|
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. |
On January 27 2016 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2016 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 06:18 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 05:40 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 05:29 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
People still seem to think somehow, someway, Trump won't win, no idea what they are thinking.
Trump represents precisely what I've been saying the Republican party has been for years and people like introvert have been snidely saying I didn't know anything about.
You still don't. For instance, in the last Iowa poll I saw, Trump's most commanding lead is among moderate and liberal republicans. That's not what you've been saying at all. Besides, casting the same incorrect analysis on Trump as you have for years on most Republicans doesn't make you right. Considering how you respond to my positions I don't think you even have a clue what I've been saying. I'm curious though what it is you think I was saying that was incorrect? I will say that in the context of this "does Trump win the nomination?" question that he very well could, I've always said it was possible. But most people seem to know why Trump is doing well. The GOP apparatus sucks, and the voters are tired of it. Have you really? On July 11 2015 13:47 Introvert wrote:
... What's more interesting is how much the lefties are obsessed with him, when most of them (should) know he isn't going to win. I stand corrected. I know I've been saying he could win for a while, guess I forgot about that. Glad you went looking though, lol. That's months ago. I just remember stuff that's all. So I knew you weren't telling the truth when you said that you "always said it was possible" I knew from before the first debate that Trump would crush the competition, and you said he wouldn't and tried to dismiss those who saw what you didn't. Now you're portraying that you've always thought Trump winning was a possibility despite your previous flat out dismissal of Trump's chances You thought Trump would lose, Trump is crushing the competition as I predicted. At minimum, I simply had a better read on the Republican race than you did. About Trump, yes. And I genuinely don't recall making that previous prediction. And I was wrong, Trump is a bigger part of this than I forsaw, but that hardly lends credence to the multiple other areas in which your understanding is lackluster. Every time you make an argument about conservatives and tax revenue, for example, I cringe. But that's a different topic I suppose. I think most people didn't expect Trump to get this far and those who did probably did so for the wrong reasons. Its all fine and now we can just sit back and watch the horror show unfold >< I thought he would do well because he would say anything and was able to do it in a way where Republican's would believe it. Think that was pretty much exactly what's got him here. @Intro Kudos for admitting you were wrong about Trump and I was right. What did I say about "conservatives and tax revenue" that makes you cringe?
Without going into detail, anytime someone says, for example "conservatives should support handing out needles for addicts because it costs less" misses multiple points. One reason is because that's not the end goal a conservative is trying to achieve. This is the same reason most people on the right don't mind spending a lot on military, in principle.
I'll leave you to noodle on the rest.
|
United States43964 Posts
My assumption was that people on the right have a vague mental connection between the size of the American military and patriotism. It's not about the achieving actual military objectives which could be achieved with a substantially smaller military. The goals don't matter as much as the means of achieving them. It's like they watched a Michael Bay movie and said "Yes, that! That should be our policy". The military is generally inexplicable without resorting to explanations which accuse much of corporate America, as well as the American public, of being parasites and a general fetishism for uniforms and explosions.
Those in power do what they can to encourage this line of thinking because nothing provides corporate welfare like the military does.
