|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:Worrisome. Conservatives think Democrats are seriously worried about Cruz based on that email from the DNC? Sure, and the NRA is also seriously worried that Obama is personally going to come to your house and take away your gun too.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:Worrisome. quote:“If you’re like us, just reading that phrase probably sent shivers down your spine or produced a pretty serious roll of the eyes,” hahaha
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
John Bolton went to Yale  e: So did Pataki! Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Does anyone really enjoy Ted Cruz walking around the stage aimlessly while he's talking as opposed to standing at a podium? What is that supposed to convey?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Does anyone really enjoy Ted Cruz walking around the stage aimlessly while he's talking as opposed to standing at a podium? What is that supposed to convey? he uses the lateral movement style they teach you in Debate its supposed to make you look dynamic PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
There's your first establishment endorsement:quote:Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh stated that Ted Cruz’s presidential announcement speech “really resonated with me,” predicted “this is going to resonate with people when they hear it,” and declared Cruz’s speech “a great, great start” on Monday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:now stuff like the GOP response to the "Arab voters" comments in Israeli elections where the GOP is in full defense of racially split voting and racial fear GOTV. The GOP also threw away the Arab vote in the wake of 9/11 and hasn't really looked back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:There's your first establishment endorsement: Rush is not establishment (in the sense that he is not a representative of the Wall Street wing of the party) nor is that a true endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
I hope Bernie goes full troll in his campaign hires a communist klezmer band from europe to compose the campaign theme song publishes an official First Against The Wall list as part of his platform wears a xicolli and some ammo bandoliers to the debates
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
I was shocked that the last photo in the series wasn't a Breitbart staffer actually giving Cruz a blow job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Looks like someone went around earlier and scooped up a bunch of Ted Cruz domain names, making them redirect to healthcare.gov and such
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Cruz is too wily to think he's got more than a 10% chance at President. He makes big moves though, that's his thing. He went from nothing to skipping a tour in the House and went straight to the Senate. He's like a canny investment guru recognizing Tea Party people are undervalued in terms of voting power, and they've so far had to try and drive this untapped power source with pizza barons and ex-witches. He slotted right into that driver's seat and whipped the poo poo out of his races. He drives this thing like someone trained to ride harder stuff, and by contrast Tea Party voters are long-broken in and take to the saddle real well. They've been waiting for this guy. He jumped into the Senate and immediately made himself, a junior senator, the biggest name in there. Power comes next. That is what I believe the presidential run is all about. He's too goddamn clever at this to think he really has a chance. But as another TURBO BOOST on his political ambitions, a failed presidential run will further increase his profile. Who else even comes close? Maybe he slots right into Governor of Texas next, and that's a layup after another term or two in the Senate with these kinds of headlines. After that he could have some establishment credentials and run again for president, or he could have enough national profile to hit the lecture circuit and rake in Clinton-level money off the power tie crowd for the next 20 years. Investments here and there, and he creates a financial/political dynasty by doing what he loves. This is a guy playing that 5th dimensional chess or whatever, but he's not trying to capture the King. He appears at first to be losing badly, but continues to advance up the board somehow. People laugh at him, oh look he's getting destroyed at this game of chess what an idiot! But his strange moves are winning this private game of his. By losing, he wins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I believe Cruz and Carson are the only candidates in the Republican field this year who attended Ivies. If we're counting Jindal he went to the "lesser Ivy" that is Brown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:01
|
|
Nope, Trump went to UPenn.
|
Has anyone pointed out yet that Ted Cruz's logo looks like the Al Jazeera america logo
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Has anyone pointed out yet that Ted Cruz's logo looks like the Al Jazeera america logo I'm really excited to see Ted Cruz and Chris Christie go at it in the debates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Mr. Stingly posted:Cruz is too wily to think he's got more than a 10% chance at President. He makes big moves though, that's his thing. He went from nothing to skipping a tour in the House and went straight to the Senate. He's like a canny investment guru recognizing Tea Party people are undervalued in terms of voting power, and they've so far had to try and drive this untapped power source with pizza barons and ex-witches. He slotted right into that driver's seat and whipped the poo poo out of his races. He drives this thing like someone trained to ride harder stuff, and by contrast Tea Party voters are long-broken in and take to the saddle real well. They've been waiting for this guy. And by winning you mean building a TERRIFIC mailing list of rubes that he can enrich himself off of for the next 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
quote:This Is What Happens When You Hit On Tinder Matches Using Only Ted Cruz Quotes Insightful for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Does anyone really enjoy Ted Cruz walking around the stage aimlessly while he's talking as opposed to standing at a podium? What is that supposed to convey? That's a pretty common public speaking tactic unless you are bound to a podium for some reason, like the SOTU address. See: virtually every business pitch and TED (heh) Talks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I'm really excited to see Ted Cruz and Chris Christie go at it in the debates. Christie is already dead in the water, he might not make it to the debates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Christie is already dead in the water, he might not make it to the debates. The last article I saw about him was like 2 weeks ago, detailing how his donor pitch right now is basically "Yes we are still running for president!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
