Trump did not help cause the government shutdown that hurt the Republicans and then push for another game of chicken just a few months later. Cruz then put in a story in his book about the Republicans in the room getting really furious with him when he suggested that while failing to mention that this was soon after the previous government shutdown hurt them.
"In our first benchmark poll, we asked a series of questions to assess where I stood compared to Dewhurst. One of those questions would become famous internally in our campaign: Question 10. It asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support me if they knew that "Ted Cruz understands that politicians from both parties have let us down. Cruz is a proven conservative we can trust to provide new leadership in the Senate to reduce the size of government and defend the Constitution."
Among Republicans, those two simple sentences polled north of 80 percent. At the same time, they garnered a majority of Independents, and even 20 percent of Democrats. They became the centerpiece of our campaign."
Cruz's campaign strategies have always been about actively harming fellow Republicans and not just in the way where he makes some references to the establishment and calls himself an outsider candidate.
It is very easy to see why the establishment would loathe him much more than some newcomer who at least has not actively harmed them in the same way yet.
Cruz is what happens when neoliberalism is exposed to dominionism and then metastasized.
V1m on
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Trump did not help cause the government shutdown that hurt the Republicans and then push for another game of chicken just a few months later. Cruz then put in a story in his book about the Republicans in the room getting really furious with him when he suggested that while failing to mention that this was soon after the previous government shutdown hurt them.
"In our first benchmark poll, we asked a series of questions to assess where I stood compared to Dewhurst. One of those questions would become famous internally in our campaign: Question 10. It asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support me if they knew that "Ted Cruz understands that politicians from both parties have let us down. Cruz is a proven conservative we can trust to provide new leadership in the Senate to reduce the size of government and defend the Constitution."
Among Republicans, those two simple sentences polled north of 80 percent. At the same time, they garnered a majority of Independents, and even 20 percent of Democrats. They became the centerpiece of our campaign."
Cruz's campaign strategies have always been about actively harming fellow Republicans and not just in the way where he makes some references to the establishment and calls himself an outsider candidate.
It is very easy to see why the establishment would loathe him much more than some newcomer who at least has not actively harmed them in the same way yet.
Cruz is what happens when neoliberalism is exposed to dominionism and then metastasized.
Have any of the current Republican candidates bashed the House for passing HR 3016 (now going to the Senate) that castrates family education benefits in the GI Bill? I wanna know if anyone in the GOP running for Commander in Chief actually supports our troops and veterans that they will lead.
Because most of my fellow airmen (and soldiers/seamen) are fucking livid about that, and I personally know and have worked with people who have extended years of their life in service specifically to quality and transfer their education benefits to their kids, that this bill is cutting out from under their feet. It's not even fucking grandfathered unless you already have family collecting. It's cutting out the promise that people signed up for right under them after they held up their end of the deal.
Holy what. That is messed up.
Im prowd two bea and Umericain. Were att leest Eye no Im phree.
TL;DR: He almost certainly can't win the general election, and his nomination would do huge damage to the GOP. And even if he did win, he'd still be less dangerous as President than any of the other GOP candidates.
I also thought the Schwarzenegger analogy Chait makes was pretty interesting, though I think he overstates Arnold's virtues as a governor.
Trump presidency means GOP congress, and also Trump SC picks, who would lead to at least 20 years of disastrous SC rulings (two appointees from Trump over Ginsberg and Breyer, plus replacements of the conservatives, then Roberts and Alito likely serving until the 2030s at least)
Trump did not help cause the government shutdown that hurt the Republicans and then push for another game of chicken just a few months later. Cruz then put in a story in his book about the Republicans in the room getting really furious with him when he suggested that while failing to mention that this was soon after the previous government shutdown hurt them.
"In our first benchmark poll, we asked a series of questions to assess where I stood compared to Dewhurst. One of those questions would become famous internally in our campaign: Question 10. It asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support me if they knew that "Ted Cruz understands that politicians from both parties have let us down. Cruz is a proven conservative we can trust to provide new leadership in the Senate to reduce the size of government and defend the Constitution."
Among Republicans, those two simple sentences polled north of 80 percent. At the same time, they garnered a majority of Independents, and even 20 percent of Democrats. They became the centerpiece of our campaign."
Cruz's campaign strategies have always been about actively harming fellow Republicans and not just in the way where he makes some references to the establishment and calls himself an outsider candidate.
It is very easy to see why the establishment would loathe him much more than some newcomer who at least has not actively harmed them in the same way yet.
Cruz is what happens when neoliberalism is exposed to dominionism and then metastasized.
