment to keep all the family securities positions at GS, which is standard in the industry, and he borrowed against those savings in a totally normal, everyday transaction. He then reported it on his Senate disclosure. He also reported to the FEC that he lent money to his campaign. What he did not do is report that the source of his loan to his campaign was a loan secured by his stock account. This is not "borderline criminal". It's not even clear that its a violation of the disclosure rules.

Look, I get it: you have a strongly held opinion in favor of Trump. So support Trump. Talk about the policy stuff you like from Trump.

Why mention Cruz at all? And Goldman Sachs is not the fount of all evil either. That's the Democrat Party.

Posted by: MTF at February 09, 2016 12:15 PM (TxJGV)

360
Do you have any idea how much Trump owes to various banks for all his projects? Posted by: JackStraw



Actually -- kinda yes. Forbes did a review of the candidate's finances, and it turns out Trump doesn't have mortgages on most of his properties.

Surprised me that's he's so old school and ultra conservative in his investments. Maybe he got burned with the flashy stuff and decided to just do what he knows best.

Well worth tracking down a copy of the mag to read.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 12:15 PM (kdS6q)

361 while the rest of us dumb bastards fix bayonets and charge the fucking enemy.
Posted by: Brian Min336 at February 09, 2016 11:45 AM (uvzBK)

Except for this small detail: Your Great Leader wants to make deals with the Enemy.

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 12:15 PM (u0lmX)

362 "Better to start another cold proxy war with Russia as they fight the same Muslims who're invading Europe and demanding welfare as we send OUR soldiers to fight for THEIR countries?"

No argument about how silly and complacent the European defence circles are.

On the other hand you're talking about the same Russians who send contracted Muslim soldiers to fight Ukrainian police forces.

Yeah, Putin's a regular goddamned Charles Martel.

"Stop worrying about how the rest of the world is governed until we get our own house in order."

I get it. America can't be the world's policeman.

It can't be a fucking meter maid, either. Like drawing a fake "red line" over chemical weapons use against civilians by another hostile Arab kleptocracy and declining to enforce it.

God knows, having bases overseas, keeping local tinpots on notice (with the occasional toppling) and ensuring the safety of maritime commerce is all the princely sum of an outrageous "neocon" plot.

Posted by: Gaywad McGee at February 09, 2016 12:15 PM (M7Ze9)

363 I hope everyone remembers that Valentines Day is coming up.

And even though she says she doesn't want anything, you damn well better get her something.

Trust me.

Posted by: jwest at February 09, 2016 12:15 PM (Zs4uk)

364
Drew is free when he writes to choose his own. The subject of the post is Rubio versus Cruz only.




Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (MhGOw)


Then why the initial dismissing of Trump as Non Serious?And this is AOS.... comments are like a Cocktail party.... pretty wide open....
and.... CROSSBOWS!

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 12:16 PM (f7rv6)

365 "
Electability can be assessed by answering this question: Which
Republican has the best shot at winning swing states like Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida?


I say Trump but YMMV."
---
i'd venture he even has a chance here in #Failifornia. i live in Lost Angels, and i run into people all the time who mention him favorably.

Cruz/Rubio and the rest?

LOLOLOLOLOL...


Posted by: redc1c4 at February 09, 2016 12:16 PM (Eq8if)

366 So, what candidate is causing more pain for the GOPe, Cruz or Trump?
---
I doubt very much anyone in the gope is worried about Cruz getting the nomination, the way the polls are now.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:16 PM (ZbV+0)

367 If Hillary's the nominee, the Goldman thing takes away a line of attack for Nominee Cruz. If it's Bernie, Cruz will get hit with it. Unfair, but true.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:17 PM (r1fLd)

368 Posted by: petunia at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (VoCyE)


Jeb! is no longer your guy, huh?

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 12:17 PM (JO9+V)

369
Right now, Rubio would get killed in his home state of Florida, Cruz might not win his home state of Texas. Ponder on that.
Posted by: Ignoramus




Sorry, we're busy scrapping the Jindal in '16 and Win with Perry bumper-stickers off our cars.

Posted by: Cruz 2016 Fans: This Time for Sure!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (kdS6q)

370 https://youtu.be/5E9H_DvwOVc

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr
---------------
Ha!
OK - that was pretty damed funny.

Posted by: Chi at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (OUpHg)

371 >>Actually -- kinda yes. Forbes did a review of the candidate's finances, and it turns out Trump doesn't have mortgages on most of his properties.

Negative.

https://twitter.com/alcamus/status/690344018165796865

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (/tuJf)

372 Don't ask those in the energy business who were big supporters of Cruz in his senate run. Posted by: SH at February 09, 2016 11:37 AM (gmeXX)

Is there any way for a man or woman to become a US Senator from Texas and not have big supporters in the energy business?

Come to my home state of Indiana and try to count the number of successful statewide politicians who have gone against Big Agriculture or Big Pharma here. Good luck.

Faulting politicians who work within the boundaries of political reality sounds like some pollyanna thought experiment gone wrong. Get out of your head and take a walk in the real world.

Posted by: troyriser at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (WuTfJ)

373 I hope everyone remembers that Valentines Day is coming up.

And even though she says she doesn't want anything, you damn well better get her something.






IT'S A TRAP!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (Y42RP)

374
If you owe the bank a million dollars, it owns you.

If you owe the bank 100 million dollars, you own the bank.


Trump owes millions to George Soros. For all the talk of Trump having FU money, his entire net worth is "FU, that's what I'm leaving as a tip" money to Soros (evil is lucrative).

Who owns who do you suppose?

Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (N8hFs)

375 The so called negatives on Cruz are pretty stupid. His wife worked at Goldman Sachs? Pfft.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (0LHZx)

376 Why yes I did, Weird. Because I'm looking forward to
the general, when the LIVs will be paying attention. The MSM already
have their playbook set for Cruz and if he is the GOP nominee, he will
be typecast 24/7 with the MSM's torch blast. Only the political
activists and those of us with an interest in politics know who Ted Cruz
is. If, as it seems, his own party elders can neuter his political
maneuvers, the Dems figure they've got him right where they want him.
Trump
already has a high recognition percentage. He's slippery and the Left
can't box him in as easily as they and their GOPe allies have done with
Cruz. Trump's a private sector guy and right now the private sector is
taking it in the chops.
So, yes, Weird, I'm serious.


Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (JBggj)


Again mrp, you are claiming things without evidence. About 3/4 of people polled by Gallop knew who Cruz was.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (NPofj)

377
Posted by: petunia at February 09, 2016 12:11 PM (VoCyE)

Well, you would know about jerks.

If I ever agree with this noxious and stupid GOPe tool and troll, please shoot me, horde.

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (u0lmX)

378 Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:14 PM (r1fLd)

Cruz will win Texas in a cakewalk.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 12:19 PM (AEEhl)

379 Posted by: naturalfake at February 09, 2016 12:13 PM (0cMkb)

That was a funny riposte; Thanks.

You could also add, he "literally sleeps with a Goldman Sachs executive and he sometimes actually says nice things to her when she's awake too!!!!!!!!

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:19 PM (w4NZ8)

380 I wonder what Fredo and his regime are up to today. Perfect time to destroy a lot of things. And don't think they aren't.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:20 PM (Fmupd)

381 I hope everyone remembers that Valentines Day is coming up.



And even though she says she doesn't want anything, you damn well better get her something.













IT'S A TRAP!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:18 PM (Y42RP)

It is a trap... every girl knows that.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:20 PM (NPofj)

382 It is a trap... every girl knows that.>>>

But it can be such a sweet sweet trap that it's worth getting ensnared.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 09, 2016 12:21 PM (XtAzU)

383 Faulting politicians who work within the boundaries of political reality
sounds like some pollyanna thought experiment gone wrong. Get out of
your head and take a walk in the real world.
---
Like the folks who think a statistically trivial number of bankruptcies among his projects, attempted use of eminent domain, and bribes to democrats make Trump the devil?

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:21 PM (ZbV+0)

384 if she wants something for Valentines Day, she's going to have to give me the money to buy it...

i'm one broke mofo

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 09, 2016 12:21 PM (Eq8if)

385 dude finally comes round. well said, please clap.

Posted by: thewhitefrog at February 09, 2016 12:22 PM (xTl+M)

386 Someone shoot Me. I just read the umpteenth article on how Jeb! is surging and is suddenly "clicking" with the electorate...

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 12:22 PM (/dSsq)

387 "I'll vote for the flawed man Rubio, over the Flawed man with the god complex, Cruz."

I see it differently. I don't think Ted's as religious as he's advertising based on the fact that he's never sounded like this until Iowa this year. Every cycle someone courts the evangelical vote and sometimes things get weird (Jack Kemp trying to sound like Pat Robertson, for instance).

Rubio's dead to me because he serially lies on immigration and has no new ideas (or even good old ideas) about foreign policy beyond "invite them all, invade them all." For me, immigration and MidEast war policy are attached at the hip. There is no justification for a policy of allowing ME men to flee to the West and collect welfare (and rape victims) while we send our troops to fight for their countries. Unless and until that stops, I want not one boot on any ground in the ME.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 12:22 PM (1stCn)

388 She is a HEAD of her division.. This will be used by the Democrats.
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 12:12 PM (f7rv6)

EVERYTHING will be used by Dems. If Jesus Christ ran for office, they'd find a way to smear him.

You don't think they will use Trump's billions, or use of Eminent Dominion or past attacks on conservatives (including Reagan) against him?

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 12:23 PM (u0lmX)

389 >>I wonder what Fredo and his regime are up to today. Perfect time to destroy a lot of things. And don't think they aren't.

Funny you should ask. Today is the day that Obama is to submit his 2017 budget to Congress. For the first time in over 40 years, the Republicans have refused to even let Obama's budget director present it to the House.

They have already rejected the plan including Obama's call for a $10/barrel tax on oil.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (/tuJf)

390 EVERYTHING will be used by Dems. If Jesus Christ ran for office, they'd find a way to smear him.



Yup...

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (/dSsq)

391 I think I'll go skiing this weekend!

Posted by: Chris M at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (k3w9p)

392 Welcome to the camp ace. I've been a Cruz guy from day one.

Posted by: Bosk at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (n2K+4)

393 Again. The big companies HATE Trump. They like predictability and they do not know what he will do. Likewise they do not like Cruz. They will tell you who the establishment likes, and that is Bush, Rubio and Hillary. They paid for access and they want it.

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (zOTsN)

394 MTF:


I am talking about Cruz because I was all in for him in the beginning and then found out many different things that I didn't like.


I disagree with your characterization of the WS loans and I disagree that this is a nothing burger. It's like Carly saying she rose from a secretary to a CEO. While technically true, it's not the working class tale that one thinks of with that language. She grew up a child of privilege and temped as a secretary during a summer back home from Italy to make some spending money.


Once people are fully educated about this, they can make up their own minds.

Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (7QkL1)

395 And even though she says she doesn't want anything, you damn well better get her something.

I didn't say I don't want anything but I really don't-except a card, maybe. We had so much chocolate at Christmas I'm sick of it and jewelry is of no use to me. My height of romanticism for Valentine's Day is wanting heat that works. Spending all day looking like The French Lieutenant's Woman bundled up in woolen shawls is getting old fast.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (w4NZ8)

396 If Trump wins, I'll be happy. If Cruz wins, I'll be happy. If Rubio wins, I'll be sad.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (Fmupd)

397 I hope everyone remembers that Valentines Day is coming up.

F Valentine's Day and the entire industry that built up around it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:25 PM (39g3+)

398
Negative.
https://twitter.com/alcamus/status/690344018165796865
Posted by: JackStraw



So, didn't even try to look up what I cited, just ran off to a Cruz booster twitter?

For shame.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 12:25 PM (kdS6q)

399 Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:21 PM (ZbV+0)

Trivial? He lost Trump Towers to his creditors. He has come out and enthusiastically endorsed the Kelo decision, something that alone would disqualify a person in conservative circles. The dismissivenes that Trump supporters give to Trump's negatives is embarrassing.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 12:25 PM (AEEhl)

400 O Canada.

But I wholeheartedly agree with Drew.

Posted by: Valiant at February 09, 2016 12:25 PM (2bqlb)

401 Welcome to the camp ace. I've been a Cruz guy from day one.

Posted by: Bosk at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (n2K+4)


Wakey, wakey! It's a DrewM post, not an Ace post.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 12:25 PM (Z8fuk)

402 Posted by: prescient12 at February 09, 2016 12:24 PM (7QkL1)


You were banned for being unhinged prescient. Go away.

Posted by: buzzion at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (zt+N6)

403 eman: ...insulting the folks who support Trump is a poor way to start an essay.

Quoting eman rather than the various flaming irregulars because it's simply stated.

I didn't have a problem with that - found it amusing - possibly because of my interpretation of "serious candidate" - even though I'd gladly vote for Trump over whatever the Dems end up with. Maybe eman is right and Drew could have just left out that dig, but if Trumpeters really found his opinion "insulting," well, they should rent a senska humors and get over your overserious selfs, or go to their safe spaces.

Trump has been compared to a carnival barker. I like that. I think of P.T. Barnum, who at least had his eye on the bottom line, famously even on his deathbed.

Posted by: mindful webworker - this way to the egress at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (wmyHK)

404 more liberal a while back. But his policies, which are more detailed and sound than most of his competitors, are not steeped in the statist leftism you claim. So when you criticize his opinions from 30 years ago, confuse them with policy recommendations, all while ignoring the reality of RE in NY, you only highlight your own insincerity.

30 years ago? He called for single payer health care in a Republican debate 3 days ago

Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (N8hFs)

405 Trump owes millions to George Soros. For all the talk of Trump having FU
money, his entire net worth is "FU, that's what I'm leaving as a tip"
money to Soros (evil is lucrative).

Who owns who do you suppose?
---
If the internationalists own Trump, why was one of the main stories out of Davos how they're freaking out over the likelihood of getting the nomination?

Why have their mouthpieces on Fox been treating his candidacy like an impossibility from its very beginning?

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (ZbV+0)

406 327 FNC calling NH the first primary of 2016 campaign. I'm laughing. Nobody respects the stupid IA caucesses as legit.
Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:08 PM (Fmup

And I don't respect NH either. Basically a state of Massachusetts refugees.

Any state that doesn't have a professional sports team shouldn't be leading the way on primaries or caucuses

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (voOPb)

407 Duh..Drew! What a ripoff! I didn't catch the name in the title of the post :-)

Posted by: Bosk at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (n2K+4)

408 Again mrp, you are claiming things without evidence. About 3/4 of people polled by Gallop knew who Cruz was.
=======================

Hey, I'm only going on the fact that Donald Trump is a long-time media celebrity. A successful guy. A winner. "You're Fired!". Everybody knows that line, and who said it.

Ted Cruz? Some guy in the Senate. A politician. He's running for president like another senator named Marco somebody.

And I'm not the commenter who just said that polls at this time are worthless.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (JBggj)

409

Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to The Don - EXCEPT that we would have to pretend that the Constitution does not require any candidate for the presidency be a "natural born" citizen.

We should not be willing to start treating ('interpreting') the Constitution the way the left does: as an inconvenience to be manipulated for accomplishing political goals.

Pretending that the Constitution is not making a stark distinction between citizens who are born on American soil (and yes that obviously includes sovereign US military bases and embassies) and citizens who are naturalized through the law (i.e., Federal code) is akin to pretending that the "well regulated militia" invalidates the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

We should never play those games with the Constitution.

Cruz is the real deal when it comes to conservatism. And while he may not be as staunch as Trump on stopping our Immigration Crisis; he's good enough.
If Cruz had several hundred million dollars of liquid net worth at his disposal so that he self-fund in the general election he would be preferable over Trump based on substance. Alas, Cruz is not going to have the money machine necessary to compete with the Clintons.
But even if he did, I cannot favor Cruz getting the nomination because according to the Constitution he is - unfortunately - ineligible






Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 12:27 PM (zhLKc)

410 "As I refuse to insult my fellow citizens by entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is a serious candidate worthy of debate"


Adds nothing to the piece.

We get it.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at February 09, 2016 12:27 PM (TZYqp)

411 >>So, didn't even try to look up what I cited, just ran off to a Cruz booster twitter?

>>For shame.

Why would I look up something that you referenced when I already knew the answer? If you want me to read something, you go fetch.

It's not exactly a secret that The Donald does deals with banks all the time. He talks about it all the time.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:28 PM (/tuJf)

412 You were banned for being unhinged prescient. Go away.
Posted by: buzzion at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (zt+N6

And you were dead FFS.

///////

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:28 PM (voOPb)

413
If a candidate--Trump--is polling very well but has high negativity ratings generally (yes it WAS explained, just not buying it)--how then does that person poll so highly in the first place?

Posted by: irongrampa at February 09, 2016 12:28 PM (P/8aq)

414
Cruz will win Texas in a cakewalk.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky



*cough*

http://tinyurl.com/p4zsldc

Rather close for an incumbent Senators home state.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 12:28 PM (kdS6q)

415 If Jesus Christ ran for office, they'd find a way to smear him.

I hear he can't even swim. And do you trust anyone that hangs out with all those men and never dates a woman (under breath: queeeeer). He's always in trouble with religious authorities, clearly he's some kind of bizarre radical. And I heard he was responsible for wiping out some poor pig farmer by killing an entire flock of pigs. Its flock, right? Swarm?

Posted by: CNN host at February 09, 2016 12:29 PM (39g3+)

416 Like the folks who think a statistically trivial number of bankruptcies among his projects, attempted use of eminent domain, and bribes to democrats make Trump the devil?

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:21 PM (ZbV+0)

There are no trivial number of bankruptcies. Every business owner I've known--and I've known a few--who declared bankruptcy more than once was gaming the system; that is, gaming those of us who play by the rules.

Where I come from, such men are considered shady operators. They're shunned by those who know of them. They can't be trusted. So yeah: 'statistically trivial', my ass.

Posted by: troyriser at February 09, 2016 12:29 PM (WuTfJ)

417 "Cruz will win Texas in a cakewalk"


CBS 11 (DFW CBS affiliate) 1/25-26 had Cruz..........+5% over Trump.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 09, 2016 12:29 PM (LA7Cm)

418 EVERYTHING will be used by Dems. If Jesus Christ ran for office, they'd find a way to smear him.



HE operated a food truck and fed the poor without a permit!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:29 PM (Y42RP)

419
Why would I look up something that you referenced when I already knew the answer?
Posted by: JackStraw

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 09, 2016 12:29 PM (kdS6q)

420 So, is Sanders going to take NH, or has the Hildebeast's campaign figured out a way to cheat a win?

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (Fmupd)

421 Look, I get it: you have a strongly held opinion in
favor of Trump. So support Trump. Talk about the policy stuff you like
from Trump.



Why mention Cruz at all? And Goldman Sachs is not the fount of all evil either. That's the Democrat Party.

Posted by: MTF at February 09, 2016 12:15 PM (TxJGV)

This.


Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (NPofj)

422 Hey Russian Trolls: is it true what they say about Ukrainian women, that they're all smokin' hot and they're yours for a pair of nylons and a Hershey bar?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (LUgeY)

423 "It can't be a fucking meter maid, either. Like drawing a fake "red line"
over chemical weapons use against civilians by another hostile Arab
kleptocracy and declining to enforce it... God knows, having bases overseas, keeping local tinpots on notice
(with the occasional toppling) and ensuring the safety of maritime
commerce is all the princely sum of an outrageous "neocon" plot."

I'm for drawing lines and sticking to them - measure twice, draw once. That's why we need a President who will start asking hard questions and seeking public input. "Hey, America, do you want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, etc...?" If that's not a full-throated "YES!" then we need to stop making threats about protecting those countries.

Russia's not a friend or trustworthy ally but need not be an outright enemy either.

We don't have sufficient interests at stake to justify defending the entirety of the globe and suppressing regional powers to boot.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (1stCn)

424 I'm honestly shocked that DrewM is supporting anyone!

Posted by: Max Power at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (QCc6B)

425
@ 415

As much as I love my Lord, Jesus: he would not qualify for running for the presidency because he's not a natural born citizen of the US.



Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (zhLKc)

426 That's what everyone said about Ronald Reagan, who 1 day before election 1980 was losing to Carter by 6 points.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 09, 2016 11:55 AM (zLP1L)

___

That's a bit of a myth. The polling was generally tied in late October. Some polls had Reagan up by 2-3, some had Carter up 2-3. There was one one Gallup poll that showed Carter up by 6 but it was clearly an outlier. And it wasn't 1 day before the election it was 2 weeks before.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (0LHZx)

427 420 So, is Sanders going to take NH, or has the Hildebeast's campaign figured out a way to cheat a win?


This time I don't think there are enough coin tosses in the World to save her wretched ass...

Posted by: donna at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (/dSsq)

428 how then does that person poll so highly in the first place?

It could represent that people are strongly polarized on Trump, no middle ground: they hate him or really like him.

It could represent that the unfavorability polls are worded differently or are targeting different people.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (39g3+)

429 prescient, I respect your choice. I don't have a candidate myself yet, though there are days when I could support each of several candidates. There are even days when I support things Trump says, unlike Drew. Jeb, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina, and Carson will all be gone in about two weeks and we will be down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Or maybe I'm wrong and one of the governors will survive.

Doesn't matter- the point is very soon we will see a head-on debate without having to listen to the also-rans. We could all feel differently when we see that debate.

Posted by: MTF at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (TxJGV)

430 Don't look to a politician for salvation.

Posted by: Iblis at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (9221z)

431 384
if she wants something for Valentines Day, she's going to have to give me the money to buy it...

i'm one broke mofo


Posted by: redc1c4 at February 09, 2016 12:21 PM (Eq8if)
all i want is to spend quality time with the one i love....i don't want and never have wanted a "present". maybe you can make your own special card and have a cheap dinner on nice plates on a table you set....put on her favorite music and dance.....pick flowers from a neighbors yard....don't get caught .....

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (0O7c5)

432 I was at a bi partisan business govt thingy in DC two weeks ago. The one thing they we all united on was Trump hatred. Followed closely by Cruz hatred. I will vote for whoever they hate

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (zOTsN)

433 Ot -

So Twitter is fixing to go full anti-free speech -

https://tinyurl.com/zxmumk5

By creating their own 'Department of Thought Crimes Enforcement Department'

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (4ng05)

434 Drew, how much did it hurt to say something nice about a Republican?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at February 09, 2016 12:32 PM (jWEoA)

435 The Case Against Marco Rubio

He's a treasonous, little worm.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (zc3Db)

436 413
If a candidate--Trump--is polling very well but has high negativity ratings generally (yes it WAS explained, just not buying it)--how then does that person poll so highly in the first place?
Posted by: irongrampa at February 09, 2016 12:28 PM (P/8aq)

Cult of Personality.

A guy who hit some right notes of populism, a blank slate who people can make him whatever they want him to be. A nation of pissed off people wanting someone to stick it to Washington DC

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (voOPb)

437 he's not a natural born citizen of the US.

Exactly, lets see HIS birth certificate. Virgin birth, my ass. And who exactly is this "Holy Ghost," we need to vet this guy!

Posted by: CNN host at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (39g3+)

438 Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (voOPb)

I agree.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (w4NZ8)

439 A whole wad of nice people seemed to have entertained the idea of Donald Trump in Iowa. I'm guessing that some insulted citizens in New Hampshire may also be entertaining the idea that Donald Trump is worthy of a serious vote. But then, what the hell does the average citizen know about anything ... except they do seem to know when they've been insulted by their betters.

Posted by: goon at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (gy5kE)

440 Campaign 2016: No Colon Will Remain Unprobed.

Posted by: Fritz at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (UzPAd)

441 So we only have 2 choices?

Posted by: Billygoatpuke at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (l5QMI)

442 432 I was at a bi partisan business govt thingy in DC two weeks ago. The one thing they we all united on was Trump hatred. Followed closely by Cruz hatred. I will vote for whoever they hate
Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (zOTsN)


------------------------


Same here.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (Fmupd)

443 how then does that person poll so highly in the first place?

It could represent that people are strongly polarized on Trump, no middle ground: they hate him or really like him.

It could represent that the unfavorability polls are worded differently or are targeting different people.



Yeah. 40% like him. 67% (of dems) hate him.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (Y42RP)

444 How beautiful. Trump and Cruz fans going at each other like it's the Civil War. We in the Establishment love it when our plans come together. Keep tearing each other apart---that's my pretty smile on the inside lane.

Posted by: Angry Marco at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (uNpJu)

445 all i want is to spend quality time with the one i love....i don't want and never have wanted a "present".

Yeah that's what they all say, then 4 years later in a fight, its "and you didn't even buy me anything for Valentine's Day in 2015!!!"

Posted by: CNN host at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (39g3+)

446 Exactly, lets see HIS birth certificate. Virgin birth, my ass. And who exactly is this "Holy Ghost," we need to vet this guy!

Posted by: CNN host at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (39g3+)


It's a good thing Jesus wasn't a hockey player, otherwise Catholics would be required to partake of the Goalie Host.


(denounces self)

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (Z8fuk)

447 Deadpool looks promising...

Posted by: Max Power at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (QCc6B)

448 By creating their own 'Department of Thought Crimes Enforcement Department'
Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at February 09, 2016 12:31 PM (4ng05)

Their department of left wingers and thought nazis. What a surprise

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (voOPb)

449 30 years ago? He called for single payer health care in a Republican debate 3 days ago

Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (N8hFs)


Uh.... no.... he called for a safety net.

His position is that the Health insurance industry needs to be fixed, by getting RID of regulations and allowing sales over State Lines...

But that we DO need a program for those too poor to afford said insurance... and it will by necessity have to be paid for by the Government.

that is not the same as single payer.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (f7rv6)

450 Cult of Personality.

LOL.

A guy who hit some right notes of populism, a blank slate who people can make him whatever they want him to be. A nation of pissed off people wanting someone to stick it to Washington DC

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (voOPb)


What you just described has NOTHING to do with any "cult of personality". Please pick one side of the argument to lose. It's selfish to lose both sides all on your own.

And to call Trump a "blank slate" is laughable.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (zc3Db)

451 437 he's not a natural born citizen of the US.

Exactly, lets see HIS birth certificate. Virgin birth, my ass. And who exactly is this "Holy Ghost," we need to vet this guy!
Posted by: CNN host at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (39g3+)



That'd be the first time you vetted someone.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:36 PM (Y42RP)

452 EVERYTHING will be used by Dems. If Jesus Christ ran for office, they'd find a way to smear him.


Dude thinks he's God's gift to the world.

Posted by: Freudstein at February 09, 2016 12:36 PM (8aOqE)

453
CNN host @437
- That was pretty damn funny!




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 12:37 PM (zhLKc)

454 You don't think they will use Trump's billions, or use of Eminent Dominion or past attacks on conservatives (including Reagan) against him?
Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 12:23 PM (u0lmX)

And, I should add: just imagine if Bernie ends up being the Dem nominee.

Imagine how the media will portray a Sanders vs. Trump matchup. It'll be the Socialist with the modest lifestyle who Cares About the Little People vs. the Ruthless Plutocrat. The Goldman Sachs business will be small potatoes compared with the material Trump will give them. They'll stir up as much class hatred as they can.

I'm not saying that's justified . (And I'll vote for Trump if he is the nominee.)

But the Bernie vs. the Evil Capitalist ads practically write themselves. (In that respect, it would be better for us if Madame Cankles McMoneybags is the nominee.)

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 12:37 PM (u0lmX)

455 Just an informal canvasing of political bumper stickers here in Asheville.

On the socialist side, quite a few Bernie2016 stickers. Almost no Shrillary stickers.

On the repub side, almost no stickers at all except on a few beat up pickup trucks, because people know they'll get keyed if they park anywhere in public (especially downtown).

Posted by: AshevilleRobert at February 09, 2016 12:37 PM (9ltS8)

456 osted by: Freudstein at February 09, 2016 12:36 PM (8aOqE)

LOL.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:37 PM (w4NZ8)

457 30 years ago? He called for single payer health care in a Republican debate 3 days ago
Posted by: Weirddave at February 09, 2016 12:26 PM (N8hFs)

So what we had before Obamacare was single payer?

Because that is what he said. Very clearly. Look, I will lay it out for you:

1) Get rid of the ACA
2) Replace it with more competition across sate lines so more people can get covered for less.
3) Have a system in place for those who cannot afford insurance. JUST LIKE BEFORE OBAMACARE!

You hear that and say "OMA! He wants single-payer!"

The rest of us have at least that degree of reading comprehension. What are you? A lawyer?

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 12:37 PM (cWiA2)

458 This 'vetting' process. Is that something new? Cause it sure sounds like it would have been a good thing to do to ubama in 2008, neh?

Posted by: Eromero at February 09, 2016 12:37 PM (zLDYs)

459 442 432 I was at a bi partisan
---------
Didn't know you swung both ways ThunderB

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (voOPb)

460 EVERYTHING will be used by Dems. If Jesus Christ ran for office, they'd find a way to smear him.



He leaves undead people behind wherever he goes. Ex-lepers too!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (JO9+V)

461 Yeah. 40% like him. 67% (of dems) hate him.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (Y42RP)


I've hated Trump for more years than most people on this site have even known about him ... but he's the only person I would think of voting GOP for in 2016. If Trump isn't the nominee then the GOP isn't getting any vote from me. I've had more than enough of those back-stabbing douchebags.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (zc3Db)

462 Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to The Don - EXCEPT that we
would have to pretend that the Constitution does not require any
candidate for the presidency be a "natural born" citizen.


Oh for fuck's sake.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (PFy0L)

463 The big companies HATE Trump. They like predictability and they do not know what he will do.

That's why big companies pretend to be anti union but actually are not. When there is a labor contract there is predictable labor cost.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (FkBIv)

464 *ah lunch*

so the consensus of this thread is:

no Rubio

Posted by: Feh at February 09, 2016 12:39 PM (mrHIi)

465 Yeah that's what they all say, then 4 years later in
a fight, its "and you didn't even buy me anything for Valentine's Day
in 2015!!!"

Posted by: CNN host at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (39g3+)

lol.....you can't win.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 09, 2016 12:39 PM (0O7c5)

466 If the Pixy folks ever wanna fix the black diamond issue, then they only need to add this one line in the header for comments pages:



It's already included in the main page, but missing in the comment pages.

*shrugs*

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 09, 2016 12:39 PM (21hN3)

467 Trump or Let It Burn

Posted by: ginaswo at February 09, 2016 12:39 PM (qxNrP)

468 Speaking of bumper sticker-Two winning ones yesterday were "I'm all in for Hillary" and in what struck me as an ddd combination-One side of the number sticker said "Darwin loves you" and the other side of the car had a sticker saying "St Ann's School"

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (w4NZ8)

469 Trivial? He lost Trump Towers to his creditors. He has come out and
enthusiastically endorsed the Kelo decision, something that alone would
disqualify a person in conservative circles. The dismissivenes that
Trump supporters give to Trump's negatives is embarrassing.
---
4 out of 900 is less than half a percent. I'm comfortable calling that trivial.

The rest of my dismissiveness was a response to another commenters insistence on living within political realities not be counted against their candidate.

And frankly I don't care about 'conservative circles'. If you think you can guilt trip me into supporting your guy, you are beneath my notice.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (ZbV+0)

470 Oops:

meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"

(Angle brackets removed for obvious reasons.)

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (21hN3)

471 I was a mole at the bipartisan thing. And I even found another conservative on the down low

Posted by: ThunderB at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (zOTsN)

472 @286
Thanks Chi. She's doing much better, at least she's using her bad leg most of the time. It's going to be a long recovery. You're right, this thread needs more puppies!
This site is extra funky today, won't allow me to copy and paste. I'll refresh and see if it gets better.

Posted by: Farmer at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (3hlFs)

473 Number=Bumper.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (w4NZ8)

474 >>But that we DO need a program for those too poor to afford said insurance... and it will by necessity have to be paid for by the Government.

We already have that. It's called EMTALA and it was signed by Ronald Reagan. It requires any hospital that accepts government funds (read virtually every hospital) to provide service to anyone who shows up regardless of their ability to pay.

The problem is the feds never provided any money just the law. So states have had to bear the burden. Which is why you had individual states try and figure out how to pay for it.

If Trump is now calling for the feds to pay for it, that is a huge new federal liability. Where do you think the money will come from?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (/tuJf)

475 On the repub side, almost no stickers at all except on a few beat up pickup trucks, because people know they'll get keyed if they park anywhere in public (especially downtown).
Posted by: AshevilleRobert


They'll be violently keyed by the nonviolent liberals?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (FkBIv)

476 You'll get Rubio and like it.

Don't forget to donate.


The RNC has gone to Hell in a handbasket ever since Judge Elihu Smalls took over.

Posted by: V the K at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (O7MnT)

477 Oh for fuck's sake.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (PFy0L)


It's true. You might not like it but it's pretty damn clear.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (zc3Db)

478 I think the "Billionaire Donald Trump" meme is already baked in the cake.

Posted by: mrp at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (JBggj)

479 And to call Trump a "blank slate" is laughable.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (zc3Db

Perhaps I didn't phrase it to your liking.

Watch his followers on Twitter, he is a blank slate. Emminent domain, NO WAY. His praising of Bill & Hillary Clinton, HE'S A BUSINESS MAN. His followers are much like Obamas in 2008 they see what they want to see.

You failed to address the original question posed by IG.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:42 PM (voOPb)

480 Art thread up. Nice relaxing pic.

Posted by: HH at February 09, 2016 12:42 PM (DrCtv)

481 Oh, yes,and on a truck a bumper sticker that didn't mince matters and said, "Shove it, Hillary"

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 09, 2016 12:42 PM (w4NZ8)

482 If Trump is now calling for the feds to pay for it, that is a huge new federal liability. Where do you think the money will come from?
Posted by: JackStraw




Ask Bernie. He found 28 trillion somewhere.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:43 PM (Y42RP)

483 If Trump is now calling for the feds to pay for it, that is a huge new federal liability. Where do you think the money will come from?
Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (/t

The Ficus Tree?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:43 PM (voOPb)

484
"Execept for Amnesty, Rubio is a very good conservative."

And except for that one incident, John Wilkes Booth was a very well-behaved theater patron.

Posted by: V the K at February 09, 2016 12:43 PM (O7MnT)

485 "so the consensus of this thread is:

no Rubio"


Exactly.

And no Rubio.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 09, 2016 12:43 PM (LA7Cm)

486 Any time an alleged Trump voter says Cruz is bad or attacks him saying he's not a citizen, you can tell they aren't really Trump voters, they're just against everyone else.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (39g3+)

487 >>Ask Bernie. He found 28 trillion somewhere.

Exactly.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (/tuJf)

488 I prefer it when the MSM refers to Trump as a "tycoon." Donald needs to start wearing spats, tails, and a monocle.

Posted by: Fritz at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (UzPAd)

489 You guys are great. Keep up the good work!

xoxoxo

*cackle*

Posted by: Hillary Coldham Clinton at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (cwd/Q)

490 And then the fight started...
Here, hold my Trump and watch while I Cruz this Rubio.

Posted by: andycanuck at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (WOyz5)

491 Trivial? He lost Trump Towers to his creditors.

That's loony. Trump Towers is a condo. No one ever owned the building, as it were. You understand what a condo is, right? You must be thinking of something else or just making shit up. Do some more research.

And, BTW, Trump Tower was the most successful housing built in its time. It was the first residential building to sell apartments for $1000/square foot.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (zc3Db)

492 It's a good thing Jesus wasn't a hockey player, otherwise Catholics would be required to partake of the Goalie Host.

(denounces self)
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (Z8fuk)

Great, now I'm picturing Our Lord zooming around a skating rink with a hockey stick, hair flying (no need for helmet or protective gear).

Final score: Jesus and the Apostles beat Satan and Devils 852-0.

Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (u0lmX)

493 One upside to this thread. We're not discussing Heb! as a viable candidate.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:45 PM (Fmupd)

494 So other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the GOP Failure Theater?

Posted by: andycanuck at February 09, 2016 12:45 PM (WOyz5)

495 meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"

(Angle brackets removed for obvious reasons.)

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 09, 2016 12:40 PM (21hN3)


Don't be shy:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" >

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:46 PM (zc3Db)

496 There are no trivial number of bankruptcies. Every business owner I've
known--and I've known a few--who declared bankruptcy more than once was
gaming the system; that is, gaming those of us who play by the rules.
---
We're operating from different assumption then. What I've read is that entrepeneurs typically fail (which I would assume means bankruptcy for the project) an average of ten times before they find something that works.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:46 PM (ZbV+0)

497

If the next Pres really wants to have a serious chat with Congress about leaving NATO (which would be daft, but any way), hey, that's that.

But the "threat" to protect two of those three countries from the prospect of unprovoked Russian aggression is a promise through membership in NATO.

Posted by: Gaywad McGee at February 09, 2016 12:46 PM (M7Ze9)

498 And except for that one incident, John Wilkes Booth was a very well-behaved theater patron.

And it could be true. This is well stated; its not that Rubio isn't basically a conservative, its that his flaws are unacceptable. Its like a single turd in your ice cream. The rest is tasty pralines 'n' cream but that turd ruins the whole bowl.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:46 PM (39g3+)

499 "462
Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to The Don - EXCEPT that we

would have to pretend that the Constitution does not require any

candidate for the presidency be a "natural born" citizen.

Oh for fuck's sake.


Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at February 09, 2016 12:38 PM (PFy0L)"


Let me echo that "Oh, for fuck's sake."

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 09, 2016 12:46 PM (QHgTq)

500 " It's a good thing Jesus wasn't a hockey player,"

Jesus saves! Gretzky scores on the rebound!

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:47 PM (r1fLd)

501 i]Every business owner I've
known--and I've known a few--who declared bankruptcy more than once was
gaming the system; that is, gaming those of us who play by the rules.

Trump is a Gilded Era throwback, along the same lines as Carnegie and Rockefeller. He runs roughshod over everyone to win and be the mostest, whatever it takes. As businessmen go he seems to be less corrupt than some, but no better than he has to be.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:48 PM (39g3+)

502 >>Ask Bernie. He found 28 trillion somewhere.


Super! After we pay off the 19 trillion in debt we still clear 9 trillion. I'm voting for Bern.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 12:48 PM (JO9+V)

503 Let me echo that "Oh, for fuck's sake."

Indeed.

Posted by: V the K at February 09, 2016 12:48 PM (O7MnT)

504 Ask Bernie. He found 28 trillion somewhere.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:43 PM (Y42RP)

Ask Obama. Because after ACA, "huge federal liability" is a term begging redefinition.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 12:49 PM (cWiA2)

505 Nood. Open.

Posted by: andycanuck at February 09, 2016 12:49 PM (WOyz5)

506 Methos @ 405: "If the internationalists own Trump, why was one of the main stories out of Davos how they're freaking out over the likelihood of getting the nomination?"

Maybe because they own a lot of flammable shit, like yachts and big ol piles of money. So they're not in the "Let It Burn" camp, and the prospect of a blustering retard stumbling around the levers of the economy (ecomony? no, we're not that far into Idiocracy quite yet) does not appeal to them.

Posted by: Pastafarian at February 09, 2016 12:49 PM (LqrRo)

507 Watch his followers on Twitter, he is a blank slate. Emminent domain, NO WAY. His praising of Bill & Hillary Clinton, HE'S A BUSINESS MAN. His followers are much like Obamas in 2008 they see what they want to see.

Oh, puhleeease. "much like Barky's" ... okey doke. I guess you pull out the big guns with that silliness.

You failed to address the original question posed by IG.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:42 PM (voOPb)


??

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:50 PM (zc3Db)

508

Moreover, does anyone think that Hillary, Bernie, Joe Biden, or John Kerry would not make a big deal about Cruz being born in Canada and not being a "natural born" citizen?
Any of them will gleefully go after that angle whole-hog. They won't have to sue. But they won't have ANY compunctions about regularly blaring that fact out to the nation in the general election. They won't have to dance around it. And they won't.

It won't be like Bush keeping mum regarding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth devastating allegations against John Kerry. Bush never embraced those (completely valid) attacks. In fact, Bush even once (but only once) said he thought Kerry's war service in Vietnam was honorable.

That's not how the Dems are going to treat Ted Cruz's Canadian birth and the issue of whether he's a "natural born" citizen. They don't have to win in a lawsuit.
All they have to do is burn this controversial issue into the minds of the American public enough to raise some doubt and thereby dampen Cruz's support. (Who by the way ALREADY has an electibility /appeal problem.)
All the Dems have to do is turn it into a distraction.

You thought Romney had an Obamacare problem because of Romneycare?
Cruz will have an even bigger problem being called out by Hillary as a hypocrite on the Constitution.







Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 12:50 PM (zhLKc)

509 I am just at the point where I look at Cruz-birthers the same way I look at people on Facebook ranting about chemtrails.

Posted by: V the K at February 09, 2016 12:50 PM (O7MnT)

510 502 >>Ask Bernie. He found 28 trillion somewhere.


Super! After we pay off the 19 trillion in debt we still clear 9 trillion. I'm voting for Bern.
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 09, 2016 12:48 PM (JO9+V)


--------------------


I'm getting old and tired of working. I need someone rich to support me. FOR THE BERN!!

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2016 12:50 PM (Fmupd)

511 ---
We're operating from different assumption then. What I've read is that entrepeneurs typically fail (which I would assume means bankruptcy for the project) an average of ten times before they find something that works.
Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:46 PM (ZbV+0)

Trump didn't fail as an individual, he failed leading groups of investors. It wasn't like he opened a restaurant as a sole proprietor

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (voOPb)

512
If the next Pres really wants to have a serious chat with Congress about leaving NATO (which would be daft, but any way)


I'm perfectly fine with leaving NATO and Bush the Younger should have done it when he was in office. Europe needs to stand on its own, and if they can't, well its none of our concern.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (39g3+)

513 It's the old "insult your fellow citizens by saying you won't insult your fellow citizens" trick, used to bypass having to make an actual argument.

And who were those better choices alluded to anyway? You know what? never mind.

Posted by: Optimizer at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (/q6+P)

514 Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:42 PM (voOPb)

??
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:50 PM (zc3D

I was answering IGs question if you are to fucking lazy to look. Fuck you.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (voOPb)

515 Folks, we all want to repeal ObamaCare. But what then? If you have no response, Dems will say that you want people to die outside hospital doors. What Trump is pre-empting.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (r1fLd)

516 Any time an alleged Trump voter says Cruz is bad or attacks him saying he's not a citizen,

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (39g3+)


No one said that Cruz is not a citizen. He's not a natural born citizen. Big fucking difference.

WTFFF, Christopher?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (zc3Db)

517 Yea, I like my president's to call people pussies in public. I am a Cruz girl, but would have liked a Trump/Cruz ticket. I no longer feel that way. Trump has, shall we say, jumped the shark one too many times for me. I'm done.

Posted by: Jaimo at February 09, 2016 12:54 PM (9U1OG)

518 I was answering IGs question if you are to fucking lazy to look. Fuck you.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:51 PM (voOPb)


Testy ... just like Barky's supporters ...

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:54 PM (zc3Db)

519 "474
>>But that we DO need a program for those too poor to afford said
insurance... and it will by necessity have to be paid for by the
Government.



We already have that. It's called EMTALA and it was signed by Ronald
Reagan. It requires any hospital that accepts government funds (read
virtually every hospital) to provide service to anyone who shows up
regardless of their ability to pay.



The problem is the feds never provided any money just the law. So
states have had to bear the burden. Which is why you had individual
states try and figure out how to pay for it.



If Trump is now calling for the feds to pay for it, that is a huge
new federal liability. Where do you think the money will come from?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 09, 2016 12:41 PM (/tuJf)"


An oil import tax. And a tax on remittances home to Mexico.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at February 09, 2016 12:56 PM (QHgTq)

520 Trump has, shall we say, jumped the shark one too many times for me.

"Did you see that shark? My altitude. Amazing." - Trump

Posted by: V the K at February 09, 2016 12:56 PM (O7MnT)

521 Rubio's dead to me because he serially lies on immigration

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 09, 2016 12:22 PM (1stCn)


It's not Rubio's serial lies on immigration that bothers me. What bothers me the most is Rubio using the Arafat playbook and saying one thing on illegal immigration in English (against it) while pandering to illegals in Spanish.

That's the Rubio deal breaker for me.

As for Trump or Cruz, I'd vote for either as neither is loved by the eGOPs, and that is most definitely a good thing. Personally, I like Trump's 'fuck you' attitude. On top of that, Trump is the only candidate running on the 'I Love America' platform. That last sentence is rather frighteningly brutal, but true.

Posted by: RickZ at February 09, 2016 12:57 PM (Ix+HS)

522
Cult of Personality.

A guy who hit some right notes of populism, a blank slate who people can make him whatever they want him to be. A nation of pissed off people wanting someone to stick it to Washington DC

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 12:33 PM (voOPb)


It's good America would never elect somebody like that for president.

/s

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2016 12:57 PM (RcpcZ)

523 One upside to this thread. We're not discussing Heb! as a viable candidate.
---
No that's tomorrow's thread, after he places second in NH

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 12:59 PM (ZbV+0)

524
Pinging #516,

Yeah, and we're not saying Cruz is bad. On the contrary, I think he's incredibly good. And he's, by far, (now that Jindal is out) the most conservative candidate in the race.

We're saying that while Cruz is indeed a US citizen, he is clearly not a "natural born" citizen as the Constitution requires.
This is a fact.

Quite frankly if three-quarters of the States were poised to change this Constitutional requirement to allow ANY citizen who had been a citizen for at least twenty years: I would be in favor of this.

I actually wish that Ted Cruz was eligible for the presidency.
I see it as an unfortunate fact that happens not to be.

But you know, I would feel the same way about Margaret Thatcher if she were alive and in her prime.







Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:01 PM (zhLKc)

525 His position is that the Health insurance industry
needs to be fixed, by getting RID of regulations and allowing sales over
State Lines...



But that we DO need a program for those too poor to afford said
insurance... and it will by necessity have to be paid for by the
Government.



that is not the same as single payer.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 09, 2016 12:35 PM (f7rv6)

First, why do we need that? Please give us facts as to how government health insurance is a necessity and a right. show your work.
Second, Trump has come out many times in favor of universal coverage which, before Trump was on a political stage, was widely acknowledged as a precursor to single payer. No insurance company can sell insurance in such an environment. Look at what's happening now with exchanges. That is not an effect unique to Obamacare but is instead what happens in an environment where people feel untitled to other people's money, time and effort without paying or without paying the full cost. And it turns out that the only way for people to get something seemingly for nothing is to have the government rob their fellow citizens and then have the government pay for that "free" thing. That is what Trump supports even if he is not "thinky" enough to take his idea to its logical conclusion.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:02 PM (NPofj)

526 Testy ... just like Barky's supporters ...
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:54 PM (zc3Db

retarded just like Bernies followers

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 01:02 PM (voOPb)

527 Ted Cruz did not go through the naturalization process. He was a US citizen at birth. If he's not a natural born citizen and he's not a naturalized citizen, what the hell is he? It's so ridiculous people are still talking about this.

Posted by: Myself at February 09, 2016 01:03 PM (5Q+Rv)

528
V the K @520,

Yeah and when he's not out jumpin' them sharks, Trump is standing tall on their backs surfin' them!


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:03 PM (zhLKc)

529 The carnival reality show that Trump would turn the White House and Congress into would be good TV for the 24-7 News channels.

But when he can't help himself from making a smart ass comment about a foreign leader who may just be holding trillions of US debt and said leader takes the insult as a reason to finally dump said debt, sending our economy into free fall and costing millions of people's jobs, well...maybe that's just the cost of getting a "Fuck You guy" into the white house to piss off the Republican party.


Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 09, 2016 01:04 PM (2PHKP)

530 We're saying that while Cruz is indeed a US citizen, he is clearly not a "natural born" citizen as the Constitution requires.
This is a fact.


Except that it's not a fact. Certainly not by law or court cases. Cruz was a citizen at his birth.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at February 09, 2016 01:04 PM (rwI+c)

531 retarded just like Bernies followers

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 09, 2016 01:02 PM (voOPb)


Thanks for the promotion. That was unexpected.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:05 PM (zc3Db)

532 Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 12:44 PM (zc3Db)

Yes I stated the wrong building. It was Trump Plaza.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 09, 2016 01:06 PM (AEEhl)

533
M-self @ 527,

I respect that you genuinely believe that. I even think that a reasonable argument can be made to that effect.

I just don't happen to agree with it.

There is Federal law on the books which explicitly naturalizes a citizen at birth so long as at least one of his/her parents was a US citizen. - But that does not make the child a "natural born" citizen.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:07 PM (zhLKc)

534 "Was that lifted straight from NR?

You know, you could *research* his policy proposals.

Then at least you would be an informed vanquisher of straw men.
Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 09, 2016 11:59 AM (cWiA2)"

Sorry I got my Trump information watching videos of Trump being interviewed, and listening to him in his own words; which is apparently misinformation.

Bret Baeir interview, 60 minutes interview, Sean Hannity interview.. all have Trump saying he wants more Government and government will fix any problem he mentions.

Since Trump can't speak for the majesty that is Trump; who can? Is it Jesus?

Or can no one person comprehend or explain the genius that is Trump; not even his Holiness the Trump himself?

See, I was assuming Trump could speak for himself; but it seems that is madness, and just silly to pretend he could do that.

If you want me to assume Trump doesn't know what Trump thinks; that's going to be difficult.
And that seems to be a requirement for supporting Trump.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 09, 2016 01:07 PM (kq7Of)

535 We're saying that while Cruz is indeed a US citizen, he is clearly not a "natural born" citizen as the Constitution requires.

This is a fact.



Except that it's not a fact. Certainly not by law or court cases. Cruz was a citizen at his birth.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at February 09, 2016 01:04 PM (rwI+c)


For certain values of "fact" that means unsupported belief, grump.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:07 PM (NPofj)

536 Ted Cruz did not go through the naturalization process. He was a US citizen at birth. If he's not a natural born citizen and he's not a naturalized citizen, what the hell is he? It's so ridiculous people are still talking about this.

Posted by: Myself at February 09, 2016 01:03 PM (5Q+Rv)


A native-born citizen, like anchor babies.

Posted by: RickZ at February 09, 2016 01:07 PM (Ix+HS)

537 I'm so confused about all this natural born stuff, cause my whole life I was told that both parents had to be American citizens, which is why I didn't think Obama was since his father was a British subject therefore conferring British citizenship on his son. Then we heard that Obama was adopted by his step father to be able to attend school in Paaakiiiistaaaaann. Then why hide the damn birth certificate for so long and then release one that has obviously been doctored up.

I don't get it.

Posted by: Jaimo at February 09, 2016 01:08 PM (9U1OG)

538 No one said that Cruz is not a citizen.
---
Maybe not in this thread, but that idea is floating around, for much the same reason as people might argue that obama isn't a citizen today. If they weren't a citizen at birth (an assumption I don't ascribe to) and they did nothing to later gain US citizenship, then it follows that they are still not today.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 01:08 PM (ZbV+0)

539 Ted Cruz did not go through the naturalization
process. He was a US citizen at birth. If he's not a natural born
citizen and he's not a naturalized citizen, what the hell is he? It's so
ridiculous people are still talking about this.


Posted by: Myself at February 09, 2016 01:03 PM (5Q+Rv)

Crazy birthers gotta crazy.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:08 PM (NPofj)

540
With all due respect to Grump @ 530,

Yes, Cruz was naturalized as a citizen at birth by US Federal Code written long after the Constitution.
But that does not make him a "natural born" citizen.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:09 PM (zhLKc)

541 That's a bit of a myth. The polling was generally tied in late October. Some polls had Reagan up by 2-3, some had Carter up 2-3. There was one one Gallup poll that showed Carter up by 6 but it was clearly an outlier. And it wasn't 1 day before the election it was 2 weeks before.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 09, 2016 12:30 PM (0LHZx)
---
Correct, only though the "bit" part should be changed to "outright".

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 09, 2016 01:09 PM (MbrzC)

542 I heard that to be Canadian you have to actually do something to become Canadian. Especially if your mother is American. Is that true? I think Cruz relinquished a citizenship that he didn't necessarily have in the first place just to appease people.

Posted by: Jaimo at February 09, 2016 01:10 PM (9U1OG)

543 Maybe not in this thread, but that idea is floating around, for much the same reason as people might argue that obama isn't a citizen today. If they weren't a citizen at birth (an assumption I don't ascribe to) and they did nothing to later gain US citizenship, then it follows that they are still not today.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 01:08 PM (ZbV+0)


Huh?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:10 PM (zc3Db)

544 Trump WILL disappoint...who does not eventually disappoint you in an adult world???
Trump will occasionally (we can hope frequently ) be OUR 'bastard' as he fights relentlessly(viciously) for the military, the economy and The Wall.

.
Out here in the land of the great unwashed it just seems that as soon as this Primary THEATER Season starts to ebb that Cruz and Trump can/will find a way to get together to fight for some common goals.

Posted by: Lower Class person whose opinions need to be guided at February 09, 2016 01:10 PM (jagfX)

545 With all due respect to Grump @ 530,

Yes, Cruz was naturalized as a citizen at birth by US Federal Code written long after the Constitution.
But that does not make him a "natural born" citizen.


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:09 PM (zhLKc)


I think it might help some of the folks here to give the actual truth straight from the Constitution's mouth:

Art I, Sec 8:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:13 PM (zc3Db)

546 I held my nose and voted for McCain and then Romney. I won't do it again for Trump. I'd rather it all burn to the ground with Sanders cackling like a gibbon.

Trump is the epitome of everything I hate about what society has become. Like the 24-7 Kim Kardashian show, Trump is sound and fury, signifying nothing. He's ego and vulgarity, a carnival roadshow of human failing.


Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 09, 2016 01:16 PM (2PHKP)

547 Drew's opening is not a good tone because Trump supporters, like their candidate, are known to prefer good manners and respectful disagreement.

'There be so much whining you be sick of it!'

Posted by: thewhitefrog at February 09, 2016 01:17 PM (xTl+M)

548
1 If you refuse to consider Trump as a serious candidate worth talking about, why should the people who consider Trump as serious as any other candidate care at all what you have to say? By dismissing him so out-of-hand you dismiss the judgement of his supporters and their reasons for supporting him. So you come across like just another judgemental-knowitall-prick (sorry, that's the technical term) instead of engaging people.

Well, one, Drew isn't talking about Trump. He's comparing and contrasting Marco and Ted.

Two, Trump is NOT A CONSERVATIVE. If you claim to be a conservative and still support Trump, then you need to re-examine your conservatism, because you're supporting a crony-capitalist, eminent domain abusing, "I' can make deals with Pelosi and Schumer" candidate.

Oh, sure, he talks a tough game, but you should examine the details. Go on, I'll wait. There's more to a candidate than tough talk.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at February 09, 2016 01:18 PM (1hM1d)

549
"Trump is the epitome of everything I hate about what society has become. Like the 24-7 Kim Kardashian show, Trump is sound and fury, signifying nothing. He's ego and vulgarity, a carnival roadshow of human failing."

This x 1000.

Posted by: thewhitefrog at February 09, 2016 01:18 PM (xTl+M)

550
And again, there is no doubt that the Democrat nominee and the entire Democrat Party will make a HUGE issue out of the fact that Ted Cruz was not born in the US but was born in Canada.

And they will stridently claim that according to the very Constitution that Ted Cruz claims to love and obey, he is ineligible for the presidency.
They will be relentless on this point.
They will use this controversial issue to sew doubt in the minds of the oblivious American public.
And there will be absolutely no way for the underfunded Ted Cruz (who already has significant personal-appeal / electability issues) to put the argument to rest.
- Because it's unlikely the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue and resolve it in Cruz's favor during a general election cycle.

So it would just hang over him and suck up all the oxygen he needs to get his message out.

Do you honestly think that media would let the issue go??? Really??????

Get real.








Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:19 PM (zhLKc)

551 Huh?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:10 PM (zc3Db)https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231093

The basic idea is that if the child's parents renounce his US citizenship (which Karl is suggesting must have been the case in order to acquire canadian citizenship at the time it happened, and I've seen it argued that obama's stepfather did the same when he adopted Barry), then it's lost. Absent an attempt to reacquire it formally it doesn't magically reappear, so neither would be US citizens today.
I doubt that's the case, but there are folks who believe it, and are still pissed that obama got away with it (as they see it), whose willingness to vote Cruz in the general would be dubious.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 01:19 PM (ZbV+0)

552 Sorry I got my Trump information watching videos of
Trump being interviewed, and listening to him in his own words; which is
apparently misinformation.



Bret Baeir interview, 60 minutes interview, Sean Hannity interview..
all have Trump saying he wants more Government and government will fix
any problem he mentions.



Since Trump can't speak for the majesty that is Trump; who can? Is it Jesus?



Or can no one person comprehend or explain the genius that is Trump; not even his Holiness the Trump himself?



See, I was assuming Trump could speak for himself; but it seems that is madness, and just silly to pretend he could do that.



If you want me to assume Trump doesn't know what Trump thinks; that's going to be difficult.

And that seems to be a requirement for supporting Trump.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 09, 2016 01:07 PM (kq7Of)


This refusal to take Trump at his word (even his very, very recent word) is as maddening as our betters refusing to believe that Jihadists are practicing Islam and keeping to the tenets laid out in the Koran... because they and only they have a super secret decoder ring that says Islam really, really means peace. In the same way, Trump supporters ignore and dismiss all evidence that he is a crony capitalist with strong natural leanings toward progressivism.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:19 PM (NPofj)

553 It could represent that people are strongly polarized on Trump, no middle ground: they hate him or really like him.

It could represent that the unfavorability polls are worded differently or are targeting different people.



Yeah. 40% like him. 67% (of dems) hate him.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 09, 2016 12:34 PM (Y42RP)
---
There is another factor though it's probably minor in the overall numbers... I don't have to "like" or find someone "favorable" to vote for them, particularly when I think all my choices are "unfavorable". I can have an unfavorable view of a candidate and still vote for them. For instance I was polled in late summer in 2008 and answered "somewhat unfavorable" about McCain, I still opened a vein on election day.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 09, 2016 01:20 PM (MbrzC)

554 But that does not make him a "natural born" citizen.

It does.

Posted by: Grump928(C) can likewise assert shit at February 09, 2016 01:20 PM (rwI+c)

555
Pinging out to Primordial @ 545

Excellent citation!
(I couldn't remember where it was.)




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:21 PM (zhLKc)

556 "...his lack of details on an ObamaCare replacement..."

What the author and other critics are asking for is essentially another centralized plan to replace the one we have now.
I'm sorry the market can't guarantee anyone perfection, but that's how it works.

You can have the concrete assurance of substandard government-backed healthcare, or the probable provision of excellent, low-cost private healthcare if you just get the damned government out of the way.

Posted by: Matt_SE at February 09, 2016 01:24 PM (LWi8H)

557 Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 09, 2016 01:19 PM (ZbV+0)

I hadn't heard those arguments since they are superfluous - lack of natural born citizenship came before any of those considerations. I do know that the SCOTASS has laughably ruled that a parent can't renounce their child's American citizenship.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:26 PM (zc3Db)

558 Time for a Latino Strongman! My junta will take care of you peons.

Posted by: Angry Marco at February 09, 2016 01:28 PM (uNpJu)

559 And again, there is no doubt that the Democrat
nominee and the entire Democrat Party will make a HUGE issue out of the
fact that Ted Cruz was not born in the US but was born in Canada.

And
they will stridently claim that according to the very Constitution that
Ted Cruz claims to love and obey, he is ineligible for the presidency.
They will be relentless on this point.
They will use this controversial issue to sew doubt in the minds of the oblivious American public.
And
there will be absolutely no way for the underfunded Ted Cruz (who
already has significant personal-appeal / electability issues) to put
the argument to rest.
- Because it's unlikely the Supreme Court is
going to take up the issue and resolve it in Cruz's favor during a
general election cycle.

So it would just hang over him and suck up all the oxygen he needs to get his message out.

Do you honestly think that media would let the issue go??? Really??????

Get real.










Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:19 PM (zhLKc)

Again, this is now and will only EVER be an issue in your mind. At least two states, including New Hampshire have already ruled that Cruz meets the criteria to run for and be President. This will not be an issue in the general election.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:31 PM (NPofj)

560
Grump @ 554,

I respect your disagreement with me and others over this issue. It's a very involved Constitutional issue that requires careful reading of the Constitution and subsequently written Federal Law.
As the Dude would say, "...lots of ins, lots of outs."

And reasonable minds can disagree.

My primary hope regarding the issue is two-fold.
First, that supporters of Cruz will realize that there are lots of us who think him ineligible and are not pointing this out to be mean or personally disparaging. We see it as upholding the Constitution.

Second, we would like others to see that this controversial issue represents heavy baggage that Cruz will constantly be playing defense on in the general election because there will be no way for him to resolve the issue one way or the other.
It will haunt him throughout the campaign.

The lefties will gleefully take THEIR "birthers'" revenge.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:31 PM (zhLKc)

561 I heard that to be Canadian you have to actually do
something to become Canadian. Especially if your mother is American. Is
that true? I think Cruz relinquished a citizenship that he didn't
necessarily have in the first place just to appease people.


Posted by: Jaimo at February 09, 2016 01:10 PM (9U1OG)

It is my understanding that the rules changed either 3 or 7 years after Cruz was born and under the later rules (if he had been born later), he would not have automatically been deemed a Canadian citizen.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:35 PM (NPofj)

562 Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:31 PM (NPofj)

A handful of states ruled that Roger Calero met the criteria to run for President and put him on their ballots ... and Roger Calero wasn't even an American citizen. Not just not a natural born citizen but NOT A CITIZEN, at all. He was a green card holder and a handful of states thought that that was good enough for him to run for President.

BTW, that happened over two elections, not just once. A friggin green card holder that idiot SecStates thought qualified for the Presidency.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:36 PM (zc3Db)

563
"...his lack of details on an ObamaCare replacement..."



What the author and other critics are asking for is essentially another centralized plan to replace the one we have now.

I'm sorry the market can't guarantee anyone perfection, but that's how it works.



You can have the concrete assurance of substandard government-backed
healthcare, or the probable provision of excellent, low-cost private
healthcare if you just get the damned government out of the way.

Posted by: Matt_SE at February 09, 2016 01:24 PM (LWi8H)

I found that statement of Drew's odd too, Matt. Cruz's plan is out there and very free market.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:37 PM (NPofj)

564 I think I will trust Mark Levin on this matter of eligibility. Not that some guy named "Trump Super Fan" isn't smart...

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 09, 2016 01:38 PM (2PHKP)

565

Respectfully to redbanzai @ 559,


Let me know when the count goes from 2 out of 50 to say a mere majority of 26 out of 50.
Ain't gonna happen.

And again, my considered opinion on Cruz's eligibility aside, the Democrats aren't going to drop the issue just because Cruz supporters wish they would.
They don't have to sue and win a legal-technical battle in court.

I seriously doubt the Dem nominee nor the DNC will even care about such legal wrangling.

They'll simply turn it into the controversial distraction that will never die.
There will be no way to get rid of / resolve it.
The media will feed into it endlessly. Instead of talking about his message for America, Cruz will have to constantly answer hostile question that the media will be glad to ask - simply because the Dem nominee will insist its important to get to the bottom of it.

With all due respect, pointing out that 2 out of the 50 states say it's not an issue will not make it a non-issue in the general election.

The Dems will use it. Constantly. The lefties will say, "Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Whose got the birther problem now, conservatives?"

- And you can be sure that they will not let up.









Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:39 PM (zhLKc)

566 Scare tactics.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 09, 2016 01:41 PM (2PHKP)

567
ALaBAMA @ 565

I got nothin' on Levin. The guy is composed of near 100% gray matter.

But Coulter's pretty smart too. And she's made a compelling argument that Cruz does not meet the Constitution's "natural born" citizen requirement - complete with court case precedents.


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:44 PM (zhLKc)

568

I suspect we would both agree NATO is in need of reform and recalibration.

However for the US, NATO is less about propping up some sick old man in Europe and more about maintaining coordination with European defence forces as a whole, particularly America's two nuclear allies, for other regional deployments. NATO greases the wheels for cooperation with NATO-aligned security partners like Australia, Japan, and Columbia.

Where it *is* about helping comparatively weak allies (like Estonia or Latvia) face potential aggressors (generally, Russia), it would be extraordinarily shallow to abandon the smallest, newest members of the organization, and a betrayal of America's word to its allies.

Posted by: Gaywad McGee at February 09, 2016 01:45 PM (M7Ze9)

569 So yesterday I was listening to Hannity. (I still listen from time-to-time, I watch him on FNC almost never)

Anyway he was interviewing Frank Luntz, and asked him about the potential conflict of interest of having worked for Rubio in the past. Luntz explained that he has done work for almost every candidate, but he worked for Rubio, and the FLA State Legislature long ago.

Luntz explained that he was retained by the GOP leadership to help with messaging as they thought the newly elected Charlie Crist was going to be a terrible governor.

OPINION: After listening to Luntz's story, it is highly likely that Rubio got into the 2010 Senate race not as some anti-establishment upstart. Rubio instead took advantage of the political environment to run against an "establishment" frontrunner who he new was an exceptionally weak candidate.

This is coming from someone who almost moved to tears during Rubio's "victory" speech in Iowa

Posted by: phreshone at February 09, 2016 01:46 PM (12kBq)

570 a betrayal of America's word to its allies.

Posted by: Gaywad McGee at February 09, 2016 01:45 PM (M7Ze9)


Betrayal is my middle name, right after 'Hussein'.

Posted by: Prez'nit Barky at February 09, 2016 01:48 PM (Ix+HS)

571 test

Posted by: Hunta Khan at February 09, 2016 01:49 PM (+oR7L)

572 I've been a Cruz guy since Perry augered in.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 09, 2016 11:21 AM (n22zQ)


Me, too. Perry was a hugely effective governor and drove millions of jobs to Texas. Unfortunately, he doesn't perform well in debates.

Cruz was a Tea Party blip that didn't even register on the radar in most of 2011. He ran hard against a GOPe favorite, David Dewhurst, and won enough votes in the primary to force a runoff, which he won handily.

I'm sure that Cruz isn't perfect. However, he is arguably the most conservative candidate running and he knows how to run against long adds to win a campaign with the decks stacked against him.

Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at February 09, 2016 01:49 PM (dPpmC)

573 Looking forward to the article explaining why Cruz' being anti-establishment means he can't get deals done, and also his time in DC means he's part of the establishment.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 01:49 PM (MxONJ)

574 That is what Trump supports even if he is not "thinky" enough to take his idea to its logical conclusion.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:02 PM (NPofj)


I think that's the biggest obstacle I have with Trump. Who he is hasn't been based or anchored in any solid political or moral belief system based on conservatism.

And I think most of us here recognize that conservatism, the general idea of it, is a good belief system and I would assume many here make choices in life based on those beliefs.

I understand the attraction to Trump. And I certainly understand people can change positions on different issues. But, to me, he just hasn't shown me his growth or maturation into his own belief and understanding of what being a conservative means.

Trump was my second choice guy. I liked him a lot. But then I realized I didn't want to burn it down, that I had a real choice for someone who would make a great president, and that choice for me is Cruz.

Posted by: Joanne at February 09, 2016 01:50 PM (hgBpU)

575 A handful of states ruled that Roger Calero met the
criteria to run for President and put him on their ballots ... and Roger
Calero wasn't even an American citizen. Not just not a natural born
citizen but NOT A CITIZEN, at all. He was a green card holder and a
handful of states thought that that was good enough for him to run for
President.



BTW, that happened over two elections, not just once. A friggin
green card holder that idiot SecStates thought qualified for the
Presidency.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 09, 2016 01:36 PM (zc3Db)

And your point is?


http://tinyurl.com/j5yggl7




Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:51 PM (NPofj)

576
Destroy the Republican Party Vote Trump

Posted by: Hunta Khan at February 09, 2016 01:55 PM (+oR7L)

577
Break and Rebuild the Republican Party Vote Cruz

Posted by: Hunta Khan at February 09, 2016 01:55 PM (+oR7L)

578
Make out with the Republican Party Vote Rubio


Posted by: Hunta Khan at February 09, 2016 01:56 PM (+oR7L)

579 575,

The point is that a State or two declaring that so--so-whoever is eligible does not mean they have constructed a Constitutionally valid argument (unless you believe in Judicial Tyranny) and neither does it begin to resolve the controversy in a larger legal context - as only the Supreme Court can do that.


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:56 PM (zhLKc)

580 Let me know when the count goes from 2 out of 50 to say a mere majority of 26 out of 50.
Ain't gonna happen.

And
again, my considered opinion on Cruz's eligibility aside, the Democrats
aren't going to drop the issue just because Cruz supporters wish they
would.
They don't have to sue and win a legal-technical battle in court.

I seriously doubt the Dem nominee nor the DNC will even care about such legal wrangling.

They'll simply turn it into the controversial distraction that will never die.
There will be no way to get rid of / resolve it.
The
media will feed into it endlessly. Instead of talking about his message
for America, Cruz will have to constantly answer hostile question that
the media will be glad to ask - simply because the Dem nominee will
insist its important to get to the bottom of it.

With all due
respect, pointing out that 2 out of the 50 states say it's not an issue
will not make it a non-issue in the general election.

The Dems
will use it. Constantly. The lefties will say, "Hey, what's good for the
goose is good for the gander. Whose got the birther problem now,
conservatives?"

- And you can be sure that they will not let up.



Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 01:39 PM (zhLKc)


The Dems aren't using it and won't use it after calling birthers crazy for 8 years. The only one using it, and not cause he actually believes it, is Trump.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:57 PM (NPofj)

581 Jack off the Republcian Party Vote Jeborah

Posted by: Hunta Khan at February 09, 2016 01:57 PM (+oR7L)

582 I also think there's much more unfavorable information about Trump that the Dems will use to suppress the vote versus Cruz.

Posted by: Joanne at February 09, 2016 01:59 PM (hgBpU)

583
575,

Moreover:
A State only has the power to approve who it will have on its ballot and who it will ATTEMPT to slate their electors for in the general election - should so--so-whoever win the popular vote in that State.

A State does not have the power to determine who is Constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:00 PM (zhLKc)

584 Destroy the Republican Party Vote Trump






Break and Rebuild the Republican Party Vote Cruz





Make out with the Republican Party Vote Rubio




Posted by: Hunta Khan at February 09, 2016 01:56 PM (+oR7L)

Sounds right.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 02:00 PM (NPofj)

585 Rubio, Cruz, two peas, one pod.

There was a time not all that long ago. Back before the TP/TPA deal, back before the Omnibus deal, back before the 3/4 of the R party leadership capitulated on refusing to use their power to reign in Obama while the other 1/4 play fought like they were.

Yah it wasn't all that long ago that many people correctly saw that this bunch of lying liars who lie are just like the last ones.
Correction, they "were the last ones".

It's almost as if people are arguing and fighting to be the person to take the next shot at Russian Roulette using a semi automatic pistol.

Posted by: Drider at February 09, 2016 02:01 PM (bdzyz)

586 The Dems aren't using it

Posted by: redbanzai at February 09, 2016 01:57 PM (NPofj)


The Dems aren't using the birther argument NOW. It's still the primaries. But wait until the DNC-Media propaganda machine kicks into high gear during the general.

Posted by: RickZ at February 09, 2016 02:04 PM (Ix+HS)

587

redbanzai @ 580,

With all due respect, I think you are grossly overestimating the scruples of the left if you think they have a problem contradicting themselves.

And the Cruz Birther issue will be worse than John Kerry getting Swift Boated. Because Kerry had the paperwork on his side. It was just his word against theirs and President Bush refused to in anyway endorse the Swift Boaters.
And yet, they STILL severely damaged Kerry's campaign.
It drove him mad - because he had absolutely no way to resolve the issue.

The left and the media (but I repeat myself) will absolutely harp on this issue. And there will be no absolutely way to resolve it.








Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:04 PM (zhLKc)

588

Ditto RickZ @ 586!


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:06 PM (zhLKc)

589 Rubio, Cruz, two peas, one pod.

There was a time not all that long ago. Back before the TP/TPA deal, back before the Omnibus deal, back before the 3/4 of the R party leadership capitulated on refusing to use their power to reign in Obama while the other 1/4 play fought like they were.

Yah it wasn't all that long ago that many people correctly saw that this bunch of lying liars who lie are just like the last ones.
Correction, they "were the last ones".

It's almost as if people are arguing and fighting to be the person to take the next shot at Russian Roulette using a semi automatic pistol.
Posted by: Drider at February 09, 2016 02:01 PM (bdzyz)

--------------

My take too.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:06 PM (LXJ1e)

590 With all due respect, I think you are grossly overestimating the scruples of the left if you think they have a problem contradicting themselves.

And the Cruz Birther issue will be worse than John Kerry getting Swift Boated. Because Kerry had the paperwork on his side. It was just his word against theirs and President Bush refused to in anyway endorse the Swift Boaters.
And yet, they STILL severely damaged Kerry's campaign.
It drove him mad - because he had absolutely no way to resolve the issue.

The left and the media (but I repeat myself) will absolutely harp on this issue. And there will be no absolutely way to resolve it.

Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:04 PM (zhLKc)

--------------------

I've been saying this for some time now. But the Cruz fans always say the Dems won't use it, because they just won't.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:09 PM (LXJ1e)

591

And rebanzai (and other Cruz supporters) consider the following.

What happens if Cruz secures the nomination and THEN the media start asking him whether the issue of what it means to be a "natural born" citizen has been resolved by the Supreme Court?

What is he going to say?

He can't lie and say, "Yeah, they sure have"!

Cruz will be forced to admit that the controversial (and Constitutional) issue has NOT been resolved by the Supreme Court.

And they will play his admission in media sound-bites ad infinitum.
Then the media will follow up and say, "Well, don't you think the Supreme Court ought to resolve this issue?"

Cruz will not be able to win the political-public argument on this issue. It will not go away and his campaign will be swamped by it.

Best case scenario: MASSIVE DISTRACTION sewing serious doubt that Cruz simply won't be able to escape.





Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:13 PM (zhLKc)

592 Cruz 2016

"He sucks the least"


It's come to this.

Posted by: Dice Clay 2016 at February 09, 2016 02:17 PM (NA4Je)

593 Must be election season because I can smell the vinegar through the screen.

Posted by: Nutsy the Buzzard at February 09, 2016 02:17 PM (78OXS)

594 Rubio has a similar issue, as neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth in Miami. In my view, Rubio's issue is more troubling.

If elected, neither of the Cubans can be tough on Anchor Babies, because of this.

Genius Constitutional Scholar Cruz was 100% wrong by reading the 14th Amendment as mandating Anchor Babies.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 09, 2016 02:18 PM (r1fLd)

595
Ignoramus @ 594

I didn't know that about Rubio's parents, and I didn't know that about Cruz asserting (wrongly) that the 14th legitimizes Anchor Babies.





Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:23 PM (zhLKc)

596
- I agree with you that Rubio's citizenship problems are worse.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:23 PM (zhLKc)

597 I don't understand how anyone can look at Trump and not see a crass, opportunistic toolbox empty of conservative bona fides.

Posted by: John at February 09, 2016 02:25 PM (NcI1J)

598
John @ 597,

I used to feel the same way about Trump.

But then he won me over by not only STRONGLY staking out the most conservative position on immigration - but by displaying leadership on it.

Trump may not be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. (I doubt that he is.)
But he's not empty of conservative bona fides either.
He OWNS the most conservative position on the most important issue of the day: immigration.

And he's got lots of rock-ribbed conservatives who either fully back him (Ann Coulter) or who are fine with him winning the nomination (Limbaugh, Hannity, and others).

TRUMP 2016





Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:29 PM (zhLKc)

599 It's amazing that Trump supporters are basically called crazed personality cult followers, even though most Trump supporters readily admit Trump is not near a perfect candidate or a traditional conservative and has vacillated in the past on issues and is quite bombastic.

Meanwhile Cruz supporters never find fault with Cruz with the possible exception of him being "not likable enough".

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:34 PM (LXJ1e)

600 If Dems and their media operatives want to make Birtherism a mainstream strategy against nominee Cruz, we just have to attack them on the grounds that birtherism = anti-immigrant.

Don't ever answer a question about Cruz' citizenship without first putting it to the questioner: Why do you hate immigrants?

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 02:35 PM (MxONJ)

601 597 I don't understand how anyone can look at Trump and not see a crass, opportunistic toolbox empty of conservative bona fides.
Posted by: John at February 09, 2016 02:25 PM (NcI1J)

-------------------------

Yet somehow him entering the race moved the field to the right on immigration (including Cruz) and is the only candidate really staking a claim to national sovereignty.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:36 PM (LXJ1e)

602 If Dems and their media operatives want to make Birtherism a mainstream strategy against nominee Cruz, we just have to attack them on the grounds that birtherism = anti-immigrant.

Don't ever answer a question about Cruz' citizenship without first putting it to the questioner: Why do you hate immigrants?
Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 02:35 PM (MxONJ)

-------------------

That won't work, they'll just come back and say any anchor baby born to immigrants on US soil is a natural born citizen.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:40 PM (LXJ1e)

603
Jack @ 600,

With all due respect, you are making two poor assumptions.

First that the media and the left (yes, again I repeat myself) are going to play fair and frame the issue the way that Cruz supporters want it framed. They absolutely will not.
They will frame it and harp on it as an issue of hypocrisy eligibility. They're not going to be playing beanbag for heaven's sake! It's going to be brutal and unfair and unending.

Second, a simple retort to the claim of being anti-immigrant the left and the media will correct Cruz and his supporters by saying, "Oh, weren't saying that if you weren't born in this country that you're not welcome in this country. We're saying what lots of conservatives have said which is that if you weren't born in this country, YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT."

What then, Jack? How does Cruz respond to that?






Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:43 PM (zhLKc)

604 That won't work, they'll just come back and say any anchor baby born to immigrants on US soil is a natural born citizen.
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:40 PM (LXJ1e)

That's right, make them split hairs and defend themselves while Ted Cruz talks his game. It will work.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 02:46 PM (MxONJ)

605 604 That won't work, they'll just come back and say any anchor baby born to immigrants on US soil is a natural born citizen.
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:40 PM (LXJ1e)

That's right, make them split hairs and defend themselves while Ted Cruz talks his game. It will work.
Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 02:46 PM (MxONJ)

-------------------------

It'll be Cruz spending his time defending whether he's a natural born citizen.

Dems and libs aren't concerned about consistency at all.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:49 PM (LXJ1e)

606 Great piece, Drew, but I'd advise fellow readers to avoid making the assumption that it's a comprehensive list of problems with Rubio; it isn't.

There are a ton of others. One example of his perfidy is saying one thing in Spanish and a very different thing in English (he's mimicking Yassar Arafat). He's done this on immigration since last summer. He also backed, both in advance and during, Obama and Hilary's two biggest middle eastern disasters; forcing our ally Mubarak out of office in Egypt (hello, Arab Spring!) and the lead-from-behind war on Libya.

Fiscal issues? How about making a new 100 billion a year entitlement program a centerpiece of your presidential campaign? Rubio has, and is, doing exactly that.

Posted by: Arizona CJ at February 09, 2016 02:49 PM (0o4Km)

607

Jack @ 604 600,

There is no way you or Cruz or God himself can make the media and the left accept your premise that Scrutinizing Constitutional Eligibility for the PRESIDENCY = Being Anti-Immigrant.

It won't work. There is no reason to think it will

Wishing an issue would just go away is wishful thinking.
Wishing others would stop talking about an issue or only talk about it in the way you require them to is even worse.


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:50 PM (zhLKc)

608 Heh. The choices this year are between which bizarre candidate(s) we want in the White House.

On the dem side the choice is which of two bizzaro candidates *they* want in the White House.

Gee...lemme think...bizarre or bizzaro?

...and all that the libertarians are offering is a recycled bizarre candidate.

iow,we're screwed.



Posted by: The Hot Gates at February 09, 2016 02:51 PM (KJZeR)

609 Dems and libs aren't concerned about consistency at all.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 09, 2016 02:49 PM (LXJ1e)

They are concerned about optics. Birtherism smacks of both irrationality and anti-immigrant sentiment. Punish them for bad optics often enough and their birtherism will turn in our favor.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 02:55 PM (MxONJ)

610
Jack @ 609,

Umm, what are the bad optics about examining whether someone is eligible to occupy the office of president in a political race for the presidency, again?

How are you squaring that circle again, please?





Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 03:01 PM (zhLKc)

611
Jack @ 609,

Since when has it become taboo to ask whether someone seeking the office of president is actually qualified to be president?

How does that work again?




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 03:02 PM (zhLKc)

612

Jack @ 609,

I think you're saying that we'll simply insist that asking whether Ted Cruz meets the Constitutional requirements to be president of the United States is equated with being anti-immigrant.

Yeaaahhhh..... that's the ticket!

I'm sure the media will be happy to entertain that very helpful fantasy.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 03:05 PM (zhLKc)

613 There is no way you or Cruz or God himself can make the media and the left accept your premise that Scrutinizing Constitutional Eligibility for the PRESIDENCY = Being Anti-Immigrant.

It won't work. There is no reason to think it will

Wishing an issue would just go away is wishful thinking.
Wishing others would stop talking about an issue or only talk about it in the way you require them to is even worse.


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 02:50 PM (zhLKc)

I'm not wishing anything, just prescribing how to respond.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 03:05 PM (MxONJ)

614
Jack @ 613,

I respect that you are prescribing the best way to respond on the very predictable and devastating attacks that media and the left will launch on Cruz should he be our nominee.

For what it's worth, I think what you prescribe might well be the best way to try and "make it go away".

But I'm also saying that while it might be the best prescription, it will yield extremely poor results. It would be an utterly futile effort. - Ending in massive buyer's remorse.

We would easily lose that argument.








Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 03:09 PM (zhLKc)

615 Stopped reading after 2nd sentence, btw, if you were interviewing to pick a President - sitting Senators would be at the bottom of your stack of potential hires.... just saying - being Senator has nothing to do with being an executive.

Posted by: doug at February 09, 2016 03:10 PM (Y7fRE)

616 Rubio is more worthy of serious consideration than Trump for Republican voters? Really? Marco "amnesty first, border control never" Rubio vs. Donald "stop Muslim immigration, national gun carry rights enforcement, stop the Christian genocide" Trump?

They are both a thousand times better than Sanders/Hillary/Biden/Bloomberg/O'Malley and neither of them can hold a candle to Fiorina or Cruz. The only comparison that is at all debatable is Rubio vs. Trump. That one is a real conundrum. I give it to Trump because he is stronger on stopping illegal immigration (not strong, but stronger) and much stronger on Muslim immigration.

Orthodox Islam is one gigantic criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder; conspiracy to commit murder is a crime under existing laws; and it is entirely proper to block criminals from immigrating, along with those who retain allegiance to foreign powers (never mind to powers that we are currently in a declared war against: "those who attacked us on 9/11").

Posted by: Alec Rawls at February 09, 2016 03:11 PM (5z7RS)

617 Good Christ, it's like reading a the comments WaPo minus the actual acknowledgement that you've all been triggered. Part of the reason I like AOSHQ is that I (for the most part) believe that we are on the intellectually, morally, and economically right side of history. Yet here you all are squabbling like SWJ's with nothing but name calling and canned talking points.

For the love of GOD we are better than this! PRESENT, DEBATE, ARGUE! But good Lord, make it worth it! This is why we don't win shit. We don't even have the presence of mind be rational with each other. How the hell is it that the insanity of progressive liberal commenters is more cohesive than us? Knock it the fuck off and act like adults!

Posted by: Nuke at February 09, 2016 03:11 PM (XPxOQ)

618 Ugh. Can't keep up.

610
Jack @ 609,

Umm, what are the bad optics about examining whether someone is eligible to occupy the office of president in a political race for the presidency, again?


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 03:01 PM (zhLKc)

Oh, see I thought we all agreed in the first place that the Birther argument against Cruz was stupid and clumsy on its merits, but that we had to worry that Dems/media pushing it relentlessly and forcing Cruz to respond, knocking him off his game, so to speak. To that, I say, don't engage with opponents' dumb arguments; instead you knock them off their game by punish them with bad optics. Cruz (and Trump, I concede) is good at this.

Are you saying the Birther argument against Cruz is a sound argument requiring a substantive response on Cruz' part?

614
Jack @ 613,

I respect that you are prescribing the best way to respond on the very predictable and devastating attacks that media and the left will launch on Cruz should he be our nominee.

For what it's worth, I think what you prescribe might well be the best way to try and "make it go away".

But I'm also saying that while it might be the best prescription, it will yield extremely poor results. It would be an utterly futile effort. - Ending in massive buyer's remorse.

We would easily lose that argument.

Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 09, 2016 03:09 PM (zhLKc)
It's not an argument we have to have. And there will be devastating attacks on our nominee no matter who he is.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 09, 2016 03:28 PM (MxONJ)

619 This is utter stupidity...Well, let's choose the best conservative we got ..WHO AN AMBITIOUS PLAINTIFF LAWYER, at heart...and will be blah blah blah ?
1. Ted Cruz has not accomplished anything for the people he represents in TX. He has willingly added millions of HB-any number visas, allowing American job seekers to maintain: unemployment, dropping wage, no opportunity to advance
2. He visits the overrun Texas border with Teddy Bears and Glenn Beck..for a photo op and news blurb..but has done nothing to stop the flood of migrants..who crowd the schools, health facilities, welfare offices---they don't come here to work hard, they're here to pad the democratic voter rolls and push the middle class further into the poor house which equals more dependent on the government failures.
3. His donors are no different from Bush's. Rubio's..they're all special interest for open borders, cheap labor, epa regulating creating climate change charletons. And Wall Street. lots of usury-needed backup boys.
4. He has used "faith" as another tool..he insults good people who do generous give to others, honor God and covers his despicable behavior while claiming he's the most ?what? Actions, not words, belie your faith..Witness God..not Cruz's worth.
5.His campaign associates: Jeff Roe, Tyler, Shaftan, Glenn Beck=lying mudslinging deceit ..Then ole Steve King whoppers about Schafly, Palin and Carson are unforgiveable. If this is how you treat honest, warriors for the conservative cause..you are incapable to decide what book to read, muchless be the chief executive, commander-in-chief of USA.
6.He voted for the horrible trade policy, reshaping of the Senate's ability to stop the Iran clusterfuck, joined and gave 6 figures to the RNC Senate fund, who treat elections like Clinton-land...just cheat, use fraud (see Mississippi-'14) (See Alaska-'12) to achieve the result the establishment wants, not the vote of the people.
7. He has a record of thinking he won or needs more..than he deserves..so he just huffs off to fool another clueless group to support him.
See Canada.See Ivy League. See Florida. See. D.C. See Austin, Tx. See Houston,Tx.(See Caribbean slush fund)See.Senate DC.See..WhiteHouse...only if you like being had, appreciated being sold-out, and having no understanding of military, foreign policy, or honest days work, executive experience..NO NO

8. Name one State he has a chance to carry. Do not add Texas. I have attended 5 meetings in the last month with 3 of his possible opponents for Senate'18. Ted is going to need to change his home address, alright..It must never be 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Rubio is not ready. Kasich is Bush-wish. Bush is smart, but has no idea what hard work and sacrifice mean. Christie is good, but a NJ liberal for Republican President? Carson, nevermind.

Trump is a pompous successful executive, willing to work with other successful people, without an IOU to the "Chamber of Commerce for Migrant Labor" "Climate changers" Wall Street hedge fund/Insurance Co/advertisers in media""Alumni for elite institutions-politicians".

So are you willing to have Hillary, Sanders or Bloomberg continue to crush the Middle Class into poverty, assuring we become a Pakistan-Greek failed state?
We have no Reagan in the race. NO-Allahpundit, et al,---President Romney failed BIG TIME. No more consultant created nothing.
Choose the best chance to transform America back to value, pride, economic growth, legal immigration to adapt to American values, trust but verify, free markets with fair trade, make SS solvent with 1 executive order: all federal/exempt employees pay into the SS/medicare fund...school choice, freedom, accountability
But do not go into the dark with Cruz. There is not one reason pro-Cruz that could overcome the numerous con-Cruz arguments.

Posted by: palinbeatsturdblossom at February 09, 2016 03:36 PM (/qiij)

620 Except for the fact that Ted Cruz is unlikable and comes off as a sleazy Harvard lawyer.

Posted by: rexbatt at February 09, 2016 03:36 PM (EMP2V)

621 Calling number 619, calling number 619 - After many, many, many lines, you end with such a banal statement.

Adjusted slightly, it serves as a reminder to all voters:

"But do not go into the dark with (insert name). There is not one reason pro-(insert name) that could overcome the numerous con-(insert name) arguments."

Posted by: Davod at February 09, 2016 04:12 PM (FWznJ)

622 What he has spent his time in the Senate doing is preparing the battlefield.

Which is why I want Cruz in the Senate. His work there isn't nearly complete; hell, it's barely begun. Take him out and plop him into the Presidency and he will become focused on foreign affairs. They all do. What little bit he has accomplished toward Senate spine stiffening will be dissipated and lost. Yet another opportunity missed.

And I'm pissed off at having voted for him as Senator, only to have him jump at a shiny object. Perry had the right of it, that the President should be inconsequential in our daily lives. To achieve that, Cruz will be far, far more valuable in the Senate than he will as President.

I've no doubt of Sen. Cruz's bona fides, and will probably wind up voting for him as President. But I really had my heart set on a Walker-esque "Throne of Sculls" enabled by the likes of Cruz & Co. in the Senate. I won't have to hold my nose to vote for him, but mine will be a dispirited vote.

Posted by: And your little dog too! at February 09, 2016 04:23 PM (O4NI/)

623 Trump, Cruz or NO-ONE!

Posted by: Myshiba at February 09, 2016 05:37 PM (4qOWG)

624 ....and I'm lukewarm on Croz

Posted by: Myshiba at February 09, 2016 05:37 PM (4qOWG)

625 Cruz, that is.

Posted by: Myshiba at February 09, 2016 05:48 PM (4qOWG)

626 palinbeatsturdblossom said it all!

Posted by: Myshiba at February 09, 2016 05:51 PM (4qOWG)

627 Very good point by point assessment of Rubio's lack of leadership, lack of political courage, lack of originality, and essentially - due to the amnesty deception - lack of character. He truly is an uber-ambitious politician indistinguishable from the establishment on policy grounds. I fail to see why anyone who sees the problems extant in the country, and the GOP, would support him.

Posted by: Elon at February 09, 2016 06:15 PM (vHPbR)

628 "his lack of details on an ObamaCare replacement"

Wow, you really don't get it do you?

The actual Conservative position, which Cruz holds, is that you repeal Obamacare entirely and then break down the legal barriers to a free market - use the "commerce clause" for its ONLY originally intended purpose of ensuring the US is a free-trade zone with no internal barriers (ie. make it illegal for states to restrict citizens from buying insurance across state lines), and break the deathgrip employers have on their employees through health insurance (by offering the same tax break to individuals buying insurance that employers get for buying it for us), otherwise do some tort reform, and let the free market function.

Ted Cruz is crystal clear on that.

Since you seem to think that the Conservative position is to "replace" Obamacare with some other government run monstrosity, you've pretty much sacrificed any claim to being a Conservative. Like Trump has.

Posted by: Aarradin at February 10, 2016 02:33 AM (xVRrG)

629 Keep calm and Cruz on.

Posted by: Jo Mama's Underpants at February 10, 2016 04:41 AM (EbPFH)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0774 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0196 seconds, 637 records returned.
Page size 386 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat