Printable View
Word is that Cruz is going to announce Carly as VP today. I don't disagree with this at all; it's the right pick and the right time, but the fact that it is happening shows how tough of a situation Cruz is in. Also, if Cruz's campaign fails, this announcement will look like the casing ejected from the chamber of the bullet that sunk it.
Did Trump lose a single county from any of the five states he won by a minimum of 30 percent of the popular vote last night? It doesn't look like it.
Unstumped.
Carly is a terrible pick. She's a loser pick for a loser candidate who has no chance in hell of winning a legitimate candidacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
name better
Which candidate currently running is the best or least hostile to Online Poker? I've always said I will automatically vote against anyone who takes $1 in donations of Sheldon Adelson money regardless who their opponent is. There are a lot of hostile politicians to poker in Congress, and while the Democrats certainly have some politicians hostile to poker, there does tend to be more of them on the Republican bench at the moment.
Marco Rubio said he would carve out an exception for Online Poker when banning internet gaming, to which he got a stern condemnation from Sheldon Adelson and I think he backed off and said he would instate a total ban on all forms of Online Gambling including poker.
I really don't want to see my account get seized and all my software and stuff become worthless overnight due to some shady backdoor DC Politics.
My guess:
Clinton: hostile to poker just like Obama
Sanders: if he doesn't personally think it's wrong, he would probably support a nationalized site or maybe extremely regulated private ones where only the biggest two/three could exist.
Cruz: would not ban it federally, maybe would loosen federal attacks on it. Likely personally supports it.
Trump: would probably like it to be legal for only a handful of his biggest lobbyists, but would definitely ban it if Adelson paid him enough.
Someone popular would be a much better vp pick. Carly sucks, no one is gonna go "hey, I'm gonna go vote cruz now" just because of carly. That's why she sucks.
I'm still wary about the Republicans in down ballot races simply because Sheldon Adelson is the largest Republican donor and public enemy #1 to us Online players.
Bernie Sanders wasn't anywhere near as hostile to Online Poker as Marco Rubio and Lindsay Graham have been, and Harry Reid has been a reliable goal tender in recent years at stopping further bans on Online Poker in the US.
ppa released their jokers in 2012 and it was majority Republicans. I think it still was in 2014 but I didn't see that list.
Sanders was one of the people behind the original, much harsher bill that became the UIGEA.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
One guy in Pennsylvania he wants to incarcerate people who play poker on their PC's.
Scavello’s bill would aim to curb that, making first violation a summary offense that carries a possible $300 fine and up to 90 days in jail. A second violation would be a misdemeanor bringing a chance of a $2,500 fine and up to a year in jail.
“I believe that if you hit people in their wallets, we can start to crack down on the lawbreakers,” Scavello said.
If you're a bad poker player aren't you already being hit in your wallet? Typical law maker trying to legislate morality.
like who? name names.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
assuming he could pick anybody: kasich isn't popular and he would only get him ohio (maybe) yet not help win the election (need virginia too). plus he's garbage and i don't want him as vp.
rubio is popular and would have been a good pick.
carly: she takes away one of clinton's biggest weapons, she is the best attack dog of the whole field, she's the best communicator of the field, she helps send a message of pro-women from cruz, she helps on the margins in california (which might make all the difference), she gives some outsider cred to the ticket and she doesn't detract any conservative cred.
I'm confused here, is he for or against it? I was assuming you meant he was helping stop passing further bans on online poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyS1985
I had a look at his wiki page and it said he was against it but more recently has changed his views on online poker due to what many people believe is funding from Vegas Casinos who as far as I'm aware are some of the biggest opponents of online poker in the first place. So it doesn't add up.
The issue of online poker is somewhat null though. It won't be too long till the games are beaten by computers which will kill the games.
And yet, she sucked so hard that she wasn't even qualified to be in some of the main debates.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
She is a terrible vp pick, and brings nothing to the table.
Jeb bush would be equally terrible. So would carson, so would christie. You want someone that actually contributes.
Lets evaluate the question a little further. What does a candidate want from a VP? How does a VP help a nominee win the presidency?
Look at Fiorina. She used to be an unknown. Then she ran, developed some support, and then got completely demolished by Trump. As far as "businessmen" go, shes outclassed. She isnt a great public speaker, and people dont care about a "woman vp" like they do a "woman potus". Worse, shes not an unknown anymore. Shes shown what shes got, and its not much. Shes tapped out. What is Fiorina's potential support? We've already seen it. Is that enough support to help Cruz beat Trump? To help Cruz beat Clinton? Not nearly.
