PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on March 10, 2016, 06:27:23 AM
-
Nothing like shitting on potential voters in upcoming primaries. Unbelievable to say the least.
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2016/03/10/brody-file-exclusive-ted-cruz-says-donald-trumps-voters-have.aspx?mobile=false
-
It's surly a mistake to say those things, but did he say anything that isn't true?
-
It's surly a mistake to say those things, but did he say anything that isn't true?
It's in the same line of Romney saying
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
That quote burned him.
As far as Cruz's quote being true, yes to a degree. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Sanders and Clinton all have low information voters in their camp as well, and they depend on them. To characterize any one candidate's voters as a whole are low information voters is not correct.
-
Of course we all know low information voters do not vote, so why not throw them under the bus? ::)
-
I am actually back to done with the whole thing and willing to let it burn. The level of dysfunction and dishonesty from the Party is such that I don't trust them to get any of it right at this point.
Resorting to the LeftMedia narrative of accusing vast swaths of the population as being uninformed or stupid because they don't agree with you, and the CONTINUED shenanigans with other people's supporters/delegates is the last straw. Cruz is not trustworthy IMO and I will not reward that.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR TED CRUZ, PERIOD. I really wanted to like him but his image as a rock-ribbed conservative is a sham, as is the thought of him being trustworthy, and he is demonstrating in this very statement he does not understand how to build a coalition of support to get anything done - something borne out in his short record in the Senate.
That leaves Trump, Rubio, or, ewwwww, Kasich.
The Party leadership and their ball-less behaviors for nigh on 3 decades is responsible for this entire fucking mess and they can't/won't see and acknowledge it which suggests they will revert to form for the General which means we lose.
'Gimp
-
Much better to have your people assaulting reporters, eh?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/03/10/trumps-campaign-manager-admits-to-physically-grabbing-reporter-michelle-fields-n2131300
-
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR TED CRUZ, PERIOD.
So, let me get this straight.
People who say they will never vote for Trump are at fault because they're not "for" something, but you're against Cruz and that's just AOK? That's a rather hypocritical point of view.
I haven't seen Cruz going out and having his campaign manager assault a reporter for asking a question.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/10/ted-cruz-a-bush-by-another-name/
-
So, let me get this straight.
People who say they will never vote for Trump are at fault because they're not "for" something, but you're against Cruz and that's just AOK? That's a rather hypocritical point of view.
I haven't seen Cruz going out and having his campaign manager assault a reporter for asking a question.
I don't fault anyone for voting or note voting individually, as that is their prerogative. If Cruz ends up with the nomination (I see this as likely by the way), if I don't vote than the results are partly on me, just as they would be if I had voted.
I am surprised that so many presumably intelligent people can't understand what is going on - this primary cycle is, in large part, a referendum on the lack of actual leadership from the Party - see the two least favorite candidates of the Establishment in the lead, and their favored candidates dropping like flies due to being completely rejected by the electorate.
Voting is a deeply personal undertaking that is a mixture of policy, personality, beliefs and especially our faith (or lack thereof) in our fellow man.
My critique has been and remains that I don't want to vote 'against' the other side and take another shit sandwich from a Party elite that has shown no ability to lead even when given the largest swing in political power at the National, State and Local levels in over a century - they refuse the mandate and instead only take the votes. Dingy Harry Reid is still essentially leading the Senate with the abject failure that is Mitch McConnell acting like a battered spouse who just 'fell down the stairs again' when explaining the bruise on her face, and we replaced John Boehner (a real coup historically to unseat a sitting Speaker) with Paul Ryan having high hopes, and he turns right around continues the same shit only with less tan and no tears.
Voting 'against' the other side only serves to further entrench the miserable failures who currently 'lead' the Party because they refuse to acknowledge that it is a begrudgingly given vote in a vain attempt to stop the other side, they see it as supporting their vision (or worse they simple see it as their entitlement) and once they have it they focus instead on being liked by the powerbrokers and maintaining their own political survival.
'Gimp
-
I am actually back to done with the whole thing and willing to let it burn. The level of dysfunction and dishonesty from the Party is such that I don't trust them to get any of it right at this point.
