Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who's your money on?Follow

#52 Feb 14 2016 at 1:20 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. But on the broader subject. In keeping with the craziness of this primary so far, I've decided to double down on crazy and pick "Paul Ryan" as the one who will be inaugurated as president next January. Yes, there is a possible path to this that doesn't require anyone dying or anything. So that's where I'm going. Cause... why not?

I'm putting all my money on Meg Ryan
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#53 Feb 15 2016 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
She could probably grow a better beard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Feb 15 2016 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Following the last debate fiasco, Trump is saying that the RNC "broke their pledge" to be neutral and fair by stacking the debate audience with members hostile to him and friendly to Jeb! and other "establishment" types.

Which is... probably not inaccurate, really.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Feb 15 2016 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
The 90s Troll Doll who insists that hecklers were a good way to show the world how big his audiences slash supporters really are complaining about hecklers is kind of amusing, I guess. It probably was a hack job, sure, but come on. Either way, not particularly surprising.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Feb 15 2016 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Following the last debate fiasco, Trump is saying that the RNC "broke their pledge" to be neutral and fair by stacking the debate audience with members hostile to him and friendly to Jeb! and other "establishment" types.

Which is... probably not inaccurate, really.


Please run 3rd party, please run 3rd party, please run 3rd party.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#58 Feb 15 2016 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It bemuses me that Trump built up his candidacy with outrageous lies, misstatements, and insults and is booed for telling the truth. At least the rank and file are consistent, I guess.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#59 Feb 16 2016 at 2:11 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Jebbush.com

Points to Trump on that one.
#60 Feb 16 2016 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Should have done a bunch of frowny faces like Fiorina's page.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Feb 16 2016 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Following the last debate fiasco, Trump is saying that the RNC "broke their pledge" to be neutral and fair by stacking the debate audience with members hostile to him and friendly to Jeb! and other "establishment" types.

Which is... probably not inaccurate, really.


Please run 3rd party, please run 3rd party, please run 3rd party.
He's just trying to find a way to lose gracefully. He stands no chance against HRC. Front runners don't discuss 3rd party runs.
#62 Feb 16 2016 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's not losing by any metric yet. It's more about him putting the RNC on notice that they need him more than he needs them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Feb 16 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Which is true. He's a huckster playing on the fears of the very segment the GOP has spent 35 years courting.

You spend 35 years building a golem, don't complain when it wakes up and rampages out of control.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#64 Feb 16 2016 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He's not losing by any metric yet. It's more about him putting the RNC on notice that they need him more than he needs them.
That's the point. He's not losing now. It's better for him to go Independent and lose the general that way as opposed to losing the general as the GOP nominee. At the pace he's at, he will win the GOP nomination, but has no chance against Hillary. Given that he's a front runner, by a large margin, it's makes absolutely no sense for him to be discussing a third party run. That is, if he really doesn't want to be President, which is more than likely true. He just likes attention.
#65 Feb 16 2016 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's talking about a third party run to snap the RNC into line. It has nothing to do with Clinton, he feels that the RNC screwed with him at the last debate and is pushing his weight around back at them. That's the sort of thing you can only do when you are leading; the RNC isn't going to be intimidated by a third party threat from someone polling at 2%.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Feb 16 2016 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, ****, it was at the top of a Google search so here's a cite for Gbaji to pick apart and say it doesn't count and no one ever thought of Rubio as inexperienced and unready until mean ole' Christie picked on poor little Rubio...


You are seriously moving the goalposts here. I was specifically stating that prior to Christie setting this up in the week or so prior to the NH debate, no one was claiming that Rubio was someone who just repeated empty memorized rhetoric and could not speak extemporaneously about a number of political topics. That was the attack on Rubio in the debate, and the attack I was arguing was not true.

That you can find other sources saying that Rubio is inexperienced isn't a surprise at all. But that does not support the specific thing that Christie used to attack Rubio (that he just mindlessly repeats talking points without understanding them). As I've already stated, a couple times even, Rubio's biggest problem going into this race wasn't his ability to speak about issues intelligently, but that he had trouble doing so in a way that sounded polished and professional (or even inspirational) when in a speech or debate setting. Put him in front of an interviewer and he would do very very well. Recall that the biggest hit he suffered prior to this wasn't what he was saying in an interview, but his ill timed gulp of water during the interview. That's not about substance. That's not about being an empty suit. It's about polish.