You can take pretty much any unknown candidate and they would be a better pick than Fiorina...if only because we dont know how popular theyd be. Fiorina hit her popularity ceiling, but we dont know anyone else's.
You dont need an unknown though. Just someone that is a popular person. Merely by being popular, you may have a higher ceiling than fiorina.
trump never demolished her. she hurt trump the only time he's ever been hurt and he had to back down. her fall after that was unrelated. her poor performance in the nomination cycle is due to having specific qualities that stink for president. yet those qualities aren't that bad for vp, which is why she ran in the first place. she was always running for vp.
she was always widely supported during the primaires, just not as first pick and not as president. of the main elements vp's fulfill, she hits them quite well. the vp fills a very different role than the p. if the vp filled the same role, the he/she would just have gotten p in the first place. the vp is all about (1) attack dog, (2) debates, (3) pleasing the base and broadening coalition. carly is the best vp pick on (1) alone by a long shot since it's against hillary.
it should not be understated that she's the only person that trump has to be careful with. she already handled him once and he backed off. people pay attention when women they don't hate are attacked. trump hasn't experienced lasting damage by doing such, but he has had to call it quits when against fiorina and his attacks on heidi hurt him during that cycle (wisconsin).
the timing was strong, considering. it changes the news cycle from the "it's over" trumpening that was gonna happen after the NE primaries, and if (when) cruz wins indiana, it will make carly look like a game changer.
She's a horrible "attack dog", and that label only exists because cruz is pushing it. She bit once, then tucked her tail and hid in the corner. It wasn't even a bite though, she made weak comments like "the people will judge what you said" or some other nonsense. The only fire she ever had that even resembles an "attack dog" was when she Started. Talking. Like. This. About. Abortion. Using. A. Falsified. Video.
This talk about attack dog is wrong anyway. Why does cruz need an "attack dog"? Are we saying he lacks the balls to call clinton out? To fight trump? For a losing campaign, he doesn't need a spine, he needs more popularity. She doesn't give him that, she appeared on the early debate.
She's handled him zero times, and all she's ever done is make herself look like an idiot. He never had to attack her because all she does is destroy everything she comes into contact with, and her business "career" proves that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
For decades, it has been believed that one of the main jobs of the vp is as attack dog. Cruz hasn't pushed this narrative at all. Most people in politics, including myself, put Fiorina higher on the list for possible vp a long time ago partly for this reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
You're misremembering. Trump bit, she bit back, Trump tucked. She is widely considered having won her scrimmage with him, and that it was just about the only time Trump knew he was beat and openly backed off.Quote:
She bit once, then tucked her tail and hid in the corner.
People are stupid and personas matter more than substance. Fiorina is one of the only people who can attack Clinton without being crucified in the media. Trump thinks he could too, but after the media turns on him once they get their wish of him gaining the nomination, he'll be against 24/7 coverage of being a misogynist. As for Fiorina and Trump, it has already been demonstrated that he does not have teflon when it comes to her as well as when it comes to women in general. Cruz has attacked Trump every which way from Sunday, but nothing sticks because people are stupid and don't care about substance. But they do pay attention when it's "woman vs man" stuff.Quote:
This talk about attack dog is wrong anyway. Why does cruz need an "attack dog"? Are we saying he lacks the balls to call clinton out? To fight trump? For a losing campaign, he doesn't need a spine, he needs more popularity.
To set the record straight, he does have a lot of popularity. He's just been triangulated by Trump in such a way that he's not running away with this like he was supposed to. The people who support Trump now were mostly Cruz supporters. Trump is less popular than Cruz. Cruz wins hu against anybody in this primary. Trump probably is the second most popular and beats everybody not named Cruz hu.Quote:
For a losing campaign, he doesn't need a spine, he needs more popularity. She doesn't give him that, she appeared on the early debate.
Yeah, so, her company did better than competitors while following the plan she constructed. After a later CEO dropped the plan, the company plummeted.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
But that doesn't matter ofc...
Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm misremembering. If you recall, I had this same opinion at the time of the event. My view hasn't changed, and the biased media alleging she won doesn't affect me in the slightest. She clearly lost, as evidenced by never having another good debate. People are looking to trumps retreat from this comment like he was forced into it, like she somehow triumphed over him. The correct move for trump was to back off that comment regardless of what was going on. Just because trump is bombastic doesn't mean he's somehow weakened or lessened by not doing the bombastic thing. He's smart, and picks his battles.
I don't think he was weakened by it either. But he did back off because it was a losing battle.