|
On January 27 2016 07:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2016 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 06:18 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 05:40 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 05:29 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
You still don't. For instance, in the last Iowa poll I saw, Trump's most commanding lead is among moderate and liberal republicans. That's not what you've been saying at all. Besides, casting the same incorrect analysis on Trump as you have for years on most Republicans doesn't make you right. Considering how you respond to my positions I don't think you even have a clue what I've been saying. I'm curious though what it is you think I was saying that was incorrect? I will say that in the context of this "does Trump win the nomination?" question that he very well could, I've always said it was possible. But most people seem to know why Trump is doing well. The GOP apparatus sucks, and the voters are tired of it. Have you really? On July 11 2015 13:47 Introvert wrote:
... What's more interesting is how much the lefties are obsessed with him, when most of them (should) know he isn't going to win. I stand corrected. I know I've been saying he could win for a while, guess I forgot about that. Glad you went looking though, lol. That's months ago. I just remember stuff that's all. So I knew you weren't telling the truth when you said that you "always said it was possible" I knew from before the first debate that Trump would crush the competition, and you said he wouldn't and tried to dismiss those who saw what you didn't. Now you're portraying that you've always thought Trump winning was a possibility despite your previous flat out dismissal of Trump's chances You thought Trump would lose, Trump is crushing the competition as I predicted. At minimum, I simply had a better read on the Republican race than you did. About Trump, yes. And I genuinely don't recall making that previous prediction. And I was wrong, Trump is a bigger part of this than I forsaw, but that hardly lends credence to the multiple other areas in which your understanding is lackluster. Every time you make an argument about conservatives and tax revenue, for example, I cringe. But that's a different topic I suppose. I think most people didn't expect Trump to get this far and those who did probably did so for the wrong reasons. Its all fine and now we can just sit back and watch the horror show unfold >< I thought he would do well because he would say anything and was able to do it in a way where Republican's would believe it. Think that was pretty much exactly what's got him here. @Intro Kudos for admitting you were wrong about Trump and I was right. What did I say about "conservatives and tax revenue" that makes you cringe? Without going into detail, anytime someone says, for example "conservatives should support handing out needles for addicts because it costs less" misses multiple points. One reason is because that's not the end goal a conservative is trying to achieve. This is the same reason most people on the right don't mind spending a lot on military, in principle. I'll leave you to noodle on the rest.
Oh, I think your talking about a lingering issue with clarity of what/who gets to be considered a "conservative" among other issues. A lot of it stems out of GWB destroying the "Republican" brand. After which, "conservative" became a catch-all term for people leaning right that didn't want to be associated with the party, which greatly expanded the perception of who/what was "conservative" outside of a rather ethereal core group.
There is a conflation between Tea Party "conservatives", establishment "conservatives", and social "conservatives" among other variations. There is some overlap and exclusions among all the variations.
Another part likely comes from the facetiousness/sarcasm not translating.
Rest assured that the conservative you are imagining doesn't fit my characterizations, where I think we diverge, is on what portion of the Republican party and country at large is "conservative" or rather fits the more narrowly limited variation of "conservatives" that you envision.
But now I'm curious, what, in your view, is counter-conservative about supporting needle exchanges?
|
If you dive back far enough in the Republican party, you can see Bush and Reagan arguing about who would be most compassionate to immigrants. I want that brand of Republican back and leading the party. It was a better, more productive era when the Republicans didn't actively hate government.
|
On January 27 2016 08:16 Plansix wrote:
If you dive back far enough in the Republican party, you can see Bush and Reagan arguing about who would be most compassionate to immigrants. I want that brand of Republican back and leading the party. It was a better, more productive era when the Republicans didn't actively hate government.
But then college enrollment started skyrocketing and the GOP was losing ground as a result of increased education. In comes Sarah Palin and the tea party in an attempt to keep increasing voter turnout since the ship was sinking. And here we are.
|
On January 27 2016 08:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:16 Plansix wrote:
If you dive back far enough in the Republican party, you can see Bush and Reagan arguing about who would be most compassionate to immigrants. I want that brand of Republican back and leading the party. It was a better, more productive era when the Republicans didn't actively hate government. But then college enrollment started skyrocketing and the GOP was losing ground as a result of increased education. In comes Sarah Palin and the tea party in an attempt to keep increasing voter turnout since the ship was sinking. And here we are.
Man just think of a world where Republicans actively courted black and minority votes again? Or considered the idea? A world where they went after moderate democrats, rather than pending to their base. That is the problem with the Republicans, they fail to realize how many republicans they lost. My whole family was Republican right up to GW. And they held on until his second term before leaving due to the growing racism and loathing of government.
|
On January 27 2016 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:44 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2016 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 06:18 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 05:40 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Considering how you respond to my positions I don't think you even have a clue what I've been saying.
