Only way he isn't the establishment candidate now is if he somehow places fourth or worse in NH.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2829
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
Only way he isn't the establishment candidate now is if he somehow places fourth or worse in NH. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
Oh and apparently this... | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
![]() also, the table is basically set. still rooting for ma man rubio to take it home. establishment will rally behind him, people finally realize trump is a sham and he will fade. cruz is just not likeable. you can be super smart and even a smiling backstabbing bugger, but if you are not authentic and kinda relatable you are doomed. clinton machine should be unstoppable. how people come to the conclusion that bernie will be able to outspend hillary lol... I really admire the enthusiasm and like "the bern", but what he is proposing is just not feasible in a country like the US. heck, at this time it would not even be feasible in the EU. at best he will be able to make her move slightly to the left. fun primary weeks ahead ![]() //edit: what's this then with 90 faulty/missing precincts? don't you dare piss on my hillary parade! :p | ||
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On February 02 2016 16:10 Doublemint wrote: well I voted rubio. so in a way I was right ![]() also, the table is basically set. still rooting for ma man rubio to take it home. establishment will rally behind him, people finally realize trump is a sham and he will fade. cruz is just not likeable. you can be super smart and even a smiling backstabbing bugger, but if you are not authentic and kinda relatable you are doomed. clinton machine should be unstoppable. how people come to the conclusion that bernie will be able to outspend hillary lol... I really admire the enthusiasm and like "the bern", but what he is proposing is just not feasible in a country like the US. heck, at this time it would not even be feasible in the EU. at best he will be able to make her move slightly to the left. fun primary weeks ahead ![]() //edit: what's this then with 90 faulty/missing precincts? don't you dare piss on my hillary parade! :p The countries he constantly references seem to be doing fine? I really don't see the problem with taking some pointers from countries who have found success in certain areas and making it our own. Too much "we are so great we can learn nothing from others" crap in the US today. Don't want to be Denmark/Norway? Fine and all but who says we can't learn from them and adopt some of their stuff? Incorporate what is good? Or at least take a serious look at ourselves and others and find out why things aren't working for us and are for others. No one wants to do that because they think its too hard and not feasible or even worse that there exists countries out there that out perform us. Is the US that fragile that the notion that our system isn't the best that we will crumble to pieces? That only our laurels of a once great nation is keeping us afloat? | ||
Velr
Switzerland10600 Posts
clinton machine should be unstoppable. how people come to the conclusion that bernie will be able to outspend hillary lol... I really admire the enthusiasm and like "the bern", but what he is proposing is just not feasible in a country like the US. heck, at this time it would not even be feasible in the EU. This is pretty much a fact. Since the 80/90ies and the rise of neoliberalism (à la US) Europe is going down the drain again. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2016 13:28 farvacola wrote: I'm glad you keep the hyperbole down to a dull roar! I'll say this: It's pretty undeniable his haters go overboard to describe the man. You ask any conservative in the country, and Obama's "pen and phone" is a dangerously wrong despotic approach to leading a country. The vitriol from Obama is palpable nearly every speech and a slew of his administration's actions. It doesn't do any use bringing it up again, particularly when participation leans left. I do think it says quite a lot about the current political climate that the current president acts the autocrat and a leading Republican candidate is undeniably a sociopath.Cruz is a sociopath and it isn't that hard to back it up with facts. Dude used to antagonize anti-death penalty lawyers as a Supreme Court Clerk and routinely says dangerously wrong stuff. The vitriol is practically unavoidable in describing the man ![]() He seems to have done a swell job with stumping the Trump though ![]() But I harp too much on the point that there's very little common ground between the two sides so I'll stop there. + Show Spoiler + Breitbart had better looking video, but ofc no embed Republican presidential candidate Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% declared, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots” and “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee, and the next president of the United States, will not be chosen by the media, will not be chosen by the Washington establishment, will not be chosen by the lobbyists” while saying the Washington cartel is scared that “the old Reagan coalition is coming back together” during a speech on Monday after he won the Iowa caucus. Cruz stated, “God bless the great state of Iowa! Let me first of all say, to God be the glory. Tonight is a victory for the grassroots. Tonight, is a victory for courageous conservatives across Iowa, and all across this great nation. Tonight, the state of Iowa has spoken. Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee, and the next president of the United States, will not be chosen by the media, will not be chosen by the Washington establishment, will not be chosen by the lobbyists, but will be chosen by the most incredible powerful force, where all sovereignty resides in our nation, by we the people, the American people.” He continued, “Tonight is a victory for millions of Americans, who have shouldered the burden of seven years of Washington deals run amok. Tonight is a victory for every American whose watched in dismay as career politicians in Washington, in both parties, refuse to listen, and too often fail to keep their commitments to the people. Tonight is a victory for every American who understands, that after we’ve survived eight long years of the Obama presidency, that no one personality can right the wrongs done by Washington, the millions who understand that it is a commitment to the Constitution, to our shared insistence that we rise and return to a higher standard, the very standard that gave birth to the greatest nation that the world has ever known, to the revolutionary understanding that all men and all women are created equal, that our rights do not come from the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or even from the Tea Party. Our rights come from our creator, and the federal government’s role, the federal government’s responsibility, is to defend those fundamental rights, to defend us. And while Americans will continue to suffer, under a president who has set an agenda that is causing millions to hurt across this country, I want to remind you of the promise of Scripture, ‘[W]eeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.’ Tonight, Iowa has proclaimed to the world, morning is coming.” Cruz added, “From day one, this campaign has been a movement, from millions of Americans across this country, to organize, to rally, to come together, whatever Washington says, they cannot keep the people down, and tonight is a testament to the people’s commitments to their yearnings to get back to our core commitment, free market principals, constitutional liberties and the Judeo-Christian values that built this great nation.” Later on, after thanking those who supported him, Cruz stated, “Do you want to know what scares the Washington Cartel? Actually,…I don’t scare them in the tiniest bit. What scares them is you. What scares them is that the old Reagan coalition is coming back together.” After thanking his family, Cruz said, “[L]et me speak for a minute to the men and women of the state of New Hampshire, 36 years ago, you welcomed to the Granite State, a candidate running for president who was also deeply disliked by the Washington establishment and the Washington cartel. A candidate who had been dismissed outright by the media, some polls had him 15 points to 20 points behind, but you refused to let the establishment and the cartel and the media do your thinking for you. You refused to let them tell you how to vote. You wanted a candidate who didn’t adopt his positions because of the latest opinion polls, but instead, because of a deep and underlying conservative philosophy, that grounded him, so that he knew exactly what he believed, exactly what the principles were that built this great nation.” I think Cruz spends too much time in evangelical minister mode in these speeches. It's too much time spent trying to lock in the social conservatives/oldtime "moral majority" voters and it makes it feel sermonizing. By all means, thank God for your victory or point to divine origins of human rights. Even throw in the prayer angle, it's solid Christian fare. But if you're talking "Reagan coalition," keep it to non-facepalm levels or I'll think it's Sunday and I'm in church. | ||
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
what I mean by not feasible is that most Americans don't want to be like Sweden or any other western european country. it's simply politically not feasible. what bernie proposes goes to the core. it would not need incremental change that already would hurt A LOT of very loud voices. even louder now with citizens united. it would need hope and change level of changes and then some. and how would that work better with a (very likeable and honest) white jew describing himself as a socialist in the land of the free, than with the actual hope and change candidate, who basically got cockblocked at every turn by the gridlock? republicans won that battle. they also set - both houses of congress - and their own house on fire in the process and the firefighters are called cruz and trump. problem is when firefighters are working with gasoline. so I still hope they come to their senses and go for rubio. who is, among crazies, the least crazy imho. //edit: on second thought, if there is no precedent of changing "high class" amendments(especially when someone like me is not aware of them in the US system) it might even be technically impossible to kill the second amendment. I am sure if you ask like 3 actual constitutional lawyers, you will get 5 answers. so don't quote me on that, or better just forget it and go along with my points. | ||