I read into Fiorina's performance overall a little differently. I always liked her but she was never my chief pick, and that goes for a lot of people. On the statistics thrown around, this would make her look less quality than she is. Her lack of having won an election before was basically kryptonite to anybody who wanted to support her for president. I liked her much more than others, but still would only support her after all the solid conservative elected officials were out of the way (Cruz, Walker, Perry, Jindal, Paul, Rubio). This was based purely on the fact that her lack of having won an election is kryptonite.
The good thing is this vanishes as VP. Nobody's gonna care that she never won elected office or about her mixed business record now. She softens Cruz's image and can attack his chief rivals with near impunity. Nikki Haley probably would have been a better pick (also a woman, governor, not hated by conservatives, liked by establishment), but she wouldn't have accepted.
She absolutely 100% did not do better than her competitors during her time at HP. That is not debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I didn't say that. I said "following the plan she constructed." Her successor did so. The company began falling apart again after his successor changed strategies. The Fiorina-Hurd era, which followed Fiorina's strategy, performed better than competitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...d-in-one-chart
Is the VP pick of the person who doesn't win the nomination really that relevant?
Interviews for lawyer positions are tougher than most interviews. The reason is because an interview is a lawyers chance to advocate for himself. Interviewers think, "if he can't advocate on his own behalf, how can we trust him to advocate on behalf of our clients?"
Carly couldn't advocate on her own behalf. It is true that having never been elected is a significant hurdle to overcome, but she still failed to overcome it. As someone running for president, you're trying to convince a nation that you're right for the job...and she blew it. If she can't spin her own credentials, triumps, and skills into a winning story...how can she be expected to do so for Cruz?
Not if you pick someone like carly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Edit: I misread your statement, but I liked my response so I'm leaving it
But that doesn't mean there is a better choice. Also the intellect that goes into lawyer interviews is far greater than into the ballot box. You don't hire a lawyer based on soundbites and demographics, but that's the main way you get elected officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Not really. The intention of doing it right now is to use it to help win the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Name ones that would be better.
Nikki Haley probably would be the best pick regardless of who the presidential nominee is. Outside of Fiorina, Walker and Rubio and Kasich and Jindal are the next four.
Cruz couldn't pick Haley because she wouldn't accept. She would if he was the nominee already, but he has to play the VP card now.
Walker would have been a good choice but he probably also wouldn't accept right now, and he doesn't help with the rest of the primary as well as Fiorina does (even though she only does marginally). Walker is a good VP choice merely for the general election, but even then he's not great since even if he can bring Wisconsin, it won't change anything.
Kasich would be a great strategic choice for the primaries and a decent one for the general, but there's <0% chance he would accept now. He would only help most in the primaries since his strength with Ohio in the general isn't enough to get a win, but with his backing in the primaries it would be over and Cruz crowned.
Jindal would be about the same as Walker yet could help with diversity in a small way in the general.
Rubio would help noticeably in the primary and general, but he also won't accept. It is doubted by many that Rubio would accept the VP slot from anybody at any point.
Outside of maybe Rubio, a competent woman is far and away the best choice. The field consists of basically just Haley, Fiorina, and Susana Martinez, but Martinez shows no interest in presidential politics and there's word that she has some skeletons that keep her from being an option even though she is that adored woman + Mexican combo.
VP is not that great of a job. They do basically nothing except fulfill specific campaign functions.
Not even close, but you do you. Kind of explains why you have such a hard time with math.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Your points are only as relevant as how substantiated they are. As long as you don't substantiate them, I have no choice but to assume you can't. I'm as open to you being right as you are, but I won't just take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
That you wish to belittle me with math shows your own shallowness. That you think it's even relevant shows your lack of attention to detail. Math is not hard; bad teaching is hard to learn from.
Hey how about you substantiate this: The numbers were lower when she got the boot than when she got the job. Then a man had to come in and clean up her mess from playing CEO. If her grand plan of greatness was doing so well, she wouldn't have gotten shit-canned. This is just another failed attempt to stump the Trump with Ted "No Chance in Hell" Cruz blundering as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I've got a math problem for you that you can take to your professors and see if they can answer it: How many people are beating Trump? Answer: Zero.
Here's another one for you: How many Cuban Canadians named Cruz are eligible to be president? Answer: Zero.
Maybe next time around in 2024 if Ted stops spending so much time cheating on his wife while she has cancer and is suicidal then he might have a chance.
While we're on the topic of women, more Republican women want Trump to be president than Republican men want Cruz to be president. Let that marinate a while. He also does better with Democrats than Cruz across the board. How could Cruz possibly win?
Take on a loan for an investment and you're in more debt than you were before. Get canned at that point and some tool will say "dude was in more debt than when he started therefore derp derp".Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If the plan had worked faster, she may not have gotten the boot. But that has no bearing on whether or not it worked or how it was supposed to work in the first place.
