The Swamp

Moreta wrote:Apparently Jimmy Carter agrees with those in the Cruz camp here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carte ... -ted-cruz/

I'd bet that this is the basis of a Cruz ad within a few hour.

Pruitt wrote:

Moreta wrote:Apparently Jimmy Carter agrees with those in the Cruz camp here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carte ... -ted-cruz/

I'd bet that this is the basis of a Cruz ad within a few hour.

Well, according to the article, he is already using it in speeches

Later in the day in Nashua, New Hamsphire, Cruz told supporters about the former president's remarks.

"Today -- and I'm not making this up -- Jimmy Carter endorsed Donald Trump," he said. "Here's what Jimmy Carter said: the reason is Donald's views are malleable, he has no core beliefs on anything... This Cruz guy actually believes this stuff."

Cruz added, "I want the video, and I am going to pay to air Jimmy Carter attacking me."

Speaking of Cruz, anything going to come out of his use of official looking mailers, which is a criminal misdemeanor? Not to mention, they pulled the numbers out of their asses, and put neighbors names on all the mailers, to shame people into voting. I like this quote from a mailer recipient:

“I’m crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”

Those Cruz tricks align perfectly with that article posted here about his campaign manager. Right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

I figured it was Montgomery Burns.

Shirley wrote:Those Cruz tricks align perfectly with that article posted here about his campaign manager. Right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

And nothing new if you live in KC.

Shirley wrote:Those Cruz tricks align perfectly with that article posted here about his campaign manager. Right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Gotta go old school and shout out to Lee Atwater.

Shirley wrote:Those Cruz tricks align perfectly with that article posted here about his campaign manager. Right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Pretty much Nixon-ian. A Bible thumping ratfcker...

I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

Here's the sane Republican reading his new-found leadership guide.



Rubio seems to have found religion which proves that this kid knows how to suck up to anyone who can get him elected.

Just had a thought - if Pat Robertson were 20 years younger, he just might be lapping the g.o.p. field.

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

I was actually thinking about this while watching the town hall yesterday and being totally underwhelmed by Hillary. While I do find her scary due to her uncanny ability to further divide the country, I would probably bite the bullet and vote for her primarily because she would nominate supreme court judges who are closer aligned to my views than Rubio. But I think for the most part, the country wouldn't be much different if either of these two are president. Kind of like Romney and Obama in 2012.

Keg wrote:

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

I was actually thinking about this while watching the town hall yesterday and being totally underwhelmed by Hillary. While I do find her scary due to her uncanny ability to further divide the country, I would probably bite the bullet and vote for her primarily because she would nominate supreme court judges who are closer aligned to my views than Rubio. But I think for the most part, the country wouldn't be much different if either of these two are president. Kind of like Romney and Obama in 2012.

Fair. I totally agree. My support for Hillary is based on her chances of winning. Republicans for years nominated guys who were not ideologically pure but who had the ability to win national elections and this is the Democrats chance to do the same thing and a lot of them are tearing down Hillary.

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

I was actually thinking about this while watching the town hall yesterday and being totally underwhelmed by Hillary. While I do find her scary due to her uncanny ability to further divide the country, I would probably bite the bullet and vote for her primarily because she would nominate supreme court judges who are closer aligned to my views than Rubio. But I think for the most part, the country wouldn't be much different if either of these two are president. Kind of like Romney and Obama in 2012.

Fair. I totally agree. My support for Hillary is based on her chances of winning. Republicans for years nominated guys who were not ideologically pure but who had the ability to win national elections and this is the Democrats chance to do the same thing and a lot of them are tearing down Hillary.

I understand your logic, but I disagree with it at the same time. Thousands of people thinking that way are what prevents real progressives from getting elected. I'm a pretty staunch Bernie supporter, and I don't agree with 100% of what he says (no one will ever get someone who lines up 100% with their views, people believing that another problem in itself), but I dislike the idea that we can't make a large change as Democrats because someone "has no chance". I think it's been proven several times over in this country that people who "had no chance" or whose ideas "would never get implemented" can and do make a difference.

I'm not staying home. Regardless of who the Dem is, I'll go out and show my support because to me human rights and equal justice is the most important issue of our time. People can tell you it's the economy, people can tell you it's jobs, people can tell you it's climate change. The most important thing to me personally is that people are given a fair shake and equal rights and protections. I can't imagine anyone who feels that way staying home if Hillary isn't the nominee and Bernie is. If anything I think Bernie gets the vote out in greater numbers than Hillary and has a far better chance against who I assume will be Rubio (because the GOP can't possibly think Ted Cruz is electable). I feel like Hillary provokes a meh reaction, whereas Bernie gives Democrats something to be excited about. A once in a lifetime chance. Even if he wins and accomplishes little of what he is trying to do, I feel like he is the most honest and genuine person in the race and it's not even close. The divide is what kills the Dems. I refuse to let that happen, but I also refuse to support Hillary at this time because shes "more electable" or "has a better shot". I don't believe that for a second.

BSF21 wrote:

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

I was actually thinking about this while watching the town hall yesterday and being totally underwhelmed by Hillary. While I do find her scary due to her uncanny ability to further divide the country, I would probably bite the bullet and vote for her primarily because she would nominate supreme court judges who are closer aligned to my views than Rubio. But I think for the most part, the country wouldn't be much different if either of these two are president. Kind of like Romney and Obama in 2012.

Fair. I totally agree. My support for Hillary is based on her chances of winning. Republicans for years nominated guys who were not ideologically pure but who had the ability to win national elections and this is the Democrats chance to do the same thing and a lot of them are tearing down Hillary.

I understand your logic, but I disagree with it at the same time. Thousands of people thinking that way are what prevents real progressives from getting elected. I'm a pretty staunch Bernie supporter, and I don't agree with 100% of what he says (no one will ever get someone who lines up 100% with their views, people believing that another problem in itself), but I dislike the idea that we can't make a large change as Democrats because someone "has no chance". I think it's been proven several times over in this country that people who "had no chance" or whose ideas "would never get implemented" can and do make a difference.

I'm not staying home. Regardless of who the Dem is, I'll go out and show my support because to me human rights and equal justice is the most important issue of our time. People can tell you it's the economy, people can tell you it's jobs, people can tell you it's climate change. The most important thing to me personally is that people are given a fair shake and equal rights and protections. I can't imagine anyone who feels that way staying home if Hillary isn't the nominee and Bernie is. If anything I think Bernie gets the vote out in greater numbers than Hillary and has a far better chance against who I assume will be Rubio (because the GOP can't possibly think Ted Cruz is electable). I feel like Hillary provokes a meh reaction, whereas Bernie gives Democrats something to be excited about. A once in a lifetime chance. Even if he wins and accomplishes little of what he is trying to do, I feel like he is the most honest and genuine person in the race and it's not even close. The divide is what kills the Dems. I refuse to let that happen, but I also refuse to support Hillary at this time because shes "more electable" or "has a better shot". I don't believe that for a second.

These are all valid points. I also think that Bernie wins the general election in a walk against Cruz or Trump so electability is only a concern for me if Rubio is the nominee. To your point about Democratic excitement, I've long thought that there needed to be more challenges from the left to establishment Democrats. Due to the fact that Republicans routinely face primary challenges from the right, the GOP has moved sharply rightward in the last 10 years, while the Democratic Party has largely remained in place. That it turn moves "the center" rightward as well. Has the move rightward cost the GOP some elections? Sure, but a lot fewer than you'd expect and really only those involving a truly incompetent candidate like Sharon Angle, Todd Akin or Christine McDonnell.

Joe K wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:

brian wrote:

Keg wrote:I'll go with:

Cruz
Sanders
Trump
Hillary

We're fucked.

Not saying you're wrong if you think this, but out of curiosity if it was Rubio v. Clinton you'd vote for Rubio?

I was actually thinking about this while watching the town hall yesterday and being totally underwhelmed by Hillary. While I do find her scary due to her uncanny ability to further divide the country, I would probably bite the bullet and vote for her primarily because she would nominate supreme court judges who are closer aligned to my views than Rubio. But I think for the most part, the country wouldn't be much different if either of these two are president. Kind of like Romney and Obama in 2012.

Fair. I totally agree. My support for Hillary is based on her chances of winning. Republicans for years nominated guys who were not ideologically pure but who had the ability to win national elections and this is the Democrats chance to do the same thing and a lot of them are tearing down Hillary.

I understand your logic, but I disagree with it at the same time. Thousands of people thinking that way are what prevents real progressives from getting elected. I'm a pretty staunch Bernie supporter, and I don't agree with 100% of what he says (no one will ever get someone who lines up 100% with their views, people believing that another problem in itself), but I dislike the idea that we can't make a large change as Democrats because someone "has no chance". I think it's been proven several times over in this country that people who "had no chance" or whose ideas "would never get implemented" can and do make a difference.

