|
Phlegmish posted:Does he think this will sink Cruz with the Republican base I don't get it Also I'm happy as long as Trump continues to clown on Jeb! and W. Seriously  Jeb! defending Abu Ghraib, he needs to be humiliated as hard as possible after saying that.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Trump, and Rubio are now outright calling Ted Cruz a liar, while Ben Carson says it in a roundabout way. Has a Presidential candidate ever been called a liar like this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
babypolis posted:its the magic of trump. he is whatever you want him to be. They even did a fun study in which they showed Trump supporters videos of him taking opposite sides on the same issue or going on one of his famous verbal meltdowns. The Trump supporters decided to support him despite seeing his more negative aspects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I can't think of any presidential candidate in history who was as broadly hated by his own party as Ted Cruz is. He is incredibly personally unlikable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Makes Cruz seem fake on more things? Does he ever play up his Cuban background? I never got that impression. So who the gently caress cares if he speaks Spanish or not. He was born in Canada and only one of his parents is from Cuba, anyway. On the other hand, if it hurts Cruz somehow, it's good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I can't think of any presidential candidate in history who was as broadly hated by his own party as Ted Cruz is. He is incredibly personally unlikable. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/neurologist-on-what-bugs-him-about-ted-cruzs-face.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Trump's blowup at Cruz was so perfectly genuine. He's just like "Hold up, you're a loving piece of poo poo, dude. You're a nasty guy. NEXT".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
The whole hostile crowd made the debate the most hilarious one so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
I think Trump is in this to win (not what I would have said a year ago). That said, he is a petty and vengeful gently caress. Look at how he attacks JEB! every chance he gets (over possibly a slight from a decade ago). He bashes JEB! every chance he gets even if it does not involve JEB! directly. Last night, there was a moment where Trump was going after Cruz (and I think Rubio) on lying or some other charge. Out of nowhere, he turns the anger at JEB! and just begins unloading. Even when fighting the others, you can tell that Trump is out to destroy JEB! Now think of the anger and vengeance he would have for the RNC as a whole if they did not "treat him fairly". He turn his anger towards the RNC and whomever the nominee is. His people would follow (even his staff is filled with outsiders). Burning the entire down would benefit him and his "brand" a couple of ways: 1) As said above, it is a win situation for him no matter what. He will blame it on the RNC for screwing him over. It can also affect down ticket races if his followers blame all of the RNC for what happened (that would become a question to all R candidates). 2) if he is truly serious about being President, an independent run would give him 4 years (and a probably recession) to rebuild the RNC in his image. The RNC does not control the narrative when it comes to Trump (as this election shows) so Trump can lead the narrative that he is the prodigal son returning to make the RNC great again. Trump would benefit more from a Democrat President so he has an enemy to attack so the 3rd party run would benefit him in the long run. I am still waiting for Trumplicans and Trumpocrats to be used in this election. Bizarro Kanyon fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I actually get the feeling that the 9/11 thing isn't planned and is sort of personal to Trump. I mean, he probably does know people who died in the attacks, and the "he kept us safe!!!!" line personally irritates him. There was no percentage in that line for Trump - it won't even play all that well with voters outside New York in the general. yea it was the first time he's ever seemed genuinely angry to me. And it was for Bush did 9/11. fuckin awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the democrats are going to fill scalia's seat and heller is going to be overturned Heller will never be overturned, it's too edge-case of a case. The only thing it prevents is an outright ban on all guns kept in the home. Licensing, registration, storage requirements, number of guns owned limitations, type of gun regulations, etc, are all perfectly fine under Heller. For example, a law that limited firearm ownership to a single revolver kept in a mandatory gun safe and inspected yearly by federal gun inspectors uner a $10,000 annual licensing fee would arguably satisfy all the requirements of Heller; anything short of an outright ban is arguably allowable regulation. SO I don't think Heller will be overturned. It'll just be limited to the point of irrelevancy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
A Neurotic Jew posted:yea it was the first time he's ever seemed genuinely angry to me. And it was for Bush did 9/11. fuckin awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:Trump is a drat mastermind. Regarding Trump, even some of his more extreme positions he can easily pivot. The whole "let's build a wall to keep out the browns" talk can easily be pivoted to a "it'll stop cartels from bringing in drugs and illegal poo poo" dogwhistle. And yeah, if it's Trump vs. Hillary, Hillary will probably lose. Good news is that Hillary ain't gonna be the nominee -- unless Bernie gets shot. If it ends up being Trump vs. Bernie, Trump will also have much of the corporate media (not to mention the GOP establishment, chamber of commerce, etc.) behind him, framing things from right-wing perspectives and schilling/spinning for him. I'm under no illusion that it will be an easy fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Heller will never be overturned, it's too edge-case of a case. The only thing it prevents is an outright ban on all guns kept in the home. Licensing, registration, storage requirements, number of guns owned limitations, type of gun regulations, etc, are all perfectly fine under Heller. For example, a law that limited firearm ownership to a single revolver kept in a mandatory gun safe and inspected yearly by federal gun inspectors uner a $10,000 annual licensing fee would arguably satisfy all the requirements of Heller; anything short of an outright ban is arguably allowable regulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Montasque posted:In 2002 Errol Morris interviewed Donald Trump about Citizen Kane: I found this fascinating. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Regarding Trump, even some of his more extreme positions he can easily pivot. The whole "let's build a wall to keep out the browns" talk can easily be pivoted to a "it'll stop cartels from bringing in drugs and illegal poo poo" dogwhistle. I don't think it's really a dogwhistle when he specifically comes out and says that it will stop the cartels from bringing in heroin, like he did in the New Hampshire debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:I don't think it's really a dogwhistle when he specifically comes out and says that it will stop the cartels from bringing in heroin, like he did in the New Hampshire debate. I think you're proving my point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Angry Trump phone call goodness: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-doubles-attacks-bush-family/story?id=36929048
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You don't need a case squarely on point to overrule Heller, all you need is to take a 2nd Amendment case. Why rule that a law satisfies Heller if you can just overturn it? Judges don't like to make rulings in excess of facts of the precise case in front of them. You'll very rarely see sweeping rulings from any Supreme Court justice. Broad rulings that go beyond the particular facts of the case are the ones that get overturned, and no judge likes to be overturned; by the time you get to the Supreme Court this is habit. This is especially true for highly political issues (like gun control); as I think you've pointed out before, Roberts doesn't like to *look* like he's making political decisions. (I'd also posit that this was one reason the Warren Court issued so many broad civil-rights era rulings -- Earl Warren's background was as a governor, not as a judge, and he didn't have this habit of restraint). Heller was specifically written with that judicial tendency in mind and only covers the particular facts in it; it expressly says it only invalidates total bans on all guns kept in the home for personal defense, and all other regulation is still fine. So instead of bald sentences like "this overturns Heller" what you'll see is opinions that render it an effective nullity but still technically don't "overturn" it. The road to gun control isn't overturning Heller and a subsequent national ban; the road to Heller is something following Miller, i.e., a NFA act for all firearms where you pay a thousand-dollar tax stamp per gun (which would still be perfectly fine under Heller).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Montasque posted:They gently caress him over at the convention then prepare for a third party run by Trump and a complete loss of faith in the Republican party from the base. Convention is in July though, well past a lot of the independent filing deadlines. https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates#Requirements_for_independents
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I’ve long held that the second amendment should only apply to the sorts of firearms available circa 1791, made using period‐appropriate tools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
If Jeb somehow weasels out the nom, Trump 100% runs as an independent or 3rd party, regardless of other motivations. He may love winning, but vengeance er, trumps that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
The GOP would be knowingly throwing away the race if they hosed over Trump while he had a majority of support in the party. One of the common themes with Trump supporters is that there is no second choice for them. It's go big or go home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’ve long held that the second amendment should only apply to the sorts of firearms available circa 1791, made using period‐appropriate tools. All I'm saying is that the NRA claims to be for second amendment rights, but I don't see them protecting our rights to carry swords, crossbows, and fancy knives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Montasque posted:In 2002 Errol Morris interviewed Donald Trump about Citizen Kane: Trump is like the ultimate tragicomedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Don't jump buddy https://twitter.com/sabrinasiddiqui/status/698957064471777280
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’ve long held that the second amendment should only apply to the sorts of firearms available circa 1791, made using period‐appropriate tools. The problem there is that then you've set a precedent that would be used in 1st amendment cases (i.e., freedom of the press only applies to physical ink printer's presses) -- a point that's actually expressly made in the text of the Heller decision. Constitutional law is a minefield and rulings on the 2nd could detonate in other amendments. One big way Heller was a good decision was that it mostly took the Constitutional argument off the table -- "ok, you have a right to keep a gun in the home, but the government has the right to regulate the poo poo out of that gun".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:I think you're proving my point. What point would that be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:If Jeb somehow weasels out the nom, Trump 100% runs as an independent or 3rd party, regardless of other motivations. He may love winning, but vengeance er, trumps that. Jeb! is not going to win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
That's almost sad but gently caress him. Dude should have seen this coming. He had a cush gig and he threw it away for a pie in the sky shot at the white house.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
a cop posted:The GOP would be knowingly throwing away the race if they hosed over Trump while he had a majority of support in the party. One of the common themes with Trump supporters is that there is no second choice for them. It's go big or go home. Amen brother. The neoconservative & progressive thing just ain't working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Here's a fun fact: the South Carolina Republican threshold to be allocated a convention delegate is 15%. Currently, that leaves only Trump, Cruz and Rubio (well almost) as viable according to the RCP average of polls. Kasich alsobecomes viable ina few of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Can anyone think of a scenario that Jeb wins that doesn't involve current candidates dying or the press discovering multiple career-ending scandals? I can't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Trump, and Rubio are now outright calling Ted Cruz a liar, while Ben Carson says it in a roundabout way. I remember when the president was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnF4rQQktfs
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Can anyone think of a scenario that Jeb wins that doesn't involve current candidates dying or the press discovering multiple career-ending scandals? I can't. It turns out Bin Laden's back, and there's only one Bush who can finish the job. THIS SUMMER..
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:What point would that be? Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. Top Bunk Wanker's response explicates this -- to him the messaging authentically comes across as "let's keep out drugs." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Betting market report: for SC, Trump dipped during the debate but then recovered and exceeded his old position, putting him at 82%. Nationally, not much has changed, except that Trump and Rubio are consolidating odds away from the rest of the candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Trump wouldn't need to win to "win" by going third party: he would need to beat the Republican candidate. As long as he does that, it was the Republican who stole his nomination that threw the Presidency to the Democrats, not him. I'm voting for this timeline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Can anyone think of a scenario that Jeb wins that doesn't involve current candidates dying or the press discovering multiple career-ending scandals? I can't. It wouldn't require candidates dying, just like mass incapacitation. Comas would suffice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It wouldn't require candidates dying, just like mass incapacitation. Comas would suffice. He's barely beating Carson though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:02
|
|