POTUS 2016

Push the button, pull the lever, who's it going to be?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did Trump? Cruz just seems to me like the Clinton of the Reps. Will say or do, lie about anything needed to get the nomination. Very seedy.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-child-molester/
(CNN)Donald Trump said Thursday that Ben Carson's self-described "pathological temper" is incurable -- adding that it's like the sickness of a "child molester."

"It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper," Trump told "Erin Burnett OutFront," speaking about Carson's autobiography. "That's a big problem because you don't cure that ... as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there's no cure for that."
 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-child-molester/
(CNN)Donald Trump said Thursday that Ben Carson's self-described "pathological temper" is incurable -- adding that it's like the sickness of a "child molester."

"It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper," Trump told "Erin Burnett OutFront," speaking about Carson's autobiography. "That's a big problem because you don't cure that ... as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there's no cure for that."
well he didn't actually call him that now did he? ;)
 
I used to wonder why both parties are having debates on saturday nights. I guess we just need to shield the american public from the american public.

Basically, Cruz either knowingly lied or had his facts wrong when he said that a Justice hasn’t been confirmed in an election year in 80 years (Anthony Kennedy, in fact, was). Dickerson (the moderator) stops Cruz to point this out and try to figure out exactly what it is Cruz is trying to say.


“I just want to get the facts straight for the audience,” Dickerson says.



It is at this point, over the promise of facts, that the crowd boos furiously.
 
I used to wonder why both parties are having debates on saturday nights. I guess we just need to shield the american public from the american public.

Basically, Cruz either knowingly lied or had his facts wrong when he said that a Justice hasn’t been confirmed in an election year in 80 years (Anthony Kennedy, in fact, was). Dickerson (the moderator) stops Cruz to point this out and try to figure out exactly what it is Cruz is trying to say.


“I just want to get the facts straight for the audience,” Dickerson says.



It is at this point, over the promise of facts, that the crowd boos furiously.


Eh I sound ungrateful but we've really had a good run at the top of the table for a while and I'm proud of that. We helped win a couple big huge wars, developed the A-bomb while only having the urge to use it twice (our bad Japan, but you were kind of d---ish back then), put a man on the moon, invented pizza rolls and snapchat. However like the Brits before us we might have overstayed our welcome. So the century is yours China and we're cool with that. That being said China we'd really appriciate it if you stopped by the nursing home and give some attention to the rambling crazy old man in the nursing home once in a while.
 


I would accept the continued random shootings over Trump as president.

That's how laughable the Americans are currently looking supporting this fella
 
On Scalia, from today's NYT. So true, and so on point, that I leave this here to help explain this highly fraught situation we find ourselves within.

Ross Douthat in this morning's Times:

As absurd as it often feels to have Anthony Kennedy as the last arbiter of everything, in a way we’ve been weirdly fortunate in the court’s long-running 5-4-with-a-swing-vote split. It’s allowed both halves of our polarized republic to feel somewhat represented on the highest court, to feel as if they have at least a fighting chance in the majority of controversies, to feel as if there’s some legitimacy — not a lot, maybe, but some — to the decisions of our unelected guardians. (As much as liberals may hate the Roberts court for Citizens United, it also gave them same-sex marriage and protected Obamacare; as much as conservatives object to Kennedy’s ruling in Obergefell, they’re grateful for his ruling in Hobby Lobby.)

To have the intellectual godfather of the conservative bloc replaced by a liberal appointee would upset this balance, perhaps irrevocably. As it was for a time — and not a happy time — in the 1960s and 1970s, the court would simply become the Enemy to half the country, a vanguard force pulling the political order to the left.

This reality trumps the patterns of (very modest) compromise that enabled Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to win confirmation, and it makes it impossible to imagine Republican senators confirming an Obama appointee in the next 11 months. And it’s probably a good thing for the republic that they won’t: If there is to be a liberal replacement for a figure as towering as Scalia, if the court is about to swing sharply to the left, it’s far better for the judicial branch’s legitimacy if that swing follows a democratic election, a campaign in which the high court stakes are front and center in the race.

But because they will be front and center, Scalia’s death promises a war like none other between here and November, and an extra layer of insanity in a campaign already defined by radicals and demagogues.