That was his biggest problem. The irony of which is that he presumably has spent a lot of effort (and coaching) working on his polish, his timing, his delivery, and has become really really good at it. So Christie attacked him for that instead. Which, again, for anyone following Rubio over the last few years, was an absurd attack, but one that works on people who only see him in the debate (or see the clips from the debate played on their TV). It's about attacking the perception of the candidate, and not the reality. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Your citation does not say that Rubio can't speak without a memorized sound bite. Does it? No. I don't think so. Because that's not really a problem for Rubio. Christie just managed to set him up in a debate to make it look that way. Bad on Rubio for not sussing it out ahead of time, but it absolutely does not make Christies attack "true" by any means. Recall that I was responding to a poster who claimed that Rubio was "an empty suit". That's simply not true at all. Call him inexperienced at politics, and especially some of the dirty tricks that politics may involve. But you can't say he doesn't understand the political issues he talks about. An empty suit is someone who just parrots what others have told him to say. That's definitely not Rubio. As I've also said a few times, that's much more something you could level at Cruz. That guy's a walking rhetoric factory.

Edited, Feb 16th 2016 5:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Feb 16 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You are seriously moving the goalposts here.

Nah, I said the debate was damaging because it exposed Rubio as an empty suit, a concern the establishment donors and pundit classes had been worrying about for a while. If you need to make some "you didn't say exactly what I said!" nonsense to feel better about it as you continue to whine about Christie a week later, that's fine.

Edited, Feb 16th 2016 7:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Feb 16 2016 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The state GOP, worried about Trump, stocked tonight's debate with establishment members to boo The Donald. Not even kidding: the state party chairs were given dozens of tickets to distribute to the party machine faithful so it'd be a friendly audience for Jeb! & Co.


Honestly though, they didn't have to. Several of the things Trump said in that debate were pretty shocking from even a moderate GOP point of view. Trump managed to rattle off a series of what are basically Democrat (in some cases, nutty left wing Democrat) talking points. Up until now, he's done a decent job with his wording to avoid making it too obvious that he's diametrically opposed to what most GOP voters believe. He really screwed up on Saturday though. Most conservatives and pretty much all Republicans have a pretty visceral negative response to those bumper sticker (Bush lied and our Soldiers died) type arguments. And the whole "Blame Bush for 9/11" bit? Totally off the charts there.

I'm sure this doesn't hurt him with his core supporters. But then, I've been saying all along that this core mostly consists of angry independents who don't normally participate in the GOP primary (and presumably some who do, but are constrained to pick out of the choices given them, presumably losing interest when the Ron Pauls and Herman Cains of the world drop out), but are this time because they've got a populist guy saying angry anti-establishment stuff that they like. Any hope of swaying more moderate or mainstream conservatives was pretty much lost for him though. Can't say how much this hurts him numerically, but I suspect it will firm up that "cap" in terms of how many votes he can get in any given primary. It's still not a terrible problem for him as long as the rest of the field is split between 2 or 3 other candidates, but I still say that none of those other candidates delegates will ever support him in the convention. Unless the split between them holds well into the "winner takes all" portion of the race, I suspect he's going to have more and more problems as this goes on.

He's still a force to be reckoned with, but I think he really hurt himself on Saturday.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Feb 16 2016 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's still polling around 35% in S. Carolina in new polling since the debate and, because of the way delegates are assigned in that state, stands to win all of them (if not, an outsized majority).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Feb 16 2016 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You are seriously moving the goalposts here.

Nah, I said the debate was damaging because it exposed Rubio as an empty suit, a concern the establishment donors and pundit classes had been worrying about for a while.


Except that isn't what they have been concerned about for a while or for a short time. I just made this very point, and you just ignored it. An empty suit is someone who just parrots rhetoric that others have told him to say, but doesn't really understand those things themselves. That is *not* Rubio. If you've seen him give interviews or speak at town halls, you know this. Can he toss out the prepared language when needed? Absolutely. And that actually represents growth for him as a candidate, since this was one of his perceived weak points.

But that's not *all* he can do. Which is why the empty suit allegation is completely wrong.

Quote:
If you need to make some "you didn't say exactly what I said!" nonsense to feel better about it as you continue to whine about Christie a week later, that's fine.


Well. If you're going to argue against something I said, you do kinda have to actually... you know... argue against what I actually said. Nothing in your response actually countered my statement. So there is that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Feb 16 2016 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except that isn't what they have been concerned about for a while or for a short time.

Sure, whatever.

Look, if you want to believe that no one had been concerned about that or try to make it "But no one said he'd repeat a line four times so I win!" or whatever, I don't care. Really, I don't. Rubio ****** up ("Oh no, Christie was too mean to l'il Marco so it's all his fault! Party of personal responsibility!") thus stretching the campaign out of NH and likely into a 4-5 man field for Super Tuesday. From a Democratic perspective, that's awesome. I don't need to convince you of anything to feel great about last week so if you need to try and create a narrative that warms your heart, you go and do just that Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Feb 17 2016 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Political Wire wrote:
A new American Research Group poll in South Carolina finds Donald Trump leading the GOP presidential race with 33%, followed by Marco Rubio at 16%, Ted Cruz at 14%, John Kasich at 14%, Jeb Bush at 9% and Ben Carson at 3%.

A tracking poll from South Carolina House Republicans finds Trump leading with 34%, followed by Cruz at 16%, Rubio at 15%, Bush at 15%, Kasich at 8% and Carson at 7%.

If either of those are true, the GOP is fuuuuuuuuucked. They NEED a hard 2nd and 3rd place to winnow the field fast. If it's a soft mess for 2nd, 3rd & 4th, no one is going to get out before the March primaries and Trump is going to clean up. Kaisch and Bush are both pinning hopes on the midwestern states where Cruz will have less evangelical pull and voters are more moderate so it can easily be a five man field until mid-March or April.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Feb 17 2016 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I was specifically stating that prior to Christie setting this up in the week or so prior to the NH debate, no one was claiming that Rubio was someone who just repeated empty memorized rhetoric and could not speak extemporaneously about a number of political topics.
And you were very specifically wrong.
gbaji wrote:
Recall that the biggest hit he suffered prior to this wasn't what he was saying in an interview, but his ill timed gulp of water during the interview.
Your painful attempts to hand-wave away all the hits aside, the incident you're referring to wasn't an interview at all but a televised response to a State of the Union, and don't forget all the other times since 2008 he's repeatedly paused to reach for water. So much so that his handlers have been trying to turn it into a joke like it was nothing. It's a fairly obvious nervous tic, something you'd notice if you spent less time talking about paying attention and actually paid attention.
gbaji wrote:
That guy's a walking rhetoric factory.
A green apple doesn't stop being an apple just because you placed a red apple next to it. I'll grant you that Cruz is the more rotten of the two, if it makes you feel better. Cruz is Palpatine and Rubio is Skroob.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Feb 17 2016 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
And after that, who knows? Say JEB! or Rubio pulls away from the rest of the field to a strong second or even a weak first place. Will Trump go quietly at that point?

I'm really curious about his motives. Does he WANT to be President? It doesn't really seem to suit his style.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#75 Feb 17 2016 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
It doesn't matter what he wants. It is his destiny.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#76 Feb 17 2016 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
And after that, who knows? Say JEB! or Rubio pulls away from the rest of the field to a strong second or even a weak first place. Will Trump go quietly at that point?

If the field is still 4-5 people in March, I don't see how Trump loses. He's still polling 35-40% nationally and that seems to be his polling in most states as well. His support isn't especially deep but it is very wide. If the rest of the vote is getting split up, he's going to get a (perhaps) insurmountable delegate lead, at least until very late in the season when states like California get around to voting.

South Carolina assigns its delegates in a winner-takes-all by district. So if the current SC polling holds true across all or most of SC, Trump will walk away with most of the delegates. Worse, Cruz (and the rest) will get zero making them far behind Trump in the tallies.

Quote:
I'm really curious about his motives. Does he WANT to be President? It doesn't really seem to suit his style.

I'm willing to guess that he went into it more on a lark but, when you're the front runner and everyone (well a plurality of everyone) loves you, it appeals to your ego and you're not likely to say "Nah, just funnin' ya". I think any illusions about him backing out are just wishful fantasy. I could see his ego staking out a 3rd party run to both try and win but also to torpedo a candidate/group (say, Cruz and the RNC) that he intensely dislikes. If I was a Republican voter, and not a Trump voter of course, I'd be very, very worried right now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 325 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)