Resorting to the LeftMedia narrative of accusing vast swaths of the population as being uninformed or stupid because they don't agree with you, and the CONTINUED shenanigans with other people's supporters/delegates is the last straw. Cruz is not trustworthy IMO and I will not reward that.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR TED CRUZ, PERIOD. I really wanted to like him but his image as a rock-ribbed conservative is a sham, as is the thought of him being trustworthy, and he is demonstrating in this very statement he does not understand how to build a coalition of support to get anything done - something borne out in his short record in the Senate.
That leaves Trump, Rubio, or, ewwwww, Kasich.
The Party leadership and their ball-less behaviors for nigh on 3 decades is responsible for this entire fucking mess and they can't/won't see and acknowledge it which suggests they will revert to form for the General which means we lose.
'Gimp
I think you are totally missing the boat on Ted Cruz, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Ted Cruz is the closest candidate to Ronald Reagan that the GOP has seen since 1988. Not a single candidate has been closer in terms of conservative bona fides.
As for the anger that I took Cruz to be empathizing with, I will make an observation that most Trump supporters I know are smart people that are blinded by anger, and are TOO blinded to see some problems in Trump.
Take my friend Joe. I've known him as a staunch conservative for over 20 years. He's an attorney and CPA, and probably the most brilliant partnership tax law specialist that I have ever met. And he's a Trump fan.
When I raise the issues where (as I've pointed out many many times in these threads) Trump does not represent the conservative position, has not ever advocated the conservative position, and in fact has taken the liberal side and endorsed liberal democratic candidates against conservative candidates, he basically dismisses everything I say. It's the oddest behavior I've ever seen in him.
I don't think he's abandoned conservatism. But that's what he is, in effect, doing. I think it's because he perceives that Trump (1) WILL win the presidency, despite all polls to the contrary, and (2) when he does win, he will punish the people that Joe is angry with (the GOP establishment, the liberal democrats) not unlike his behavior in Celebrity Apprentice.
It's difficult to speak logically to him about this topic right now, because he is so committed to burning down DC. It's an amazing yet somewhat concerning turn of events.
-
Ted Cruz is the closest candidate to Ronald Reagan that the GOP has seen since 1988.
(http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/s549/lucifer68/140228_2749623_Weekend_Update_Segment___Will_Ferrell_anvver_2_zpsvec1kesm.jpg)
-
It's difficult to speak logically to him about this topic right now, because he is so committed to burning down DC. It's an amazing yet somewhat concerning turn of events.
Might I suggest reminding him that it was the Canadians who last burned DC in the War of 1812. That might just move him out of the Trumpkin column.
-
I think you are totally missing the boat on Ted Cruz, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Ted Cruz is the closest candidate to Ronald Reagan that the GOP has seen since 1988. Not a single candidate has been closer in terms of conservative bona fides.
As for the anger that I took Cruz to be empathizing with, I will make an observation that most Trump supporters I know are smart people that are blinded by anger, and are TOO blinded to see some problems in Trump.
Take my friend Joe. I've known him as a staunch conservative for over 20 years. He's an attorney and CPA, and probably the most brilliant partnership tax law specialist that I have ever met. And he's a Trump fan.
When I raise the issues where (as I've pointed out many many times in these threads) Trump does not represent the conservative position, has not ever advocated the conservative position, and in fact has taken the liberal side and endorsed liberal democratic candidates against conservative candidates, he basically dismisses everything I say. It's the oddest behavior I've ever seen in him.
I don't think he's abandoned conservatism. But that's what he is, in effect, doing. I think it's because he perceives that Trump (1) WILL win the presidency, despite all polls to the contrary, and (2) when he does win, he will punish the people that Joe is angry with (the GOP establishment, the liberal democrats) not unlike his behavior in Celebrity Apprentice.
It's difficult to speak logically to him about this topic right now, because he is so committed to burning down DC. It's an amazing yet somewhat concerning turn of events.
But see you're doing exactly the same thing in my opinion, Cruz has failed to develop any real support in the Senate, ON HIS OWN SIDE let alone in the body as a whole, yet you think he can somehow effectively lead a nation that is as diametrically split as it has been since the 1860's. That to me is nonsensical since it appears to reject the actual fact of his record. Another example is his outward expression of Faith is severely off-putting to a large portion of the population, and has yet to show any actual benefit during the Primaries, with Trump doing better among self-identified Evangelicals. As a Catholic I appreciate people of faith but Cruz does not come off as genuine to me (literally everyone else does), I have the same reaction as I do when either of the Clinton's or Obama talk about their faith. Can't quantify it for Cruz, but can't for Clinton's or Obama either - just a gut feeling.
Cruz is nowhere near Reagan in terms of being a candidate, Conservative bona fides notwithstanding (and I personally doubt how committed he truly is) - not even close and to suggest otherwise is reckless in my opinion. The closest in terms of a candidate being able to connect with people across the entire spectrum in the way Reagan did there is one in each Party, Trump and Bernie. I know smart, hard working young folks who aspire to build wealth who are Bernie supporters, makes no sense but there it is.
The same Party elite that have told us for years, backed up by the entire consultant class, that we need to attract more voters from across the spectrum are now recoiling in horror that someone is actually doing it (Trump), and he is doing not only without their help, BUT IN SPITE OF THEIR ACTIVE OPPOSITION.
Dismissing folks who don't agree with your assessment of a candidate as merely angry, or uninformed, etc., is to accept the LeftMedia narrative and to miss the phenomenon that Trump is benefitting from. Anger is part of it but not all of it, simply because everyone cannot explain their position in a way that makes sense to you or that you can accept is not the same thing as them not having real, valid and informed reasons.
'Gimp
-
(http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/s549/lucifer68/140228_2749623_Weekend_Update_Segment___Will_Ferrell_anvver_2_zpsvec1kesm.jpg)
Thanks for contributing to the discourse. Now go play your video games.
-
"From my perspective as a fervent supporter of the ruggedly honest and principled Bernie Sanders, Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test. Trump is a blunt, no-crap mensch, while Cruz is a ham actor, doling out fake compassion like chopped liver. Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting. This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is—and the White House is no place for him and us to find out."
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/10/i_was_wrong_about_donald_trump_camille_paglia_on_the_gop_front_runners_refreshing_candor_and_his_impetuousness_too/
Camille nails it.
-
"From my perspective as a fervent supporter of the ruggedly honest and principled Bernie Sanders, Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test. Trump is a blunt, no-crap mensch, while Cruz is a ham actor, doling out fake compassion like chopped liver. Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting. This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is—and the White House is no place for him and us to find out."
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/10/i_was_wrong_about_donald_trump_camille_paglia_on_the_gop_front_runners_refreshing_candor_and_his_impetuousness_too/
Camille nails it.
He nails what? His own gayness for flowery female traits and hatred of all things Christian?
He nails that he doesn't like Cruz. That's it.
-
He nails what? His own gayness for flowery female traits and hatred of all things Christian?
He nails that he doesn't like Cruz. That's it.
Actually that's a good assessment of Cruz. The travelling Bible Salesman persona is wearing thin.
-
He nails what? His own gayness for flowery female traits and hatred of all things Christian?
He nails that he doesn't like Cruz. That's it.
Camille Paglia is female, well-known social critic, Rush likes her a lot.
'Gimp
-
Camille Paglia is female, well-known social critic, Rush likes her a lot.
'Gimp
Another lifelong Democrat endorses Democrat Trump...shocking!
-
Another lifelong Democrat endorses Democrat Trump...shocking!
Nice hyperbolic misrepresentation. Admitting your opinion about someone has changed while clearly stating she supports Bernie is not the same as endorsing anyone on the other side.
This is my shocked face : ^ |
One
Trick
Pony
'Gimp
-
So, I presume our Trumpkins support campaign staff assaulting people at rallies then?
-
So, I presume our Trumpkins support campaign staff assaulting people at rallies then?
No.
Next?
This is a breaking story with facts not fully known, the guy has admitted to grabbing the reporter, did not sound intentional to throw her to the ground, but if he thought it was OK to treat her roughly physically as a presumed hostile reporter, even if only to push her away from his candidate, that is BS and he should resign and if he does not resign he should be fired.
But it should be based on a full review of fact not a couple Townhall storylines.
Part of why Trump is attractive to some people (speaking for myself here in particular) is that he does not kowtow to the seemingly endless demands for apologies and dismissals and condemnations and such until he has something presumably fact-based to go on and actually make a deliberate decision. I find it refreshing.
But that said, if it turns out this happened as alleged then the guy should resign or be fired.
'Gimp
-
No.
Next?
This is a breaking story with facts not fully known, the guy has admitted to grabbing the reporter, did not sound intentional to throw her to the ground, but if he thought it was OK to treat her roughly physically as a presumed hostile reporter, even if only to push her away from his candidate, that is BS and he should resign and if he does not resign he should be fired.
But it should be based on a full review of fact not a couple Townhall storylines.
Part of why Trump is attractive to some people (speaking for myself here in particular) is that he does not kowtow to the seemingly endless demands for apologies and dismissals and condemnations and such until he has something presumably fact-based to go on and actually make a deliberate decision. I find it refreshing.
But that said, if it turns out this happened as alleged then the guy should resign or be fired.
'Gimp
OK, so he's admitted to assaulting someone, but we need to wait for the "facts" to come in. Got it.
I don't give two shits if she's a friendly reporter, a hostile reporter, or some random citizen off the street. Keep your hands off of her.
-
OK, so he's admitted to assaulting someone, but we need to wait for the "facts" to come in. Got it.
I don't give two shits if she's a friendly reporter, a hostile reporter, or some random citizen off the street. Keep your hands off of her.
Do you actually read things for comprehension when you quote and reply or just hit the one-trick-pony random outrage word generator?
I don't know how you navigate a world so filled with strawmen.
'Gimp
-
Do you actually read things for comprehension when you quote and reply or just hit the one-trick-pony random outrage word generator?
I don't know how you navigate a world so filled with strawmen.
'Gimp
What are you challenging?
You said "the guy has admitted to grabbing the reporter"
What "facts" do you need to see? Why hasn't Trump fired this guy yet? If the material facts are not in dispute (laid hands on someone), is Trump so indecisive that he can't make the decision?
-
What are you challenging?
You said "the guy has admitted to grabbing the reporter"
What "facts" do you need to see? Why hasn't Trump fired this guy yet? If the material facts are not in dispute (laid hands on someone), is Trump so indecisive that he can't make the decision?
You asked if Trump supporters approve of assault. I said no. End of discussion.
Except, you have to continue the #neverTrump jihad and just keep expanding and hyperventliating and prevaricating.
I personally have a problem that grabbing someone's arm legally constitutes assault, and my concern is because of bullshit like this.
But I also clearly said:
...if he thought it was OK to treat her roughly physically as a presumed hostile reporter, even if only to push her away from his candidate, that is BS and he should resign and if he does not resign he should be fired.
And then I said:
But that said, if it turns out this happened as alleged then the guy should resign or be fired.
My position is crystal clear to anyone that can read. But I am not a candidate for President.
Speaking for myself, I want a leader who gathers the facts and makes an informed decision based on his review of the facts, and his beliefs - not some pansy who rushes to the nearest mic to condemn whatever he has been told he needs to condemn, by people who would have assaulted her themselves in their own event (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/exclusive-video-conservative-reporter-assaulted-by-black-lives-matter-mob-in-ferguson/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/13/reporter-conservative-magazine-attacked-outside-democratic-fundraiser.html http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/01/31506-video-way-back-wednesday-student-reporter-attacked-by-democratic-congressman/) given she is an 'evil Conservative' Breitbart report, but who use this not as an opportunity to try and actually improve our discourse but to instead do harm to a candidacy - JUST LIKE YOU.
'Gimp
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/neil-bush-ted-cruz-finance/
-
Of course we all know low information voters do not vote, so why not throw them under the bus? ::)
Then how do you explain "President Obama"?