The irony is that this kind of high-stakes collision of law and politics is precisely the thing that Scalia’s legal philosophy strained to curb and check and roll back, by promoting a more limited and humble vision of the Supreme Court’s role in our republic.

But for all of his importance, all his influence, in this effort he clearly failed — and what’s about to come will prove it.
 
A decent article on what Trump did last night:

There was an uninvited guest onstage Saturday night at the latest and most brutal Republican presidential debate: George W. Bush.

The focus on Bush 43's legacy signals a big problem for the GOP. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who declared in a prior debate that he missed the bygone president, pronounced W the winner last night. But no matter how much Jeb Bush defended his brother, or Marco Rubio came to the former president's aid, that Bush's legacy abruptly became a question at all, at this very late date, dealt the establishment a potentially crippling blow.

Yes, the establishment — there's that word again, used advisedly but of necessity. For what was supposed to be more established a fact in the Republican Party but that George W. Bush — at a bare, bare minimum — was the right man in office on Sept. 11? Yet here was Donald Trump, naked in a way few have really seen him before, slamming home the message again and again: W messed up. He hurt the party. And he hurt the country.

"The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush," Trump growled. "He kept us safe? That is not safe." Technically true, but, as is so often the case with Trump, the details came second to theme, and the theme went far beyond 9/11 or the gasps and boos Trump's comments brought. Trump slapped W on Iraq, too. "The war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. They lied," he said of Dubya's administration. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none."

Leave aside the particulars. (Saddam's men, ruled by fear and deceit, habitually lied and believed lies about their own WMD and other special weapons.) Trump's eye-popping broadsides against the Bush administration far exceeded some kind of coming-out party as a Democrat. Nor were they animated by a longing to merely belittle Jeb Bush or exact juvenile revenge. Rather, they were illustrative of the sweeping but specific theme of Trump's night and his campaign, revealed with typical deadpan cockiness in his closing remarks.

"Politicians are all talk, no action."

But wait, you say. George W. Bush took lots of action!

"You've seen where they've taken you to," Trump says. "We are [at a budget of] 19 trillion dollars right now […]. We need a very big change." Because, of course, "we don't win anymore."

Vacuous, you say. Pablum.

But consider the logic within. In a culture where "politics" has become an echo chamber — a vain hall of mirrors installed by the worship of rhetoric and self-regard — true politics, the art and science of victory, is dead. The kinds of action that arise from a corrupt political culture, from the corrupted idea that politics is a game of semiotics first, are, therefore, also corrupted: fake actions, actions without integrity, actions born to lose.

Trump is saying that, under George W. Bush, the Republican Party allowed its understanding of politics to be corrupted. For whatever reason, under Bush, the GOP became a party that let self-aware rhetorical posturing dictate the way policy was formulated. The result was failure across the board. Worst of all was the ensuing failure of memory as Republicans forgot the winning arts and sciences. In so doing, they enabled America to lose its way in the hall of mirrors — and lose its greatness.

This is a dagger to the heart of the Bush legacy.

But Trump is not just running against Bushism. He's running against what it's a symptom of — the certain kind of insider sophistry that he says defines the political class. That's why he was onstage at all last night. That's why he's in first place now. And that's why he's more at home in the GOP than so many want to admit.

To understand how that could possibly be, understand what he's not arguing.

The typical critique of politics today is that the ruling class has been corrupted by privilege. There's too much money in politics; there's too much of a cult of access; the tropes go on and on. Trump's not saying that. Instead, he's saying, the ruling class has been corrupted by foolishness. The problem isn't that "the politicians" have vanished behind the velvet rope. It's that they've vanished up their own rear ends. Obsessed with themselves, they have forgotten who they are. They have lost their way — and ours.

Hard as it is to stomach or say, that is a kind of wisdom so deep, so populist, and so potent that many conservatives can't help but flutter toward it. Then again, neither can many moderate or liberal Republicans, which is why Trump performs well across all groups.

To be sure, in some ways Trump is a dreadful messenger for this dreadful message. Then again, watching him up work up there like a Soviet wrestler, it's clear this man is not riding a fad or indulging a fantasy. An immense physical and mental strain is involved in hitting his fellow candidates — hungry, disciplined men — on issue after issue. He is delivering an intense message that no one else has proven capable of delivering with the requisite intensity: a shocking insight, when you pause to think about it, but for the fact that in this election year, nothing can shock anymore.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top