I don't think trying to agitate people is as much fun as you do.Quote:
I've got a math problem for you that you can take to your professors and see if they can answer it: How many people are beating Trump? Answer: Zero.
Here's another one for you: How many Cuban Canadians named Cruz are eligible to be president? Answer: Zero.
Maybe next time around in 2024 if Ted stops spending so much time cheating on his wife while she has cancer and is suicidal then he might have a chance.
While we're on the topic of women, more Republican women want Trump to be president than Republican men want Cruz to be president. Let that marinate a while. He also does better with Democrats than Cruz across the board. How could Cruz possibly win?
Bottom line: She sucks, Cruz sucks and America will continue to suck if they screw Trump out of the White House.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What will Trump do to make America not suck?
He'll be great on not sucking.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Watching joint interviews of Cruz and Carly since the announcement. She accommodates his weaknesses superbly. He's not the best communicator. When he's told that he's unpopular in DC, he doesn't combat the narrative behind the accusation forcefully or with enough charisma to convince anybody who isn't already on his side that the accusation actually shows how effectively he's been fighting against the corruption. But Fiorina knows when and how to hit those points.
Great pick. Maybe Haley wouldn't have been better. Notice how Trump has kept his mouth shut regarding anything Carly. The last thing he wants is her to fasten his ball gag again.
I wish I was Donald Trump now. I don't mean in that I would love to be President (I totally would), but that trolling from his position would be so much fun. For example, if I were on a debate stage with Hillary, in response to some diatribe from her, I'd just lean into the mic and whisper "Monica" then lean back and make faces and hand gestures as the crowd explodes.
The entertainment aspect of Trump vs. Hillary is going to be absolutely huge, and I can't fucking wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The "deal me in" rebuttal made me lose faith in her victory. Trump is just gonna play his side's strengths way more persuasively than her.
She might still win if the bernie supporters flock to her. I'd personally, not trolling, prefer trump to her though so idk
It's gonna be incredibly entertaining though, that's for sure
Oh damn. How come?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm seriously not looking for an argument, since I basically dislike them both about equally. I'm just curious what your thoughts are.
There are very few people I'd openly admit as much to, but I think I agree with JKDS. It's super close-- and I'm not afraid to admit it because I'm a closeted Trump fanatic, but because it's a heavily nuanced stance that most people are incapable or unwilling to parse.
In short, In my uninformed opinion, I think it's highly likely neither will see a second term, and I'm more worried about the fallout from the Clinton presidency than I am Trump's short tenure. Trump is a sort of reset button, a national tantrum, and after, we can get back to business as usual (which I'm more and more convinced isn't such a bad thing.) On the other hand, Clinton is the worst example of business as usual and if we think things are crazy this cycle, just wait until 2020 after four more years without the pressure being vented.
The short answer is this:
The only positive I see in electing hillary is that she'd get more liberal justices on the SC, and with a democratic legislature we may actually have federal court judges again.
But i'm not convinced more liberal scotus judges is a good thing.
It's possible that the Democrat media might not actually turn on Trump if he's the nominee. I think the media at large thinks they will turn on Trump, but each individual person in the media intends to not do it themselves. Even though they prefer a Democrat in the White House, Trump gives them ratings and nobody wants to shit the bed. It's tragedy of the commons, really.
I'm not sure if I still think Trump's negatives have merit. His persona is a rewriting of the rules to such a degree that Clinton and all her consultants may end up getting blindsided by a media that just can't stop giving Trump everything he wants. This has already happened to Cruz, somebody who was tailor made to win this nomination. Cruz had unmatched anti-establishment conservative bona fides and the media at his back (Rush, Hannity, etc.), yet Trump dropped a giant steaming deuce on him by way of this media incessantly giving Trump the most favorable coverage possible. The kicker to all this is that it is likely that Trump is bad for ratings over the long run. Fox has begun experiencing this since CNN has started beating it due to so many conservatives switching. It's something more along the lines of the click-bait tabloidism of the 24/7 news cycle providing spikes in ratings yet this resulting in a slow burn of loyal viewers.
Hmmm, interesting thing to hear. Have you been shifting your thoughts on things, have I simply misread them, or is it along the lines of something like if the court goes too left it becomes de-legitimized?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
What do you like about business as usual?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'm asking because I view the current trend as poor. The economy is underperforming potential, little of Obama's legislation has produced the intended effect, the Iran deal looks remarkably similar to how North Korea got the bomb, I see systematic undermining of principles of liberty and a resurgence of social and economic justice, etc..