I'm curious though what it is you think I was saying that was incorrect? I will say that in the context of this "does Trump win the nomination?" question that he very well could, I've always said it was possible. But most people seem to know why Trump is doing well. The GOP apparatus sucks, and the voters are tired of it. Have you really? On July 11 2015 13:47 Introvert wrote:
... What's more interesting is how much the lefties are obsessed with him, when most of them (should) know he isn't going to win. I stand corrected. I know I've been saying he could win for a while, guess I forgot about that. Glad you went looking though, lol. That's months ago. I just remember stuff that's all. So I knew you weren't telling the truth when you said that you "always said it was possible" I knew from before the first debate that Trump would crush the competition, and you said he wouldn't and tried to dismiss those who saw what you didn't. Now you're portraying that you've always thought Trump winning was a possibility despite your previous flat out dismissal of Trump's chances You thought Trump would lose, Trump is crushing the competition as I predicted. At minimum, I simply had a better read on the Republican race than you did. About Trump, yes. And I genuinely don't recall making that previous prediction. And I was wrong, Trump is a bigger part of this than I forsaw, but that hardly lends credence to the multiple other areas in which your understanding is lackluster. Every time you make an argument about conservatives and tax revenue, for example, I cringe. But that's a different topic I suppose. I think most people didn't expect Trump to get this far and those who did probably did so for the wrong reasons. Its all fine and now we can just sit back and watch the horror show unfold >< I thought he would do well because he would say anything and was able to do it in a way where Republican's would believe it. Think that was pretty much exactly what's got him here. @Intro Kudos for admitting you were wrong about Trump and I was right. What did I say about "conservatives and tax revenue" that makes you cringe? Without going into detail, anytime someone says, for example "conservatives should support handing out needles for addicts because it costs less" misses multiple points. One reason is because that's not the end goal a conservative is trying to achieve. This is the same reason most people on the right don't mind spending a lot on military, in principle. I'll leave you to noodle on the rest. Oh, I think your talking about a lingering issue with clarity of what/who gets to be considered a "conservative" among other issues. A lot of it stems out of GWB destroying the "Republican" brand. After which, "conservative" became a catch-all term for people leaning right that didn't want to be associated with the party, which greatly expanded the perception of who/what was "conservative" outside of a rather ethereal core group. There is a conflation between Tea Party "conservatives", establishment "conservatives", and social "conservatives" among other variations. There is some overlap and exclusions among all the variations. Another part likely comes from the facetiousness/sarcasm not translating. Rest assured that the conservative you are imagining doesn't fit my characterizations, where I think we diverge, is on what portion of the Republican party and country at large is "conservative" or rather fits the more narrowly limited variation of "conservatives" that you envision. But now I'm curious, what, in your view, is counter-conservative about supporting needle exchanges?
To address the relevant parts of your post:
Yes, Bush had his own brand of "compassionate conservatism" which was quite dumb.
But I am in fact being quite general in my example. Any brand of conservative doed not, in fact, view potential tax revenue as the primary concern. It's not just about spending less. When the needle argument is made, it is always said that such a policy should be supported on its own. Tax revenue is a factor in decisions, but figuring the cheapest way to implement a garbage policy is not the first stop on a debate train.
Moreover, the tone and frequency with which you use and endorse this tax argument leads me to believe you are quite serious when you say it.
I'm not going to discuss this policy at this time.
|
The main stage at Fox News Channel’s Republican presidential primary debate on Thursday night will feature eight candidates – including the return of Rand Paul, who had been booted because of low poll numbers two weeks ago.
The field of candidates invited to Thursday’s debate in Des Moines, Iowa, is comprised of the same seven candidates who participated in the previous debate – Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich – plus Paul, who qualified because of his standing in the most recent polls in Iowa.
The Paul campaign, ahead of the announcement, was optimistic that the Kentucky senator would make it into the main stage debate.
“Looking good,” Paul campaign manager Chip Englander told POLITICO earlier in the day.
Paul has maintained that his is a “top-tier” presidential campaign, and polling showing him near the very bottom of the field doesn’t capture the momentum of his presidential bid.