I'm not staying home. Regardless of who the Dem is, I'll go out and show my support because to me human rights and equal justice is the most important issue of our time. People can tell you it's the economy, people can tell you it's jobs, people can tell you it's climate change. The most important thing to me personally is that people are given a fair shake and equal rights and protections. I can't imagine anyone who feels that way staying home if Hillary isn't the nominee and Bernie is. If anything I think Bernie gets the vote out in greater numbers than Hillary and has a far better chance against who I assume will be Rubio (because the GOP can't possibly think Ted Cruz is electable). I feel like Hillary provokes a meh reaction, whereas Bernie gives Democrats something to be excited about. A once in a lifetime chance. Even if he wins and accomplishes little of what he is trying to do, I feel like he is the most honest and genuine person in the race and it's not even close. The divide is what kills the Dems. I refuse to let that happen, but I also refuse to support Hillary at this time because shes "more electable" or "has a better shot". I don't believe that for a second.

These are all valid points. I also think that Bernie wins the general election in a walk against Cruz or Trump so electability is only a concern for me if Rubio is the nominee. To your point about Democratic excitement, I've long thought that there needed to be more challenges from the left to establishment Democrats. Due to the fact that Republicans routinely face primary challenges from the right, the GOP has moved sharply rightward in the last 10 years, while the Democratic Party has largely remained in place. That it turn moves "the center" rightward as well. Has the move rightward cost the GOP some elections? Sure, but a lot fewer than you'd expect and really only those involving a truly incompetent candidate like Sharon Angle, Todd Akin or Christine McDonnell.

If Michelle Bachmann can get elected in this country multiple times it certainly hasn't cost the GOP very much to make the shift.

Really good stuff here. I go back and forth on wanting my preferred candidate versus the most electable, and flipped on the Republican side. Not just this year, but every election. Cruz scares the fuck out of me, and seeing Trump win a nomination scares me for what it says about Americans, but I can't see them winning an election. OTOH, a less nutty candidate is less scary, but if they are more likely to win, I'd rather see a Right Wing nutter lose the election.

Bernie is the closest candidate to my beliefs, but I can't see him being elected. If you look at the constant stream of bullshit aimed at Obama, imagine what will be thrown at the unkept Socialist Jew with a thick Brooklyn accent. I guess it doesn't matter, as Hillary will get just as much abuse. In 2008, I feared Hillary winning, knowing the Right would go all out trashing her, trying to divide the country against her and each other. but it turns out it didn't matter which Democrat won. I never could have imagined the level of utter bullshit thrown at Obama over the last 7 years. It amazes me the sheer number of people raving that Obama is intentionally destroying the country because he hates America, he is ruling as a dictator (yet the same people say he is incompetent because he can't get anything done because he refuses to work with Congress or compromise with Republicans), he needs to be impeached for shredding the Constitution... yet I have never seen one of these people cite a single example. Then of course, they call anyone who provides a factual rebuttable a sheep. And all facts are lies from Liberal sources, yet they never provide a single example of a lie from any of the nonpartisan sites.

Sorry for the off topic ramble. Took a work break midway through posting, and forgot what I was ranting about.

Can't really count House elections though since gerrymandering has made some districts (on both sides to be fair) so laughably uncontest-able that literally anyone -- no matter how stupid or crazy -- with a D or an R in front of their names would be elected.

BSF21 wrote: If Michelle Bachmann can get elected in this country multiple times it certainly hasn't cost the GOP very much to make the shift.

And yet, all the Republican candidates say "we need to take our country back!" because it has taken such a hard turn to the Left. Fuck, Reagan was Left of the Democratic platform on some issues, and would be pilloried by his current idolizers are being a Commie. Fuck, I hate the current state of political discourse in our country. It has gone so far off the rails of sanity and reality, and it was all planned this way.

My big fear of Bernie becoming President, is any bad events or economic downturns will be blamed on Socialism, and the country takes a turn to the Right in response. Look at all the lies about how Obamacare has already destroyed the economy and the entire healthcare industry. Hell, Cruz is the biggest peddler of these lies, and he is on Obamacare! Anyone know why he is on Obamacare and not the Congressional healthcare plan? I know he was on his wife's plan when she worked at Goldman Sachs.

[To answer my question, it appears Congress passed a law requiring Congressmen and their staffs to go through the exchanges if they wanted employer contributions. Looks like Teddy preferred going through the ACA exchanges rather than continuing his Goldman Sachs coverage through COBRA or going through a private insurer on his own. What a fuckbag. And he constantly says erasing every word of Obamacare is his mission. Man I facking hate this guy]

My biggest fear with Bernie becoming president is that he dies within a couple years.

Johnnie wrote:My biggest fear with Bernie becoming president is that he dies within a couple years.

Nope. Then Liz Warren becomes president, and makes it all better.

Then Paul Ryan. After an unfortunate 'accident'.

howard wrote:Then Paul Ryan. After an unfortunate 'accident'.

Not if ALL Americans pray for her well-being.

The Sybian wrote:

howard wrote:Then Paul Ryan. After an unfortunate 'accident'.

Not if ALL Americans pray for her well-being.

I have to admit, that possibility might be enough get THIS non-praying American to change her tune.

govmentchedda wrote:

Johnnie wrote:My biggest fear with Bernie becoming president is that he dies within a couple years.

Nope. Then Liz Warren becomes president, and makes it all better.

Speaking of Warren, this is an interesting video. Hillary doesn't come off too well.

I think this Swamp debate is hopefully settled.

(Although I suppose it could be argued that a hypothetical President Cruz might still be scarier since he would have probably done all of the same stuff but without Trump's self-destructive tendencies.)

I stand by my Huckabee choice. His Twitter is WORSE THAN TRUMPS

brian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:35 pm (Although I suppose it could be argued that a hypothetical President Cruz might still be scarier since he would have probably done all of the same stuff but without Trump's self-destructive tendencies.)

Cruz would have lowered corporate taxes to 10%

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:58 am

Moreta wrote:I see Trump as the scariest because of what his election would say about our society. Our reputation internationally has suffered enough and electing The Donald president would be catastrophic.

I agree with this. The fact that Trump has gained as many supporters as he already has while running a racist, xenophobic and borderline fascist campaign does not speak well of our country. I think other, more "mainstream" candidates like Cruz and Rubio would also make terrible presidents, but I don't they would bring nearly the level of disgrace to the U.S. name internationally as Trump would.

I also don't buy the notion that Hilary belongs anywhere near the top of the list. I'm hardly a fan, as I wish the Democratic party as a whole were more liberal and the Clinton MO has seemingly always been to run a bit to the right of the center of the Democratic party. But that's a lot better than a true far right candidate, which is what the GOP nominee will likely be.

I find the Sanders campaign somewhat fascinating. In a normal election cycle, he would have little chance in the primary and even less of a chance in the general election. But it's so obvious that a large swath of registered Democrats (myself included) want competition for Hillary and somehow no one else emerged as a credible alternative. (There have to be a number of Democrats such as Deval Patrick, Tim Kaine, Joe Biden and even Al Gore who are playing the "what if" game now.) And if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz, I think Bernie wins the general election in a walk.

Looking back, this is probably the most accurate post I’ve ever made in this site.

Ryan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pm I stand by my Huckabee choice. His Twitter is WORSE THAN TRUMPS

I can only echo this.

Instead of Mar-A-Lago, President Huckabee would be at the Ark Encounter every weekend.

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:48 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:58 am

Moreta wrote:I see Trump as the scariest because of what his election would say about our society. Our reputation internationally has suffered enough and electing The Donald president would be catastrophic.

I agree with this. The fact that Trump has gained as many supporters as he already has while running a racist, xenophobic and borderline fascist campaign does not speak well of our country. I think other, more "mainstream" candidates like Cruz and Rubio would also make terrible presidents, but I don't they would bring nearly the level of disgrace to the U.S. name internationally as Trump would.

I also don't buy the notion that Hilary belongs anywhere near the top of the list. I'm hardly a fan, as I wish the Democratic party as a whole were more liberal and the Clinton MO has seemingly always been to run a bit to the right of the center of the Democratic party. But that's a lot better than a true far right candidate, which is what the GOP nominee will likely be.

I find the Sanders campaign somewhat fascinating. In a normal election cycle, he would have little chance in the primary and even less of a chance in the general election. But it's so obvious that a large swath of registered Democrats (myself included) want competition for Hillary and somehow no one else emerged as a credible alternative. (There have to be a number of Democrats such as Deval Patrick, Tim Kaine, Joe Biden and even Al Gore who are playing the "what if" game now.) And if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz, I think Bernie wins the general election in a walk.

Looking back, this is probably the most accurate post I’ve ever made in this site.

I tried to look for a bad take (or a funny "bad take"), but you post too much. Did find this before I gave up:

Joe K wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:08 am I really think it will take Trump winning the nomination and/or Bernie Sanders winning the Presidency for the GOP to do any actual soul searching.

I falsely assumed that there was a soul to search for.

Ryan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pm I stand by my Huckabee choice. His Twitter is WORSE THAN TRUMPS

Huckabee doesn't have the self-control to not just eat anything presented to him in a bowl.