The one thing I see as a positive is that there is little legislating of Christian morality that tends to come from social conservatives. The Democrats aren't a bastion of freedom, but their greater propensity towards hedonism has aided some elements of freedom.
I haven't ignored your question wuf, I'm just waiting till I have enough time to really talk about it.
In the meantime, hillary lost the main advantage she had over trump. I thought for sure that the election would turn into "he's a racist fuck, so vote hillary", which would have worked fine. But now...trump has two very easy rebuttals that he should NOT have had. In addition to Bill's crime laws, now we got CP time and reservation talk. Good luck painting this as a racist vs white knight argument now hill.
FWIW I think that if Trump wasn't running, he would be an open Hillary supporter. If Trump loses the nomination, I think at the very least he will vote for Hillary, and at the most he will openly state that he supports her and possibly will do a campaign-like event for her.
Looks like I vastly underestimated four things: (1) how much Trump's support would increase simply by him shutting up, (2) how strongly the "rigged" narrative would work, (3) how effective the media is at morphing behavior from viewers, (4) the vast number of low information voters there are.
Under normal circumstances, I would say that a sizeable number of pro-Cruz and anti-Trump delegates would abstain on the first ballot, but I'm convinced that they too will fool themselves into thinking the right thing is to give him the nomination. Their rationale will be as follows:
"I'm eating a tomato."
"But you don't like tomatoes. Why are you eating one?"
"Because I don't like tomatoes."
"Wha...?"
"Tomatoes are terrible. I need to eat more of them."
bye bye cruz
We still have a ways to go before people believe in liberty.
Something I've learned over my support for Cruz: most Cruz supporters are hardcore religious conservatives.* Their social conservatism is frustrating. They filter everything through God and their prayers, and they deride things I think they're wrong to, like homosexuality. American Protestantism may have a deep historical role in the proliferation of individual freedoms, but today their social conservatism holds them back. Even though I think Cruz was not a social conservative the way most of them are, he is viewed as such by most everybody, and it hurt him greatly with non-social-conservatives. A social liberal winning the GOP nomination could signal the death of social conservatism. Unfortunately, there are several elements of social conservatism that make the world a better place, but its negatives overshadow them.
*Hardcore liberty conservatives and libertarians make up a small minority of his support, like Thomas Sowell or me.
Maybe I should clarify: when I say "business as usual" I'm including Sr., Bill, and Jr.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Idk.. I just feel like the guy who didn't have long hair and was employed in the mid 60's and into the early 70's. Maybe this is just a cycle of the system-- we go through radical times, eventually the fire burns itself out, and the centrists pick up the pieces and try to apply what lessons they can until it happens again.
At least the establishment got their wish: that they would promote a government-knows-best strongman would win the election before a liberty conservative who would reduce their stranglehold on power. I wouldn't be surprised if half the GOP Senate would vote for Clinton before Cruz. Nothing frightens authoritarians like losing authority.
You gotta be liked to win an election. Gotta be. Something about cruz always rang as phoney to me, and I read his comments as being snide and arrogant. I think that image is the biggest reason he ended up losing. Those who are with his message don't care, but anyone on the fence or otherwise needed to see a different person.
Problems include not getting visibly angry when trump targeted his wife. Likewise when any candidate lies about him. With trump being incorrect like 50% of the time, he needed real indignation that such a person had so many delegates. Instead we got the same tone for everything. A change would have made him look more humane, more relateable, and would also have been more entertaining (ie ratings and viewership).
I agree, he isn't that personable on stage. He appeals to peoples' better judgment, not their emotions.
A derision of Cruz has often been "he knows he's the smartest guy in the room." But, like, how is this supposed to be a bad thing? Get the smartest guy in the room to work for you and discover that things get better for you. But instead people read it as off-putting, maybe like how an employer might be reluctant to hire somebody they view as smarter than them since they feel it could undermine their own position.
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Ted Cruz just quit like the Canadian quitter he is.
Clinton is next in Trump's path of destruction.
This isn't true. You need a level of intelligence but extremes usually result in worse results. Selling ideas and concepts as well as being able to view the world how other less intelligent (not necessarily stupid) people do is vitally important.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He wasn't the smartest guy in the room though. That's the point. The election is not about records, truth, or policy. It's about likeability. Trump completely and totally demolished him by being many times smarter in this regard. He won the nomination, after being openly racist. Think on that. It's not because people are stupid or were decieved...its because trump out maneuvered everyone when it comes to being liked. He trumped cruz by turning weaknesses into strengths, and strengths into mointains. And through it all, he was likedQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It depends on which context in which we're using "smart".Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I meant it in that Cruz articulated expertise on policy above everybody else in the race. He also executed formal presentations of such more effectively than his opponents. It's just that this style was not effective. Voters said "no we don't want that, give us the dumb version." They wanted such a dumb version that they got no version of policy whatsoever, and instead got a guy who dumbed things down so intensely that their emotions dominated their opinions to the point that they supported a guy for reasons in total contradiction to what they claimed they wanted.
