Reply With Quote
Who are these Repug assholes appealing to? Their supporters, voters are as ed up. ignorant, emotional, UNSERIOUS jokers as the politicians.
You're so used to eating other people's working at target that you actually eat up Trump's and then thank him for it.
Who are these Repug assholes appealing to? Their supporters, voters are as ed up. ignorant, emotional, UNSERIOUS jokers as the politicians.
^serious talk
... ^ clown with nothing to say.
Repug establishment has completely lost control of their split, broken party, can't possibly win the WH with any of these assholes.
CNN didn't have the balls to keep out the super-marginals. 4, maybe 5 should have been the max.
Santorum?CarLIE?
America is ed and un able.
American voters put Bush in office twice, they're re ed enough to put Rubio or Trump in too.
I would buy Rubio, even Cruz, tbh... Trump has no shot, IMO
wrong
SCOTUS elected dubya first, aided by JEB! and Secy of State K. Harris ing up the FL election to favor dubya, dubya losing the popular national vote by 600K
then OH Repug Secy of State Blackwell elected dubya the 2nd time, dubya winning with the smallest margin for an in bent.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-16-2015 at 11:10 AM.
I haven't followed the charadefest of pre elections past, but have pre polls been this wrong before?
lol @ ¡Yeb! What a waste of shekels
And the president isn't elected by popular vote. Even in your best case scenario the country came within a razor thin margin of electing Bush twice, so voters are stupid enough to elect Rubio or Trump too probably.
Repug voters, yes, low-wage, low-info, low-education, paranoid, racist, xenophobe, sexist, rural, white males, typical rightwingnut Spurstalker.
Dems get the women, youth, blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, ethnics, and win again.
GOP Debate Scorecard: The Big Winner Wasn’t Anyone on the Stage, It Was Democrats
Trump comes off as a sniveling bully; Bush as simple-minded; Cruz as maniacal. And that's good news for Democrats.
thumping your chest really hard and repeating, “Radical Islamic terrorism, radical Islamic terrorism, radical Islamic terrorism” until the magical spell works and the baddies go away.
Winner, Untouchable Division:
Donald Trump. Trump came across as a sniveling bully and a consummate bull ter who clearly just says the first thing that pops into his head and then, when confronted, just doubles down on it instead of admitting he was wrong. But that’s never hurt him in the polls before, and it’s unlikely to do so now.
Winners, Tap-Dancing Around The “How Fascist Are You” Question Division:
Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio. You can’t denounce Trump’s nutty idea of a Muslim travel ban, because you’ll just drive more of your idiot base into his arms. But you can’t endorse it, either, because it’s uncons utional and seriously a legitimate threat to national security. So both candidates, when faced with the question, rattled off officious-sounding nonsense to run out the clock. Rubio gave us a history of the San Bernardino shooter and Fiorina gave us a history of social media, but both accomplished the main goal of babbling until the buzzer sounded without either of them actually answering the question.
Winner, Oh God He Might Actually Win Division:
Ted Cruz. He was nearly as maniacal as Donald Trump when it comes to racist pandering and was by far the most convincing in the contest to see who is most eager to kill them all and let God sort them out. This is a man who knows how to fight and claw his way to the top of any trash pile you give him, and winning the Republican nomination is what he was born to do.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...-was-democrats
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...-was-democrats
Donald Trump Dominated Last Night's GOP Debate, According to Google
The morning after the debate, Trump still dominated Google search traffic, with more searches than the rest of the field combined. Cruz and Rubio followed. Here's the pattern from early morning December 16:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/google-trends-data-shows-who-won-gop-debate-vegas-trump
How Many Children Could You Kill? The GOP Debates in Brief
"We're talking about ruthless things tonight," said Hewitt, "carpet bombing, toughness, war. And people wonder, could you do that? Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?" After Carson replied with an anecdote about his experience as a pediatric neurosurgeon, Hewitt pressed:
"So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilians?"
In this line of work, if you do it long enough, you tell yourself that you've seen everything. Nothing can surprise you. It's a comforting fiction, a callus on the soul that allows you to observe and report without being subsumed by it all. Nothing is more unnerving than being deprived of context, to arrive at a moment when you can't say, "Well, I've seen that before." I have no metric for what I witnessed last night.
A debate moderator sought to test a candidate's qualifications on the basis of how many children that candidate is willing to kill.
This wasn't some basement-born hack-ass radio show that only reaches three blocks. This happened on CNN with banners flying and theme music to boot. The audience, to its credit, had the decency to boo Hewitt. Nevertheless, it happened. That is where we are. That is who we are.
Carpet bombing. Toughness. War. Fairly encapsulates the night. I stopped counting the instances when a candidate said the words "Kill us all" after 50. This was a fear festival that puts the darkest Stephen King nightmare in deep shade. It was also, make no mistake,
a big hug for ISIS. One can imagine them huddled around a television, laughing, saying to each other, "Look how frightened they are. Look how they are frightening others. This is more than we could have hoped for."
