|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42772 Posts
On October 22 2015 05:47 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2015 05:31 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2015 05:20 frazzle wrote:On October 22 2015 05:02 KwarK wrote:
I don't know exactly what "Russia's backdoor" means to you but Iraq is a far distance from Russia. Iraq is as far from Russia as Milwaukee is from Minneapolis. If Honduras and Nicaragua are at our backdoor so to speak, I think you can concede that Iraq is at Russia's backdoor. Nicaragua is not at your backdoor. New York is closer to Moscow than Vladivostok but I'm not about to use that fact to prove that New York is on Russia's backdoor, all it proves is that Russia is pretty big. Perhaps backyard is the better term. In any case the exact term is unimportant, it is the sense I was trying, and apparently failing, to convey that matters. You could argue over what "close by" means, but it would be disingenuous to use your comparison. Iraq is a mere 400 miles from North-South-Ossetia in which Russia was recently involved in militarily. Iraq is 600 miles from Crimea. We're not talking Siberia or meaningless Russian territories. Meanwhile Iraq is nearly 7,000 miles from the United States. Are we really going to argue over this point? In terms of proximity, without knowing anything else, I think it is reasonable to say that one would think it more likely for Russia to be involved in Iraq than the United States, or to put it in geo-political terms, for Iraq to be in Russia's sphere of influence.
So your argument is that because Iraq is in the United State's sphere of influence (citation needed, also the US is a global superpower, if anywhere is, everywhere is) then Iraq is in Russia's back door because Russia is closer to Iraq than the United States?
Sphere of influence and back door are different things and Russia and the United States are different countries. Proximity alone is a very poor measure of influence, the UAE is closer than Russia but nobody is saying Iraq is within their sphere of influence.
Your claim was that there was a historical Russian interest and presence in the Persian Gulf. There was not. It was simply untrue. During the era of the Soviet Union being a superpower the Persian Gulf was part of their sphere, but so was literally every country. That's what being a superpower entails. When you're a superpower your interests are global. The US is a superpower, that's why the US has interests in the Persian Gulf. Russia is not a superpower. Russia is barely a regional power. Russian has no historical interests in the Persian Gulf, an area it has never controlled, and being 400 miles away may, in your opinion, make somewhere your "back door' but that's a meaningless term you've yet to define.
|
On October 22 2015 06:00 KwarK wrote:
So your argument is that because Iraq is in the United State's sphere of influence (citation needed, also the US is a global superpower, if anywhere is, everywhere is) then Iraq is in Russia's back door because Russia is closer to Iraq than the United States?
Sphere of influence and back door are different things and Russia and the United States are different countries. Proximity alone is a very poor measure of influence, the UAE is closer than Russia but nobody is saying Iraq is within their sphere of influence.
Your claim was that there was a historical Russian interest and presence in the Persian Gulf. There was not. It was simply untrue. During the era of the Soviet Union being a superpower the Persian Gulf was part of their sphere, but so was literally every country. That's what being a superpower entails. When you're a superpower your interests are global. The US is a superpower, that's why the US has interests in the Persian Gulf. Russia is not a superpower. Russia is barely a regional power. Russian has no historical interests in the Persian Gulf, an area it has never controlled, and being 400 miles away may, in your opinion, make somewhere your "back door' but that's a meaningless term you've yet to define.
-Sigh- No. You keep making and tearing down straw men, ignoring whole parts of my posts (regarding the Soviet Union's involvement in Iraq, and Russia's invasion of Persia), and nitpicking on definitions in addition to displaying what seems like outright hostility. Iraq is really close to Russia and not really close to the US. Why are we debating that outside of trollishness? Just concede it and then argue that it doesn't matter.
My original post replying to concerns of Russian aid to Iraq simply pointed out that Russia/Soviet Union historically (by which I include the late 20th century) has had close relations with Syria and Iraq. One shouldn't expect that relationship to end simply because the US deposed Saddam Hussein. If the US did expect that relationship to end entirely, then the US should have annexed Iraq.