Trump played it "smart" by being better at politicking to this crowd. I wasn't referring to it that way.
Do you mean he's not the smartest guy in the room or that doing something like hiring smart people is a bad idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
As for the "Cruz is the smartest person in the room" thing, it's a criticism people in Washington who don't like him created. It's how they describe him and it's why they don't like him. Nobody likes it when somebody who knows their job better than they do shows up.
This is also part of why they don't like Trump, but for different reasons. Trump isn't smarter than them on policy nor on Washington politics the way Cruz is. But he is smarter than them on electoral politics, apparently.
The first I don't know as I don't know much about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The second I'm saying that hiring the smartest people isn't always the best choice. We're talking somewhat extremes though. Not I went to an Ivy League school smart but I'm the smartest person in a room full of ivy league graduates type smart. There's a point where intelligence over the need required can be negative.
Look it up it's an interesting concept imo.
Point taken. I would argue that his intelligence makes it harder for him to dumb his message down. He needed to do things like speak faster, speak off the cuff, joke around -- which is all stuff he tried to do but it still seemed like it was coming from, well, a guy with a Juris Doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
It actually takes a great deal of intelligence to take a complicated concept and explain it in a simple, easy to understand way. The easy, low intelligence thing is just regurgitating information without regard for your audience. Tailoring an argument so it has the best appeal to your audience takes work, and knowledge of how to do so effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not stating this from an "anti-cruz" position. I'm stating this from a "how in gods name do I explain patent law to a jury" way. It takes a lot of skill.
Hahahaha loser Carly had the shortest bid for VP in fucking history, she should have rejected loser Ted and said she'd only consider VP'ing for big daddy Trump
In a move that exemplifies the overlords manipulating the masses, Kasich drops out immediately after Cruz.
Kasich never intended on winning; he only intended on diluting the anti-Trump vote in order to keep Cruz from winning. Anything to keep the gravy train running.
Trump crushes all.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Omarosa for VP.
Trump destroyed 17 primary opponents with establishment backing and crooked Hillary still can't beat a 74 year old socialist who won't even attack her.
It sounds like a joke, but it could be what gets him the most votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Orthodox wisdom is dead. Counter-orthodox wisdom is also dead. All that remains is Trump wisdom.
Does he need Cruz as VP so he can stamp out #NeverTrump? Probably not, since probably >80% of current #NeverTrumpers will still end up voting for him. Does he need a presidential, establishment, rising star darling female like Nikki Haley? Probably not; that would just dilute his brand and send mixed messages.
I can't say I have any clue what would help him, but a sanctimonious black woman may be just the key. With that, he could possibly take Pennsylvania.
So is this going to pivot into a why (the royal) I can't vote for Trump thread?
Even if his presidency is a disaster, Trump's ego will remain untouched. He'll be able to insist that he's an enormous success and pass any necessary blame by singling out any fall guy and insisting that they're doing an awful job. He doesn't strike me as someone who will give the appropriate gravity to the problems that befall the office. With Obama, you could be confident that he's honest with his work (he even admitted his mistake in Libya) and that he sees himself historically since he was Black President #1. So when he was saddled with the enormous choices of his office, you know gave it the proper attention and measured himself meagerly before them. I think Trump would be very near the other side of this spectrum
Maybe the Trumpening is a conspiracy cooked up by Obama and his cronies. A Trump presidency means Obama's is bookended by eight years of Dubya and a man with cotton candy for hair and a CV with professional wrestling appearances on the other side.
Snoop is in the same boat. Sasha Banks (likely the best female non-Japanese professional wrestler in the world) is his cousin, and he did her WrestleMania entrance last month.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
On the contrary, this is likely to become a Dr. Strangelove story or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I already see it happening. I'm looking for ways to rationalize why he doesn't believe what he says and just uses it to get votes. I'm looking for anything that signals some semblance of ideology orientated towards liberty.
So, the conservative movement is destitute right now. Their leader, the man who virtually single-handedly created and nurtured the movement, Rush Limbaugh, betrayed the movement in the eyes of most members of the movement. The movement finally got big enough and sophisticated enough that it had the numbers and the quality of talent. Ted Cruz passed every test with flying colors; in fact he engaged conservatism to a greater degree than any in the movement thought possible, and as we entered this election cycle, everybody in the movement was a Cruz supporter even though many had other preferences like Rubio or Walker.