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 02 2016 16:05 GreenHorizons wrote: So Trump might be the biggest benefactor from the tie on the Dem side. Instead of waking up to "Cruz won!" many people will be waking up to "We don't know who won the democratic caucus. Blah Blah Blah, oh and Cruz won". Cruz beating Trump is bigger news than Sanders coming a close second behind Hillary. | ||
Alur
Denmark3900 Posts
Is this the end of the trump meme? Either way the prank worked 10/10 you got me. Would Rubio do better with the republican base if his personality and views were transported into and older and whiter man? | ||
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 02 2016 17:02 Doublemint wrote: is it manageable on a technical basis, just to put theory into (best)practice? sure. technically it's also possible to change the constitution, kill the 2nd amendment. kill guns with the stroke of a pen :p what I mean by not feasible is that most Americans don't want to be like Sweden or any other western european country. it's simply politically not feasible. what bernie proposes goes to the core. it would not need incremental change that already would hurt A LOT of very loud voices. even louder now with citizens united. it would need hope and change level of changes and then some. and how would that work better with a (very likeable and honest) white jew describing himself as a socialist in the land of the free, than with the actual hope and change candidate, who basically got cockblocked at every turn by the gridlock? republicans won that battle. they also set - both houses of congress - and their own house on fire in the process and the firefighters are called cruz and trump. problem is when firefighters are working with gasoline. so I still hope they come to their senses and go for rubio. who is, among crazies, the least crazy imho. //edit: on second thought, if there is no precedent of changing "high class" amendments(especially when someone like me is not aware of them in the US system) it might even be technically impossible to kill the second amendment. I am sure if you ask like 3 actual constitutional lawyers, you will get 5 answers. so don't quote me on that, or better just forget it and go along with my points. Mission creep and judicial activism can eat away at the Bill of Rights, but to radically alter or abolish them you need to amend the Constitution. In order to do that you need to get 2/3 of both the House and Senate to propose a new amendment which then needs 3/4 of all State Legislatures to vote in the affirmative. IIRC the process is null and void after 15 years of the proposal if no ratification. Also, prior to reaching 38 ratifying votes of the States, any State can rescend their prior vote in the affirmative. In other words, the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere, and in the last 20 years, gun rights have been expanded and more people than ever are for things like Constitutional Carry, open carry, repealing stuff like the 1986 law or the 1964 law. It's not surprising considering the country has lurched heavily towards totalitarianism the last 20 years and the 2nd Amendment is the American last bastion bulwark to it (when the ballot box fails, the only resort left is the bullet box). PS: There is also a Constitutional Convention, but the only and last time that happened they threw out the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution so...if it ever happens again, there's a good chance the whole Constitution would be abandoned for a new/different document and the country would cease to exist pretty much (The Articles of Confederation US is a stark difference than the Constitutional US). Oh by the way, the least crazy Republican is obviously Rand Paul, but if you don't make the sand glow, promise the world to Citi Group/Goldman Sachs/Northrop Grumman/MIC/etc., or believe in the 4th Amendment then well, it's a tough road in GOP presidential primaries. Rubio is a PNAC disaster and is one of the worst of the bunch. I mean, it's even his damn campaign slogan. Wolfowitz, Pearle, and crew have to be ecstatic. | ||
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On February 02 2016 17:28 Alur wrote: Ignorant euro questions: Is this the end of the trump meme? Either way the prank worked 10/10 you got me. Would Rubio do better with the republican base if his personality and views were transported into and older and whiter man? No and no. Trump still leads in the polls for other states and has money. Rubio's youth and Hispanic ancestry are more likely to help him than hurt him. | ||
zeo
Serbia6267 Posts
| ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
to "when the ballot box fails, the only resort left is the bullet box". that's like the worst of both worlds, realistically speaking. 1. the us military is second to none. which means, if there are patriots against patriots, the high tech patriots with the better and more gear will win. 2. I see the second amendment as a very important historic relic, though also a very outdated and abused relic, mainly abused by special interest lobbies to sell their stuff. 3. if the ballot box fails, you have even bigger concerns than a - probably at this point - non existent/non legitimate government wanting to take away your guns. (syria?) but that's just me. //edit: I agree paul would be kinda ok too, were it not for his hardcore libertarian views. I think those are even less feasible (crazier? lol bernie fans forgive me :p) than what bernie has in mind. | ||
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
On February 02 2016 16:51 jalstar wrote: Trump is still really far ahead in New Hampshire and could get momentum back from a win, it's really too early to count him out. It's still between him and Rubio, with Rubio being the favorite now Not sure why but nobody thinks Cruz has a real shot at the nomination | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
![]() But anyway, this is just code A. The onus is now on the US citizens to deliver what we all are hoping for in the depth of our evil souls - the Bernie vs. Trump presidential race! | ||
RvB
Netherlands6191 Posts
| ||
Velr
Switzerland10600 Posts
| ||
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 02 2016 17:45 Doublemint wrote: thanks for that little insight, I knew of the high hurdles you have to jump through in a general sense. to "when the ballot box fails, the only resort left is the bullet box". that's like the worst of both worlds, realistically speaking. 1. the us military is second to none. which means, if there are patriots against patriots, the high tech patriots with the better and more gear will win. 2. I see the second amendment as a very important historic relic, though also a very outdated and abused relic, mainly abused by special interest lobbies to sell their stuff. 3. if the ballot box fails, you have even bigger concerns than a - probably at this point - non existent/non legitimate government wanting to take away your guns. (syria?) but that's just me. //edit: I agree paul would be kinda ok too, were it not for his hardcore libertarian views. I think those are even less feasible (crazier? lol bernie fans forgive me :p) than what bernie has in mind. Tell that to the German, Polish, Czech, etc. Jews who were disarmed. Tell that to the tens of millions of Soviets slaughtered. It's better to be armed, than not, even if you have a less than 1% chance of success. Without arms you have a 0% chance against determined foes (and no colonies like India against the British don't count because it is a completely different dynamic). If more people would read Alexander Solzhenitsyn and not have this naivete that their own Governments can never do terrible wrongs or become totalitarian, we'd start to make some progress. Oh, by the way, the US had trouble with a few million insurgents, with the full force of the military behind them. Try that in a domestic setting against 80 million supporters in a huge geographic swath and I doubt the US would win long-term. If the peasants revolt, they'll win more than likely, but it'll have a high cost...but I suspect not as high of a human cost as acquiescing to totalitarian dictates. To be quite frank, European opinions on this issue are irrelevant. Our histories are entirely different. Our foundings different. Our values while generally both enlightenment have a more uniquely American distinction. You don't see many Americans blathering on about the outdated and ridiculous monarchical systems found in many parts of Europe still, do you? Agree to disagree on Paul, but I'm sure admirers of New American Centuries would have such divergent differences with American First folk :p | ||
acker
United States2958 Posts
On February 02 2016 17:45 Doublemint wrote: 1. the us military is second to none. which means, if there are patriots against patriots, the high tech patriots with the better and more gear will win. On the contrary, nobody wins a civil war against an armed populace. The militia gets suppressed, the army takes casualties, bystanders get slaughtered, and the government bleeds treasure. Like, say, modern Syria. The only "winners" are foreign nations. Of course, that's half the point of the Second Amendment, even dating back from the original drafting of the Constitution. Mutually-assured destruction is an old idea, not a new one. On February 02 2016 17:45 Doublemint wrote:[/B 2. I see the second amendment as a very important historic relic, though also a very outdated and abused relic, mainly abused by special interest lobbies to sell their stuff. The second amendment has had multiple different interpretations and intentions. It meant one thing from the start of the Constitution to the Civil War, another thing from Reconstruction to the Gilded Age, yet another thing from the Great Depression to 2008, and who knows what since then. [B]On February 02 2016 17:45 Doublemint wrote: 3. if the ballot box fails, you have even bigger concerns than a - probably at this point - non existent/non legitimate government wanting to take away your guns. (syria?) There's plenty of cases where the ballot box failed and the ammo box sufficed against the US Government. Or, in some cases, complemented each other well. For both good and bad causes, of course. | ||
| ||