Russia has an interest in what happens in this region so close to it, in much the same way that it worries over missile and anti-missile placements in Poland. Russia offering arms or assistance to Iraq is not in itself reason to conclude that the US has lost the region to Russian influence. Your comments about Russia not being a superpower only enhance this point. The more they get involved in Iraq and Syria, the more that it will be a strain on their resources in a much greater magnitude than it has been a strain on US resources.
|
United States42772 Posts
You seem to believe that your original point which I disputed was that Russia was closer to Iraq than the United States. I suggest you reread your own posts. At no point did I argue that the US is closer, I argued that distance is irrelevant to the United States because the United States is the sole global superpower. Russia is not a superpower, 400 miles is pretty far and your only response to me pointing out the distance has been to mention Nicaragua and back doors,
|
On October 22 2015 06:34 KwarK wrote:
You seem to believe that your original point which I disputed was that Russia was closer to Iraq than the United States. I suggest you reread your own posts. At no point did I argue that the US is closer, I argued that distance is irrelevant to the United States because the United States is the sole global superpower. Russia is not a superpower, 400 miles is pretty far and your only response to me pointing out the distance has been to mention Nicaragua and back doors,
Oh come on. You:I don't know exactly what "Russia's backdoor" means to you but Iraq is a far distance from Russia.
You literally contested what it means to be close to and far from. We had to waste time arguing over that.
And if you read my posts, you'll find numerous mentions and links to specific historical Russian/Soviet involvements in Persia/Iran/Iraq/Syria. You made the strong case that Russia has never had any influence in the region. My responses point out the actual historical interferences and relationships Russia/USSR has had with the region. Meanwhile we wasted time on the definition of backdoor.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well crap i thought biden was running then he was not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2015 03:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
always_winter is basically correct, but even given the Soviets instigated the entire Afghanistan debacle, there's no denying the U.S. played a role in exacerbating the situation by funding insurgents. There's a couple books on the subject I read (quite awhile ago) called Ghost Wars (about the U.S.'s clandestine operations in Afghanistan up till around 9/11) and the Bin Ladens. Not sure how good they are from a scholarly perspective, but I found them to be decent reads.
Similarly, we can say the U.S. did the same thing in Iran. There was a stable government and we overthrew it to install someone who was more favorable to us. The backlash came, and Iran is what it is today.
the cia would tell you the U.S. played a limited part in the rise of the afghan resistance. it was mainly the pakistani ISI.
|
On October 22 2015 05:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Have to see the audacity of Paul Ryan whose lost of his demands to being speaker is family leave when majority of Americans don't even receive that. Show nested quote +Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) made clear what would need to happen for him to jump into the speaker's race. But the conservative hardliners that have been roiling their own leadership aren't about to make it easy for him
"With a lot of the folks in the Freedom Caucus, he's still up in the air," Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) -- speaking of the group blamed for pushing Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to resign and causing his presumed successor House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to withdraw his candidacy -- told TPM.
"Most folks have never been used to someone applying for a job and telling you, 'I don't do windows, I don't do beds," Salmon said
After being begged by many members to jump in the race, Ryan laid out his conditions Tuesday -- a unified party, weekends with his family, and the nixing of procedural maneuvers hardliners often used to threaten coups against the speaker. Coming out of a conference meeting Wednesday morning, some conservatives were rubbed the wrong by some of those demands, as well as the demand-making itself.
"His list of demands were so bold, they pass into almost the unreasonable," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on CNN Wednesday morning.
Boehner announced Wednesday that caucus elections for speaker will take place Oct. 28 and the full floor vote on Oct. 29. Ryan said he wanted by Friday the endorsement of three influential conference groups across the party's spectrum: the Freedom Caucus, the more traditionally conservative Republican Study Committee and the pragmatic Tuesday Group. He will have mere days to meet with the groups and round up their support, otherwise the speaker race could be pushed into chaos.
Of most concern to the hardliners is the suggestion that Ryan wanted to get rid of what is know as the motion to vacate the chair. Source
Sigh, Just tell em to fuck off and save your career lol. No one wants the speaker job because of those idiots
|
On October 22 2015 07:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2015 03:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
always_winter is basically correct, but even given the Soviets instigated the entire Afghanistan debacle, there's no denying the U.S. played a role in exacerbating the situation by funding insurgents. There's a couple books on the subject I read (quite awhile ago) called Ghost Wars (about the U.S.'s clandestine operations in Afghanistan up till around 9/11) and the Bin Ladens. Not sure how good they are from a scholarly perspective, but I found them to be decent reads.
Similarly, we can say the U.S. did the same thing in Iran. There was a stable government and we overthrew it to install someone who was more favorable to us. The backlash came, and Iran is what it is today. the cia would tell you the U.S. played a limited part in the rise of the afghan resistance. it was mainly the pakistani ISI.
Charlie Wilson says hi. (not sure if this relates to what your talking about but funded afghani's pretty heavily)
|
Charles Koch is giving an interview on NPR and he's getting eviscerated
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2015 07:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2015 07:24 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2015 03:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
always_winter is basically correct, but even given the Soviets instigated the entire Afghanistan debacle, there's no denying the U.S. played a role in exacerbating the situation by funding insurgents. There's a couple books on the subject I read (quite awhile ago) called Ghost Wars (about the U.S.'s clandestine operations in Afghanistan up till around 9/11) and the Bin Ladens. Not sure how good they are from a scholarly perspective, but I found them to be decent reads.
Similarly, we can say the U.S. did the same thing in Iran. There was a stable government and we overthrew it to install someone who was more favorable to us. The backlash came, and Iran is what it is today. the cia would tell you the U.S. played a limited part in the rise of the afghan resistance. it was mainly the pakistani ISI. Charlie Wilson says hi. (not sure if this relates to what your talking about but funded afghani's pretty heavily)
cia involvement was limited to funding, tech (stinger in later stage of the war) and intel. in contrast the ISI did all the organizational groundwork, ran recruitment and did the purchase of weapons from china to give to the militants. it's primarily a ISI idea with some cia venture capitaling. the passive u.s. investor did not know pakistan would be islamicizing these militants until decades later.
you might want to read up on this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq
|
On October 22 2015 05:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Have to see the audacity of Paul Ryan whose lost of his demands to being speaker is family leave when majority of Americans don't even receive that. Show nested quote +Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) made clear what would need to happen for him to jump into the speaker's race. But the conservative hardliners that have been roiling their own leadership aren't about to make it easy for him
"With a lot of the folks in the Freedom Caucus, he's still up in the air," Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) -- speaking of the group blamed for pushing Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to resign and causing his presumed successor House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to withdraw his candidacy -- told TPM.
"Most folks have never been used to someone applying for a job and telling you, 'I don't do windows, I don't do beds," Salmon said
After being begged by many members to jump in the race, Ryan laid out his conditions Tuesday -- a unified party, weekends with his family, and the nixing of procedural maneuvers hardliners often used to threaten coups against the speaker. Coming out of a conference meeting Wednesday morning, some conservatives were rubbed the wrong by some of those demands, as well as the demand-making itself.
"His list of demands were so bold, they pass into almost the unreasonable," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on CNN Wednesday morning.
Boehner announced Wednesday that caucus elections for speaker will take place Oct. 28 and the full floor vote on Oct. 29. Ryan said he wanted by Friday the endorsement of three influential conference groups across the party's spectrum: the Freedom Caucus, the more traditionally conservative Republican Study Committee and the pragmatic Tuesday Group. He will have mere days to meet with the groups and round up their support, otherwise the speaker race could be pushed into chaos.
Of most concern to the hardliners is the suggestion that Ryan wanted to get rid of what is know as the motion to vacate the chair. Source
Gotta love the "Freedom Caucus". Might as well call it the "Do as We Say or Else Caucus". I should write their letter to Paul Ryan, asking him to become speaker for them.
"Dear Rep. Ryan,
We, the Freedom Caucus, have run out of willing and competent candidates to become speaker. We understand that it is a great personal burden and political suicide trying to lead us, and that is why we need you. Oh, and since you're now interviewing for the job of speaker at our request, Fuck You, we have the power. You aren't allowed to make any demands that might make your job more bearable. You must do what we say even though nobody outside of our group has been able to work with us and we can barely work with each other. So, please solve all our problems in exactly the way we want them solved while we destroy your political career.
Sincerely,
Freedom Caucus"
|
On October 22 2015 04:19 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2015 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2015 01:32 xDaunt wrote:Biden is a walking gaffe machine and already a multi-time, failed presidential candidate. Policy and position considerations aside, Biden simply is not a good democratic candidate and never was going to be one, which is why so many on the right found it hilarious that so many democrats were looking at Biden as a potential savior (you may recall snarky posts from me and others on this point). Who is the potential Republican/conservative savior again? We all know it isn't Scott Walker, despite the early conservative hype. Republicans don't need a savior, we actually have a legit race going on.  Ouch. You should show a little mercy for those here that presume to frame the debate.
If Trump's elected, we might need a savior in 2020. He could implement aspects of protectionism and his favored big govt policies whilst doing a terrific job on the border. But that's all thinking too far ahead.
|
A new report on conditions in immigrant detention centers around the country finds a systematic and ongoing failure by the Obama administration to adequately inspect facilities run by public and private contractors. The report alleges a pattern of basic human rights violations leading to deaths, suicides, violence, and sexual assaults in facilities that were given a clean bill of health by federal inspectors.
Those are among the conclusions drawn by the National Immigration Justice Center (NIJC) and Detention Watch Network (DWN) based on a review of government inspection documents for 105 detention facilities. The documents were made public only after three years of litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The report is called Lives in Peril: How Ineffective Inspections Make ICE Complicit in Immigration Detention Abuse.
One of the primary problems is a lack of transparency in the inspection process by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, whose district hosts a privately-run ICE facility in Tacoma.
"Unlike federal prisons, there are no federal standards for conditions in these detention facilities. The conditions are set by ICE. So they determine what the conditions should be and then they audit whether or not they are meeting their own standards, which obviously is a conflict of interest," said Smith.
Why do ICE inspections matter? Take the case of the Eloy Federal Contract Facility in Arizona.
According to the report, Eloy "has the highest number of known deaths of any detention facility, including at least six suicides since 2003." A 2012 ICE inspection report found that the suicide watch room contains "structures of smaller objects that could be used in a suicide attempt." The report alleges frequent sexual assaults and deficient medical care. Also, the report says Eloy has not failed a government inspection since 2006 and ICE did not provide its 2010 inspection report.
Another example: medical care at the Stewart Detention Center (SDC) in Georgia. That facility "had only one doctor and seven nurses to provide medical care for over 1,500 detained men." ICE inspections found the medical staffing to be adequate, "even with five vacant positions in 2011 and 2012." SDC outsourced medical care for more than 775 detainees in 2012.
Source
|
On August 15 2015 01:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2015 01:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2015 01:07 whatisthisasheep wrote:Trump successfully ran Megan Kelley off the air. https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/megyn-kelly-going-vacation-wake-025900141.html Megyn Kelly has decided to go on an unplanned vacation.
]The Fox News correspondent, who faced criticism and controversy following her moderation of the GOP debate earlier this month, is going on vacation for the next 10 days.
Kelly announced the news on Wednesday’s The Kelly File, and Fox News later posted a message from the anchor on their website on Thursday explaining the reason for her temporary absence.
"It's been an interesting week. A long six months, without a vacation for yours truly, do you know that? It's been six months since I've had a vacation. Just ask my assistant," Kelly explained. "So I'll be taking the next week and a half off, spending some time with my husband and my kids, trying to relax."
The newscaster, who's been with Fox News full-time since 2010, said the hardest part of going on vacation is bound to be "is trying to put down the Electronica and unplug it."
"When you go on vacation, I am going to try to look at my little one's faces and go for bike rides and play at the beach and not look at you," Kelly added. "And when I see you back here on the 24th, we'll pick it all up again. Have a great week. See you soon."
Kelly has been facing a slew of aggressive hatred from Donald Trump supporters in the wake of the GOP debate due to what some felt were pointed and aggressive questions. Trump himself has also been railing against the anchor.
During the GOP primary debate, Kelly grilled Trump over past sexist comments towards women.
“You’ve called women you don’t like pigs, dogs, fat slobs and disgusting animals,” Kelly asked the presidential hopeful during the Aug. 6 telecast. “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump responded, before Kelly listed several of Trump’s past targets, including a former Celebrity Apprentice contestant.
“Honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably not be based on the way you’ve treated me,” Trump fired back.
The bad blood between the two doesn’t seem to be letting up anytime soon.
Days after the debate, Trump told CNN that he doesn’t “have a lot of respect for Megyn Kelly – she’s a lightweight,” he said. “She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions and you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of wherever.” Hah. She deserves the shit that she's getting for the cheap shot questions that she asked. Like I said before, all you have to do to torpedo Trump is to ask him real policy questions. He'll probably sink himself with his answers (or lack thereof). Trump has no incentive to give direct answers. He is way ahead in polls and only has something to lose. Clinton is laying low because she only has something to lose by being 4x ahead of Sanders. This has always been the case. When you're ahead, you just keep on being ahead. Trump has no incentive to open himself up for attack by giving silly bullshit answers (Like Huckabee's 6% nonsense). The promises/platform or whatever you want to call it of a candidate this early in the race is purely for the sake of building hype and distinguishing themselves. But it always comes at a cost. Trump being Trump is good enough. Describing a bunch of policy changes would be detrimental to his campaign. You are criticizing him for being safe. Why exactly do you think bullshit answers will carry Trump when they have never been able to carry other candidates in prior primaries (like Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich)? Again, the polls mean little more than dick right now.
Poll: 42 percent of Republicans expect Trump to win nomination
Donald Trump leads another poll of national Republican voters out Wednesday morning, this time from ABC News and The Washington Post.
But this time, a plurality of 42 percent said that they expect Manhattan real-estate mogul, who has never held elected office, to win their party's nomination. And of a list of six top GOP contenders, 43 percent said that he has the best chance of winning next year's general election.
Trump earned 32 percent from Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters in the poll, followed by Ben Carson with 22 percent. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio followed with 10 percent, trailed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 7 percent, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 6 percent, Carly Fiorina at 5 percent, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 3 percent each and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 2 percent. Other candidates earned 1 percent or less support, with 3 percent having no opinion.
Source
|
Paul Ryan is on the verge of becoming the next Speaker of the House after a super-majority of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus agreed to vote for him, while stopping short of a formal endorsement.
Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice-presidential nominee and current chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, had on Tuesday put himself forward conditionally as a compromise candidate to replace John Boehner as Speaker. He said he would only run if he received the endorsement of the Tea Party-affiliated Freedom Caucus in addition to the conservative Republican Study Committee and the moderate Tuesday Group.
The support of the latter two groups was a purely pro forma request, but the challenge for Ryan was the Freedom Caucus, made up of the 40 Tea Party Republicans who helped push Boehner out of office and served an immovable road block to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s chances of succeeding the Ohio Republican. McCarthy, citing the party’s fractures, dropped out of contention earlier in October.
Source
|
On October 22 2015 10:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Paul Ryan is on the verge of becoming the next Speaker of the House after a super-majority of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus agreed to vote for him, while stopping short of a formal endorsement.
Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice-presidential nominee and current chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, had on Tuesday put himself forward conditionally as a compromise candidate to replace John Boehner as Speaker. He said he would only run if he received the endorsement of the Tea Party-affiliated Freedom Caucus in addition to the conservative Republican Study Committee and the moderate Tuesday Group.
The support of the latter two groups was a purely pro forma request, but the challenge for Ryan was the Freedom Caucus, made up of the 40 Tea Party Republicans who helped push Boehner out of office and served an immovable road block to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s chances of succeeding the Ohio Republican. McCarthy, citing the party’s fractures, dropped out of contention earlier in October. Source
House Freedom Caucus Statement on Chairman Paul Ryan’s Speaker Bid
“A supermajority of the House Freedom Caucus has voted to support Paul Ryan's bid to become the next Speaker of the House. Paul is a policy entrepreneur who has developed conservative reforms dealing with a wide variety of subjects, and he has promised to be an ideas-focused Speaker who will advance limited government principles and devolve power to the membership. While no consensus exists among members of the House Freedom Caucus regarding Chairman Ryan's preconditions for serving, we believe that these issues can be resolved within our Conference in due time. We all know that Washington needs to change the way it does business, and we look forward to working with Paul and all our colleagues to enact process reforms that empower individual representatives and restore respect to our institution.”
#1 upvoted comment on their facebook post about it:
YOU CAVED!!!!!! So Paul Ryan wants to be Speaker as long as he can never be removed. He wants all future Speakers to never fear retribution from Members of Congress for doing a bad job. This is just another reason why Paul Ryan does not need to be the next Speaker of the House.
The rest are similar. Ryan might not even hold onto that support until it's actually time to vote lol.
Even Bill Bennett thinks Reagan would get kicked out of the current party.
|
On October 22 2015 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:#1 upvoted comment on their facebook post about it: Show nested quote +YOU CAVED!!!!!! So Paul Ryan wants to be Speaker as long as he can never be removed. He wants all future Speakers to never fear retribution from Members of Congress for doing a bad job. This is just another reason why Paul Ryan does not need to be the next Speaker of the House. The rest are similar.
Mmm Hmm
PAUL RYAN is sellout Progressive!
What a huge mistake! He's a Rino!
Welcome to Wonderland Alice.
|
I have seen a reality distortion field this strong since the apple conference where they announced the IPhone 4.
|
On October 22 2015 09:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2015 04:19 LuckyFool wrote:On October 22 2015 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2015 01:32 xDaunt wrote:Biden is a walking gaffe machine and already a multi-time, failed presidential candidate. Policy and position considerations aside, Biden simply is not a good democratic candidate and never was going to be one, which is why so many on the right found it hilarious that so many democrats were looking at Biden as a potential savior (you may recall snarky posts from me and others on this point). Who is the potential Republican/conservative savior again? We all know it isn't Scott Walker, despite the early conservative hype. Republicans don't need a savior, we actually have a legit race going on. Ouch. You should show a little mercy for those here that presume to frame the debate. If Trump's elected, we might need a savior in 2020. He could implement aspects of protectionism and his favored big govt policies whilst doing a terrific job on the border. But that's all thinking too far ahead.
If Trump's elected the entire country might need a savior in 2020 not just the Republican party lol.
I'm still like 99.9% sure Trump won't win the Republican nomination.
|
It's getting harder and harder to take the assertion that the Republican party isn't guided, (to the degree it can be) by lunatics, seriously. I suppose they still have some time to prove this takeover in the polls and the house is a fluke, but with 40% of republicans already resigned to Trump being most likely to win (with Carson in second in the teens) I think this is all but over.
We'll see if the establishment plan to knock Trump off top doesn't just work against them and make him even more popular, so far their attacks have not hurt him at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