Then Trump entered, a man deeply adversarial to conservatism yet a man with great appeal to members who consider themselves within the conservative community. It was up to the leader, Limbaugh, to set things straight. But he didn't. Cruz had just about everything Limbaugh had fought decades for, yet he daily relegated Cruz to the sidelines while he and Trump played a sloppy game of grab-ass.
I set this up to make this point: most conservatives think that Limbaugh is either an apostate or was always in it for the money. I'm developing a different theory. Limbaugh and Trump are buddies. I think Limbaugh thinks he has an inside track on what Trump believes and that he would have significant influence on Trump's policies. Limbaugh probably also thinks that in order for a conservative to win, he needs to have the kind of broad appeal that Trump has. So, Limbaugh is playing a cheeky game just like Trump has been. Even though Trump persistently says things antithetical to Limbaugh's movement, Limbaugh doesn't blink because he thinks Trump doesn't actually believe that stuff and is just using it to get votes.
It looks like an obvious theory if you're somebody who thinks that Trump doesn't believe what he says. I've been unsure about that, and for some time thought Trump was deeply ideological towards European leftism. I've dampened somewhat on that.
Best theory I've heard on Trump's appeal. Obviously, you hear about it being backlash from PC culture quite a lot, but I think Carolla pieces it together and hits a home run with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApvRpI6wcyo
I can see my thoughts on Trump softening since Cruz is no longer a part of the picture. The culture I come from can be described as "westerns" culture. All the elements of what you see in Clint Eastwood westerns are pretty much the types of things "my people" care about. The culture is deeply antagonistic to disrespecting others, bearing false witness, and not having to answer for your words or your actions. Every part of the country holds these values, but the "westerns" culture has internalized it to a great degree. Anyways, Cruz also comes from this culture, yet Trump is about as far from it as possible. Trump constantly breaks the rules. Trump's public persona couldn't last ten minutes in a place where everybody wears spurs on their boots. It was infuriating to me to see Trump continually do what I believe to be wrong in character to a man whom I think is right in character.
Granted, Cruz isn't exclusively from this culture. He's also adopted some Christian conservative culture that I don't exactly know where it comes from, but it's an almost pacifist culture. When you're challenged in "westerns" culture, you answer with force. But in the Christian conservative culture, when you're challenged, you answer with humility and "turning the other cheek" as Jesus would do. Maybe Cruz wouldn't have any longer been a champion of the Christian conservative movement if he adopted the "westerns" response to Trump, but not doing so certainly hurt him in the eyes of non-Christian-conservatives.
It's a tough spot to be in even if you're dyed-in-the-wool "westerns." In that culture, you don't use your words to fight back; you use your fists. So, when you're in a situation where you can only use your words (a political campaign), it's unfamiliar territory.
Some of this can be seen by looking at the places that rejected Trump and supported Cruz the most. The Plains West and Mountain West are the most "westerns" culture areas of the country.
Short post succinctly explaining the dynamic behind why Cruz lost as well as why Cruz did the right thing and should continue to do so.
http://theresurgent.com/will-ted-cru...right-lessons/
TLDR: The GOP establishment does not want future Cruz's, i.e., they don't want defiance of their power structure to become the new model for Republican politicians. Their primary goal this cycle has not been about winning, but about stopping Cruz. They would rather 4 years of Clinton than 4 years of a Republican that would essentially overthrow their hierarchy. Since the GOP establishment gladly enables corruption and authoritarianism and since Cruz is the GOP establishment's chief enemy, it means that Cruz was in the right and should continue his strategy.
Are you trying to convince us that youre a born again Trump supporter?
--------
Anyway, PC culture isnt the focus of trump's appeal, its a supporting point. The majority of Americans want change. They've wanted change since Obama, but now they really want it. Thats all this is. How do we know Donald will provide change? 1) His fight against PC, 2) His stance on immigration, 3) His stance on muslims, 4) the way he attacks people / debates.
Trump represents change, change to "make America great again".
But still, platforms dont matter if you arent liked.
Lets talk chances.
If Bernie somehow pulls out a win from Hillary's vagina, I think he crushes Trump. There isnt as much Republican hate towards him as there is against Hillary, and hes pretty well liked by the democrats. He also doesnt have a hilarious history of things like CP time.
If its Trump v Hillary though, I'm thinking Trump is a fair bit ahead. Something like 3:2. With all her faults, hes just gonna continue be rubber while shes glue.
No, not at all. Just spitballing ideas. I do that a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It's very unlikely I would vote for Trump even if I preferred him to Clinton. I'll probably go for Gary Johnson.