The Rev. James W. Fifield, pastor of the elite First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, led the way in championing a new union of faith and free enterprise. “The blessings of capitalism come from God,” he wrote. “A system that provides so much for the common good and happiness must flourish under the favor of the Almighty.”
Christianity, in Mr. Fifield’s interpretation, closely resembled capitalism, as both were systems in which individuals rose or fell on their own. The welfare state, meanwhile, violated most of the Ten Commandments. It made a “false idol” of the federal government, encouraged Americans to covet their neighbors’ possessions, stole from the wealthy and, ultimately, bore false witness by promising what it could never deliver.
Throughout the 1930s and ’40s, Mr. Fifield and his allies advanced a new blend of conservative religion, economics and politics that one observer aptly anointed “Christian libertarianism.” Mr. Fifield distilled his ideology into a simple but powerful phrase — “freedom under God.” With ample support from corporate patrons and business lobbies like the United States Chamber of Commerce, his gospel of godly capitalism soon spread across the country through personal lectures, weekly radio broadcasts and a monthly magazine.
Trump did not help cause the government shutdown that hurt the Republicans and then push for another game of chicken just a few months later. Cruz then put in a story in his book about the Republicans in the room getting really furious with him when he suggested that while failing to mention that this was soon after the previous government shutdown hurt them.
"In our first benchmark poll, we asked a series of questions to assess where I stood compared to Dewhurst. One of those questions would become famous internally in our campaign: Question 10. It asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support me if they knew that "Ted Cruz understands that politicians from both parties have let us down. Cruz is a proven conservative we can trust to provide new leadership in the Senate to reduce the size of government and defend the Constitution."
Among Republicans, those two simple sentences polled north of 80 percent. At the same time, they garnered a majority of Independents, and even 20 percent of Democrats. They became the centerpiece of our campaign."
Cruz's campaign strategies have always been about actively harming fellow Republicans and not just in the way where he makes some references to the establishment and calls himself an outsider candidate.
It is very easy to see why the establishment would loathe him much more than some newcomer who at least has not actively harmed them in the same way yet.
Cruz is what happens when neoliberalism is exposed to dominionism and then metastasized.
The Rev. James W. Fifield, pastor of the elite First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, led the way in championing a new union of faith and free enterprise. “The blessings of capitalism come from God,” he wrote. “A system that provides so much for the common good and happiness must flourish under the favor of the Almighty.”
Christianity, in Mr. Fifield’s interpretation, closely resembled capitalism, as both were systems in which individuals rose or fell on their own. The welfare state, meanwhile, violated most of the Ten Commandments. It made a “false idol” of the federal government, encouraged Americans to covet their neighbors’ possessions, stole from the wealthy and, ultimately, bore false witness by promising what it could never deliver.
Throughout the 1930s and ’40s, Mr. Fifield and his allies advanced a new blend of conservative religion, economics and politics that one observer aptly anointed “Christian libertarianism.” Mr. Fifield distilled his ideology into a simple but powerful phrase — “freedom under God.” With ample support from corporate patrons and business lobbies like the United States Chamber of Commerce, his gospel of godly capitalism soon spread across the country through personal lectures, weekly radio broadcasts and a monthly magazine.
Also, "Almost certainly can't win the general election" is still not a bet I want anyone to take.
Here, let me strap a bomb to your back. I'll give you ten bucks for each day you wear it, but it has a 1% chance of exploding each day.
There will be a bomb on our back regardless. One of the current field of Republicans is going to win the nomination. And there's no reason to believe that any of the others are a net improvement over Trump. And Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any of them. So... Trump is the safest bomb.
Also, "Almost certainly can't win the general election" is still not a bet I want anyone to take.
Here, let me strap a bomb to your back. I'll give you ten bucks for each day you wear it, but it has a 1% chance of exploding each day.
There will be a bomb on our back regardless. One of the current field of Republicans is going to win the nomination. And there's no reason to believe that any of the others are a net improvement over Trump. And Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any of them. So... Trump is the safest bomb.
Someone turning my analogy against me so well that I agree with them also had a 1% chance of happening.
Also, "Almost certainly can't win the general election" is still not a bet I want anyone to take.
Here, let me strap a bomb to your back. I'll give you ten bucks for each day you wear it, but it has a 1% chance of exploding each day.
There will be a bomb on our back regardless. One of the current field of Republicans is going to win the nomination. And there's no reason to believe that any of the others are a net improvement over Trump. And Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any of them. So... Trump is the safest bomb.
Someone turning my analogy against me so well that I agree with them also had a 1% chance of happening.
This is why we don't play with fire!
Hey! We didn't start the fire
it was always burning since the world's been turning
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+2
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Minutes after the returns started coming in, revealing that Fiorina had no chance of making a respectable showing, the former business executive acknowledged that she was “sad at first—but then I realized that every failure is an opportunity, and in this case I had an opportunity to give some people the axe.”
After delivering pink slips to her entire campaign staff, Fiorina said, “I started feeling better already.”
What a bitch. I hope we don't see the likes of her again anytime soon.
Trump did not help cause the government shutdown that hurt the Republicans and then push for another game of chicken just a few months later. Cruz then put in a story in his book about the Republicans in the room getting really furious with him when he suggested that while failing to mention that this was soon after the previous government shutdown hurt them.
"In our first benchmark poll, we asked a series of questions to assess where I stood compared to Dewhurst. One of those questions would become famous internally in our campaign: Question 10. It asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support me if they knew that "Ted Cruz understands that politicians from both parties have let us down. Cruz is a proven conservative we can trust to provide new leadership in the Senate to reduce the size of government and defend the Constitution."
Among Republicans, those two simple sentences polled north of 80 percent. At the same time, they garnered a majority of Independents, and even 20 percent of Democrats. They became the centerpiece of our campaign."
Cruz's campaign strategies have always been about actively harming fellow Republicans and not just in the way where he makes some references to the establishment and calls himself an outsider candidate.
It is very easy to see why the establishment would loathe him much more than some newcomer who at least has not actively harmed them in the same way yet.
Cruz is what happens when neoliberalism is exposed to dominionism and then metastasized.
The Rev. James W. Fifield, pastor of the elite First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, led the way in championing a new union of faith and free enterprise. “The blessings of capitalism come from God,” he wrote. “A system that provides so much for the common good and happiness must flourish under the favor of the Almighty.”
Christianity, in Mr. Fifield’s interpretation, closely resembled capitalism, as both were systems in which individuals rose or fell on their own. The welfare state, meanwhile, violated most of the Ten Commandments. It made a “false idol” of the federal government, encouraged Americans to covet their neighbors’ possessions, stole from the wealthy and, ultimately, bore false witness by promising what it could never deliver.
Throughout the 1930s and ’40s, Mr. Fifield and his allies advanced a new blend of conservative religion, economics and politics that one observer aptly anointed “Christian libertarianism.” Mr. Fifield distilled his ideology into a simple but powerful phrase — “freedom under God.” With ample support from corporate patrons and business lobbies like the United States Chamber of Commerce, his gospel of godly capitalism soon spread across the country through personal lectures, weekly radio broadcasts and a monthly magazine.
Also, "Almost certainly can't win the general election" is still not a bet I want anyone to take.
Here, let me strap a bomb to your back. I'll give you ten bucks for each day you wear it, but it has a 1% chance of exploding each day.
There will be a bomb on our back regardless. One of the current field of Republicans is going to win the nomination. And there's no reason to believe that any of the others are a net improvement over Trump. And Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any of them. So... Trump is the safest bomb.
Someone turning my analogy against me so well that I agree with them also had a 1% chance of happening.
This is why we don't play with fire!
Hey! We didn't start the fire
it was always burning since the world's been turning
"What's happening in Europe can lead to its collapse. It's dramatic what (Merkel) has allowed to happen, this flood," he said, adding that the "consequences" were being felt around the continent.
"If we don't deal with the situation competently and firmly, then yes, it's the end of Europe," he predicted.
Stopping short of predicting civil war, he said the continent had "real revolutions ahead of you", adding that Europe "won't be spared" a 9/11-style disaster.
"My German friends no longer know where they are. They can't believe their eyes about what is happening…they're desperate," he claimed.
He also warned that if immigration could not be dealt with "in an intelligent, rapid and energetic manner," then Europe was headed for "more than just upheaval, on a scale you can't even imagine."
As for France, Mr Trump warned: "Unfortunately, France isn't what it was, nor Paris".
At the Bataclan (concert hall where 90 died), he said: "The only people who had weapons were the killers...it was 'open bar' for a massacre."
He added: "I always carry a weapon on me. If I'd been at the Bataclan or one of those bars, I would have opened fire. I would have perhaps died, but at least I would have taken a shot. The worst thing is the powerlessness to respond to those who want to kill you," he said.
With no armed resistance in the room, "it was a pigeon shoot", he went on. The killers were "like kids in a candy store".
Entering New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses last Monday, Rubio had been the candidate to beat, but Trump didn't even touch him. It was Christie who demolished Rubio, halting his momentum during Saturday night's debate in a moment that could go down in history as one of the toughest exchanges of the GOP primary campaign.
Though on the sidelines, Trump underscored the power of the moment during the commercial break as Christie walked across the stage to see his wife. Someone grabbed Christie's arm from behind, and the New Jersey governor turned to see none other than the taunter-in-chief Donald Trump.
"Oh my God. That was brutal," Trump muttered to Christie on the debate stage, according to someone familiar with the exchange. "Tremendous."
The "have you tried turning it off and back on" of political analysis. Simple, you feel silly when you have overlooked it and yet its often exactly right
Good to know, though it really does say something about a person when you read a satire piece about them and are not immediately aware that they did not, in fact, say or do the thing being satired.
Also, "Almost certainly can't win the general election" is still not a bet I want anyone to take.
Here, let me strap a bomb to your back. I'll give you ten bucks for each day you wear it, but it has a 1% chance of exploding each day.
There will be a bomb on our back regardless. One of the current field of Republicans is going to win the nomination. And there's no reason to believe that any of the others are a net improvement over Trump. And Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any of them. So... Trump is the safest bomb.
Someone turning my analogy against me so well that I agree with them also had a 1% chance of happening.
This is why we don't play with fire!
If anything has a one percent chance of happening, we have to act as if it is a 100% certainty.
If China's economy goes fully belly-up and drags the world with it, the Democratic nominee is going to have an uphill battle no matter WHO the Republicans nominate.
If China's economy goes fully belly-up and drags the world with it, the Democratic nominee is going to have an uphill battle no matter WHO the Republicans nominate.
Like they always say, "Only Nixon can go to China."
Well, Hillary is as close as we've got to Nixon. Though he was a little farther left than she is.
Posts
tl;dr - "he's a loud racist with no qualifications, despite being pretty moderate on reform and civil rights issues!"
*Atomika looks at article*
*looks at Trump*
*looks at other GOP candidates*
*looks back at Trump*
Meh?
Cruz is what happens when neoliberalism is exposed to dominionism and then metastasized.
or
"Fuck you, got mine . . . for Jesus."
Im prowd two bea and Umericain. Were att leest Eye no Im phree.
WTF? Wasn't CNN clutching pearls last night because HuffPo blatantly called Trump a xenophobic, racist, sexist? It's like, only okay if CNN does it?
It's an OpEd from someone who isn't a staff writer
On an opposite tack to the CNN thing: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html
Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination
TL;DR: He almost certainly can't win the general election, and his nomination would do huge damage to the GOP. And even if he did win, he'd still be less dangerous as President than any of the other GOP candidates.
I also thought the Schwarzenegger analogy Chait makes was pretty interesting, though I think he overstates Arnold's virtues as a governor.
Hasn't that just been much of American Christianity since the propaganda effort by businessmen during the early to mid 20th century?
Seems pretty much the same.
John 11:35
Here, let me strap a bomb to your back. I'll give you ten bucks for each day you wear it, but it has a 1% chance of exploding each day.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
There will be a bomb on our back regardless. One of the current field of Republicans is going to win the nomination. And there's no reason to believe that any of the others are a net improvement over Trump. And Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any of them. So... Trump is the safest bomb.
Someone turning my analogy against me so well that I agree with them also had a 1% chance of happening.
This is why we don't play with fire!
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
HuffPo has been very....emotionally invested since NH. Descending to the rabid rantings of an anonymous comment is, frankly, embarassing to watch.
Fiorina Cheers Self Up by Firing Campaign Staff
Hey! We didn't start the fire
it was always burning since the world's been turning
NNID: Hakkekage
What a bitch. I hope we don't see the likes of her again anytime soon.
But that may be wishful thinking.
Tough to be 100% sure though, isn't it?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Or, you know, support for the legalization of slavery.
By the next time she runs for something, her failed bid will somehow be spun as some kind of weird victory.
we're feeling the jersey love today, hakkes
And an example of what NOT to do:
Protip: You are not a brave hero by threathening to hurt someone for Internet points. You are just an asshole.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/new-hampshire-primary-recap/index.html
It's the Borowitz Report, so satire
The "have you tried turning it off and back on" of political analysis. Simple, you feel silly when you have overlooked it and yet its often exactly right
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Whap.
Good to know, though it really does say something about a person when you read a satire piece about them and are not immediately aware that they did not, in fact, say or do the thing being satired.
If anything has a one percent chance of happening, we have to act as if it is a 100% certainty.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
If China's economy goes fully belly-up and drags the world with it, the Democratic nominee is going to have an uphill battle no matter WHO the Republicans nominate.
Nah she's not attractive enough to be a fox news voice. Cold hard truth.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Like they always say, "Only Nixon can go to China."
Well, Hillary is as close as we've got to Nixon. Though he was a little farther left than she is.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
No? I mean there isn't a crisis like the sub prime lending or anything like that looming in the US at least.
pleasepaypreacher.net