2016 Presidential Race

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:45 pm

I think it was Hank Kissinger who said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac." Which would explain why a zero like Cruz got some tail.

Post by **brian** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:45 pm

If it really is five women, seems unlikely they won't get dirt on at least one of them. I'm not even sure Clinton in his salad years was throwing off that much smoke with his fire.

Can't wait to see his evangelical base try to square the circle on continuing to support him since "at least he's not Hillary".

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:52 pm

What he does have going for him is that no women in their right fucking mind is going to publicly admit to sleeping with Ted Cruz.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:53 pm

brian wrote:Can't wait to see his evangelical base try to square the circle on continuing to support him since "at least he's not Hillary".

I'm sure the "but he's found Jesus now" card is already in hand.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:54 pm

Johnnie wrote:Is this even looking the least bit true? Seems like a sensationalized story upon first glance.

I just want it to be true.

Ask John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, and Gary Hart how good the NE is about reporting politician sex scandals.

That said...who knows?

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:55 pm

P.D.X. wrote:
brian wrote:Can't wait to see his evangelical base try to square the circle on continuing to support him since "at least he's not Hillary".
I'm sure the "but he's found Jesus now" card is already in hand.

[+] spoiler: Jesus forgave him.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:09 pm

Jerloma wrote:
P.D.X. wrote:
brian wrote:Can't wait to see his evangelical base try to square the circle on continuing to support him since "at least he's not Hillary".
I'm sure the "but he's found Jesus now" card is already in hand.

[+] spoiler
Jesus forgave him.

[+] spoiler: Even money that he'll say "Not perfect, but forgiven"...

Moreta · Post by **Moreta** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:21 pm

They'll bring his wife out to talk about forgiveness. It plays pretty well with evangelicals to trot the wife out, showing that he still has a "strong marriage despite their struggles".

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:19 pm

Oooh, the Kobe method.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:21 pm

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:25 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:
Jerloma wrote:I'm just blown away that Cruz got five women who aren't his wife to sleep with him.
I can't believe he got six women, including his wife, to sleep with him.

Well, one has come forward, it seems:

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:38 pm

I like this photo:

Edit:

Shut down the internet.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:46 pm

Johnnie wrote:

That's some quality shade being thrown right there...

Regardless of Ted's mistresses....everything will be fine...because Glenn Beck says "Ted Cruz Is Divinely Anointed And Has Been 'Raised From Birth' To Save This Nation"!

"To you God hasn’t revealed Cruz as divinely anointed. I understand that. And I respect your opinion on it. But here’s mine: I have seen this man’s life. I have watched this man. I have prayed about this man. I have prayed about it by myself, out loud, in quiet, with my family, with my staff, and I happen to believe that Ted Cruz actually was anointed for this time. Would there not be someone that was in the pool that might have the right qualifications for God? Is He that disinterested in all of us? Or is it perhaps possible that just like in the Bible, people were raised from birth for a specific time? Are we that inconsequential, Dr. Kidd? Are we really not that important enough for Him to raise someone up, at this critical juncture?"

Makes me sleep much better at night, for sure...

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:21 pm

Sen. Cruz addresses "The Rumors"

It is a story that quoted one source on the record: Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s chief political adviser,” said Cruz. “It is attacking my family. And what is striking is Donald’s henchman, Roger Stone, had for months been foreshadowing that this attack was coming. It’s not surprising that Donald’s tweet occurs the day before the attack comes out. And I would note that Mr. Stone is a man who has 50 years of dirty tricks behind him. He’s a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent. Well, let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him.”

The Party Of Lincoln, everyone!

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:59 pm

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:05 pm

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:11 pm

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:08 am

DaveInSeattle wrote:
mister d wrote:Weird thought earlier ... there's a sub-section of people, different for each of the four major candidates, who could not be convinced that Trump/Cruz/Hillary/Sanders died of natural causes if they died tomorrow of natural causes. Like the evidence could be beyond overwhelming and they would flat out refuse to believe that person was capable of dying from non-murder.
You mean like the people who are convinced that Obama had Andrew Brietbart killed?

This motherfucker better hurry up and start being dictator for life

howard · Post by **howard** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:39 pm

Ok, this is fake. I don't care. I like it.

This one is real. I dig Bernie; I wish we could have him for president.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:13 pm

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:44 pm

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:09 pm

howard wrote:

This one is real. I dig Bernie; I wish we could have him for president.

Best part about pairing those two clips, Trump was flinching because the bald eagle on his desk scared him.

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:17 am

Ok, presidents die in office all the time. Hillary has this weird medical problem (cerebral vein thrombosis). I'm not saying this would get my vote, but I sure would think about it.

The Case for Vice President Al Franken

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:52 am

Yes please

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:46 pm

howard wrote:Ok, presidents die in office all the time. Hillary has this weird medical problem (cerebral vein thrombosis). I'm not saying this would get my vote, but I sure would think about it.

The Case for Vice President Al Franken

Makes sense.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:06 pm

Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.

Post by **brian** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Some of the arguments put forth to placate Bernie Bros in that piece are pretty dumb. When it's all said and done they're not going to vote for anyone who isn't Bernie regardless of who the VP candidate is. Which if so, then fuck 'em.

I still think Sherrod Brown is a pretty good choice. I could live with Cory Booker.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:16 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.

so the whole senator thing doesn't count then?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:22 pm

howard wrote:Ok, presidents die in office all the time. Hillary has this weird medical problem (cerebral vein thrombosis). I'm not saying this would get my vote, but I sure would think about it.

The Case for Vice President Al Franken

For what it's worth (probably next to nothing) my sister worked for Senator Franken for a couple of years (and I briefly met him). She loves the guy.

And in terms of keeping Bernie's voters energized, he could be a good choice.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:32 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.

Yeah, that article seems to make an assumption that is belied by almost every poll that comes out.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:34 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.
so the whole senator thing doesn't count then?

It counts, sure, but I don't think one term in the Senate (plus a few months) is enough for people to think of him as a Senator first.

Plus, I think the Dems would be better off nominating someone younger. Do the Dems have any nationally known, Presidentially-eligible figures who are younger than 65? They should nominate one so that they have someone with a name for 2020 or 2024.

Other than Michelle Obama?

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:36 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.
so the whole senator thing doesn't count then?
It counts, sure, but I don't think one term in the Senate (plus a few months) is enough for people to think of him as a Senator first.

Plus, I think the Dems would be better off nominating someone younger. Do the Dems have any nationally known, Presidentially-eligible figures who are younger than 65? They should nominate one so that they have someone with a name for 2020 or 2024.

Other than Michelle Obama?

Oh, I don't think he should be a serious candidate. Just that the senator thing is such a huge delineation between he and Trump.

Post by **brian** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.
so the whole senator thing doesn't count then?
It counts, sure, but I don't think one term in the Senate (plus a few months) is enough for people to think of him as a Senator first.

Plus, I think the Dems would be better off nominating someone younger. Do the Dems have any nationally known, Presidentially-eligible figures who are younger than 65? They should nominate one so that they have someone with a name for 2020 or 2024.

Other than Michelle Obama?

Cory Booker's the only one who pops in my mind immediately. Even Brown is 63 (and saying he's nationally known would be a stretch).

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:04 pm

Isn't Booker even more of a horrible centrist than Hillary?

Post by **brian** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:17 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Isn't Booker even more of a horrible centrist than Hillary?

Depends how you feel how "horrible" "centrism" is.

Post by **brian** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:22 pm

I quite honestly don't know how popular he is in Ohio, but if there's any chance nominating Sherrod Brown helps you carry the state, then it's a dead nuts, slam dunk no-brainer, even if Kasich does get to name his replacement. If I'm Hillary and the DNC gives me any guff about that I'd tell them to fuck off.

Short of some kind of miracle, the GOP cannot win the presidency without winning Ohio. Period. End of story. The math just doesn't work.

Post by **Sabo** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:40 pm

brian wrote:I quite honestly don't know how popular he is in Ohio, but if there's any chance nominating Sherrod Brown helps you carry the state, then it's a dead nuts, slam dunk no-brainer, even if Kasich does get to name his replacement. If I'm Hillary and the DNC gives me any guff about that I'd tell them to fuck off.

Short of some kind of miracle, the GOP cannot win the presidency without winning Ohio. Period. End of story. The math just doesn't work.

He's probably the most popular Democrat in the state, but I don't know if that amounts for much. He easily beat Mike DeWine for his Senate seat in 2006, and narrowly held on to beat Josh Mandel (the current Treasurer of Ohio and probably the most ambitious Republican in the state) in 2012. Brown had a huge lead in that contest but a lot of outside money was poured into the contest to try to unseat Brown. It narrowed the margin but it didn't work.

Mrs. Sabo's best friend worked on Brown's election campaign in 2006 and had nothing but good things to say about him.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:12 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.

TV personality is like the 54th most-prevalent description of Trump. Meanwhile go watch 5 videos of Franken being the male Elizabeth Warren and tell me he wouldn't appeal to some pretty important voters.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:44 pm

Ryan wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Seriously?

I could see nominating Franken as a VP in a future election. But here, the strongest thing going for the Dems is that the Republican candidate is a TV personality, not a serious candidate for president. Naming a comedian/TV personality as the VP destroys that argument.

TV personality is like the 54th most-prevalent description of Trump. Meanwhile go watch 5 videos of Franken being the male Elizabeth Warren and tell me he wouldn't appeal to some pretty important voters.

I'm sure Franken would appeal to a lot of voters. Including myself. If I got to choose who the next President would be, I'd probably choose him over Hillary or Bernie.

But I would imagine that most voters who would actually watch those five videos and be persuaded by them are already pretty likely to vote for Hillary in the general election.

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:03 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Plus, I think the Dems would be better off nominating someone younger. Do the Dems have any nationally known, Presidentially-eligible figures who are younger than 65? They should nominate one so that they have someone with a name for 2020 or 2024.

Other than Michelle Obama?

Just cut to the fucking chase. Chelsea.