Source
|
Is it too much to hope any of them will acknowledge that planned parenthood was exonerated of wrongdoing and that they were party to a witch hunt?
|
On January 27 2016 08:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:44 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2016 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 06:18 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 05:40 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I will say that in the context of this "does Trump win the nomination?" question that he very well could, I've always said it was possible. But most people seem to know why Trump is doing well. The GOP apparatus sucks, and the voters are tired of it. Have you really? On July 11 2015 13:47 Introvert wrote:
... What's more interesting is how much the lefties are obsessed with him, when most of them (should) know he isn't going to win. I stand corrected. I know I've been saying he could win for a while, guess I forgot about that. Glad you went looking though, lol. That's months ago. I just remember stuff that's all. So I knew you weren't telling the truth when you said that you "always said it was possible" I knew from before the first debate that Trump would crush the competition, and you said he wouldn't and tried to dismiss those who saw what you didn't. Now you're portraying that you've always thought Trump winning was a possibility despite your previous flat out dismissal of Trump's chances You thought Trump would lose, Trump is crushing the competition as I predicted. At minimum, I simply had a better read on the Republican race than you did. About Trump, yes. And I genuinely don't recall making that previous prediction. And I was wrong, Trump is a bigger part of this than I forsaw, but that hardly lends credence to the multiple other areas in which your understanding is lackluster. Every time you make an argument about conservatives and tax revenue, for example, I cringe. But that's a different topic I suppose. I think most people didn't expect Trump to get this far and those who did probably did so for the wrong reasons. Its all fine and now we can just sit back and watch the horror show unfold >< I thought he would do well because he would say anything and was able to do it in a way where Republican's would believe it. Think that was pretty much exactly what's got him here. @Intro Kudos for admitting you were wrong about Trump and I was right. What did I say about "conservatives and tax revenue" that makes you cringe? Without going into detail, anytime someone says, for example "conservatives should support handing out needles for addicts because it costs less" misses multiple points. One reason is because that's not the end goal a conservative is trying to achieve. This is the same reason most people on the right don't mind spending a lot on military, in principle. I'll leave you to noodle on the rest. Oh, I think your talking about a lingering issue with clarity of what/who gets to be considered a "conservative" among other issues. A lot of it stems out of GWB destroying the "Republican" brand. After which, "conservative" became a catch-all term for people leaning right that didn't want to be associated with the party, which greatly expanded the perception of who/what was "conservative" outside of a rather ethereal core group. There is a conflation between Tea Party "conservatives", establishment "conservatives", and social "conservatives" among other variations. There is some overlap and exclusions among all the variations. Another part likely comes from the facetiousness/sarcasm not translating. Rest assured that the conservative you are imagining doesn't fit my characterizations, where I think we diverge, is on what portion of the Republican party and country at large is "conservative" or rather fits the more narrowly limited variation of "conservatives" that you envision. But now I'm curious, what, in your view, is counter-conservative about supporting needle exchanges? To address the relevant parts of your post: Yes, Bush had his own brand of "compassionate conservatism" which was quite dumb. But I am in fact being quite general in my example. Any brand of conservative doed not, in fact, view potential tax revenue as the primary concern. It's not just about spending less. When the needle argument is made, it is always said that such a policy should be supported on its own. Tax revenue is a factor in decisions, but figuring the cheapest way to implement a garbage policy is not the first stop on a debate train. Moreover, the tone and frequency with which you use and endorse this tax argument leads me to believe you are quite serious when you say it.
See that comes off as farcical when "conservatives" say that they are holding up things like the 9/11 responders bill because of tax revenue/spending concerns.
Or when they support bad policy (drug testing welfare recipients for example) under the notion that it will save money and prevent things that aren't problems.
Rep. Doreen Costa, of North Kingstown, a Republican and member of the Rhode Island Tea Party, thinks the state could save money by requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test.
"The studies have shown us that it will be saving us money, but we don't have the exact amount," Costa said on WHJJ's Helen Glover Show. "If we could save the state $10,000, I'll take it. If we could save them a million, I'll take it. We have to start somewhere."
What you're missing in whatever statements you're pulling this from is that no one believes "conservatives" about why they are supporting/opposing something, because it's consistently undermined by some other position. So when I and probably most people say something like "well it's cheaper, so they should support it" we're poking fun at that.
Hopefully that clears things up for you a bit.
|
On January 27 2016 08:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2016 08:16 Plansix wrote:
If you dive back far enough in the Republican party, you can see Bush and Reagan arguing about who would be most compassionate to immigrants. I want that brand of Republican back and leading the party. It was a better, more productive era when the Republicans didn't actively hate government. But then college enrollment started skyrocketing and the GOP was losing ground as a result of increased education. In comes Sarah Palin and the tea party in an attempt to keep increasing voter turnout since the ship was sinking. And here we are. Man just think of a world where Republicans actively courted black and minority votes again? Or considered the idea? A world where they went after moderate democrats, rather than pending to their base. That is the problem with the Republicans, they fail to realize how many republicans they lost. My whole family was Republican right up to GW. And they held on until his second term before leaving due to the growing racism and loathing of government.
Yeah, the glorious Reagan/Bush years, with tax reductions for the rich, canceled social benefits for the disabled, destruction of welfare programs, stopping research for renewable energy sources, further ghettoization of black communitys, a rising military etat and a nice amount of military interventions and wars, either via proxys (Nicaragua/ El Salvador) or directly (Grenada/Gulf War). But yeah, that shit was indeed what the democrats were doing anyway, so at least the Republicans went after them during this time. Really great!
|
On January 27 2016 08:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
Is it too much to hope any of them will acknowledge that planned parenthood was exonerated of wrongdoing and that they were party to a witch hunt?
It would have been hilarious if Carly was there for the debate and someone crushed her on it.
|
On January 27 2016 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:25 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:44 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2016 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 06:18 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Have you really?
[quote]
I stand corrected. I know I've been saying he could win for a while, guess I forgot about that. Glad you went looking though, lol. That's months ago. I just remember stuff that's all. So I knew you weren't telling the truth when you said that you "always said it was possible" I knew from before the first debate that Trump would crush the competition, and you said he wouldn't and tried to dismiss those who saw what you didn't. Now you're portraying that you've always thought Trump winning was a possibility despite your previous flat out dismissal of Trump's chances You thought Trump would lose, Trump is crushing the competition as I predicted. At minimum, I simply had a better read on the Republican race than you did. About Trump, yes. And I genuinely don't recall making that previous prediction. And I was wrong, Trump is a bigger part of this than I forsaw, but that hardly lends credence to the multiple other areas in which your understanding is lackluster. Every time you make an argument about conservatives and tax revenue, for example, I cringe. But that's a different topic I suppose. I think most people didn't expect Trump to get this far and those who did probably did so for the wrong reasons. Its all fine and now we can just sit back and watch the horror show unfold >< I thought he would do well because he would say anything and was able to do it in a way where Republican's would believe it. Think that was pretty much exactly what's got him here. @Intro Kudos for admitting you were wrong about Trump and I was right. What did I say about "conservatives and tax revenue" that makes you cringe? Without going into detail, anytime someone says, for example "conservatives should support handing out needles for addicts because it costs less" misses multiple points. One reason is because that's not the end goal a conservative is trying to achieve. This is the same reason most people on the right don't mind spending a lot on military, in principle. I'll leave you to noodle on the rest. Oh, I think your talking about a lingering issue with clarity of what/who gets to be considered a "conservative" among other issues. A lot of it stems out of GWB destroying the "Republican" brand. After which, "conservative" became a catch-all term for people leaning right that didn't want to be associated with the party, which greatly expanded the perception of who/what was "conservative" outside of a rather ethereal core group. There is a conflation between Tea Party "conservatives", establishment "conservatives", and social "conservatives" among other variations. There is some overlap and exclusions among all the variations. Another part likely comes from the facetiousness/sarcasm not translating. Rest assured that the conservative you are imagining doesn't fit my characterizations, where I think we diverge, is on what portion of the Republican party and country at large is "conservative" or rather fits the more narrowly limited variation of "conservatives" that you envision. But now I'm curious, what, in your view, is counter-conservative about supporting needle exchanges? To address the relevant parts of your post: Yes, Bush had his own brand of "compassionate conservatism" which was quite dumb. But I am in fact being quite general in my example. Any brand of conservative doed not, in fact, view potential tax revenue as the primary concern. It's not just about spending less. When the needle argument is made, it is always said that such a policy should be supported on its own. Tax revenue is a factor in decisions, but figuring the cheapest way to implement a garbage policy is not the first stop on a debate train. Moreover, the tone and frequency with which you use and endorse this tax argument leads me to believe you are quite serious when you say it. See that comes off as farcical when "conservatives" say that they are holding up things like the 9/11 responders bill because of tax revenue/spending concerns. Or when they support bad policy (drug testing welfare recipients for example) under the notion that it will save money and prevent things that aren't problems. Show nested quote +Rep. Doreen Costa, of North Kingstown, a Republican and member of the Rhode Island Tea Party, thinks the state could save money by requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test.
"The studies have shown us that it will be saving us money, but we don't have the exact amount," Costa said on WHJJ's Helen Glover Show. "If we could save the state $10,000, I'll take it. If we could save them a million, I'll take it. We have to start somewhere." What you're missing in whatever statements you're pulling this from is that no one believes "conservatives" about why they are supporting/opposing something, because it's consistently undermined by some other position. So when I and probably most people say something like "well it's cheaper, so they should support it" we're poking fun at that. Hopefully that clears things up for you a bit.
And you prove my point. Those things don't undermine it, for the reason I mentioned. Meanwhile you are attempting to pull me into a discussion I said I would not have atm.
In the end, back to classic GreenHorizons. Like clockwork.
And I still don't believe you or the others say that in jest, considering that you are making that argument (in a round about way) right now.
Taxing and spending are important, but trying to say "this is cheaper, therefore do it" when there is some underlying objection is being shallow and/or disingenuous.
|
On January 27 2016 08:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
Is it too much to hope any of them will acknowledge that planned parenthood was exonerated of wrongdoing and that they were party to a witch hunt?
No, because in their mind PP got "away with it." If you (and your group) literally believe PP is murdering children, them selling the parts is of little extra concern. However, if true, that turns everybody else against PP. Also, GOP and their commentators have a very, very awful record on "setting the record straight." It's better for them to capitalize on the outrage of misinformation than appear honest to wonks and information-literate people.
|
On January 27 2016 08:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 08:25 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:44 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2016 07:17 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2016 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2016 06:18 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I stand corrected. I know I've been saying he could win for a while, guess I forgot about that.
Glad you went looking though, lol. That's months ago.
I just remember stuff that's all. So I knew you weren't telling the truth when you said that you "always said it was possible" I knew from before the first debate that Trump would crush the competition, and you said he wouldn't and tried to dismiss those who saw what you didn't. Now you're portraying that you've always thought Trump winning was a possibility despite your previous flat out dismissal of Trump's chances You thought Trump would lose, Trump is crushing the competition as I predicted. At minimum, I simply had a better read on the Republican race than you did. About Trump, yes. And I genuinely don't recall making that previous prediction. And I was wrong, Trump is a bigger part of this than I forsaw, but that hardly lends credence to the multiple other areas in which your understanding is lackluster. Every time you make an argument about conservatives and tax revenue, for example, I cringe. But that's a different topic I suppose. I think most people didn't expect Trump to get this far and those who did probably did so for the wrong reasons. Its all fine and now we can just sit back and watch the horror show unfold >< I thought he would do well because he would say anything and was able to do it in a way where Republican's would believe it. Think that was pretty much exactly what's got him here. @Intro Kudos for admitting you were wrong about Trump and I was right. What did I say about "conservatives and tax revenue" that makes you cringe? Without going into detail, anytime someone says, for example "conservatives should support handing out needles for addicts because it costs less" misses multiple points. One reason is because that's not the end goal a conservative is trying to achieve. This is the same reason most people on the right don't mind spending a lot on military, in principle. I'll leave you to noodle on the rest. Oh, I think your talking about a lingering issue with clarity of what/who gets to be considered a "conservative" among other issues. A lot of it stems out of GWB destroying the "Republican" brand. After which, "conservative" became a catch-all term for people leaning right that didn't want to be associated with the party, which greatly expanded the perception of who/what was "conservative" outside of a rather ethereal core group. There is a conflation between Tea Party "conservatives", establishment "conservatives", and social "conservatives" among other variations. There is some overlap and exclusions among all the variations. Another part likely comes from the facetiousness/sarcasm not translating. Rest assured that the conservative you are imagining doesn't fit my characterizations, where I think we diverge, is on what portion of the Republican party and country at large is "conservative" or rather fits the more narrowly limited variation of "conservatives" that you envision. But now I'm curious, what, in your view, is counter-conservative about supporting needle exchanges? To address the relevant parts of your post: Yes, Bush had his own brand of "compassionate conservatism" which was quite dumb. But I am in fact being quite general in my example. Any brand of conservative doed not, in fact, view potential tax revenue as the primary concern. It's not just about spending less. When the needle argument is made, it is always said that such a policy should be supported on its own. Tax revenue is a factor in decisions, but figuring the cheapest way to implement a garbage policy is not the first stop on a debate train. Moreover, the tone and frequency with which you use and endorse this tax argument leads me to believe you are quite serious when you say it. See that comes off as farcical when "conservatives" say that they are holding up things like the 9/11 responders bill because of tax revenue/spending concerns. Or when they support bad policy (drug testing welfare recipients for example) under the notion that it will save money and prevent things that aren't problems. Rep. Doreen Costa, of North Kingstown, a Republican and member of the Rhode Island Tea Party, thinks the state could save money by requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test.
"The studies have shown us that it will be saving us money, but we don't have the exact amount," Costa said on WHJJ's Helen Glover Show. "If we could save the state $10,000, I'll take it. If we could save them a million, I'll take it. We have to start somewhere." What you're missing in whatever statements you're pulling this from is that no one believes "conservatives" about why they are supporting/opposing something, because it's consistently undermined by some other position. So when I and probably most people say something like "well it's cheaper, so they should support it" we're poking fun at that. Hopefully that clears things up for you a bit. And you prove my point. Those things don't undermine it, for the reason I mentioned. Meanwhile you are attempting to pull me into a discussion I said I would not have atm. In the end, back to classic GreenHorizons. Like clockwork. And I still don't believe you or the others say that in jest, considering that you are making that argument (in a round about way) right now.
lol. Alright man. I tried to explain it to you, but you're still not even close to getting it. I suppose parading Sheriff Joe's endorsement has nothing to do with a key theme of the Trump campaign that sounds something like "What's wrong with a little racism, bigotry, and denial of constitutional rights, if we convince ourselves it makes us tougher and keeps us safer?!" Which also has nothing to do with Trump's success.
The same things keeping you from seeing my points are the same things that prevented you from seeing why Trump would do so well in the race.
For example you said the birtherism thing wasn't important when it came to Trump and it was repeatedly played down by pretty much all Republicans and conservatives as an insignificant fringe
The Obama birther issue is also a major dividing line and gives another prism into the extent to which Trump's success is being driven by racism. Among people who think Obama was not born in the United States Trump is dominant, getting 38% to 23% for Cruz. But among non-birthers- either people who think Obama was born in the country or aren't sure, Cruz is leading Trump 29/22. Similarly Trump leads Cruz 37/26 among the 52% of Republican primary voters who are offended by bilingual, but among the 40% who aren't offended by them Trump is in only third place at 17% behind Cruz's 26% and Rubio's 18%. Trump's success really is built on the support of the most intolerant segment of the GOP base.
The poll finds that the 'birther issue' has the potential to really hurt Ted Cruz. Only 32% of Iowa Republicans think someone born in another country should be allowed to serve as President, to 47% who think such a person shouldn't be allowed to serve as President. Among that segment of the Republican electorate who don't think someone foreign born should be able to be President, Trump is crushing Cruz 40/14.
Despite all the attention to this issue in the last week, still only 46% of Iowa Republicans are aware that Cruz was not born in the United States. In fact, there are more GOP voters in the state who think Cruz (34%) was born in the United States than think Barack Obama (28%) was.
Source
Now it probably makes more sense why Trump is hammering on Cruz being born in Canada and why it doesn't make sense to those who never accepted the role birtherism actually plays in the Republican party.
|
I'm not sure wtf that came from. But there was a fox poll where like 88% said that the Cruz birther issue didn't factor in at all.
Edit: This is why I hate polls!
|
Hah, Trump just bolted from the Fox News debate.
|
rip their ratings, which let's be real is all they care about
|
On January 27 2016 09:30 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, Trump just bolted from the Fox News debate.
And decides to host an event for wounded soldiers and veterans. Clever man. Hopefully it just means that Rand gets some more attention..
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Marketing genius, that man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
