aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Let It Burn: The conservative choice [Weirddave]
Anger. You're angry.
I get that, because I'm frickin furious. I mean, I-better-not-have-a-drink-to-calm-down-because-I-might-never-stop-drinking livid. The damage done to our country in the past two decades but really in the past seven years is mind numbing. Not only has TFG thumbed his nose at the founding principles of this nation while doing an in-your-face touchdown dance at conservatives, but “our” party, the Grand Old Pussies, have continually rolled over before him while begging for scraps of his magnificence for their table.
We've done our part as citizens. We gave the GOP a majority in the House in 2010 so they could stop him, and when that wasn't enough, we added the Senate in 2014. We've donated, politicked, canvassed and phone banked. We have made ourselves perfectly clear, chasing the dayglo Speaker of the House from his perch and electing patriots like Dave Brat in Virginia.
And what has the response been? Disdain. Scorn. Anger. How dare we question our betters? From colluding with Democrats to prop up the brittle bones of the senile Thad Cochran in Mississippi, to passing the cromnibuss pork spending bill after Boo Hoo Boehner resigned to the repeated attempts, such as the Rubio/Schumer Gang of 8 bill, to shove nation-killing amnesty down our throats, we have been ignored, insulted and reviled. Even today the DC establishment is pulling out all the stops to get Rubio elected so that they can serve their Chamber of Commerce masters.
Enough. If these people have forgotten that they work for us and are determined not to remember, then it is up to us to forcefully remind them.
Let
It
Burn.
Let's survey the field. Kasich is a joke, a big government Republican pining for the days of Nelson Rockefeller. Ben Carson is a decent man who has been seduced into being a never ending, multimillion dollar bot compiling an email list for future fund-raising efforts. Jeb Bush is the last gasp of the Bush dynasty, running 10 years too late and Marco Rubio is the slickly packaged Madison Avenue pretty boy, America's last, best chance for amnesty. If Mexico is your vision of America's future, then Marco is your guy.
That leaves Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Trump is sheer bravado, 1.21 jigawats of pure testosterone. If you want to stick your thumb in the eye of DC elites, well, Donald will stick his thumb, palm, wrist and forearm right into the skull of the Washington cartel. Balls to the wall, damn-the-torpedos, full speed ahead American arrogance, that's Donald Trump.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the slow knife, the knife that takes its time, the knife that waits years without forgetting, that slips quietly between the bones. That's the knife that cuts deepest. He’s the smartest guy in any room, and his great sin is that he’s a class traitor. He went to Princeton and Harvard, checked all of the right boxes on his way up. The DC elite look at Ted Cruz and they see someone who is one of them, except he won’t play ball. He has principles. He takes the promises he made to the electorate seriously He actually seems to believe in that rah rah America crap the rubes in flyover country revere.
Those are the choices. Visceral brutality or the elegant intellectual. How to choose? None of us really knows how either man would act as POTUS. Campaign promises are cheap and subject to change. Words are worthless next to deeds. I would like to look at this question through a different lens, one that I haven’t heard talked about much.
Brand.
Every corporation, every organization, even every individual is always concerned with their brand. This is a fundamental human concept, we’re all concerned to some degree with how others perceive us. Politicians are ACUTELY aware of this, and will do anything to preserve their brand. With that in mind, lets look at how each of these might behave as president.
First of all Trump. What is his brand? Bold? Outspoken? Crude? All of those, certainly, but Trump’s brand is TRUMP. He’ll promise the moon, stars and planets, but when it comes down to decision time, he is always going to err on the side of glorifying Donald John Trump, it’s what he has done all his life. Trump Towers, Trump casinos, Trump golf courses, the list goes on. I’ll bet his seamstress rips the Fruit of the Loom tags out of his underwear and sews in Trump tags. This tendency worries me in a president. It’s certainly likely that he could tear great gaping holes in the Washington machine, but what will he replace it with? We’ve had 8 years of an administration treating the rule of law as toilet paper for their own ends, is continuing to rip it asunder for different ends really an improvement? He says now that he’ll build a wall, but do you really think he’ll do it if the effect is to deprive Trump properties of cheap labor(and thus damage the Trump brand)? I find that unlikely. Do you think he’ll negotiate hard against China if China grants preferential land rights to Trump casinos? I doubt it. Equally likely IMO is that Democrats in DC will figure out how to manipulate him via his enormous ego. Suppose a bill to “repeal” Obamacare comes across his desk, a bill that replaces it with full single payer called “Trumpcare”. Does ANYONE doubt that he’s sign that puppy in a second? Trump may very well do a great deal of damage to the establishment Washington, but I have no confidence that it will do anything but destroy the last vestiges of constitutional governance in this nation. We’ll still have elections, but they’ll be contests between Democrats and Republicans simply to put their guy or gal in charge so they can manipulate the raw levers of power for the benefit their donor groups. We citizens will simply be beasts of burden to fund the lavish lifestyles of the well connected. IOW, America will revert to the human norm, a vast underclass laboring to fund the lavish lifestyle of a small elite.
Fine. What about Cruz? Cruz has built his entire public and political persona on fealty to the Constitution. That’s his identity. You can believe that his filibuster was a publicity stunt or a principled stand, but the fact is that fact is that he sold it as a principled stand, and for him to go back on that would do incalculable damage to his brand. Washington DC today operates far removed from the Constitution. Cruz has to attack that, and he has to attack it from the angle of returning to Constitutional governance. He HAS to. To do otherwise would do tremendous harm to his brand. Does he mean it? I tend to believe that he does, but it doesn’t really matter. That’s the box he has locked himself into. Moving outside that box would finish him as surely as “read-my-lips” George H.W. Bush was finished by raising taxes.
So that’s the choice if you’re in the let it burn crowd. Raw destruction for destruction's sake, or surgical destruction in the name of restoration. I know which I prefer. We’re angry because greedy, corrupt politicians have betrayed our birthright. We’re angry. What should we do with that anger? Use it for short sighted revenge, or channel it in the direction that might start to recreate at least some of what we’ve lost?
Choose wisely.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 04:50 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: Pope Frank at February 19, 2016 04:51 PM (QM5S2)
Posted by: NCKate at February 19, 2016 04:51 PM (aA5gp)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 04:52 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: brak at February 19, 2016 04:52 PM (MJuTN)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 04:52 PM (/rmQf)
Posted by: Carol at February 19, 2016 04:52 PM (sj3Ax)
Posted by: Rubio! at February 19, 2016 04:54 PM (AA6QE)
Posted by: Bruce at February 19, 2016 04:55 PM (8ikIW)
He's not skipping events like Marco has without announcing why.
Posted by: Carol at February 19, 2016 04:55 PM (sj3Ax)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 04:55 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: Bruce at February 19, 2016 04:55 PM (8ikIW)
Me: You mean by supporting a candidate who supports Dem policies like Obamacare?
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 04:55 PM (LAe3v)
Posted by: Rusty Nail at February 19, 2016 04:56 PM (S2VsH)
Posted by: Bruce at February 19, 2016 04:57 PM (8ikIW)
It is really too bad that we cannot have them on the same ticket. What a scary concept, that! But these two haven't been all that generous with one another on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Shinjinrui at February 19, 2016 04:57 PM (4SznG)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 04:58 PM (/rmQf)
Posted by: Carol at February 19, 2016 04:58 PM (sj3Ax)
In which case, Trump would merely be the first shot in the salvo.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 19, 2016 04:58 PM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: brak at February 19, 2016 04:52 PM (MJuTN)
That's how they've conditioned you to feel. It's still a national choice. Only one candidate seems willing to smash the embargo on discussing it. But does that mean he'll be a good President? I just don't know anymore. He's only getting duller on the campaign trail, not sharper.
Posted by: Rusty Nail at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (S2VsH)
Posted by: Willy J. at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (r6bSH)
Posted by: WTP at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (XiVKO)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (B8JRQ)
Samuel Alito -- yes that Alito -- concurred in that opinion (he was on the 3rd circuit at that time).
The opinion affirmed ruling of the trial court that the NJ ban was void for vagueness.
So, since this blog is concerned with the "truth" no matter how the cards fall, there should be a retraction or that Alito is a "radical pro-abortion extremist who struck down a ban on partial birth abortions."
PS -- Trump's sister testified in support of Alito at his SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
Cruz is a *huge* liar on this issue.
Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (aNrvT)
Posted by: OldSarg at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (VBznp)
I'm torn. I kinda/sorta want Trump to win tomorrow, kinda/sorta want him to lose.
BTW, didja see Kasich's hug of the conservative Pajama Boy?
Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (eXTZt)
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (uURQL)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (qCMvj)
Cruz, Trump, or
Burn it down with Bernie!
Viva the Glorious Revolution!
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (v0YLX)
I guess divine inspiration is my last, best hope. Or a coin toss. Or my horoscope for the day.
I hate that we have come to this point with the willing compliance of people I voted for, trusting that they saw the dangers and would do their best for this country.
I never thought I would feel this way, but Let It Burn.
Posted by: Mina at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (Wnd2K)
Posted by: steveegg at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (cL79m)
We Queens alums gotta stick together
Posted by: ginaswo playing Accept at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (qxNrP)
Posted by: Shinjinrui at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (4SznG)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (/rmQf)
See, a perfect socialist solution!
Posted by: Bernie at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (RrDm2)
Posted by: David Koresh at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (12kBq)
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: Williams Billybongson at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (NWYtS)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (eXTZt)
When Cruz said he wanted the gang of 8 bill to pass, was it political gamesmanship (lying) or did he really want it to pass?
It's the wall, stupid.
Posted by: Valiant at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (2bqlb)
I like the idea of having someone who has actually read the Constitution and likes it.
But truth be told, I will vote for ANYONE over the Bitch of Benghazi. ANYONE.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (T/5A0)
All GOP candidates are OUT. Hillary is OUT because that will only allow Levin, Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh reap the rewards for their increases in radio audience and/or book sales.
No, if you really want to let it burn, you gotta vote for Sanders, period.
Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (1JnAL)
Or legalize pot. Ya think Bernie being ahead in Colorado is happenstance?
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (NOIQH)
Let the best SMOD win!
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (uURQL)
Why do I always get short shrift? After all, only I can promise total destruction in 30 minutes or less.
Posted by: Global Thermonuclear War at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (cL79m)
Actually burn the m'fer to the ground. Scatter the gdamn stones. Salt the infected earth where it stood.
I'm liking that option more and more every day.
Posted by: ajmojo at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (1H9ox)
Posted by: ginaswo playing Accept at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (qxNrP)
How exactly did this because public? Who let it out? Guess I need to dig a little bit
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (Qvgg/)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (/rmQf)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (eXTZt)
manly?
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (qCMvj)
he's a choice to return the male gender to something other than Pajama
Boy. This alone makes him worthy of deep consideration.
I get what you're saying, but by that rationale, every meathead in the stands at a football game should be president. I don't think it's too much to ask that a President possess both testicles (even if only figurative, a la Carley) and a brain.
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (LAe3v)
Posted by: cthulhu at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (EzgxV)
Cruz will orate and shake his fist at the sky and accomplish nothing.
At least Trump might be able to get something done.
Lesser of the evil of the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Wonk with Pigtails at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (TFWFz)
Posted by: Willy J.
-----
Should it be Bernie, it will suck and blow at the same time.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (RrDm2)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (LUgeY)
By contrast, say what you want about Trump, but his brand has punched clean through the media wall, exposed RINOs as clueless charlatans, and actually increased his favorables over the campaign. Can anyone damage that? Maybe they have some kind of uber-scandal, but that clock is still ticking...
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (eg0e6)
How exactly did this because public? Who let it out? Guess I need to dig a little bit
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (l+OuH)
the newest WSJ alert a few minutes ago...
ustice Department Makes New Push to Force Apple to Help Open San Bernardino Shooter's Phone
The Justice Department fired a new legal salvo at Apple on Friday, saying the company's refusal to help open a phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack is based on the company's marketing concerns and on mischaracterizations of the facts.
The move further escalates what has become a high-profile clash between the U.S. government and one of the world's most-recognized companies.
Federal prosecutors filed a motion Friday even though Apple hasn't yet responded in court to a judge's earlier order compelling it to help open the phone. Apple has until next week to explain to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym why it shouldn't have to obey her court order to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation in gaining access to the phone.
it's a thing
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (qCMvj)
I like chocolate AND peanut butter.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:00 PM (qCMvj)
Hey baby, got any extra peanut butter?
Posted by: Toby the Beagle at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (1JnAL)
How exactly did this because public? Who let it out? Guess I need to dig a little bit
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:03 PM (l+OuH)
Actually, it was "unless".
And he kept on Tweeting from his iPhone until some intern reminded him that it was an Apple product.
Posted by: steveegg at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (cL79m)
The roof! The roof! The roof is on fire!
We don't need no water, let the motherf**ker burn!
Burn Motherf**ker, Burn.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (qCMvj)
"Shh. Don't move. You're in shock now. I don't want you to feel any pain. In a moment, you'll begin to feel light-headed, then drowsy. Don't resist, it's so gentle, like slipping into a warm bath."
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (0q2P7)
I'm fine with either.
Trump / Cruz 2016
Wailing and lamentation from the Left for 16 years.
Posted by: @votermom at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (cbfNE)
Not exactly. He said that people should boycott Apple until they unlock the phone.
And he did it at a town hall type speech.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (/tuJf)
The roof! The roof! The roof is on fire!
We don't need no water, let the motherf**ker burn!
Burn Motherf**ker, Burn.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (evdj2)
You misspelled motherfucker...twice.
Posted by: Rock Master Scott at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (cL79m)
Octavian nods.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Jake at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (ez5kl)
Also pushed Roberts for SC. Not too smart. Even Ann Coulter saw that disaster coming.
Plus, he's Canadian - not that there's anything wrong with that.
Cruz - distant second to the Juggernaut.
Posted by: Time for a Molson at February 19, 2016 05:06 PM (kwHPo)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (voOPb)
Cruz will orate and shake his fist at the sky and accomplish nothing.
At least Trump might be able to get something done.
Lesser of the evil of the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Wonk with Pigtails at February 19, 2016 05:04 PM (TFWFz)
I see the exact opposite.
Cruz knows the law and his way around Congress. He is relentless in his principles. He will find a way to get things done.
Trump? He's a wildcard.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (qCMvj)
What kind of movie are you looking for?
Stupid fun popcorn flick?
Serious thinky piece?
Mystery?
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (VjlMj)
Besides, that's what it will be called right? There's your branding.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (gyKtp)
Posted by: doug at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (Y7fRE)
See, a perfect socialist solution!
Posted by: Bernie at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (RrDm2)
Just like they did in Firefly?
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:08 PM (v0YLX)
- blocked virtually every major item of Obama's agenda since 2010. What was the major piece of legislation that Obama signed since 2010?
- achieved the steepest decline in federal spending as a percentage of the GDP in recorded history. They did better than Gingrich and Reagan - and it isn't even close. Since 2010, Obama, against his wishes, presided over the biggest shrinkage of the federal government in history except for demilitarization periods. And yet the economy didn't collapse, as Keynesians indefatigably predicted. I'm not sure what more people were expecting in this front with Obama having veto power.
- blocked every immigration bill. The only thing shoved were Obama's executive orders.
OP is angry because he's ignorant of facts and politics is mostly a terrain for emotional grievance and getting those comforting self-righteous feelings.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:08 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:08 PM (8ZskC)
And he kept on Tweeting from his iPhone until some intern reminded him that it was an Apple product.
Posted by: steveegg at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (cL79m
Yeah, Donald "Shit for Brains" Trump strikes again!!
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 19, 2016 05:08 PM (voOPb)
-------------
I thought Trump had F U Money?
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:08 PM (gmeXX)
Anyway, I can't wait to vote in the primary tomorrow.
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (hoiM7)
Certainly not while the Texan is still in the race.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Carol at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (sj3Ax)
Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper
-------------
You make a salient point, I think. That is certainly the best way to call for a sunset on civilized society.
Perhaps a LIB promoter can explain to me why they would do otherwise, if indeed they would.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (RrDm2)
See, a perfect socialist solution!
Posted by: Bernie at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (RrDm2)
Just like they did in Firefly?
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:08 PM (v0YLX
You want Soma,
You'll settle for Midol
You'll get lead
Posted by: Your Government Betters
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (voOPb)
Trump? He's a wildcard.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette
--
I agree. Trump may or may not permanently change the trajectory. Cruz will do whatever he can to do so, and will make sure it stands up in court.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (Qvgg/)
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (evdj2)
Yes, by all means. Go with the serial bankrupt. And don't give me the "it wasn't him, it was his companies" nonsense. He plays fast and loose with other people's money. Is that really okay with you in a President?
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (LAe3v)
But against Hillary? I'll pull the lever for the Ayatollah Khameini.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (T/5A0)
------------
Yeah, not voting for liberal CEO. I'll go with the conservative lawyer.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (gmeXX)
____
You're a fucking lying liar.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (0LHZx)
Besides, that's what it will be called right? There's your branding.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (gyKtp)
That's going to be Trump's legacy one way or another.
Trump's Wall will mean:
a) Vaporware promise to get elected
b) Leaky sieve that doesn't live up to expectations
c) Gloriously yuuuuuuge wall that keeps out the riff-raff
d) Other
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (uURQL)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (/rmQf)
Posted by: Stingyhat at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (fsTl5)
The GOPe does not understand subtle. We need to convey "tar and feathers" somehow, and Cruz just doesn't do that.
Posted by: VidOmnia at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (r630q)
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1) (T) at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (OQ9R7)
I feel like this is sadly inevitable
If only! The future is not quite Mexican. Something far worse.
Socialism, Taco Bell, and a new national anthem by Pitbull
Posted by: wooga at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (Pa7M+)
Posted by: ace at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (dciA+)
How is that a deficit?
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (VjlMj)
Cruz knows the law and his way around Congress. He is relentless in his principles. He will find a way to get things done.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (qCMvj)
He's been a Senator, which is rad, but last I checked he was relegated to the FEC under George W. Bush, which should have been a fantastic time for a conservative to advance themselves. Cruz is much better than any non-Trump alternative, but if he could find a way to get things done- when's the last time you've seen him do something incredible?
http://tinyurl.com/pdcjjxq
What do I think is incredible? Just look at that one-year national poll tracking. If conservative principles were the most important thing, couldn't Cruz have locked this thing up before Trump was even a consideration?
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (eg0e6)
____
Yeah the omnibus passed a few weeks ago had nothing Obama asked for. And by nothing, of course, I mean every fucking thing. You're either extremely uninformed or just a paid GOPe troll.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (0LHZx)
---------------
Nothing screams winning like bankruptcy.
I actually don't care about his bankruptcies, but it isn't really winning and Trump is all about winning because we don't win anymore.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:12 PM (gmeXX)
I think Trump will definitely change the trajectory. I just have no idea which way. I don't think Trump does either.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 19, 2016 05:12 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:12 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 19, 2016 05:12 PM (gyKtp)
Fuck letting it burn, BURN IT DOWN!!! And you're right, that may be more correctly spelled BERN IT DOWN. Many moons until November, but I may end up swinging that direction.
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:12 PM (VjlMj)
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:13 PM (2x3L+)
a) Vaporware promise to get elected
b) Leaky sieve that doesn't live up to expectations
c) Gloriously yuuuuuuge wall that keeps out the riff-raff
d) Other
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely
On the other hand, it will be nicely finished in nude statues and
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:13 PM (LAe3v)
Perhaps a LIB promoter can explain to me why they would do otherwise, if indeed they would.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:09 PM (RrDm2
Because as it is easy to say LIB at times, man still fights until the very end.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 19, 2016 05:13 PM (voOPb)
The only way is going to be to threaten, before it all, to vote AGAINST any and all Republicans coming up for election this year if they confirm anyone.
You can't simply threaten those who vote to confirm. You have to threaten them all with electoral defeat-- no passes. They'll be pre-approved, token 'no' votes, set up to protect themselves while they know the whole thing is designed to pass anyway.
Only the threat of a complete, 100% electoral bloodletting, with no one safe, will force those kabuki senators to press leadership to act right.
In this case, Let It Burn is a Sword of Damocles-- "Do what we want or we'll crash this bitch."
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 19, 2016 05:13 PM (oVJmc)
Anyway, I can't wait to vote in the primary tomorrow.
____
No they're not.
Posted by: ajmojo at February 19, 2016 05:13 PM (1H9ox)
As for Jeb or Marco , I'd write in for Cruz before I'd vote for either Jeb or Marco.
When the elites accuse me and my ilk of handing the election to Hillary (or Bernie), I will reply...
"If your'e gonna act like a bunch of Damn Democrats , then a Democrat might as well win".
Well, I'd better get back to stockpiling commodity metals ( brass and lead). You guys and gals take care.
Posted by: SMOD at February 19, 2016 05:13 PM (cCxiu)
Posted by: Caliban at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (voo6q)
You're a fucking lying liar.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (0LHZx)
Not sure what's so hard to understand for you, but that chart proves me correct - except for the post II War demilitarization period, it was the steepest decline in government spending in recorded history.
If you use a better metric like the Ciclycally Adjusted Primary Balance (which is fairer as it corrects for heritage effects), then the comparison is even more favorable.
Hard to take seriously any so-called conservative who doesn't even understand we've been living in a golden age for fiscal conservatism in the last 5 years.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (89I+i)
Who has the time? And while you wait the other side wins.
Posted by: Decaf at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (9IfHv)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 05:10 PM (/rmQf)
nice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7107ELQvY
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (qCMvj)
Cruz: Rolls up sleeves. Does the necessary hard work. Gets the job done.
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (B8JRQ)
People like me have been screwed over time and again by the GOP. Enough is enough. I hate Donald Trump but I will vote for him. Why? It's the biggest "fuck you" I can send to the GOP establishment and he will be no better or worse than anyone else they send up. Tell me where my thinking is wrong.
Posted by: DoucheNozzle at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (V0luf)
-------------
The best way is really for all the GOP presidential candidates to hold steady on this.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (Dwl2T)
Posted by: $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (zmW4B)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette
----------------
Trump will seek what Trump desires. That what he desires represents or not represent Constitutional conservatism matters not, nor will his actions be guided by that.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (RrDm2)
Posted by: WhatWhatWhat? at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (HMt16)
I wrote to Richard Shelby and told him that though I was certain that he would not vote to allow a nomination to move forward, I would vote against him this cycle if his party let it go.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (evdj2)
Trump doesn't know how to operate in Washington, and he's got zero actual political experience. . .those are functional deficits irrespective of his temperament, ideology etc.
Soooo, all the career politicians in Washington have done exactly what so far? Gotten us Trillions of dollars in debt, ignored the rule of law and instituted unconstitutional tyranny.
Yeah, that's a ringing endorsement of political acumen if I've ever heard one.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (LUgeY)
The next President might get to pick 4 FOUR US Supreme Court Justices. libs, Conservatives and maybe replace the designated squish, Kennedy too.
Imagine if Scalia had two more reliable conservatives?
Imagine if dumb old Teddy can get the EXISTING LAWS ENFORCED?
Immigration law , tax law, voting laws, national security laws?
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (v0YLX)
Trump: Hello, I have run a business for 40 years, I've never been elected to anything in my life and I promised to build a wall.
Voters: Fuck off Trump, we need experienced, steady leadership not some crazy CEO who has never been in politics before.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (0LHZx)
"Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the slow knife, the knife that takes its time,"
Who has the time? And while you wait the other side wins.
Posted by: Decaf
Nobody takes time for the finer things in life anymore. Rush, rush, rush.
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (LAe3v)
Cruz: Rolls up sleeves. Does the necessary hard work. Gets the job done.
___
Examples?
Posted by: ajmojo at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (1H9ox)
Posted by: The Walking Dude at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (cCxiu)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (l+OuH)
He could be awful or awesome, but I don't see it being anything in between.
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (VjlMj)
Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (Dwl2T)
Posted by: steveegg at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (cL79m)
I don't buy this one. If he had bunches of findable illegals working one or the other of the umpteen campaigns would've found them for us.
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (DL2i+)
I am skilled in the arts of war and military tactics.
Posted by: Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornhole at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (RrDm2)
-----------
When he makes deals with the GOP and nothing really changes in DC, you will realize you were wrong. But at least you will have allowed the Supreme Court to completely switch in the process.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Weasel at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (e3bId)
Well, in the OP I referenced Ghostbusters, Back to the Future and The Dark Knight Rises. All 3 would be excellent choices.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (N8hFs)
Nice try, though.
Posted by: Monty James at February 19, 2016 05:17 PM (qHZHp)
But I think it could hurt her in the general. Yeah, she'd have the dead vote locked up, but the Dems have them anyway.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 19, 2016 05:17 PM (T/5A0)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 19, 2016 05:12 PM (/tuJf)
it's a tough call
Trump loves this country, there is no doubt. Obama doesn't and it showed in everything he did and said.
It will come down to his judgment. Who he hires, who are his advisors, who are the Generals he will listen to.
I have no clear way of knowing. But, I do see his temper flare, and it's always personal, so that is dangerous.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:17 PM (qCMvj)
he will be no better or worse than anyone else they send up. Tell me
where my thinking is wrong.
Simple. You think you're telling the GOPe and Trump to f*** off. In fact, as soon as you've pulled the lever for him, he'll send it back to you in spades.
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:18 PM (LAe3v)
He's, no shit, about pi/6 radians away from fascism.
I told a friend of mine that if Sanders is elected, there will be shooting in the streets before his term is out. I might prefer that...
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:18 PM (zaVwL)
Best. Primary. Ever.
Posted by: @votermom at February 19, 2016 05:18 PM (cbfNE)
See, a perfect socialist solution!
Posted by: Bernie at February 19, 2016 05:01 PM (RrDm2)
It was the Pax...the paxilon hyrdochlate we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population...
Posted by: Scientist chick killed by Reavers at February 19, 2016 05:18 PM (r630q)
Trump is a tool for us. If he fails as a tool, then it's time to find a new one.
Failure is the father of success. If voting for Trump fails to kill the GOPe this time ... then regroup and try again.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (uURQL)
This. This is the argument against Cruz as well. I like Cruz a lot, but what has he done, really? He's a lawyer. Another lawyer. He may be a great and accomplished lawyer. He may be an awesome constitutionalist and all that. He's still a fucking lawyer.
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (VjlMj)
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (2x3L+)
Nonsense! Our future isn't Mexico. Get out of here with that.
It's an admixture of Mexico and West Africa.
Posted by: torquewrench at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (noWW6)
Yeah the omnibus passed a few weeks ago had nothing Obama asked for.
And by nothing, of course, I mean every fucking thing. You're either
extremely uninformed or just a paid GOPe troll.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:11 PM (0LHZx)
If you think the omnibus had everything Obama asked for, you haven't been paying attention to Obama's budget proposals.
Here's a fact: 4% decline in federal spending as a GDP% in 4 years. Who did better? Gingrich/Clinton? Reagan? Nixon? Eisenhower? No, no, no, no.
If you had actual arguments, you wouldn't resort to juvenile name-calling.
Here's a theory: most Trump supporters actually hate this because they're scared as hell of fiscal conservatism. Is that your case?
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (89I+i)
______
You are one dumb fuck. It only decreased a lot because it spiked in 2008-2010. That is like me saying look at me, I lost 50 lbs, isn't that awesome. Well sure, except you gained 80 lbs the year before. This is exactly what happened with spending as a % of GDP. It was well under 20% from 1995 to 2007. Then it went to almost 26%. And we're supposed to be excited that it's at 21% now?
Like I said, you really are a dumb fuck.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (0LHZx)
We let it burn as soon as the ABR started in the last election. It's been burning for the past 7 years, and it seems to me that you blame the fire on the fire fighters and when they die to save you, it doesn't matter because they didn't put out the fire.
The only politician in the past 30 years that makes me examine my own prejudices is Marco Rubio.
Rubio epitomizes the American Dream. He knows it and he's grateful for it. He makes me hope for the first time in a generation.
If Rubio can get to where he is, from where he came from... so can others, lots of others!
And you know what? I've done pretty well too! IN all this horrible mess, I've felt hopeless and desparate, but Marco made me see, that my American Dream is working! I am moving up, my kids are moving up... it isn't dead at all!
Marco did that for me. I think he can do it for the country as a whole. If you let him. If you forgive him for being imperfect. He is imperfect. Forgive him, because you are imperfect too.
While I have been dismayed about the deep deep hole the country is sinking into, Marco has put himself out there. He's been using this great gift of America to make a difference, in all his imperfection, he held on to the shining city on a hill, after I gave up on it.
Cruz gives you hope that maybe you haven't been wrong to wait for the perfect candidate. I do not see anyting close to perfect. I see deception and a man who is self serving, at the expense of the country. I don't see what you see.
But I will forgive Cruz for not being perfect. Because I am not perfect. I don't feel hopeful when Cruz talks, I feel despair. But if that is the best we can do. I will forgive him and support him.
I think I can only do that because I first saw hope in Marco Rubio! Without him, I think I wouldn't vote at all, because it just seemed hopeless.
Marco Rubio helped me see Trump, and Cruz and all the rest as something to believe in again.
Our team is still fighting. If they don't give up I won't either.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (VoCyE)
We've had 50+ mph winds here in Chicagoland today. It's in the neighbors pool.
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (DL2i+)
---------
Might I suggest a tool that has actually gone against the GOPe.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: doug at February 19, 2016 05:20 PM (Y7fRE)
Still waiting.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:20 PM (RrDm2)
I feel like this is sadly inevitable"
--------
Already there, just look at California.
Posted by: Decaf at February 19, 2016 05:20 PM (9IfHv)
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (N8hFs)
I usually do not watch a movie twice (other than The Princess Bride, because I can't stop watching it when it's on, and the first Borne Identity. Oh, and Pride and Prejudice, because, you know, best chic-flick ever.)
We like sci-fi, martial arts, rogue/special ops taking down the bad guys, etc. Blow some sh*t up stuff. Strategy. Sci-fi, Action, and Thrillers, mostly.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:15 PM (v0YLX)
You can't keep spending that nickel!!
After O'Connor, and Kennedy, and Souter, and ROBERTS (author of the most ludicrous SC decision, if not the most evil), I think we need to stop trusting our freedom and safety to Ivy League lawyers.
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (eg0e6)
----------
When it comes to bankruptcies - I think his failure rate is 0.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (gmeXX)
I think if you're conservative and want a Constitutionally based gov't restored-
there's no doubt that you should be voting for Cruz.
I'm okay with Trump as a 2nd choice-
but we will not get a preference for conservative policy with him. He'll build a wall and hopefully deport illegals.
We'll also get single payer death care, but at least Trump's smart enough (I think) to realize that that won't work with the cost drag of 15-40 million illegals gobbling up the benefits without contributing a thing.
Along with other libtard nonsense.
That's really where the dividing line is.
I guess Mario is a factor, at eternal third place, but the others should drop out before Super Tuesday, so
we can have a couple of debates among the top 3.
That won't happen- cuz the GOPe is planning on a deadlocked convention.
Cruz and Trump are splitting the conservative base vote, which would straight up win based on numbers and percentages, if combined together-
so one or the other needs a knock out punch.
Vote wisely.
Posted by: naturalfake at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (0cMkb)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
----------------
*senses banning in air *
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (RrDm2)
golfers telling us we're a bunch of unsophisticated Brawndo-drinkers for
liking Trump.
I didn't telly you what to do, and I didn't dismiss Trump supporters as unserious. I laid out the choices as I see them. As I said, chose wisely.
As for those of you saying "Fuck it, burn it ALL down", you're nuts. A hot civil war would be a nasty, bloody disaster. You probably know someone who served in the sandbox, go ask them what it's like to be in the middle of that. Ask for the unvarnished truth.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (N8hFs)
We’ve had 8 years of an administration treating the rule of law as toilet paper for their own ends
Vote Bernie. No more toilet paper.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (FkBIv)
Trump will serve himself and enrich himself when in office, which is at odds with the Washington establishment's goals. He'd be very bad for the country in some ways, and good in others. He's a huge jerk to people he doesn't like and very swift to go after those he thinks are hurting him. If he associates himself with the USA, that could work out well for us. Or badly, depending on his reaction. I at first thought he'd be great at hiring quality people to do their jobs in the administration, but judging by his picks of loose cannon idiots for campaign workers and spokesmen, I'm skeptical.
Cruz wants to be all constitutional and stuff, but I fear he's so calculating and lawyer-tricky, he will be too smart for his own good to get anything done. And at this point, he's one man trying to stop an avalanche; there's no way he stops the destruction and no way he gets anything done with BOTH parties opposed to him and lacking that killer, brutal overpowering personality he'd get steamrolled or blocked.
And since the point we can fix this nation is passed and I am certain disaster looms on the very close horizon... who wins is a matter of academic history more than anything else.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: SMFH at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (rlfds)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (gmeXX)
Trump?
I kid, we're looking at the same events and weight the importance of various actions differently.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (uURQL)
-------
I don't care what sign he puts on it as long as he builds it. Pope Franky can fume and sputter.
Posted by: Decaf at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (9IfHv)
Are you thinking Netflix or redbox?
Posted by: @votermom at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (cbfNE)
It's not just the politicians, it's the scum who voted for them and/or support them. They all need to burn. Most of them are in big cities, so let then all burn. Millions less liberal scum destroying this nation can only be a good thing.
And if a bunch of us could figure out how to light the match sometime soon, even better. I just don't care anymore.
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (sdPF/)
Posted by: Missbosslady at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (UTf+V)
Actually, the go to faux Gold decoration is anodized aluminum. Bright gold, good wear properties, lightweight.
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:23 PM (v0YLX)
Posted by: Feel the Bern at February 19, 2016 05:23 PM (zmW4B)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:23 PM (5VEXA)
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:21 PM (RrDm2)
I confess to schadenfreude when seeing Moo Moo call people trolls.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:23 PM (uURQL)
___
Examples?"
He forced Obamacare out the door before it was ready, ensuring its pathetic rollout and perhaps ultimate collapse.
I've explained the whole thing here before, but no one listens. I mean, it's not like I used to analyze complex political systems professionally before or anything.
Except, yaknow, I did.
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (zaVwL)
---
Flamethrowers.
Posted by: SMFH at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (rlfds)
-----------
So much wrong in that one statement. Were O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter bad - yes. Do I expect Cruz to make those mistakes - no.
Did Roberts author a bad (2) opinions - yes. Worst ever (hardly). Has he otherwise been very good - yes. Does that make up for his bad Obamacare opinion - no. Is there a huge difference between Roberts and Kagan/Sotomyer/others - yes and you know it.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (gmeXX)
Hate Bush... Casich is a wimp...
Rubio is pro Immigrant vs. pro American...
And IMO the Founders put the Natural Born Citizenship clause in to ensure that an American, and ONLY an American, would be President... so IMO (and I know its not a popular opinion) Dual Citizens should not be President.. I came to that conclusion when looking at the Obama crap.. but sadly Cruz WAS born a Dual Citizen...
And Trump has lost me in the last couple of days with his "love for the the Obama care Mandate', and now his calling for a boycott of Apple because they won't bow to a Government order about their own intellectual property.
Crap.... whose running third party this year... Reform or Constitution Party....
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (f7rv6)
Posted by: DoucheNozzle at February 19, 2016 05:14 PM (V0luf)
----------------------------
The Uniparty may not like Trump much, but they prefer him to Cruz. So he is NOT the biggest FU.
As Jimmy Carter said, Trump is ... malleable.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (T/5A0)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (5VEXA)
Taxes have gone up considerably in the last two years, and regulations have been hammering small business badly so I wouldn't call it a golden age by any definition.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:23 PM (5VEXA)
Nope, Fenelon killed grammie.
buzzion died from natural causes with a pillow over his face.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (uURQL)
You are one dumb fuck. It only decreased a lot
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (0LHZx)
Oh, you're already admitted it decreased a lot? I thought Obama had got everything he wanted? So in 2010 Obama's goal was to reduce the federal spending at an unprecedented pace? Are you actually arguing that with a straight face? Do you want to be taken seriously?
Now, the next step: nobody has ever done better. And it's climbed a lot before. Not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Newt, surely not Bush. Admit it to yourself. Say it: nobody has done better. Say it.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (89I+i)
What kind of movie are you looking for?
Stupid fun popcorn flick?
Serious thinky piece?
Mystery?
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (NOIQH)
oh sorry, didn't see this (was looking at movies on imdb, heh)
Action, thriller, sci-fi...
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (qCMvj)
Rubio epitomizes the American Dream. He knows it and he's grateful for it. He makes me hope for the first time in a generation.
If Rubio can get to where he is, from where he came from... so can others, lots of others!
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (VoCyE)
Pray tell, where do you come up with this shit?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (8ZskC)
Ugh.
* * * *
Artisinal 'ette, a few movie recommendations FWIW (I don't claim to have great taste, I prefer movies that distract):
The Secret in Their Eyes (original) - Slow burn mystery
Attack the Block - silly alien/light horror
Moon - scifi
OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies - silly French Bond paraody
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (NOIQH)
There's plenty more negative about him than you went over. You cooked the books, angled the speech to where you wanted attention drawn.
That's not Let It Burn.
Too bad, cause you were doing good up till then. And then you swerved.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (Xo1Rt)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
He sounds like those "Paultards for Bernie" who think that a 90% top marginal tax rate is the conservative position.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (zmW4B)
Posted by: Austin Powers at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (7wyDO)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:19 PM (0LHZx)
you're slipping off the cliff of Ace's new rules...
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (l+OuH)
It means that Trump won't be able to deliver anything. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. . . but I don't see it as a good thing.
I've actually got more issues with his temperament (he's as big a narcissist as Obama, perhaps bigger) and his values (when it comes down to it, he's a slightly conservative Democrat). You think Trump is going to fight for originalist SCOTUS picks? I surely don't.
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (hoiM7)
Posted by: SMFH at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (rlfds)
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (89I+i)
_____
OK you got me. You're fucking with me. Nobody can be this dense. Shame on me for assuming you were actually serious.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (0LHZx)
That's correct, except I heard it was an anvil.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Duncan MacLeod, The Highlander at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (COpZ4)
Trump has a history of protecting his brand and being as asshole doing it. I believe that he would want to leave a good legacy, which means he's likely to do some of what he says. He is a loose cannon and no one owns him. You can't say that about Cruz. I suspect there are positions that Trump will take that I won't like. I can live with it, as long as he secures the border. I want to see this country be able to elect non politicians to office. This is the start of that.
Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (Lqy/e)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: SMFH at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (rlfds)
Lol, amen to that. How pathetic.
I look forward to walking away from the likes of her when the time comes.
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (uiVGU)
4 bankruptcies out of 500+ ventures...
What is Cruz's failure rate?
Posted by: doug
That's about as relevant as "sure, X killed 4 people in separate murders, but Y voted for the losing, i.e. non-Dem, candidate in CA more often".
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (LAe3v)
Attack the Block - silly alien/light horror
Moon - scifi
OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies - silly French Bond paraody
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (NOIQH)
oh, I'll look them up, thanks.
I have seen Attack the Block.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (qCMvj)
If Cruz wins, we'll all start hoping that something will be different. No fault to him but it won't be. No one can fix social security, Medicare, or even at this point, Obamacare. There is no fix. They are fundamentally wrong in every level. The only fix would have been for them not to exist. You can't uninvent a nuclear blast or take it back.
If Trump wins, we get 4 years of Reality TV. That's it. Yeah, maybe he will build The Great Wall of Trump that is the most Yuuuge and luxurious wall ever built on the planet. I'm willing to believe it. I also am certain that, if he does do it, it will be the same as everything else he's built- a gigantic boondoggle that results in bankruptcy and, more than likely, eminent domain suits.
At least with Bernie it will be over quickly. Go ahead and vote every socialist nutcase we can find into congress too. Day one, GITMO will be empty, debt will be unfathomable, our credit rating will evaporate, the dollar will be worth less that whatever the hell Iraq had 12 years ago, and everyone will be a gazillionaire... for a day. Then it will end in a huge puff of logic. When all the freeloaders don't have to show up to work, no shelves will be stocked. There will be nothing for them to buy with their newly stolen weath. Then the real shit will hit the fan as they show themselves fully for the thieves that they are... except...
None of them can fight and our side has all the guns.
The military you say? Even if they respond to orders from Bernie to shoot American citizens, by that point, the entire military will be nothing but a bunch of trangender freaks and 4 ft tall, 89 lbs special forces women.
Yes, our real enemies abroad will take advantage of the situation. They already are. That cannot be helped now. Even Trump cannot build a grand enough wall to stop planes and missile from flying over it.
Let it burn.
Posted by: Damiano at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (XItbt)
I mean that was pure moo.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (gmeXX)
Jack Daniels his money earns
Whispering words of apathy.
Let it burn. Let it burn.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (Nwg0u)
Wait a minute. Are you actually claiming the skull ferret will deflect incoming freighter launched Iranian IRBMs? I don't think even TRUMP would go that far.
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (DL2i+)
Taxes have gone up considerably in the last two years, and
regulations have been hammering small business badly so I wouldn't call
it a golden age by any definition.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (39g3+)
Taxes have been going down considerably - you know that by looking at spending as a GDP %. The only true metric of taxation is spending (as a % of the wealth created) because eventually all spending will need to be paid in taxes. Spending that isn't taxed now will ultimately be taxed later.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (89I+i)
After his SC Debate truther act, I am afraid that Jesse Ventura may be a better prediction?
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (v0YLX)
Posted by: VidOmnia at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (r630q)
You mistake the means for the intent. The Founders wanted to avoid a CiC with questionable loyalty, or worse, known loyalty to a foreign power.
Unless you have some evidence that Cruz has loyalty to Canada, I think the Founders will rest easy.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (8ZskC)
Combined they turned the country into a socialist hell and then LBJ came along and made it worse. We have been sliding into doom ever since and there is no saving it now.
The majority of the public now does believe that there is a free lunch and I am not just talking about the inner city ghettos. ALL the public thinks that.
And the secret you NEVER hear from the MFM is that socialism has NEVER worked.
Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (t2KH5)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (LA7Cm)
Posted by: bour3 at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (5x3+2)
Cruz's principles will be useless against a Dem Congress and especially against a Republican Congress.
There is no chance at all of him being able to do anything without executive orders. Then if he resorts to EOs he will be attacked as having no integrity.
Posted by: Decaf at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (9IfHv)
Without him, I think I wouldn't vote at all, because it just seemed
hopeless.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (N8hFs)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
He sounds like those "Paultards for Bernie" who think that a 90% top marginal tax rate is the conservative position.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (zmW4B)
____
he thinks if you increase spending by 100% one year and then it decreases by 20% the next year, spending in year 3 is lower than year 1.
Math is hard for some.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (0LHZx)
'Better to live a slave than fight. Principles and liberty aren't worth dying for.'
That's what I heard.
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (zaVwL)
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (oVJmc)
OK you got me. You're fucking with me. Nobody can be this dense. Shame on me for assuming you were actually serious.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (0LHZx)
Instead of running away, you could point who exactly has done better. And mind you, these guys had to deal with Obama in the White House. So, who did?
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (89I+i)
I will pay good money to see that sic'd on whomever Trump's Democratic opponent is in the general election.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (uURQL)
Right now Trump is trying to make a deal with me, for my vote. He is selling promises of what I am going to get for my vote just like he sells any deal with promises of what is going to happen for the benefit of the other parties.
I've studied game theory. And Trump plays it ruthlessly. Promises are strategic moves and are only as good as the benefit to the player to keep them.
What do we know about Trump's deals. Sometimes you make out, sometimes you don't, it depends on whether you getting the benefit helps Trump or not. If you believe the entirety of his sales pitch you are naive.
That's the cold hard facts. Do not trust Trump period. When you make a deal with him, remember it is only going as far as it benefits him to do so.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (0q2P7)
Attack the Block - silly alien/light horror
Moon - scifi
OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies - silly French Bond paraody
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (NOIQH)
oh, I'll look them up, thanks.
I have seen Attack the Block.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (qCMvj)
oh, have seen Moon, too.
The other two look good.
But, you also reminded me I didn't see the last Bond movie!
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (qCMvj)
----------
I am scared of any President who feels he has the skills to do something if the economy craters.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:29 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (89I+i)
___
Indeed. When the top marginal tax rate went from 35% to 39.6% a few years ago - with Jon Boner's blessing - taxes went down, not up.
Oh and my chocolate rations increased from 20 to 15 grams too.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:29 PM (0LHZx)
On the other hand, it will be nicely finished in nude statues and gold TiN leaf.
Actually, the go to faux Gold decoration is anodized aluminum. Bright gold, good wear properties, lightweight.
Posted by: rd
Sure, but AA ain't plasmonic, and as we all know, DT loves him some plasmonics.
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 05:29 PM (LAe3v)
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM (lVU49)
Posted by: Zeno at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM (VrQW9)
You never go full moo.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero)
Try it hot!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/gpfzvcw
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM (FkBIv)
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM (iQIUe)
Pray tell, where do you come up with this shit?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (8ZskC)
_____
I call it as I see it. I listened to all of them before making the choice.
But you should thank Rubio, I am so much more optimistic about the country, because he is so optimistic.
Even if he loses, he knows he already won, because he is an American.
That makes me proud.
It's been so long since I have felt proud.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Carol at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (sj3Ax)
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:28 PM (89I+i)
____
Your premise is absurd. You're looking at the decline without looking at the increase preceding it. Again, it's like me losing 50 lbs after I gained 80 lbs. The net is I'm still 30 lbs heavier. But you're out there celebrating how good I am at losing weight.
Do you seriosly not understand why this is idiotic?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (0LHZx)
So my question, what evidence is there that Cruz will seal the border?
Posted by: teh troll at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (0+srV)
Posted by: VidOmnia at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (r630q)
I think they're pussies. Just give them a little pain and they'll turn around very quickly.
There's an amuing SF pajama boy complaining about seeing homeless around him in a leftist city.
And that's just from *seeing* misery.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (uURQL)
this idiot Abali thinks we're in a golden age of fiscal conservatism.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
Actually it's already at the same level, but only a blithering idiot would believe that it was possible to reverse everything in 5 years with Obama in the White House. If it was that easy, why didn't Gingrich or Reagan or Eisenhower done better?
If we keep doing exactly what we've been doing in the last 5 years for another decade, in 10 years the federal government will be back at the pre-war levels, for the first time since the war.
If this isn't progress, what is?
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (Nwg0u)
===
I think Cruz is a lot more pragmatic than many give him credit for. IE, he's not really the uber-strict constitutionalist he poses as to get votes. He'll pick his fights.
On Trump, he's a wild card. He's so clearly playing to the "cheap seats" its hard to know what the guy is actually going to do if he were to win. I can't entirely dismiss the idea that Trump, who all his professional career was a crony, is going to try and use the White House for personal benefit.
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (hoiM7)
Dana Loesch had a story in 2013 Trump met a group of Dreamer activists and he was all sympathetic with them. The meeting is documented. Which would lead one to think he changes his opinions like they were socks.
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (5VEXA)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Petunia Matthews at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (zmW4B)
lol, bern it down
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (VjlMj)
Posted by: Rome, 476 AD at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (LAe3v)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (gmeXX)
That's what I heard.
.....
Principles and Liberty are worth dying for. That comes AFTER the burning starts.
Until the burning comes, it will be all fake promises, debt, rainbows and unicorns.
Posted by: Damiano at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (XItbt)
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM (lVU49)
If the point of conservatism is to conserve Leftism, then LIB is not the conservative choice.
It also means I am not a conservative.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (uURQL)
That's not "let it burn," that's "make it burn with napalm."
Math is hard for some.
Yeah, do not engage. This guy is unserious.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: Zeno at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (VrQW9)
Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM (Lqy/e)
---
My impression of Trump is that if something goes really wrong on his watch, he won't worry about fixing it, he'll worry about affixing blame for it to someone else.
When the Iraq war went south, George W. Bush changed course, listened to the people who urged the surge, and fixed the problem. When Iraq went south again under Obama, he refused to change course and he looked for ways to blame Bush.
I think Trump is more like Obama in that regard, because of his ego and the way he deflects criticism with counterattacks and denials. I think Cruz is more like Bush in that regard, because he tends to stay on an even keel, and even in the Carson kerfuffle, he spoke the words, "Ben, I'm sorry."
Posted by: stuiec at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (eetvJ)
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:30 PM
-------
Yeah, you and Michelle Obama. Maybe Rubio has allowed you to release your RBF
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (2x3L+)
Without him, I think I wouldn't vote at all, because it just seemed
hopeless.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (N8hFs)
___
I'm not voting for my religious leader, I'm voting for my President.
My faith is in God.
My trust is in God.
But someone has to run this country, why not a guy who makes me feel optimistic instead of worried and hopeless?
I choose to be happy.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: SMFH at February 19, 2016 05:25 PM (rlfds)
I thought it was a parody too.
Was I wrong?
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (5VEXA)
Nope, Fen took out grammie. Poor grammie never saw it coming.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (uURQL)
"
Interesting. I did not know that. I did know about his role in defeating amnesty though.
Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (iweze)
-----
That's some fairly good trolling. Terminally smarmy, and quite infuriating to anyone who thinks you actually meant a word of it.
Why do you do it? What do you get out of it?
Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (/f6Nd)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (0LHZx)
Too little, too late.
IGTBNMW
It's Going To Burn No Matter What
Buy bullets, it's going to get bumpy. Buy toilet paper too (or lots of rabbits).
Posted by: Tilikum KAW Assholier Than Thou at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (+aCe4)
So? Who gives a shit? You think the establishment he's there to oppose is going to kiss and play nice otherwise?
The answer to that? Abuse the shit out of the office. Furlough entire agencies by EO. Audit every member of Congress. Reassign every asshole petty bureaucratic chieftain who opposes the new program to Alaska.
They wanted an Imperial Presidency and then won't help an emperor dismantle it? Then suffer imperial wrath. And see minds change.
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (zaVwL)
This article today is just unbelievable. The attitude and condescension is incredible. I guess it's nice that theyve finally accepted that the grassroots are angry at the party elite...too bad they still don't view that rage as legitimate or justified. Oh, and accepting the rebellion has been successful is nice, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431573/donald-trump-republican-party-self-sabotage
Posted by: Grimaldi at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (/NasU)
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (NHQQx)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (gmeXX)
A difference, yes. But not on Obamacare, and you're not even addressing that. Paradoxically, if he had simply voted with the liberal justices on Sebelius, I would at least understand where he's coming from. But when his opinion is literally at odds with itself? There's no telling what sort of laws would come from the Chief Justice in the future, and that is why so much of the Republican base is enraged. I actually understand why he didn't want the Supreme Court to stand in the way- who knows what Obama might do in response- but he needed to stand. And failed.
He forced Obamacare out the door before it was ready, ensuring its pathetic rollout and perhaps ultimate collapse.
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:24 PM (zaVwL)
Hey, if Obamacare finishes collapsing before the primary finishes, as opposed to standing like a termite-infested house, no one's gonna endorse Cruz harder than I will. Until then- what else do ya got?
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (eg0e6)
Yeah, he's a liar. IE, he's running for political office. . .his lips are moving, etc. We know this.
But every other candidate is lying too, some just a little more bald-facedly than others.
The question isn't who is or isn't lying, the question is, despite all the lies, who's most suited to be commander in chief, chief foreign policy strategist, and leader of the USA?
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (hoiM7)
Has a feel like Marc Antony's funeral oration.
Posted by: stuiec at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (eetvJ)
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (DL2i+)
Rabbits are a substitute for TP? The things you learn on a Smart Military Blog.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (uURQL)
Your premise is absurd. You're looking at the decline without
looking at the increase preceding it. Again, it's like me losing 50 lbs
after I gained 80 lbs. The net is I'm still 30 lbs heavier. But you're
out there celebrating how good I am at losing weight.
Do you seriosly not understand why this is idiotic?
Because when it comes to fiscal stance, the flow is much more important than the stock. In fact, the higher the climb, the higher is the rigidity - because there are now more people and special interests fighting against scale-backs. It's the rate that matters - if the rate moves in the right direction, the stock will inevitably follow suit. This isn't really hard to understand.
What's your point exactly? That Obama had a change of heart in 2010 and after having the federal spending climbing in his first two years in office, secretly converted to fiscal conservatism and pushed for the biggest rate of decline in federal spending since the war?
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (89I+i)
___
Why ain't he done better ma?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: Nora at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (87qeT)
Posted by: Petunia Matthews at February 19, 2016 05:32 PM (zmW4B)
_____
I haven't played a video game in years.
But the same reason I like Marco is why you like whoever... they make you feel something.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (VoCyE)
Just a question. Were the founders wrong?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (5VEXA)
-
I-better-not-have-a-drink-to-calm-down-because-I-might-never-stop-drinking
-------------------------------
Welcome to my world.
Oh, not actually the I-better-not part. The never-stop part was what I was getting at.
Posted by: irright at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (DtNNC)
Uh....who is this?
Good sock, whoever you are.
In case you aren't, you have neglected the Fed's role in this, to the tune of trillions of dollars injected into the economy. Care to do a recalculation of your numbers with even a small percentage of the Fed money included in spending?
No?
I thought not.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (Zu3d9)
Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (NOIQH)
lol, we'll be doing that for real shortly
Thanks for your tips!
Date night is starting now.
Be good all.
Be nice to each other.
Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Zeno at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (VrQW9)
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (2x3L+)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (/rmQf)
Posted by: Petoooonia at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: petunia
This is a presidential election not The Bachelorette.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (zmW4B)
I don't think he changes his opinions like socks. . .I just don't think he has any convictions at all about a lot of this stuff, and just says whatever he thinks (at that moment) has the most popular support.
Do you really think Trump has spent a great deal of his personal time seriously ruminating over public policy issues?
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (hoiM7)
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:35 PM (89I+i)
______
The stimulus caused the spike. Stimulus was passed in 2009 and included funding for 2009-2011. Then once the stimulus money was spent, the ratio fell back down. It had nothing to do with the GOPe.
And you keep asking about Newt. I showed you above what Newt did. He cut spending by 20% relative to GDP.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Nora at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (87qeT)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (l+OuH)
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (zaVwL)
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (5VEXA)
-------------
Of course I addressed it. I have always addressed it. I said he had two really bad opinions. And they are really really bad. But they are not Koramatsu. They are not Dred Scott.
Roberts really screwed up the Obamacare opinions. I wish I had a reason why. But he has been solid otherwise.
Rehnquist had some bad opinions too, but he was infinitely better than Brennan.
So to say the courts don't matters is just wrong.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (gmeXX)
The Democrats hate Trump
The media hates Trump.
Which says to me, HE is the best let it burn candidate.
Posted by: shibumi who is awash in existential dread at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (7FH+T)
Posted by: teh troll at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (0+srV)
Posted by: AmerMexico at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (OZmbA)
Posted by: Weasel at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (e3bId)
This is a presidential election not The Bachelorette.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (zmW4B)
LMAO.
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (NHQQx)
cruz or trump thumb in the dc eyes, AND with either , the fighting to get anything donw will be extreme,
gop or dems won't want to do a Thing for either of them.
so nothing will change.
and i'm good for buying a few more years until my kids are strong enough to take it on .
Posted by: willow at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (L1+sh)
Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at February 19, 2016 05:34 PM (/f6Nd)
For the reaction.
He is, as we speak, in his mom's basement, masturbating furiously as he flips back and forth through each comment with his name in it.
It's quite sad when you think about it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (Zu3d9)
golfers telling us we're a bunch of unsophisticated Brawndo-drinkers for
liking Trump.
I didn't telly you what to do, and I didn't dismiss Trump supporters as unserious. I laid out the choices as I see them. As I said, chose wisely
As for those of you saying "Fuck it, burn it ALL down", you're nuts. A hot civil war would be a nasty, bloody disaster. You probably know someone who served in the sandbox, go ask them what it's like to be in the middle of that. Ask for the unvarnished truth.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:22 PM (N8hFs)
My guess on a civil war is either about 100,000 dead if it gets crushed quickly; or 25 million if it succeeds (and 150-250 million if someone releases the nukes).
It will not be a parry and thrust across the Mason Dixon line like 1861-1865. It will be Yugoslavia, Syria and a lot of Rwanda Genocide. Neighbor against neighbor.
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (v0YLX)
-------------
No, it was Grammie that Fen whacked. Buzz ion was drunk on Valurite and high on chocolate marijuana when he fell into a glasses making machine and was killed while making a spectacle of himself.
Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (kTF2Z)
Uh....who is this?
Good sock, whoever you are.
In
case you aren't, you have neglected the Fed's role in this, to the tune
of trillions of dollars injected into the economy. Care to do a
recalculation of your numbers with even a small percentage of the Fed
money included in spending?
No?
I thought not.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:36 PM (Zu3d9)
Why would I do that? The Fed's money creation isn't fiscal spending. It doesn't add to the deficit and the debt. It's just a way of achieving a certain degree of inflation. Money is neutral in the long-run, so it's utterly unimportant - it only impacts the cycle, not the growth trend. If you can't tell the difference between monetary and fiscal policy, you're simply not literate enough to argue these issues.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: RubioLand at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (OZmbA)
Posted by: The Great White Snark at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (Nwg0u)
We'll still have elections, but they'll be contests between Democrats and Republicans simply to put their guy or gal in charge so they can manipulate
the raw levers of power for the benefit of their donor groups."
Sadly, that has been the state of affairs for many, many years. It is only now that the scales have fallen from our eyes.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (1ijHg)
Posted by: doug at February 19, 2016 05:07 PM (Y7fRE)
Except that he is really not that successful. Forget the serial bankruptcies in the 70s and 80's of his properties. If you actually look at his finanial disclosures and you take out the value of certain partnerships where its not really obvious that his valuations are more than likely to be anywhere near fair value, his net worth today is somewhere in the $2 - 3 billion range. Now i hear you say, well that's still a lot isn't it. No its not
If you were to invest the money his father gave him/he inherited and simply invest those proceeds, rolling over dividends into something like the vanguard SP 500 tracking fund, as of 12/31/2015 you would have had a higher net worth than the $2-3 billion he probably is worth.
So, no, he really isn't that successful. In addition, a big part of his current liquid net worth is from his entertainment business. Do we really want to say he's successful because of his TV shows?
Posted by: JeffreyL at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (mXv3y)
Two out of 18 ain't bad in this political environment.
Posted by: Meremortal at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (3myMJ)
Posted by: lynndy at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (DaWUf)
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (DL2i+)
But you know, Christmas with the grandkids vs destroying the greatest health care system in the world.....tough choice for the bitch.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: RubioLand
No, but I have some candy in my van.
Posted by: Harry Reid at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (zmW4B)
Posted by: torabora at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (eHr4I)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (l+OuH)
-----
Yes, but the quality of comments has not improved
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (2x3L+)
Posted by: 21st Century Tortilla Flat at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (OZmbA)
If there's going to be radical change, let it burn is the only realistic option. Let things get so bad it falls to pieces and rebuild. Make no mistake, its falling to bits either way. There is no fixing this. There is no turning things around. It will burn, its just a matter of how soon, not if.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (39g3+)
....
Not at all! It's entirely possible.
The problem is that our greatest problems are inside the country.
Now, if we can get a giant wall AND giant catapults, we might get somewhere.
Posted by: Damiano at February 19, 2016 05:41 PM (XItbt)
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 19, 2016 05:41 PM (oVJmc)
I was in that sandbox and I say burn it down. I say burn it down precisely because I was in that sandbox. I want to bear that burden rather than leaving it for my grand kids. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN.
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:41 PM (VjlMj)
At the end of this current congress, the GOP will have controlled the house for 18 of the last 22 years and the Senate for 12 of the last 22 years.
Our national debt has gone from 5Trillion to 19Trillion.
Somebody is doing drugs again and it aint me.
Posted by: Kreplach at February 19, 2016 05:42 PM (EmUe0)
Overall comment quality has slipped 18.2% since HotAir went to the FB commenting format.
Posted by: The AoSHQ Comment Quality Control Dept. at February 19, 2016 05:42 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Abali
Holy fuck that's dumb.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 19, 2016 05:42 PM (AA6QE)
No I think that simplifies it a little too much. Just being "suited" to the task is wholly insufficient.
The real question is, when they get into office, who will wield that power the way I want them to.
WILL I GET WHAT I WANT OUT OF THE DEAL.
With any candidate it revolves around what that candidate really wants out of the Presidency.
In the case of Trump. Is what I want actually part of what Trump really wants out of the Presidency.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:42 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: AzatlanStatesofMerica at February 19, 2016 05:42 PM (OZmbA)
Posted by: Chicoms at February 19, 2016 05:42 PM (eHr4I)
No, the point of conservatism, that is relevant here, is to conserve the principles and ideals of the American Revolution.
Deliberately wanting to start a new revolution in faint hope that it will turn out like the first one did is rather far from conservatism.
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 19, 2016 05:43 PM (lVU49)
But you know, Christmas with the grandkids vs destroying the greatest health care system in the world.....tough choice for the bitch.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (0LHZx)
Moo you're showing some humor. What the hell is up?
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 19, 2016 05:43 PM (voOPb)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (l+OuH)
___
Quickly perusing, I see one post with 20 comments, one with 10 and one with 16.
That's pretty pathetic.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:43 PM (0LHZx)
Any Republican running is going to pick a better Supreme Court nominee than the Democrats. Even a RINO.
Rubio would make the same picks as Ted Cruz (and Cruz was a big proponent of John Roberts for the record) except Rubio can actually win.
If I thought Cruz would not have to go through voters, I would prefer him on policy, but its splitting hairs. Both of them were Chamber of Commerce conservatives that wanted to open up immigration until Trump came on the scene.
Cruz= President Hillary Clinton, deep down you all know this. And I really don't think there's going to be any consolation prize for fielding a "pure" candidate that goes on to lose.
Posted by: plata at February 19, 2016 05:43 PM (nq/J2)
Overall comment quality has slipped 18.2% since HotAir went to the FB commenting format.
AoSHQ needs a world-class wall. Yuuuge.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 19, 2016 05:43 PM (oVJmc)
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 19, 2016 05:43 PM (iQIUe)
wanted to avoid a CiC with questionable loyalty, or worse, known loyalty
to a foreign power.
Unless you have some evidence that Cruz has loyalty to Canada, I think the Founders will rest easy.
Posted by: Grump928(c) says Free Sooth! at February 19, 2016 05:27 PM (evdj2)
And that's your opinion... based on what you have read....
After hundreds of discussions on this exact subject, spanning 9 years, my opinion differs.
My opinion is it was put in place to ensure that there were no Legal complications from having a President with Legal conflicts stemming from Dual Citizenship (remembering that we did not acknowledge dual citizenship at all).
But the fact is, that the Requirement is there.... you can decide its not important.... or pull a 1984 and redefine it until it has no meaning....
But Cruz was born of TWO Canadian Citizen Parents, in Canada... and its just too far of a stretch for me to think that meets the 'Natural Born' US Citizen threshold...
Other opinions will vary.... but as someone who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.... I will have to base my vote on MY opinion.
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (f7rv6)
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (FkBIv)
We must get things done and can go back to face-to-face ideological battles next cycle.
Posted by: MaggiePoo at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (kcQIp)
Posted by: AzatlanStatesofMerica at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (OZmbA)
Where do you think that extra money went?
Into the economy.
If you aren't intelligent enough to understand the link between current Fed policy and spending then I really have nothing to say to you.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (Zu3d9)
-Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (89I+i)
What the hell are you saying?!? This HAS to be a Fed Troll, man. No. Freaking. Way.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1) (T) at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (OQ9R7)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:45 PM (0LHZx)
in 2009 and included funding for 2009-2011. Then once the stimulus money
was spent, the ratio fell back down. It had nothing to do with the
GOPe.
And you keep asking about Newt. I showed you above what Newt did. He cut spending by 20% relative to GDP.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (0LHZx).Huh? Obama has been asking for another (and bigger) stimulus package since 2010. So who opposed him?
And that's factually false - if you take out the stimulus spending, the rate of decline is even more impressive.
Look at the CAPB evolution, page 54 [pdf]:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2015/02/pdf/fm1502.pdfFrom -7.5% in 2010 to -1.1% in 2015. You won't find another period where so much was done in so little time.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:45 PM (89I+i)
I agree that Trump cares a lot about Trump. I also think he cares about America... he's shown no evidence that he knows how to be a decent President but he wouldn't just wreck the country either. He's a survivable choice.
Cruz is my choice of the ones who have a chance. A smart guy who believes in the Constitution? Not just lip service but really believes? And who has the stones to run great ads like the one with the lawyers swarming over the Mexican border? Yes, please, sign me up.
If the damage is too great, and everything is going to come crashing down anyway, it will be too bad if a conservative is President as the MFM will pin everything on him. (Like halfway through George W. Bush's first year the economy crashed, and it was all his fault, it couldn't possibly be Clinton's fault or outside of what the President should be responsible for.) So, there is an impulse to want a Democrat as President so we can say "look! This is the third Democrat term of President and everything came crashing down!"
Well, I had that impulse too but I think I was wrong. Yeah, a conservative President will get unfairly blamed... but the MFM will make ten million excuses for anyone on their side, AND either Hillary or Sanders would grab power like FDR. A crash combined with a crazed Leftist power grab... it's horrible to contemplate.
So I really want a decent conservative to win. Go, Cruz, go.
Posted by: mr_jack at February 19, 2016 05:45 PM (M59SC)
So to say the courts don't matters is just wrong.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (gmeXX)
Thank you for your candor. In turn, let me be honest: I think the courts do matter, have never claimed otherwise. That's part of my problem, though- I think they matter too much. In an earlier age, I'd be the first guy cheering the Supreme Court standing against FDR's more blatantly illegal actions. Now? So much rot has set into law that the concept of the Supreme Court's legitimacy is at stake to many people, not just me. Is it something I think anyone, much less Donald Trump, can solve? No. Will Ted Cruz be much better at appointing SC justices than Reagan, who appointed O'Connor? I'd like to think so, but it's a slender thread to hang a candidacy on.
Now, handing the power back to the people isn't the best answer to the question of Marbury vs. Madison: if states' rights was an observed concept, places like New York and Los Angeles would look like Londonistan or Caracas in short order. But it's a question of whether you trust the man next to you, in your town, more than the people that rule over us.
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 05:45 PM (eg0e6)
Well Cruz isn't a dual citizen. So problem solved. NEXT!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (0q2P7)
...
THIS
The Kardashians are technically more successful as business people than Trump.
Don't get any ideas, Donald. Nobody wants to see you in a sex tape.
Posted by: Damiano at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (XItbt)
I say we should support Cruz.
The GOP hates him. The left hates him. He has a voting record to go on and he has more of a track record for being on our side.
He seems like a safer bet.
Posted by: Tilikum KAW Assholier Than Thou at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (+aCe4)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (0O7c5)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (voOPb)
It is both an economic and security issue.
It is my only issue.
Posted by: teh troll at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (0+srV)
But you know, Christmas with the grandkids vs destroying the greatest health care system in the world.....tough choice for the bitch.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
No, they passed it anyway with under 60 votes.
Democrats were going to pass a health care bill, if they had to formally suspend the filibuster, they would have.
How about we blame the people that actually passed ObamaCare, Obama and the Democrats.
This is like blaming the wife for the husband losing his temper and beating her.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (74hKk)
This is a presidential election not The Bachelorette.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:37 PM (zmW4B)
LMAO.
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 05:38 PM (NHQQx)
______
A common misconception is that Ronald Reagan won because everyone agreed on his politics. That is untrue. People who disagreed with him voted for him because he was hopeful and funny.
After Nixon and Carter we felt this this.
Hope can sometimes win. Not always, but sometimes.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (VoCyE)
Steal my line and I'll burn Gotham to cinders.
Posted by: Talia al-Ghul at February 19, 2016 05:47 PM (8hbJK)
Posted by: Skip at February 19, 2016 05:47 PM (l+OuH)
Dood, way to span the biggest modern booms and leave out this years bust in the old timeline guessing game.
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:47 PM (DL2i+)
Would rather try best to right the ship before buring it to the waterline...
No to let it bern
Posted by: H Badger at February 19, 2016 05:47 PM (n/0Nw)
Posted by: the littl shyning man at February 19, 2016 05:47 PM (U6f54)
---
As a fellow OIF vet, I wholly concur.
Sad to say, it's smoldering right now, and in some places, it's an inferno.
Posted by: SMFH at February 19, 2016 05:47 PM (rlfds)
Trump, like Obama, is never wrong.
Of course, with Obama, a lot of that is the fact that he is a believing leftist, and Left means never having to say you're sorry. No matter how many times leftist policy fails, it can't be the ideas themselves.
But there's the personality side to it too. He looks around to blame others even when the Narrative is not at stake.
And it does seems that Trump shares that trait.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (T/5A0)
in Canada... and its just too far of a stretch for me to think that
meets the 'Natural Born' US Citizen threshold...
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (f7rv6)
Except that you are wrong. Not slightly wrong. Not even mostly wrong.
But completely, 100% wrong.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (Zu3d9)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (0LHZx)
Into the economy.
A lot of it has been sequestered into FDIC bank insurance, to the tune of like a trillion bucks. Economists aren't sure exactly what the effect of that will be, but every single one of them thinks it won't be good.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: VidOmnia
-------
The tacit, implied assumption is that something better will replace the current circumstances. There is no rational basis for that perspective. Things can get much, much worse. Unimaginably worse.
The LIB idea that 'things couldn't get worse' is generally forwarded by those who have no real grasp of how bad things can get, or, they believe that they themselves would be willing/prepared to engage or avoid that circumstance.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (RrDm2)
Well Cruz isn't a dual citizen. So problem solved. NEXT!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (0q2P7)
____
Actually, that is an issue for me too. When did he give up duel citizenship? I'm not criticising, I'm just asking.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (0O7c5)
that by looking at spending as a GDP %. The only true metric of taxation
is spending (as a % of the wealth created) because eventually all
spending will need to be paid in taxes. Spending that isn't taxed now
will ultimately be taxed later.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM
~~~~~
Good grief. Do you even read what you post?
Posted by: IrishEi at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (E6RIJ)
in Canada... and its just too far of a stretch for me to think that
meets the 'Natural Born' US Citizen threshold...
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (f7rv6)
____
His mother was an American citizen. Therefore he was American at birth. Doesn't matter if he was born on the moon.
Why is this so hard for you people to understand?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (0LHZx)
That's fine petunia likes Dondi, but what is Abali blathering on about?
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (2x3L+)
Every single member of Congress has done so.
Posted by: Decaf at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (9IfHv)
Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (Lqy/e)
Where do you think that extra money went?
Into the economy.
If
you aren't intelligent enough to understand the link between current
Fed policy and spending then I really have nothing to say to you.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:44 PM (Zu3d9)
No, that's just not how monetary policy works. You simply have no clue what you're talking about. Go try to read some introductory textbooks or, I don't know, Milton Friedman. The Fed doesn't simply put money on "the economy" in the same sense the government does it with fiscal spending by borrowing it - they buy assets at market rates, government bonds that someone bought in the first place.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: AuH2O at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (WBahS)
It will not be a parry and thrust across the Mason Dixon line like 1861-1865. It will be Yugoslavia, Syria and a lot of Rwanda Genocide. Neighbor against neighbor."
That's ridiculous. "Releases the nukes." They're missiles, not the Kraken. 225 million? Absurd. Genocide? You don't know what the word means. And in case you didn't remember or something, US society is broken ip by state and region. States with military forces and identities.
If you honestly see block by block, Beirut style urban warfare in Dallas, Nashville, and San Francisco... there's nothing to say to that. It's total fantasy, without root in any serious study of conflicts or current facts.
Posted by: Apostate at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (zaVwL)
how do we hold the line IF our party refuses to?
so options are?
cruz, which will either be able to constructively lawfully do lawfare on the govt.
or trump which will really shove this shit sandwich they've shoved us up Both their rears.
Posted by: willow at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (L1+sh)
that by looking at spending as a GDP %. The only true metric of taxation
is spending (as a % of the wealth created) because eventually all
spending will need to be paid in taxes. Spending that isn't taxed now
will ultimately be taxed later.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:26 PM
~~~~~
Good grief. Do you even read what you post?
Posted by: IrishEi at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (E6RIJ)
____
Maybe he's an ESL student.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (0LHZx)
Is it impossible to seal our borders?
==
On paper, its possible, but as a political and practical matter, probably not.
At the end of the day, doing it right would cost too much and too many people are against it.
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (hoiM7)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (lVU49)
.....
Really? When does his winning start? After his 3rd place finish in Iowa or his 5th place finish in NH?
Where is all this winning that you speak of?
Posted by: Damiano at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (XItbt)
Me: You mean by supporting a candidate who supports Dem policies like Obamacare?
Posted by: pep at February 19, 2016 04:55 PM (LAe3v)
______
That reminds me of a kid I knew once who told me he was joining the Army because he was tired of being told what to do.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (VoCyE)
President Trump: Tilts at windmills. Is amusing. Accomplishes little.
PresidentCruz: Rolls up sleeves. Does the necessary hard work. Gets the job done.
___
Examples?
Posted by: ajmojo at February 19, 2016 05:16 PM (1H9ox)
Sorry, prediction.
FIFM
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 05:50 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:46 PM (VoCyE)
Well I hope your hope for Marco Roboto dies in a tsunami of tears.
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 05:50 PM (NHQQx)
Posted by: oh,k,tnx,bye at February 19, 2016 05:50 PM (3OHhR)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (8ZskC)
yes.....very curious
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (0O7c5)
Not Texas.
Texas is completely independent in terms of resources. It's own power and water infrastructure, tons of oil, refining and manufacturing, huge ag and ranching industry even including the word's premier ag university, perhaps the largest sea port in the USA, etc. Filled with vets, 2nd amendment lovers, even a governor waiving around the "come and take it" flag. In a shit hits the fan scenario, everybody congregates in TX.
I'm actually really interested to see someone like Bernie try and confiscate firearms. I don't see that going down at all. I just don't. Maybe in New England, maybe in California, Oregon, Washington, etc. Not in Texas. It just won't happen. It would absolutely form into an armed resistance. No way in hell any government agents are going to go knocking doors in rural TX to collect firearms. ROFL! Good luck with that. You'd have to send out the national guard. And the guys in national guard would refuse to participate.
Posted by: Rastus at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (VjlMj)
Curious, isn't it?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (8ZskC)
_______
Okay, I'll go take a shower!!!!
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (VoCyE)
We get it. The Chuck Schumer finger puppet, lying amnesty shill gives you good feelz because he reads a teleprompter well and Hope & Shit (sounds familiar to me). Shine box, go get it.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (zmW4B)
Is it impossible to seal our borders?
==
On paper, its possible, but as a political and practical matter, probably not.
At the end of the day, doing it right would cost too much and too many people are against it.
Posted by: looking closely at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (hoiM7)
____
Can the border be sealed 100%? No. Can it be sealed 70%? Yeah without much effort.
Right now it's at about 5%.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (0LHZx)
So my question, what evidence is there that Cruz will seal the border?
Posted by: teh troll at February 19, 2016 05:31 PM (0+srV)
A thought:
First step in getting the border sealed is to get Congress to pass a law to do so.
I trust Cruz on that count more than I do Trump because (a) Cruz showed with the filibuster that he knows how Congress works, and a veto is worth way more than a filibuster, and (b) Trump's claim that if he can just get the Democrats and Republicans in the same room, he can do a deal is not credible - as they are in the same rooms every damn day in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they haven't made the deal.
Posted by: stuiec at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (eetvJ)
Good grief. Do you even read what you post?
Posted by: IrishEi at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (E6RIJ)
Sure thing. What do you disagree with? In that particular comment, I'm basically quoting Milton Friedman, by the way. Please explain why was he wrong.
Spending is what matters. It's either paid with taxes and with borrowed money - that is nothing but deferred taxes = more taxes tomorrow.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (/rmQf)
Posted by: Golfman at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (48QDY)
That's how the Canada thing is going to bite Ted Cruz in the ass. It's not going to be some court that deems him ineligible, it will be voters.
If only 2-3% of American voters feel this way, he simply can't win.
Even Obama knew this which is why he went out of his way to finally reveal his "birth certificate", the idea he was born in Kenya was hurting his standing among voters.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (74hKk)
Ted Cruz ushered John Roberts through the nomination process because George W Bush asked him too. Ted Cruz wanted Luttig, but worked with the establishment Bush to get a good candidate into the Supreme Court.
Luttig would have overturned Obamacare.
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (v0YLX)
Cruz will tear the Democrats a new one on Monday and won't stop until the sabbath. If he cuts any deals they will favor conservative policy priorities just like he did at the FTC.
The choice is easy, if you enjoy getting baited-and-switched by a loudmouth who says things that tap into your conservative id one day before saying the exact opposite the next day, vote for Trump. If you want someone who will actually advance conservative priorities in policy vote for Cruz.
Posted by: deepelemblues at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (NPiFX)
Armed revolt won't have regular armies marching around.
It will look like Iraq and Afghanistan - where a bunch of AK toting goat humpers were not eradicated by the world's strongest military.
Now pit that Obama-ized military against ex US military and various supporting elements ... it won't be pretty, but I can tell you who won't win.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (uURQL)
Posted by: jazzuscounty at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (4+O80)
Actions speak louder than words. His willingness to participate in cronyism because 'that's how it's done' speaking of doing business in his field, shows that he put making money ahead of the principal of the moral right.
He has testified both in words and with his actions that, that is how you do business. Well only if you choose to put "doing business" ahead of the moral right.
So we have that, that he willingly participated, in a system of largess he felt was immoral, for his benefit. Not a real good way around that sorry.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (0q2P7)
Now, handing the power back to the people isn't the best answer to the question of Marbury vs. Madison:
---------
I agree they matter too much, but that is because too many believe that they are not limited by the words of the Constitution. I wish more were like Scalia, but they are not. I do think Cruz will be better than Reagan. To be fair, Reagan would have looked a lot better had he got Bork through. He was not prepared for Bork and then by the time Kennedy was nominated, the Senate had flipped. O'Conner was a mistake, but he was delivering on a campaign promise.
In candor, I have no problem with M v. M. Judicial review is not my issue. Didn't we want Roberts to judicially review Obamacare out of existence. My bigger problem is with what has become substantive due process where rights are invented.
Of course Kennedy even abandoned that in Obgerfell.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (gmeXX)
Moved to Texas when he was four, that's pretty good on the got there as soon as I could scale. And it's Canada so who cares. Or if it goes sideways we can toss him and Blame Canada. Really you can't even see the dot eyes or the whole top of his head lifting.
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (DL2i+)
The Revolution was probably the kindest civil war in history and it still was a lot bloodier and nastier than our sanitized history teaches. Civil war 2 would be nothing like that. Seen the pictures coming out of Venezualia? That with a body count in the millions.
I'll fight for Liberty after it burns down, but I am not going to attempt to accelerate the process. Until that happens I'd much rather attempt to burn down the cancer rotting the system. Shooting yourself in the head does cure cancer, but it's not the remedy I'd chose.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:53 PM (+aiYj)
Think I'm going M1A in that space.
Posted by: Weasel at February 19, 2016 05:53 PM (e3bId)
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 19, 2016 05:53 PM (T78UI)
___
That's not how gun confiscation will work. It will be death by a thousand cuts with SCOTUS approval of each cut. They will make it so hard to buy guns that over time nobody will be able to buy guns. And I can see some law passing that says when someone dies, their guns must be destroyed. Eventually the supply diwndles, you can't manufacture or import or buy new ones....within a generation or two, no more guns, without anyone having to go door to door.
Remember the left always plays the long game. It took them 100 years to get nationalized health care. But they got it eventually.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:54 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Zeno at February 19, 2016 05:33 PM (VrQW9)
Trump is a liberal? Ah, that explains why actual liberals I know screech like vampires in sunlight whenever the word "Trump" is mentioned.
Posted by: VidOmnia at February 19, 2016 05:54 PM (r630q)
So let me get this straight. You are telling me that the Fed uses their printing presses to print money to buy financial instruments?
Who'da thunk it?
One question before I mute you....who owned the instruments before the Fed bought them, and what do they do with the money they receive from the Fed?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 05:54 PM (Zu3d9)
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 19, 2016 05:54 PM (oVJmc)
Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 19, 2016 05:55 PM (Lqy/e)
Well Cruz isn't a dual citizen. So problem solved. NEXT!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose
Ted Cruz: 100% American*
*Since May 14th 2014
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 19, 2016 05:55 PM (kdS6q)
If you mean he is a social lib then I agree with the Rockefeller part as Kasich is pretty socially moderate.
But big government? Wrong. Really, far wrong.
He pushed Medicaid expansion over the objections of the Ohio Legislature, so maybe that's what you mean, but he also is responsible for putting the only balanced budget in my lifetime in place when he was Budget Chairman in the House and he took an $8 billion deficit in Ohio and balanced that budget too.
So I call bullshit. He's literally the only Republican in the race who has a proven record of balancing budgets-- something Nelson Rockefeller must have hated, since he loved to spend.
I wouldn't vote for Kasich, ever, but give the guy the only credit he's earned. And, he's the only guy in the GOP race who can relied on to balance budgets. I myself have given up on a balanced budget, but Kasich hasn't.
Posted by: MTF at February 19, 2016 05:55 PM (TxJGV)
Posted by: RubioLand at February 19, 2016 05:39 PM (OZmbA)
-------------------------
Is that supposed to be funny?
And you probably wonder why anti-amnesty people are accused of being bigots!
(Hint: because SOME of you are.)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 19, 2016 05:55 PM (T/5A0)
Luttig would have overturned Obamacare.
Posted by: rd at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (v0YLX)
_____
Ted Cruz was elected to the senate about 5 years after Roberts was nominated to SCOTUS. But he's to blame for Roberts?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:56 PM (0LHZx)
>>>Luttig would have overturned Obamacare.
Your wording makes them sound like peers, as if, if Cruz had just stuck to his guns and nominated Luttig we could have.... Wait you mean it was Bush's nomination and Cruz really didn't have a definitive say in the matter?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:56 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 19, 2016 05:49 PM (Lqy/e)
Point of information: I am pretty darn sure that Trump's kids went to very expensive colleges, and that they spend most of their lives in the ruling caste (including the financial people who put up the money for their businesses). They seem like very nice people, but not Average Joes.
Posted by: stuiec at February 19, 2016 05:56 PM (eetvJ)
A bank borrows money from the Fed at 0.25% It the buys Treasury Securities that pay 1.25%. The Bank makes a fortune on the spread.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 19, 2016 05:56 PM (1ijHg)
The correct LIB idea is that things WILL get worse, and that if we let things hurt and correct NOW, it will lead to recovery and a healthier society quicker and with less overall pain than the alternative.
There were many economic failures before the Great Depression. Gov't intervention was why that one lasted as long as it did.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (uURQL)
This won't end well for you. I'm a nice guy, so I'm just sayin...
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1) (T) at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (OQ9R7)
And throw soft ROE's out the window.
Civilians? They're all civilians.
Posted by: Golfman at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (48QDY)
Why is this so hard for you people to understand?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:48 PM (0LHZx)
Dual... citizen....
Or is that a hard concept to comprehend....
Oh.... and May 14, 2014 was the day he gave up his Canadian Citizenship.
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (f7rv6)
Posted by: Weirddave
The people that want it to burn down faster are delusional in my opinion.
America can be a shitty place for a really long time. Places like Cuba are still hell holes and who knows how long they will keep going.
Hoping that my great grand kids overthrow an evil government is a terrible plan.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2016 05:58 PM (qUNWi)
---
If we were allowed to eradicate them, we would have.
Posted by: US Military at February 19, 2016 05:58 PM (rlfds)
*Since May 14th 2014
Oh my argument failed. Let me make a new one. He was unknowingly by birth a Canadian Citizen till he found out and renounced it. There!!!!!!
Lame.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 05:58 PM (0q2P7)
.....
Liberals screech at whatever Twitter and Facebook tell them to screech at. Liberal screeching has never had any basis in facts or reality of any kind.
Look at everything Trump has said, who he associated with, who he supported, and everything he did prior to 2 years ago. Look one step past everything he says now. Just yesterday he came out in support of the Obamacare mandate.
Posted by: Damiano at February 19, 2016 05:58 PM (XItbt)
And a buyer=TRUMP would be better than a seller=HRC at 1600 Penn.
Posted by: DaveA at February 19, 2016 05:58 PM (DL2i+)
I liked the part where you accidentally said something half-nice about Trump.
If I could sum it all up the takeaway is TRUMP/Cruz 2016
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 19, 2016 05:59 PM (QdAXQ)
Or something.
----------
I don't know this thread was getting pretty good. Not sure I can do another Hillary thread.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:59 PM (gmeXX)
We get it. The Chuck Schumer finger puppet, lying amnesty shill gives you good feelz because he reads a teleprompter well and Hope & Shit (sounds familiar to me). Shine box, go get it.
Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at February 19, 2016 05:51 PM (zmW4B)
___________
And whoever you support does the same for you.
Only, Rubio changed my outlook on the others running too. They are ok. They believe in what Marco believes in , I couldn't see that. I just saw really awful people. I saw them as good at first but I lost that, until I listened to Marco.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 05:59 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (74hKk)
"Peace and safety in my lifetime, chains for my children."
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 19, 2016 05:59 PM (uURQL)
I would expect the same of Cruz, whom I like a great deal, but I suspect the MSMsters will go out of their way to paint Cruz as far too extreme to be President. The same attack on Trump might not work because he's not unwilling to yell back at people.
Posted by: mallfly at February 19, 2016 05:59 PM (qSIlh)
Dual... citizen....
Or is that a hard concept to comprehend....
Oh.... and May 14, 2014 was the day he gave up his Canadian Citizenship.
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 19, 2016 05:57 PM (f7rv6)
____
Dual triple, quadruple...so what? She was an American citizen. On your passport it doesn't say, John Smith, (dual citizen so he's not REALLY American). It is binary. You are or you are not a citizen. There is no in between.
Therefore she was an American citizen. And therefore Ted was a citizen the nanosecond he came out of his mom's vah-jay-jay.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 06:00 PM (0LHZx)
Oh.... and May 14, 2014 was the day he gave up his Canadian Citizenship.
Um so what?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:00 PM (0q2P7)
--------------
Not really 'luck'. The truth is, insurgencies mostly succeed. India, Algeria, Cuba, Viet Nam, Iran, etc., etc.
Colonies where the indigenous people largely outnumber the colonizers/occupiers, and where an identifiably different culture exists, generally are successful in revolution.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at February 19, 2016 06:00 PM (RrDm2)
Posted by: Don Quixote
To me, this really was reckless of Ted Cruz. He was a US Senator and still kept his Canadian Citizenship?
Imagine if Obama was a Kenyan citizen while a US Senator that was born in Kenya.
Something tells me the same people dismissing this about Cruz would be foaming at the mouth.
Cruz will have trouble with this in front of voters once he gets outside a primary.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:00 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:01 PM (QXiz8)
--------------
Not really 'luck'. The truth is, insurgencies mostly succeed. India, Algeria, Cuba, Viet Nam, Iran, etc., etc.
Colonies where the indigenous people largely outnumber the colonizers/occupiers, and where an identifiably different culture exists, generally are successful in revolution.
-------
Lucky in that insurgencies don't usually result in a republic with expanded liberties.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:01 PM (gmeXX)
Ted Cruz was elected to the senate about 5 years after Roberts was nominated to SCOTUS. But he's to blame for Roberts?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 19, 2016 05:56 PM (0LHZx)
___________
Cruz worked for GW. He ushered Roberts, and he helped write Bush's amnesty plan.
I don't know why anyone thinks he is an outsider. Of the three he's been in Washington the most.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:01 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: L, Elle at February 19, 2016 05:40 PM (2x3L+)
The beatings will continue until the quality of comments improves.
Posted by: steveegg at February 19, 2016 06:02 PM (cL79m)
Posted by: Epobirs at February 19, 2016 06:02 PM (IdCqF)
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:02 PM (QXiz8)
==
On paper, its possible, but as a political and practical matter, probably not.
At the end of the day, doing it right would cost too much and too many people are against it.
See, I don't get this. No new laws are needed, just enforcement, so the President doesn't even have to make a speech or anything. Just start enforcing the law.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:02 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely
I'm sure you're going to be our next George Washington.
My point is, somebody that purposely votes to make things worse in hopes it will inspire some revolution will be badly disappointed.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:02 PM (74hKk)
Who can say, really. But I know for sure I will vote for either trump or Ted in November, should they be on the ticket
Posted by: Dante at February 19, 2016 06:03 PM (g8Laf)
In candor, I have no problem with M v. M.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 05:52 PM (gmeXX)
It's not just a question of judges, either: if the legislature and executive aren't committed to the Constitution, you get what we have, twisting letters where you can and simply ignoring the plain text otherwise. It won't be judges that save us, I think, which is why the precedent of M v. M. stands to do more damage to the cause of liberty than the other way around. But honestly it wasn't very long ago that my opinion was very similar to yours. I'm hoping you'll come around.
Shooting yourself in the head does cure cancer, but it's not the remedy I'd chose.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 05:53 PM (+aiYj)
I think cutting your foot off is a better analogy.
Of course, many people might be seriously deciding if a foot is worth not being ruled by a tyranny. The Founders did, for instance. Maybe the military will stand by while a president slaughters the people they were sworn to protect- and maybe not. The Founders, and most of their supporters, were relatively fortunate men who stood to lose a great deal even in victory: that didn't stop them, and it won't stop us.
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 06:03 PM (eg0e6)
Posted by: Beth M at February 19, 2016 06:03 PM (kiy9d)
417
The Fed has been monetizing the National Debt. This how it works.
A
bank borrows money from the Fed at 0.25% It the buys Treasury
Securities that pay 1.25%. The Bank makes a fortune on the spread.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 19, 2016 05:56 PM (1ijHg)
You should hurry to buy bank stocks if you believe in that nonsense. Just imagine how incredibly profitable they're going to be with all that easy, free, profit.
Debt isn't monetized as long as the government has to pay the bonds the Fed holds. Believe me: if the Fed ever starts to monetize debt, you'll notice it. As in, you'll start seeing prices doubling on a daily basis.
Posted by: Abali at February 19, 2016 06:04 PM (89I+i)
Posted by: VidOmnia at February 19, 2016 05:54 PM (r630q)
Well, they also think Bernie is a "Democratic" Socialist, so they aren't all that bright.
Posted by: stuiec at February 19, 2016 06:04 PM (eetvJ)
What do you mean by kept? Did he have a Canadian passport? Did he vote in their elections? Receive scholarships or something?
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:04 PM (rwI+c)
Sure, and it probably will. But the key portion you're missing here is that its already going to happen. This isn't a choice between "we can either fix this or let it burn" and "lets give up and let it burn." Its going to burn. The choice is between now and later.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:04 PM (39g3+)
I don't know why anyone thinks he is an outsider. Of the three he's been in Washington the most.
Posted by: petunia
He's the ultimate insider. Harvard Law, worked for Dubya, big John Roberts booster, had a plan to double H-1 visas, path for legalization, and his wife works for Goldman Sachs.
But he wears his religion on his sleeve and makes strange statements about how Jesus wants him to win, so he must be the only real conservative.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:05 PM (74hKk)
Choose wisely.
Posted by: fretless at February 19, 2016 06:05 PM (TtMyK)
--------------
I am not looking to the Court to save us completely or solely. But I am looking to the Court to be part of that saving process. I think we will only be saved from the ground up - through the states, then Congress. I don't want a Court that will undermine that process.
And I stand by my assertion that M v. M and judicial review is not the problem that people think it is. It was entirely and correctly decided - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Congress, not the Executive.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (gmeXX)
What do you mean by kept? Did he have a Canadian passport? Did he vote in their elections? Receive scholarships or something?
Posted by: Grump928(C)
Then why did he wait until 2014 to formally declare he was not a Canadian citizen?
Are we really to believe he didn't know about it? He was born there.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:00 PM (74hKk)
There are two judges willing to look at the case, one in NY and one in IL. My guess is this is the beginning. It's going to the Supremes.
I think Cruz is a citizen by birth, but the duel thing does give me pause.
Cruz should have tried harder to get this taken care of. And oddly, the Senate vouched for McCain, but they refused for Cruz, so they must question it as well.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (
I keep seeing you post this, over and over and over.
C3bio, it's you isn't it? Why don't you fire up the abba & see if you can dance tour way out if the endless loop you're stuck in.
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (Vm8WO)
2. "Let It Burn" is the status quo as it's been burning for some time.
3. Large American urban enclaves aren't desirable places to live, though it's fine with me if liberals stay in them.
4. Given #2 and 3 above, act accordingly and realize that no politician is going to save you. No one including your mother is going to save you. You must save yourself.
Posted by: Meremortal at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (3myMJ)
Posted by: Dante at February 19, 2016 06:03 PM (g8Laf)
So will I.
But I don't see any real foreign policy from Trump, either.
Posted by: stuiec at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (eetvJ)
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 06:03 PM (eg0e6)
Hear, Hea.... Hey what time does "Survivor" come on?
Posted by: Jogn Q. Public at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (QXiz8)
Is that actually even a process?
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (0O7c5)
Let's see...
http://tinyurl.com/hctw4rs
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.
So within 24 hours of being told he "likely" had dual citizenship he vowed to renounce it.
Too slow? Or you're just upset that he isn't an expect in Canadian laws regarding Citizenship?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (0q2P7)
-----------
Or because he keeps fidelity to the Constitution and actually has tried to use the power of Congress to stop Obama (which we have all wanted).
Yeah, maybe that is what makes him a real conservative.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (gmeXX)
But he wears his religion on his sleeve...
so he must be the only real conservative.
Twweeeeeet! False dichotomy! Five yards
Insider is not the opposite of conservative.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:08 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 19, 2016 06:08 PM (0O7c5)
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:09 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: Epobirs at February 19, 2016 06:02 PM (IdCqF)
He's my running mate.
Posted by: Global Thermonuclear War at February 19, 2016 06:09 PM (cL79m)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at February 19, 2016 06:09 PM (Vm8WO)
For the same reason you haven't tried to formally renounce Canadian citizenship. He didn't think he was a Canadian Citizen.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:09 PM (0q2P7)
-------------
Only if some state denies Cruz access to a ballot, then someone would actually have standing on this.
Why do you want the Court deciding this question anyway - can't the people decide?
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:09 PM (gmeXX)
So you're saying maybe he had one and he made a statement that he's getting rid of any possible dual citizenship.
And?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:10 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at February 19, 2016 06:10 PM (Vm8WO)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:11 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:11 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 19, 2016 06:11 PM (iQIUe)
Are we really to believe he didn't know about it? He was born there.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (74hKk)
____________
He just did it then? Are you sure?
I know that foreign born adopted children often have duel citizenship until they are 18, at that point you must actively seek to keep it.
I don't know about Canada, but if it is like other countries, you have to seek duel citizenship after 18.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:12 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2016 06:12 PM (zt+N6)
Cruz should have tried harder to get this taken care of. And oddly, the Senate vouched for McCain, but they refused for Cruz, so they must question it as well.
Posted by: petunia
Everyone growing up knew what the rules were, and it had been an issue in previous elections like with Goldwater where he was born on American Territory buy not a state. But nobody really ever made the claim "it doesn't matter, as long as one parent is a citizen" Had anyone ever heard that before a few years ago?
I'll concede that a Court most likely will not strip him of eligibility, but a decent % of Americans believe he's ineligible and it's not a crazy position.
I will vote for him if he's facing Hillary, but Cruz is already such a poor retail candidate that I just don't want to take that hit. It's almost like going in with a sex scandal.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:12 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:11 PM (gmeXX)
______
How very Obama like.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:12 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Ray Van Dune at February 19, 2016 06:12 PM (LeUrG)
Exactly. Look to your family. Look to your neighborhood. Look to your area. That's where you can have impact, that's where you will need to make a stand. That's where you can help and build. The federal government is a writeoff.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:13 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 19, 2016 06:13 PM (/rmQf)
I know that foreign born adopted children often have duel citizenship until they are 18, at that point you must actively seek to keep it.
I don't know about Canada, but if it is like other countries, you have to seek duel citizenship after 18.
Posted by: petunia
According to everything I've read, he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 while he was a US Senator.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:13 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:11 PM (gmeXX)
______
How very Obama like.
-------
What? How is that Obama like?
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:14 PM (gmeXX)
Just an uninformed one. The law and the existing court case are against it.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:14 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 19, 2016 06:14 PM (0O7c5)
What did he do?
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:14 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:09 PM (rwI+c)
____
I think it is only automatic until they come of age, at that point they must say they want it to continue or lose it automatically.
I know that is true for Korea and some other countries where children are adopted to America.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:15 PM (VoCyE)
------------
Then don't vote for him if you don't think he is eligible. I don't need the Supreme Court to decide on this before I make my own determination. If you do great. If you think he is not - you don't have to vote for him.
Problem solved.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:15 PM (gmeXX)
If you want it to Burn, Hillary is the best and only choice. She would be the perfect successor to Obama. Trump would guarantee we'd be handing the WH back to the Dems after four god-awful miserable years. Sanders, ironically, is the "conservative" choice, as he would do the least damage to the republic.
Posted by: Sam in va at February 19, 2016 06:15 PM (9stgl)
Why do you want the Court deciding this question anyway - can't the people decide?
Posted by: SH
If a single judge rules that he's ineligible, it will almost be like Hillary being indicted for the email scandal.
I think it will be quite easy to find a liberal judge willing to make some mischief as payback for the birther stuff.
It creates enough uncertainty in voters minds that it will cost him the election. It only takes a small amount of people to shift.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:16 PM (74hKk)
Then if a moose reveals its self, your declaration has been accepted. If not, you must wait until the next snowfall to try again.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:16 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: Stephanie at February 19, 2016 06:16 PM (dl6gA)
Posted by: Daffodil at February 19, 2016 06:16 PM (zt+N6)
______
Obama's supporters said it didn't matter where he was born, the people were okay with it because they voted for him.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:16 PM (VoCyE)
I don't know, and I actually don't care. I only mention it because the people who seem to care have surely done the research on renouncing Canadian citizenship so I hope they will share the knowledge.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:17 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:17 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2016 06:12 PM (zt+N6)
All we're missing is man with no party aka Tim in ga to jack up the aggro level. Oh wait, he finally got that timeout he so richly deserves. I don't know why Chemmie (or anyone) for that matter bothers arguing with him. Ignore his self-appointed blog-purity patrolling ass. Or blow out the margins & watch his head explode like something right out of scanners.
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at February 19, 2016 06:18 PM (Vm8WO)
----------
Ok - then sure I guess. The people found him to be eligible - as did I though I did not vote for him.
I don't need a court to determine eligibility. The Constitution can be interpreted without the help of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:18 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: April at February 19, 2016 06:19 PM (FjIA5)
What did he do?
Posted by: Grump928(C)
What do you do when you want to renounce your American citizenship?
Is the process really important?
He formally renounced his Canadian citizenship through the proper paperwork.
http://tinyurl.com/zbmpunk
I would think an attorney from Harvard Law could have figure this out before 2014.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:19 PM (74hKk)
According to everything I've read, he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 while he was a US Senator.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:13 PM (74hKk)
__________
If he had been born in Korea, he would have had to contact the Korean government at eighteen and confirm he wanted to remain a duel citizen. I don't know about Canada.
Has anyone asked that question? Did Cruz at some point in his life tell Canada that he wanted to remain a duel citizen?
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:20 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:06 PM (gmeXX)
I feel the same way. The difference is, I think that in- oh, give it a month for the Senate to cave- we'll have a Supreme Court ready to do exactly that.
Posted by: trev006 at February 19, 2016 06:20 PM (eg0e6)
SH's position is the position of the founding fathers. They did not see the Supreme Court as the final word on constitutional issues. They saw the people of the USA as being that.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:21 PM (39g3+)
I don't need a court to determine eligibility. The Constitution can be interpreted without the help of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: SH
But that attitude is basically "might makes right"
So because Obama was reelected by the American people, everything he does is therefore "Constitutional"
Seems a very slippery slope to me.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:21 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:21 PM (rwI+c)
Does anybody really know what time it is?
Does anybody really care?
* cues horn section *
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:22 PM (QXiz8)
---------
In no way am I saying that.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:17 PM (rwI+c)
__________
I actually am only bothered slightly by it myself, but it is an issue. And I wish I knew.
I do not think Cruz has much chance or I might care more. So if he starts to win in places where he shouldn't win... I might care more.
Cruz should win in SC. But he won't. So that makes it a far less likely issue to worry about.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (VoCyE)
Back to lurking.
Posted by: UDM at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (sxb4U)
I HATE the phrase "let it burn".
I understand both meanings of it, but to me that phrase implies quitting on my country.
I fought and bled for this place and I will be double Goddamned if I'll EVER quit her.
Gonna simply keep on working to effect such small changes as possible. Everyone should do the same, imho, and if all DO then we will prevail and rectify this intolerable situation.
Call me naive,dumb,or whatever for this position, don't give a rip.
So take let it burn and park it.
Posted by: irongrampa at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (P/8aq)
Apparently it was never an issue.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (sdPF/)
It is really too bad that we cannot have them on the same ticket. What a scary concept, that! But these two haven't been all that generous with one another on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Shinjinrui
They can't all be best friends like Kennedy and Johnson.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 19, 2016 06:24 PM (QdAXQ)
I agree, great film that I recommend very highly. Pro tip: Ip Man was Bruce Lee's master (although he later rejected Bruce's attitude and celebrity riches wrong).
Fist of Legend is a great one too, with Jet Li. A bit more fantastical but lots of fun.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:24 PM (39g3+)
Then why was he allowed to run?
-------
Because the Constitution does not say that you must have been born in the United States to be president.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:24 PM (gmeXX)
1. Cruz's mom is an American citizen. End of discussion.
But for the purposes of argument, that article is from Time, is filled with factual and grammatical errors, and still proves nothing.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 19, 2016 06:25 PM (Zu3d9)
When the family wanted to move to the USA, momma had to immigrate. Daddy and the kids just sashayed in like we owned the place. Case closed.
Posted by: Ray Van Dune at February 19, 2016 06:25 PM (LeUrG)
---------
In no way am I saying that.
Posted by: SH
You said the Supreme Court shouldn't decide the issue because Obama was elected by the American people, therefore the people have spoken. That's basically the Obama position "the election is over!!!" so the law no longer means anything.
Let's say an 25 year old won the Presidency. You don't think the Supreme Court is allowed to say "No, that violates the Constitution"
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:26 PM (74hKk)
George, not Mitt. But George also ran, though he was not the nominee.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:26 PM (rwI+c)
Then why was he allowed to run?
-------
Because the Constitution does not say that you must have been born in the United States to be president.
Posted by: SH
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, Mitt Romney was born in the US to parents who were American citizens.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:27 PM (74hKk)
Too slow? Or you're just upset that he isn't an expect in Canadian laws regarding Citizenship?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (0q2P7)
People really believe he had no clue?
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 19, 2016 06:27 PM (T78UI)
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 06:28 PM (NHQQx)
I believe it was of no concern to him. He probably barely has any memory of living there and Canada never tried to put a claim on him.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:29 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2016 06:29 PM (39g3+)
-------------
Why do you want the Supreme Court to be supreme over the people in making this determination?
On this issue, I'm willing to let the people decide. That is not the same as saying he can do whatever he wants because the people elected him.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:29 PM (gmeXX)
Too slow? Or you're just upset that he isn't an expect in Canadian laws regarding Citizenship?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:07 PM (0q2P7)
People really believe he had no clue?
Posted by: Burnt Toast
There's 2 possibilities here
Ted Cruz is retarded
Ted Cruz knew he had Canadian citizenship but kept it because he wanted to keep his options open.
The idea that an attorney from Harvard Law that was born in Canada and grew up there didn't know he was a citizen until 2014 is silly.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:30 PM (74hKk)
They are allowed to say pretty much anything they want. But they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. The only course of action would be impeachment proceedings in congress.
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:30 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: Marcus Halberstram at February 19, 2016 06:30 PM (wDI/A)
Whatever. Don't vote for him if it bothers you.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:31 PM (rwI+c)
I understand both meanings of it, but to me that phrase implies quitting on my country.
I fought and bled for this place and I will be double Goddamned if I'll EVER quit her.
Gonna simply keep on working to effect such small changes as possible. Everyone should do the same, imho, and if all DO then we will prevail and rectify this intolerable situation.
Call me naive,dumb,or whatever for this position, don't give a rip.
So take let it burn and park it.
Posted by: irongrampa at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (P/8aq)
With all due respect, I have not given up on the concept of what America should be.
I HAVE, however, given up on a significant majority of America's people.
This country needs a major cleansing, and if it's by fire, then so be it.
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 06:32 PM (NHQQx)
On this issue, I'm willing to let the people decide. That is not the same as saying he can do whatever he wants because the people elected him.
Posted by: SH
The idea that elections overcome the Constitution is my problem with the whole "let the people decide"
If a President ran on a platform of confiscating guns and won on that platform, I still would like a Judicial Branch that asserted itself on the 2nd Amendment, regardless of the election results.
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:32 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: IrishEi at February 19, 2016 06:32 PM (E6RIJ)
* Produces caged rabbit from beneath witness chair and witness looks ridiculous for not knowing it was there *
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:33 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:35 PM (QXiz8)
------------
How is it overcoming the Constitution. Most of us think he is perfectly eligible. Only a select few seem to have a problem with it. You are free to interpret "natural born citizen" to mean he must have been born in the United States. I'll interpret it mean someone who was a citizen at birth. Note I don't even care about his dual citizenship in this context.
I don't want the Supreme Court to be the supreme arbiter on this matter. You seem to want them to. I do not subscribe to judicial supremacy.
The people are more than capable of making the determination as to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen."
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:36 PM (gmeXX)
They are allowed to say pretty much anything they want. But they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. The only course of action would be impeachment proceedings in congress.
Posted by: db
It would obviously be a showdown, but that doesn't mean the Constitution gets ignored.
A President could also send in the military to round up our guns and only Congress could really impeach him.
Should the Courts therefore not be allowed to assert itself? Or because the judges don't have the power to dispatch a tyrant President they should just go along with it?
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:37 PM (74hKk)
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 19, 2016 06:37 PM (iQIUe)
that keeps the anger in...
Give way and suddenly it's day again
Posted by: ebeast at February 19, 2016 06:37 PM (XJS1X)
Tired of the trolls and tired hearing the ridiculous arguments regarding Cruz's citizenship. It is a waste of time.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 19, 2016 06:37 PM
~~~~
Sadly, I think they're mostly refutrolls.
Posted by: IrishEi at February 19, 2016 06:39 PM (E6RIJ)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:40 PM (gmeXX)
Then why was he allowed to run?
Posted by: Blano at February 19, 2016 06:23 PM (sdPF/)
Almost as bad - Detroit.The controversy was that his father was born in Mexico, therefore Mitt wasn't a 'natural born citizen' because his father wasn't 'native born citizen'.
Living Constitution baby!
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 19, 2016 06:41 PM (T78UI)
>>>And?
He filed the required paperwork with Canada and did it. Past tense. Done.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:41 PM (0q2P7)
Tired of the trolls and tired hearing the ridiculous arguments regarding Cruz's citizenship. It is a waste of time.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 19, 2016 06:37 PM
~~~~
Sadly, I think they're mostly refutrolls.
-------
I'm just playing with them much like a cat plays with a ball. It amuses me.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:41 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:41 PM (0q2P7)
------------
I would probably not vote for someone who has dual citizenship. But not that is not one of the qualifiers. The Constitution says nothing about whether someone has dual citizenship.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:42 PM (gmeXX)
If I join the Cruz camp, can I still wear my "Make America Great Again" cap?
Posted by: joeclark77 at February 19, 2016 06:43 PM (TbfHR)
We are on agreement on the part about giving up on a distressingly large percentage of people who live in this country. I won't call them Americans, they're just people living here.
But letting go and watching it crumble is not the solution.
Posted by: irongrampa at February 19, 2016 06:44 PM (P/8aq)
Of course, it's a great hat, a classy hat.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:44 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:41 PM
~~~~~
You're a better man than I, SH!
Posted by: IrishEi at February 19, 2016 06:44 PM (E6RIJ)
Posted by: Lever Action at February 19, 2016 06:37 PM (74hKk)
I think you are missing the point. The court has no role in impeachment. Congress can consider the Constitution, so it isn't ignored. It's just that the SC has no Constitutional powers in this case. And it isn't their style to comment on anything that isn't under their purview.
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:44 PM (QXiz8)
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:45 PM (gmeXX)
In a way, it is. If you never let you child touch a hot stove, they never learn the stove is hot.
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 06:45 PM (rwI+c)
Right because after he was told he wasn't a Canadian citizen by his parents he would have suspected they were clueless. You're just trolling at this point.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:46 PM (0q2P7)
--------
Other than the CJ presiding. But otherwise it is independent of the Court. Why would Congress impeach a president that Congress believes not to be qualified under the Constitution. Is that a high crime and misdemeanor? Congress could simply not certify the election results. Don't even have to get the Senate involved.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:47 PM (gmeXX)
Clearing the rubble and rebuilding on a sound foundation is the solution. Letting the existing structure fall is just the first step.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 06:49 PM (0q2P7)
But why are we arguing with each other. We're supposed to putting the new trolls in their places!
Posted by: db at February 19, 2016 06:51 PM (QXiz8)
Namely--
The Declaration of Independence--the why.
The Bill of Rights--that which is inalienable.
The Constitution--the blueprint.
Not doing so will mean all of the struggle was in vain.
Posted by: irongrampa at February 19, 2016 06:55 PM (P/8aq)
They are called Lost Canadians, and Canada recently passed a law that they don't automatically lose Canadian citizenship just because they live in the US.
Hmmmm so, that sounds like Cruz had to jump through hoops to actual be a duel citizen with Canada as an adult.
Then later he would have to fill out a form to renounce that citizenship he had to work to get.
Why did he want to be a duel citizen until 2014?
It sounds like he was trying to get around the Constitution when he conveniently renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 07:05 PM (VoCyE)
Did he?
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 07:07 PM (rwI+c)
Not so. He showed he would have a show without an end game. There was no path to any kind of victory. It was simply ego with no strategy behind it.
Posted by: MaggiePoo at February 19, 2016 07:09 PM (kcQIp)
The idea that an attorney from Harvard Law that was born in Canada and grew up there didn't know he was a citizen until 2014 is silly.
That's just silly. My sister in law (born to military parents) found out as an adult that Germany considered her a citizen. She has no connection to Germany at all (other than being born in a military hospital). When does this even come up? I'm a US citizen and that's all I have ever thought about. If I found out that for some reason, say, India considered me a citizen, that wouldn't change who I was in the least. Like all of us, Cruz never thought about it, why would he? Do you? As soon as he found out, he took steps to renounce it.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 07:18 PM (+aiYj)
Posted by: Gurney Halleck at February 19, 2016 07:23 PM (dH97I)
And he kept on Tweeting from his iPhone until some intern reminded him that it was an Apple product.
Posted by: steveegg at February 19, 2016 05:05 PM (cL79m
Yeah, Donald "Shit for Brains" Trump strikes again!!
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian
Winning powerball is the only way a "shit for brains" becomes a billionaire.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 19, 2016 07:24 PM (QdAXQ)
At least Bloomberg has the temperament
Posted by: Sam in Va at February 19, 2016 07:27 PM (9stgl)
Um. No. You are making the same mistake Ted's parent's did. Assuming he didn't have Canadian citizenship.
"His mother, he said, had understood that it would have taken an affirmative act to claim Canadian citizenship, and that's what she'd told him as a child."
http://tinyurl.com/m5wz47s
>>>Why did he want to be a duel citizen until 2014?
Um. He didn't know.
>>>It sounds like he was trying to get around the Constitution when he conveniently renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Only if you are freebasing tinfoil or are a troll or horribly misinformed. Though there is one eye popper in the article.
"The topic came up last month when he met with real estate mogul Donald Trump, Cruz said, though 'not in any significant respect.' He declined to elaborate." in 2013
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 19, 2016 07:27 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Dave at February 19, 2016 07:28 PM (+i6w5)
They are called Lost Canadians, and Canada recently passed a law that they don't automatically lose Canadian citizenship just because they live in the US.
You have that exactly backwards. "Lost Canadians" were children of Canadian citizens born abroud. Due to a quirk in Canadian law, they weren't automatically given Canadian Citizenship at birth. Canada passed a law to fix this. I am 100% sure of this because I know several people who woke up Canadian one day, one of who has a high security clearance for her job with the government. It had the potential to cause her problems, except she never moved to claim it and the US considers her a US citizen no matter what Canada says.
Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2016 07:31 PM (+aiYj)
Posted by: Time for a Molson at February 19, 2016 07:35 PM (kwHPo)
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 07:44 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: redbanzai at February 19, 2016 07:46 PM (NPofj)
repeated the Cruz lie that Trump's sister is a "radical pro-abortion
extremist who struck down partial abortion ban" in NJ.
Samuel Alito -- yes that Alito -- concurred in that opinion (he was on the 3rd circuit at that time).
The opinion affirmed ruling of the trial court that the NJ ban was void for vagueness.
So, since this blog is concerned with the "truth" no matter how the
cards fall, there should be a retraction or that Alito is a "radical
pro-abortion extremist who struck down a ban on partial birth
abortions."
PS -- Trump's sister testified in support of Alito at his SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
Cruz is a *huge* liar on this issue.
Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (aNrvT)
Cruz is not lying on this issue and neither is Ace... it doesn't matter what Alito is or isn't in this discussion. That argument is as stupid as a little kid using the justification that "Billy's mom lets them watch R movies so why can't I". One of those things has nothing to do with the other.
Trump's sister supports partial birth abortion... The man himself is on video supporting partial birth abortion.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 19, 2016 07:54 PM (NPofj)
When Cruz said he wanted the gang of 8 bill to pass, was it political gamesmanship (lying) or did he really want it to pass?
It's the wall, stupid.
Posted by: Valiant at February 19, 2016 05:02 PM (2bqlb)
He never said that.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 19, 2016 07:57 PM (NPofj)
Did he?
Posted by: Grump928(C) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at February 19, 2016 07:07 PM (rwI+c)
No. Emphatically no.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 19, 2016 08:01 PM (NPofj)
Posted by: redridinghood at February 19, 2016 08:05 PM (7GQM/)
Posted by: AuH2O at February 19, 2016 08:11 PM (ggAgX)
Posted by: Phone of kari at February 19, 2016 08:13 PM (7RpX5)
There are real reasons to support Trump over Cruz. That is not one of them
Posted by: Phone of kari at February 19, 2016 08:16 PM (7RpX5)
Posted by: AuH2O at February 19, 2016 08:17 PM (ggAgX)
Glad you acknowledge Cruz lies.
Posted by: AuH2O at February 19, 2016 08:19 PM (ggAgX)
Posted by: Mentor of Arisia at February 19, 2016 08:21 PM (ybzJi)
Posted by: AuH2O at February 19, 2016 08:26 PM (ggAgX)
Then why was he allowed to run?
-------
Because the Constitution does not say that you must have been born in the United States to be president.
Posted by: SH at February 19, 2016 06:24 PM (gmeXX)
__________
Mitt's father was born in Mexico, he also ran for President.
Mitt was born in Michigan, where his father was Governor. (I think)
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 08:36 PM (VoCyE)
Thank you. That has bothered me for a while. Not enough to research it, I didn't know anyone had addressed it before.
If that is true, I feel better about him running. I have decided he was natural born by virtue of his mother, that was the only nagging doubt I had.
But you don't have to be snarky... I just asked the question. That is not attacking.
Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 08:42 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Angry American at February 19, 2016 08:56 PM (3eZPl)
I suppose you could make the case that George Bush was an evangelical candidate and I might even grant you that. But he had appeal to the moderate center too, with his "compassionate conservatism" (I know, we roll our eyes now, but it was effective then).
Ted Cruz doesn't have that. Cruz appeals to a very specific slice of the American populace and that slice simply isn't build enough to win a general, much less win the Republican nomination.
You'll whine, you'll protest, you'll gnash your teeth, insisting Cruz *can* win, but if he finishes 3rd in South Carolina, that will simply confirm that there is no path for him.
You should take a second look at Rubio. Yeah, yeah, you don't like him because of immigration, but those people are ALREADY HERE. He says he's going to secure the border and I believe him, because he's not going to be able to get the amnesty he wants otherwise. Securing the border is, ultimately, THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, not what happens to the 12 million illegals here, because those people have already been absorbed and the country didn't fall into a sinkhole.
Rubio is just as conservative as Cruz, but he actually knows how to work with people, build coalitions, and actually get legislation passed, rather than simply making empty stands that accomplish nothing. He will be the Republican nominee and I hope you will take another look and support him against Hillary.
Posted by: JoeC at February 19, 2016 08:59 PM (Lcy/t)
Posted by: mavin hound at February 19, 2016 09:00 PM (TqbUH)
I haven't seen any retraction on this blog that repeated the Cruz lie
that Trump's sister is a "radical pro-abortion extremist who struck down
partial abortion ban" in NJ.
Samuel Alito -- yes that Alito -- concurred in that opinion (he was on the 3rd circuit at that time).
The opinion affirmed ruling of the trial court that the NJ ban was void for vagueness.
So, since this blog is concerned with the "truth" no matter how the
cards fall, there should be a retraction or that Alito is a "radical
pro-abortion extremist who struck down a ban on partial birth
abortions."
PS -- Trump's sister testified in support of Alito at his SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
Cruz is a *huge* liar on this issue.
Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 19, 2016 04:59 PM (aNrvT)
Thank you for this info, DQ, I had not seen it anywhere yet... Wow, really good to know!
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 19, 2016 09:43 PM (xetep)
Choose the form of your destructor ...
Posted by: CeliaHayes at February 19, 2016 10:07 PM (95iDF)
What naif still has faith in "slow" or "surgical" or "restorative" methods? Pure wish thinking.
We all know how it will actually work: the slow and surgical ratcheting up of liberalism, both politically and culturally.
No. Burn it down. The only "choice" is whether or not to salt the earth once that's done.
Posted by: Nathan at February 19, 2016 10:35 PM (SlxmM)
It's all got to go.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 19, 2016 11:00 PM (2kjDY)
What's not so easy is, as Ghostbusters might put it, is choosing the form of the destructor.
Oh, that's easy: BERNie Sanders. You want it BERN? he's ALL BERN ALL THE TIME. It is the fastest form of destruction: he'll spend what little money have left on expanded welfare programs, sign every amnesty bill that hits his desk, and try to implement single payer medical care.
It'll crash the system, but it'll do it in 10 years or less, maybe much less if Putin gives us a push.
The alternative is to die of 100,000 paper cuts: slowly, agonizingly, painfully.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at February 20, 2016 10:16 AM (1hM1d)
Are we sure about Trump?
Posted by: redridinghood at February 20, 2016 10:37 AM (7GQM/)
Posted by: burt at February 20, 2016 01:18 PM (r1CBK)
The problem is, if Cruz wins, it is just as likely that the same outcome is inevitable but with violence instigated by progressive idiots.
Either way, violence seems a highly likely outcome.
Think Germany and Russia in 1919....
Don't think it can't happen here.
Posted by: WarEagle82 at February 20, 2016 05:03 PM (XjAz9)
I've calling this the "Fuck your canoes" election of 2016 (if you recall that old joke; I'm assuming you know it).
If that doesn't work and the joke isn't one everyone heard when they were 12 or so (I know it was around at least 30+ years ago)... fine.
"The Roof is on Fire" election of 2016 works as well; I guess.
But I prefer "Fuck your canoes" as the sentiment.
I'll (by preference) vote for Cruz myself; but the general sentiment is what I'm referring to here. And it's definitely "Burn the fucker down", and it seems that way on both sides.
Posted by: gekkobear at February 20, 2016 05:52 PM (S0Q6a)
Posted by: mr burns at February 20, 2016 07:48 PM (1Arcq)
Posted by: Tazio at February 21, 2016 12:21 AM (ywZNz)
Posted by: Eddie Lowenstein at February 21, 2016 03:22 PM (BYOka)
Posted by: Kate at February 21, 2016 03:37 PM (VWyRB)
Posted by: Marcus at February 26, 2016 10:49 AM (XcpHn)
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0751 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0282 seconds, 611 records returned.
Page size 348 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
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)