A few things I learned last night: Santorum thinks terrorists are bad unless they want to buy a gun.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34059-how-many-children-could-you-kill-the-gop-debates-in-brief
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-16-2015 at 09:42 PM.
Communities of color hate Republicans more than ever, and GOP seems psyched about that!
So RNC Chair Reince “we have the deepest bench of people no one wants to vote for” Priebus is always good for a laugh, but this morning’s contribution was particularly good:
[The Republican Party is] working in all communities, in black communities, Hispanic communities, Asian communities and being far better than we were in 2012
Not just better than 2012, but far better. It’s true! He said so! So let’s see just how much better his party is among key growing non-white demographics.
Here we are, 2012:
OBAMA VS ROMNEY, EXIT POLLS, 2012 PRESIDENT Latino Black Asian OBAMA 71 93 73 ROMNEY 27 6 26
Yup, that was pretty brutal. It had to be the GOP’s nadir, right? They can’t possibly do worse than that, could they? Let’s see what the latest Quinnipiac poll has to say:
CLINTON VS TRUMP, Q-POLL, 11/23-30 Latino Black CLINTON 76 87 TRUMP 13 7
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1...28Daily+Kos%29
When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper le, "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
That le is rarely—more like never—heard today. It is just "commander in chief," or even "commander in chief of the United States." This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics.
The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Cons utional shortcuts are taken "for the duration." But those impositions are removed when normal life returns. But we have not seen normal life in 66 years.
The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and "the duration" has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever—more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.
—Garry Wills, 2007.
I needed to put that on the record because its basic truth was completely lost in a dark land of fear and amid the waving poison ferns in Wolf Blitzer's amygdala.
First of all, none of these people will be my commander in chief.
None of these people will have the job of keeping me "safe."
The first priority of a president is not keeping the country safe. The first priority of a president—indeed, the only priority of a president—is to preserve, protect and defend not me, but the Cons ution of the United States.
So sitting there, listening to a bunch of people who never served a day in combat talk about how they're going to turn the Middle East into obsidian glass and how they will keep me safe, it was hard not to fall off my chair.
Frankly, I wouldn't hire any of these people to watch my car in a valet parking lot, let alone lead the country into what they never miss a chance to call, "the Third World War." Chris Christie? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio?
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...nder-in-chief/
As much as I don't like any of these candidates--Rubio I will admit I found intriguing at first, but the more I watch & listen the more I realize he's a just a finally tuned donar robot like Romney was--Cruz, as much as people make him out to be the most extreme, is probably the least extreme candidate out of any GOP outside of Paul on one very, maybe most important thing: he's fairly conservative with regard to sending our troops to battle. At least that's what I got from his response to recent question of sending in more ground troops to ISIS (as flip-floppy as these politicians are tho, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he's been inconsistent on that). Which is a very good thing as it relates to the ME since everything we touch their turns to , and no other Republicans except for him and Paul seem to acknowledge that. It's like Operation Iraqi Freedom and all it's ty consequences never happen(ed) for these other guys.
Foreign affairs and foreign standing is where a President can up the most. He's definitely crazy in a lot of ways and said a lot of completely stupid , but he seems judging from that response to be more levelheaded on FA. Yeah he'd probably stir all kinds of stupid domestically, and that would suck, but it wouldn't amount to or approach the cluster of another really dumb war that's carried out very much like the previous one.
Rubio, Trump, Bush, they'd all bury this country.
Stand grand with Rand! Stand tall with Paul!
No wonder why dude looks so miserable all the time.
Donald Trump issued a remarkably blunt denunciation of the Iraq War during the debate
"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.
We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity.
The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess.
I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"
As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what Trump says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Even for Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered gauche to say that so many veterans died and were injured for nothing (though many likely believe this in their hearts).
And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond that, they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war could have been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they generally argue won't improve things.
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/102960...ebate-iraq-war
I didn't see much in the press that covered Trump's trashing the Repugs for their Iraq war for oil.
CarLiE Fiorina Is a Liar: And Everyone Should Finally Just Say It...Loudly
There's really no need to dance around the unquestioned truth that Carly Fiorina lies about stuff.
Carly Fiorina is unique among all the candidates in the Republican presidential field for her visceral, aggressive hatred for anything resembling truth. Other candidates lie, of course, but they at least go to the trouble of dressing up their lies with weasel words and other forms of qualifying language that allow them to squirm their way out of fact checks.
Fiorina doesn’t care about any of that. She makes firm, declarative statements that are unquestionably inaccurate, and when confronted with inarguable facts that prove her wrong, she insists against all evidence that she is correct and bristles at the very notion that anyone might challenger her. She does not care. She does not pretend to care. As far as Fiorina’s concerned, the fact that she said it is what makes it true.
Up until this week, the prime example of this phenomenon was the Planned Parenthood video she claimed to have seen showing “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” That video doesn’t exist [3], and when confronted with the truth, she insisted her lie was true and lashed out at her critics with wholly un-righteous umbrage. “I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist.”
That already egregious example of gross fibbery has, implausibly, been supplanted by an even larger whopper. At this week’s Republican debate,
Fiorina listed off a number of retired generals – “Petraeus, McChrystal, Mattis, Keane, Flynn” – whom she would “bring back” into service. “Every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear,” she said.
Citing David Petraeus made absolutely no sense – he retired because Obama nominated him as CIA director, and then he resigned [4] because of a security breach related to the extramarital affair he was having.
But invoking Gen. Jack Keane was the real howler of the bunch, given that he retired in 2003, a full five years before Obama was elected president. Keane confirmed to Fox News that he’s never even spoken to President Obama [5], and that Fiorina’s assessment was “not accurate.”
The easily checked historical record says Fiorina was wrong. The person she name-dropped said without qualification that she was wrong. It doesn’t get any clearer cut than that.
And yet, Fiorina insists she was correct [6]:
Talking with reporters Wednesday after a town hall [in Nevada], Fiorina was asked if she misspoke about Keane given the timing of his retirement.
“No, I didn’t misspeak,” she said. “But he has been someone of great experience who has been highly critical of the way this administration has not taken threats seriously and unfortunately he hasn’t been listened to. I would listen to him.”
The irony here is that Fiorina is at this very moment not listening to Gen. Keane, because he’s trying to tell her she’s wrong and Fiorina is having none of it.
I’m fascinated by this pathological commitment to dishonesty, and also by the treatment it receives from the press. Reporters tend to be gun-shy when it comes to labeling untrue statements from politicians as “false” or “lies” because it’s assumed to be a form of improper editorialization. But in an instance like this, there is no way to plausibly interpret what Fiorina is doing as anything other than lying. And yet, the press still dances around the unquestionable dishonesty on display here.
CNN reported on Fiorina’s stubborn mendacity with the hilarious headline [6]: “Despite facts, Carly Fiorina stands by claim about retired generals.”
ABC News reported [7]: “Carly Fiorina Digs in on Claim That General’s Retirement Was Due to Obama Dispute.” Just call it false! Call it a lie! That’s what it is.
The best headline I’ve seen on this story came from Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, who wrote: “Carly Fiorina Really Likes to Make Up [8].” That’s an accurate, concise explanation of what’s going on here, and no one should hesitate to call Carly Fiorina a liar when there is no doubt that she’s lying.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...t-say-itloudly
while they have zero chance of winning, lindsey graham and rand paul came off as the only sane people in the room
I don't know much about Graham, but the way I remember him being (only from interviews on various cable "news" stations) is a big contrast to what I see now. He seems to be exploiting Trumps rhetoric to shed his image as a hardliner partisan hack (like prety much every candidate in both parties), which is what I remember him being. But it's possible my memory of him is wrong. Assuming it's not tho he's basically acting this way for only political reasons. IOW, it's not he doesn't dislike/disagree with guys like a Trump or Cruz. It's that in order move up the political totem pole, he's gotta offer something to voters that they don't since they "own" certain Republican stances & mindsets, and have significant number of loyal followers on account of them. That "something different" is what he seems to be blowing out of his ass right now, a kind of compromiser/fair/nonhardliner partisan guy. It's bull tho if memory serves. And he sounds & looks like a bull ter too.
Either way, wrong or right, he's irrelevant. And so is Rand Paul. Rand Paul I actually like a lot, but I think he started off the race having no balls. Trump was trashing him at the beginning, essentially giving him a great opportunity to assert himself and make more a name for himself, but instead of standing up to him, he backed off like a pussy--just like his dad. He actually has stepped up his game in that regard but his initial timidness is what has stuck with people. Which hurts him especially because it further gives credibility to the su ion that as a "non-interventionist/isolationist" he's already kind of a pussy.
Rubio isn't electable for the same reason Romney proved not to be: because he sounds and looks the part of a guy who was assembled at Republican presidential candidate manufacturing plant. It's like after Romney failed they thought they could improve on v. 1 by making v. 2 darker and giving him a better backstory. They still can't make a robot sound human tho. He has no personality.
Jeb Bush's problem is that he's got too many problems. It's so bad you get to one before you even get to ask him a question.
Carson is a black guy. Good. That's not diversity. That doesn't win you any more minority votes. He's still playing for the 60s Boston Celtics. Great, inspiring backstory. But that's not enough, apparently.
Cruz & Trump. Cruz I don't know too much about him, I guess I'll read into him more. He might be the most personable of the others from what I've seen, seems sincere. Trump hasn't given to my ears one serious attempt at answering a complex political problem, much less one serious answer. For a guy that calls politicians "all talk no action", his slogan should be "all talk no substance". Because of yet I really haven't heard any. I don't know what his views are on anything. Maybe that changes, but it hasn't needed to because he's got enough of blind sheep that have continued following him regardless. The polls speak to the fact that he doesn't need to change that, so why would he.
Like last time there will be another Denocratic President. Not I believe because it's what's good for the country or because it's what majority of voters want, but because the other Party's candidates (do not confuse this with ideology) blow.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