One of my professor's assistants is convinced that the Democrats are trying to tear Hilary Clinton apart and that Scott Walker would win against Warren in 2016. Can this be proven wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:One of my professor's assistants is convinced that the Democrats are trying to tear Hilary Clinton apart and that Scott Walker would win against Warren in 2016. Can this be proven wrong? Yes, and it will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Hey so I mentioned Steve Sailer earlier but now I think the poster I was responding to might have been referring to Sean Trende, who also had a "missing conservative voters" theory but didn't go full racist assbag Also, the awful app insists "assbag" isn't a word, that needs to change
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Scott Walker gets more popular every day he is mocked. Cruz the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Hold up, I glossed over this because I thought it was a joke, attendance at the Cruz announcement was actually mandatory at Liberty University. That is hosed up on so many levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Scott Walker gets more popular every day he is mocked. Cruz the opposite. Scott Walker is better are convincing people that don't pay attention to politics that he's not hair on fire insane than Cruz is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:lol fuckin ted cruz will be lucky to make it to iowa if he's announcing in march, dude gotta be broke as a joke and unless he's planning to santorum it across Iowa I don't really see him having enough cash to really stay in the mix Santorum really was an inspiring tale of a brave populist underdog fighting the good fight against the monolithic moneyed interests. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Hold up, I glossed over this because I thought it was a joke, attendance at the Cruz announcement was actually mandatory at Liberty University. That is hosed up on so many levels. He is probably the first Republican announcing to get anywhere near an Obama-level crowd. Because obviously threatening the student body with account-holds is a great motivator, like hunger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Hold up, I glossed over this because I thought it was a joke, attendance at the Cruz announcement was actually mandatory at Liberty University. That is hosed up on so many levels. Yes and no. He piggy backed it on their Convocation, which is mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Hold up, I glossed over this because I thought it was a joke, attendance at the Cruz announcement was actually mandatory at Liberty University. That is hosed up on so many levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
I'm watching Cruz now. His tie choice was terrible. This speech demands a Stars n' Stripes tie. His image team is in for a hell of a time with that brylcreemed hair too. I look forward to him digging deep into the Gipper's wardrobe as he starts to get desperate. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:I'm watching Cruz now. His tie choice was terrible. This speech demands a Stars n' Stripes tie. He really is a smarmy looking dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:republican identity politics is structured around the way you choose to prioritize your hatred. Good post. Really, that authoritarian style is based all about how you define your ingroup, and whether you believe sufficient walls are being built and punishments handed down to your outgroup. So, the ultimate Republican candidate for 2016 is the one who is most willing to divide and conquer, not to unify. Let's look at 2012, and see what lessons the Republican id might have learned. So, Romney was the establishment candidate in a fairly reliable recent trend of runners-up getting the next turn at being the nominee. Unfortunately, he was burdened down by a lot of obvious failures and weaknesses, none of which were money. Mostly, it was the perception that he was too moderate to get Republicans sufficiently scared and excited, or else why would 2012 have been a merry-go-round of other candidates popping up to rise to the top? Why did we even think about the "Romneyssiance"? Well, because if the old nominating structure was in place, we'd be looking at Santorum as the only real "next in line", since he was runner-up in states taken during the primaries, and just... look at him. He's a Catholic loser in a sweater vest. What is it that the Republicans, en masse, really need out of a candidate to not fall apart? If we look at the field, it can't be any of the qualities we seem to associate with whatever WE believe is "presidential", or else neither we nor the DNC would react with existential horror at these "monsters" that are literally every choice a Republican will have in 2016. I mean, let's go down the list: scratch off your president being an academic superstar, some Harvard Law Review guy. Like Joementum said, we only have two dudes who went to Ivies. Nor do any of the candidates in the field have the kind of long-term, serious political career that used to characterize the Bob Doles and McCains of the establishment. It's a handful of one-term or short-term senators and governors, and people who haven't governed in almost a decade. Moreover, when we look at these candidates, it's clear that they can't run on legislative accomplishments. I have to ask the question, "If you put together the entire Republican primary field, from Cruz to Rubio, and I'm being charitable by not including Carson and Trump, what is the sum total of their governmental achievements?" So it's not experience, it's not education, it's not actual policy achievement. Why DID each of the 2012 candidates crash, in reality? Well, the game, in retrospect, was just running against whatever Romney was, because he was still able to claim that it was "his turn". Can someone confirm, was this the first and only time that three different Republicans won the first three primaries? And now, we lack even an establishment candidate. I don't think it's a bad metaphor to imagine that Romney was presented on a plate first, and he was so gross that the primary-voting Republicans just went EWWW and tried a taste of each of the other things on the plate. Just like PupsofWar said in the post I quoted, not a single candidate really hit their ingroup/outgroup tastebuds properly. Now the 2016 primary field doesn't even have a main course, served up steaming-hot, front and center, like Romney in 2012, or to the nth power like we're getting Hillary on the other side this time. It's just a garbage plate. Now, the reason I'm not willing to write off Ted Cruz is because he's just another piece of garbage surrounded by garbage. I mean, who can make any claim to stand on some high ground and poo poo on Cruz? Walker's a college dropout who is basically Giuliani with 9/11 crossed out in crayon and replaced by killing unions; that's how he's going to take on ISIS. I dare Jeb Bush to try to basically outdo Al Gore, and try to run a whole presidential campaign with his fingers in his ears going LA LA LA LA while everyone else points out that he's a Bush of the Bushes, and he has a Latina wife. Who else you got? What has Marco Rubio done other than turn himself into a Messican-lookin immigration poison pill? Who you got? Rand Paul? Whose circus is this and whose monkeys? Certainly not the RNC any more. Is it the Kochs or Adelson? I mean there are a few known knowns that we can point at: There's been an unprecedented dogwhistle messaging war conducted over the past 6 years, and who cares if it affected Democratic voters at all? I do know that you'd have to work your rear end off to find a real, primary-voting Republican who isn't just going to the polls to desperately try to stop, reverse, and kill Obummer. On that point, the messaging war has been won; if Republicans cared about governing, intelligence, statesmanship, experience, or nobility, there would be at least ONE candidate out there who wasn't embarrassing as poo poo to anyone who cared about these things. No, we're getting down to brass tacks now. Scary things are happening in America and the world, and Republicans are worried, because they feel themselves sliding down off the top of the crab bucket. There's no time for statesmanship or compromises; we need the angriest, nastiest, most vicious, selfish, and aggressive candidate you got. You know why? Because that's the golem we've made out of Hillary Clinton, and even if you as a Democrat don't believe these things, the Republicans certainly do. So, I come back around full-circle. Hillary is just as terrifying, if not more to Republicans than Obama is, after both Cheney and Obama have expanded the power and presence of the executive. They know she actually used her time as a Senator to cozy right up to Wall Street, that she was shaking every hand in the world as SecState, and that she's running uncontested after having nearly fought Obama to a standstill in 2008. I genuinely believe that a person we would look at as a valid, believable, electable candidate is no longer what the GOP is looking for, and that they are confident that those qualities don't matter: they've won a messaging war that will bring every self-identifying Republican out to the polls just to keep the terrifying Clintons out of office again, and avenge the stolen elections of 2008 and 2012. They will pick whichever candidate promises the most blood, and makes the gore most believable and graphic. If Ted Cruz can channel his gigantic, petty ego into enough terrifying "your country is on FIRE!", child-scaring, baseless attacks against minorities, women, and anyone left of him (LITERALLY EVERYONE, see Snakes n Cakes' chart), then he will succeed in this year's field, because that's what Republicans want. The only debate we can have here is which one of this year's competitors can out-nasty Cruz. Remember, like PupsofWar said, the fracturing of the Republican base is a question of who they hate the most, and whom they most want to see suffer for their own personal benefit. So, who can create the most hateful, destructive platform, and convince the billionaires to fund them? I can anticipate the objections you have already about how the primary candidate has to shift to the middle in the general to capture the "middle". I am only going to express doubt that such a thing is even possible this time around. Meanwhile, the Democrats have a problem of an altogether different, and I contend, more serious problem, and it's all about "the middle". There's no drama surrounding Hillary, and no guarantees that she can pull off the kind of massive PR victory that Obama did. Eight years of Obama have left Democratic voters complacent, not angry. Being handed a selected primary candidate who is old news, and who even the most stalwart liberal has to admit has some skeletons in her closet is not the ticket to an electrifying, stimulating presidential run. Because she's a Democrat, she's going to have to fight to unify her base into something that will galvanize and get out there and vote. Obama did this. That's why he also got a lovely 2008 Congress full of DINOs; because he won the middle, and brought a bunch of previous non-voters out to vote. Meanwhile, all her opponent will have to do is sow division and discord. Which do you think is easier? And as the first Republican candidate for 2016, Cruz's lovely, smug face, verbal aggression, complete obliviousness to the concerns of any other human being and proven track record as a divisive rear end in a top hat, combined with a litany of policies loudly promising death to the poor and minorities, and the possibility that he'll win the hearts and minds of the Kochs and Adelson make him specimen #1 in what a winning Republican candidate might look like in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Santorum really was an inspiring tale of a brave populist underdog fighting the good fight against the monolithic moneyed interests. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Ted Cruz is about to have his book come out, correct? I thought that most candidates THOUGHT about running while hawking their books and wears. Does this change anything since he is officially running now? If not, then he just found out a way to pump up his book sales even more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Maybe Mitt is trying to set himself up as the White Horse candidate who is called back to serve after everyone decides to cliff dive into the Grand Canyon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Ted Cruz shut the government down and still can't exactly tell you why. He is also a very viable candidate for the GOP presidential ticket. Welcome to America 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
I swear there's a Jerry Fallwell quote about how Catholics are idolaters out there somewhere and I wish I could find it. Santorum and Cruz would rip each other apart. I attended a Southern Baptist church where we regularly attended Liberty-sponsored events and were taught how to evangelize to Catholics. Even if he never said something about it in the open to protect his political power on the right, anti-Catholicism is definitely something that's a part of the American Baptist canon. Then again, they did settle for a Mormon last time, though that one Perry surrogate let the official line on Mormonism (it's a false religion and a cult) slip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:55
|
|