I have two antithetical thoughts on President Trump at this point:
(1) He'll be like Nixon. He's not at heart a liberty constitutionalist, like Nixon, and runs to the left, like Nixon. He'll make bigger government and more agencies and leave in corruption.
(2) The success of his brand depends on the success of the US economy, so he'll be apt to engage policy that actually works. There is potential that he would leave office more like Coolidge than it would seem.
lol you're fucking ridiculousQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's not a secret. Boehner has been more vocal about opposing Cruz than he has about anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It also makes sense since Cruz threatens the Boehner/McConnell party more than a Clinton presidency does (or a Trump presidency, for that matter).
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...-donald-trump/
Trumps going for Sheldon Adelson $$$'s, as an Online Poker player, looks like I have to automatically vote against him regardless how much I loathe the person running against him. There are a lot of political donors on both sides that I hate, but Public Enemy #1 for me as someone who probably plays Online Poker close to 2000 hours a year, is Sheldon Adelson.
About the only person in politics that I genuinely wish would die, is probably Sheldon Adelson.
I've been saying since 2012, if a candidate takes so much as $1 of donations from Sheldon Adelson, I will automatically vote against that person, regardless who is running.
Not to mention, I simply don't like the country of Israel. I don't think I'm racist, you shouldn't conflate dislike of a country to dislike of Jews just because it's a jewish state. It's just whenever there's a conflict between Palestinians and Israeli's, I count the coffins, that's how I judge the two sides, and it makes it rather difficult to feel sorry for Israel as the victim in all of this when the conflicts are generating one Israeli coffin for every 100 Palestinian Coffins.
ANd I don't really hear anyone talk about this, but 9/11 was a direct result because of our country's love affair with Israel.
Even though Bernie is pretty much out of the running, he was the closest in terms of sharing my views on things of this nature, not to mention he's also Jewish.
Guess what? Bernie Sanders helped to push the bill that became the UIGEA. He actually pushed for the harsher version of the bill (before it was changed into the current UIGEA) that banned online gambling outright, which the UIGEA refused to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyS1985
Moreover, Trump has been vocally more supportive of online gambling, poker in particular, than any other candidate this cycle.
Please get more informed than you currently are because you have no idea what you're talking about. Adelson is not a serious threat to online gambling in the United States, but there are other people who are. Look closer at who is funding Shillary because she's the one you need to worry about if you want the best chances of keeping these dickheads from interfering with the progress that's being made for online poker in the United States.
TO be fair that UIEGA bill was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed off on by a Republican President.
When ever the PPA does their Jokers to watch out, usually 3/4 to 4/5's of them are Republicans, and backed by Sheldon Adelson.
The Right Wingers I've met want the government to engage in I guess a form of voyeurism into our individual lives. Who we can marry, can gays join the military, am I allowed to gamble with my own hard earned cash online, the government should be forcing us to carry pregnancies even when we make it abundantly clear we have no interest in birthing or parenting a child, social conservatives (and the private prison industry, prosecutor and police unions) are still backing the government incarcerating American citizenry for years at a time over what consenting adults put in their own bodies.
I'm Libertarian on all of these matters, all of these matters Right Wingers take Authoritarian stances on which I thoroughly detest. Any Presidential candidate that takes donations from Sheldon Adelson I'm automatically voting against. If I go to Vegas to play poker, I will not go in the Venetian because of how much I HATE Sheldon Adelson. He's putting up $100 million for Trump? Then I'm voting against him. Besides Trump said his campaign would be self financed, it appears that's the first campaign promise he's broken, can't help but think there's even more to come.
Looks like Trump will debate Sanders in Cali soon. Hahaha, fuck you hillary.
lol what a chump
Do you even know how the UIGEA was passed lol? There was no practical way at all to not pass it by the time it was in.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyS1985
just checking in on u cuck losers to see if ur still trying to stump the trump LOL FEEL THE BERN no tv time for u socialist
Crooked Hillary will stick.
Meh, I've been unimpressed with Trump since he's run out of bottom-tier opposition. Guy basically walks through the ameteur league but he's about to line up against a pro. Even the best cfb league would be crushed by the worst pro team.
PS TIL "ameture" is the porn bastardization of the word.
PPS Here's an epic rant on the current election cycle that I thought was great.
https://www.quora.com/Between-Trump-...ntial-election
(The long one by Ian Jackson if quora doesn't organize responses for you like it does for me.)
lol every one the gop establishment chose is bottom tier opposition, he straight up 187'd like a dozen people hand-picked by the gop and the media and shillary can't beat ONE fucking socialist in the united states of america roflQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
no chance in hell
The author is factually wrong in his discussion of economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla