Of course we know from Althouse that half of the Cruz voters were #nevertrumpers. They will be disappointed if Cruz is actually the nominee. They want Paul Ryan.
Hey, the whole Bernie thing (and his winning streak) is pretty much being ignored by the same people who despise Trump, amirite?
94 comments:
Cruz 52%
Trump 30%
It's early yet. The final tally is what counts. Daddy Cruz had to finally say categorically he didn't cheat on little Heidi, so I'm guessing the final margin won't be so good.
Besides, WI is like MO, the state winner gets some delegates and then Congressional district winners gets some. Be interesting what all this Sturm und Drang really gets.
People always amaze me. Kasich got 15%. I don't know why.
"Sorry honey, I'll be late for dinner. I need to cast a meaningless vote for a guy who has zero chance".
"Thanks, I knew you'd understand. Keep the leftovers warm."
Crux?
You mean he's being cruxified for being so holy?
Ed: With Cruz up to almost 50%, I don't hold much hope that Trump will get many delegates.
So he's dropping back, interesting. It's Congressional districts or whatever you have to win. Trump could pull a few and come out OK. I think there are 9 in the Cheesehead State.
BTW, WI seemed much more Kasich's country, so I'm not in the least surprised he did so well.
rcocean said...People always amaze me. Kasich got 15%. I don't know why.
I'm surprised he didn't do better. It's a Midwestern thing. I lived in Wisconsin for 23 years and have kept in contact with its people my whole life. People who identify with Walker identify with Kasich. Kasich voters don't think strategically, trying to second guess the outcome like Althouse does. Kasich voters just vote their hearts, not their convoluted minds.
edutcher said...Crux?
You mean he's being cruxified for being so holy?
His followers are los cruzadores Not theo dores. Cruz adores. Crusaders. People of the flame.
Sorry but I was more exited over the RedSox opening day win in Cleveland. I'm getting sic of the longevity of this thing. Election fatigue.
Here's the breakdown for those interested.
The breakdown: 42 total delegates: 24 from Wisconsin's eight Congressional Districts; 10 base at-large; five bonus; three party
1. Congressional District delegates: Delegates are selected by the party in the Congressional Districts they represent and must reside there. Each of the state's eight Congressional Districts is allocated three delegates.
2. At-large delegates: Delegates that are selected statewide. Each state gets 10 delegates and the RNC awards bonus delegates in states that meet certain criteria, including whether it has a Republican governor, Republican U.S. Senator and a Republican majority in the state Legislature.
3. Republican National Committee delegates: Each state’s three RNC members, including the state chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman are automatically national convention delegates.
If you follow Ned Silver, he says Trump only needs 9 from WI and he can call it a good night as WI was never his state, so we'll see.
I don't trust Silver worth anything, so whatever Trump (or, for that matter, Kasich) gets is just another thorn in the One True Ted's crown, as it were.
PS Those who say it sounds like Ryan put in the fix, with that set-up, it looks like it would be easy.
FWIW, looks like The Donald will get his 3 districts and 9 delegates.
Also looks like Cruz took the cities.
Is it me or does that sound backward?
"Election fatigue."
Imagine how Hillary feels...Bernie is sapping precious stamina needed for the general.
6 states in a row for Bernie and NY is his real home, not some carpetbag state, so get ready for NY.
PS There was an interview with Roger Stone on Breitbart about fraudulent Cruz delegates that will be challenged at the convention. Looks like the same Microshaft software was used in WI as in IA and a few other places.
Daddy better watch out. Trump might just beat him at his own game.
edutcher said...FWIW, looks like The Donald will get his 3 districts and 9 delegates.
Also looks like Cruz took the cities.
Is it me or does that sound backward?
Wisconsinites are a confused bunch. There was too much rationality expended on Walker. Remember that Madison and Milwaukee both voted to dump Walker -- twice. Cites blew their wads on Bernie -- the other town mice voted against Trump by voting Cruz. Hell, even Althouse appears to have voted for Cruz to stop Trump.
I can't believe what caliber of people get this far in politics in a nation of 330 million. Is this really the best we have to offer? Is anybody interested in what these people are really saying and if it even makes any senses at all? I don't think so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/?tid=pm_pop_b
Bags, w/o reading the article, it sounds like you think the American people are basically stupid.
Didn't Trump say something like that once?
Maybe you should seek out what these Bernie/Trump "losers" are actually complaining/concerned about. There is an awful lot of anecdotal folk wisdom out there about the American electorate.
"People always amaze me. Kasich got 15%. I don't know why. "
He may not have a chance, but at least he's not a criminal, or completely clueless about how the world works as are some who are doing much better. Who's fault is that?
What do think the chances would be for a candidate who was un-corruptible, smart, successful, capable, and completely honest. I'm not suggesting we have such a candidate or ever have, but really questioning our desire for what we actually need. It's like heroin addicts choosing between rehab or another fix. Rehab never even gets on the ballot.
Hey, the whole Bernie thing (and his winning streak) is pretty much being ignored by the same people who despise Trump, amirite?
Totally rite. I've never seen a black-out in coverage this extreme in my entire life.
It tells you that he's on to something.
Chick, read the interview, and ask yourself if such a man has any answers whatsoever. Americans are unhappy, and complaining. That's all I hear. No real answers beyond pure faith in men telling them what they want hear even if it's lies or thoroughly debunked ideas with a history of failure. People aren't even challenging the bullshit. How many times have people been fooled like this throughout history both recent and ancient. Some stranger in a far away capital is not going to solve your problems. He's not even going to try.
Maybe you should seek out what these Bernie/Trump "losers" are actually complaining/concerned about.
He doesn't care.
There is an awful lot of anecdotal folk wisdom out there about the American electorate.
He apparently doesn't agree.
Even if you think the American people are stupid (I"m sure a lot of them are ignorant), ignoring them is like ignoring a big gaping wound or scabs all over your body. Stupid body! What does it know! It can't converse with me on this elevated level! Screw it!
chickelit said...
Wisconsinites are a confused bunch.
It's the beer brats and curds. They have that effect on the fat fucks of wisconsin. What a bizarro state. WTF am I saying, I live in California. Land of where republicans are nothing more than furniture for democrats to sit on.
Chick, read the interview, and ask yourself if such a man has any answers whatsoever. Americans are unhappy, and complaining. That's all I hear. No real answers beyond pure faith in men telling them what they want hear even if it's lies or thoroughly debunked ideas with a history of failure. People aren't even challenging the bullshit. How many times have people been fooled like this throughout history both recent and ancient. Some stranger in a far away capital is not going to solve your problems. He's not even going to try.
Your guy doesn't have answers, either. Just an ideology that he feels we must push in an even more extreme way than we've pushed it for the last several decades.
You think Trump's vice is his willingness to say (and perhaps, do) anything. Even if he's wrong, right now the last thing we need is more of the fucking same. More of just stick to the game as it's been done (but new and improved!) and somehow it will all work out better this time. There's no reason to buy that.
Land of where republicans are nothing more than furniture for democrats to sit on.
You left out the fart on and stain part of the furniture analogy.
Despite the campaigns being front and center for months, there has been almost no debate or discussion of the consequences of policy ideas. Just balloons sent up to see which ones get oohs and ahhs. It's a fireworks display that titillates, and excites, and leaves no light afterward.
"right now the last thing we need is more of the fucking same"
What, of any substance, is new?
Simple question: If your guy wins - whoever that is - do you expect to not be disappointed this time?
What, of any substance, is new?
The intensity of response is in fact substantive. Politicians' styles have become dull and reactive, rather than proactive. It plays along with one of the public's impulses - complacency, lulling everyone to sleep with a phony sense of semi-approval. But that's only one impulse, and one that's become incredibly destructive. It's time for those of us who want to stay engaged and on top of things to be listened to now.
By their advisors ye shall know them. In many cases, the history is there for all to see going back decades and decades and decades and decades.
Too obscure for some of you? Too bad. Do your own damn research.
Not to mention catch-up.
@R&B:: Congrats on Bernie's victory in WI tonight. I sort predicted as much three weeks ago, but then so could have a lot of people.
chickelit: You both did, in different ways. < I took that into account in terms of my own analysis that was done for only myself. Thanks, guys. Both of you.
I pay attention to bellwethers. Always have. There are a bunch here, at this site, for example.
the leading sheep of a flock, with a bell on its neck.
^ This part of the definition of bellwether, in of terms what I am expressing right now, I entirely reject.
I am, however, entirely embracing this part of it: "an indicator or predictor of something."
^ Especially insomuch as that implies fierce desire for change, enthusiastic heralding, and so on.
It's not so hard to get stuff. What's hard is what to do with stuff [gotten].
Here's the thing. Trump and Sanders are opposite sides of the same coin. One a uber capitalist. The other a communist. Both reject business as usual. Both have many adherents who agree. The establishment of both parties are not listening.
If the forces unleashed are not addressed seriously it will not be pretty.
Lonesome Rhodes phone home.
Ted Cruz had a good night tonight. Congratulations to bags and April.
See you at least in New York.
youberight
Final spread was 13 points, so not quite the blowout the media is trumpeting.
Also, Trump took 44 counties to Cruz' 24.
So, a few questions,
First, Cruz finally said categorically he did not cheat after 10 days of weaseling and hiding behind women. If somebody finds he did, does he stop being Mr Morality?
Second, none of the polls were really right about this. Does this mean all those polls April loves to quote are wrong, too?
Finally, if Milwaukee and Madison went for Cruz, doesn't that make him the Liberal?
Trooper York said...
Here's the thing. Trump and Sanders are opposite sides of the same coin. One a uber capitalist. The other a communist. Both reject business as usual. Both have many adherents who agree. The establishment of both parties are not listening.
If the forces unleashed are not addressed seriously it will not be pretty.
Rinse is on Breitbart telling us the nominee will be one of the 3 left standing. Make of that what you will.
Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) has tweeted a pretty good county-by county map of the presidential primary results in Wisconsin. Cruz did well in the more populous south and southeastern counties. Trump did better in the less populous western and northern counties.
Equally interesting, the total GOP votes cast was 1,097,384 and the total DEM votes cast was 1,001,965. The GOP has a higher turnout in a state Barack Obama won twice. There is an enthusiasm gap there.
In the WTF category, Jeb Bush received 3,149 votes. And Jim Gilmore received 242 votes.
Scott Walker's endorsement obviously helped Ted Cruz, but it came at a price. The Cruz campaign made a substantial donation to the Walker campaign, most likely to pay off the Walker campaign's remaining debt.
Here's a link to a state map that shows which counties were won by Cruz, and which were won by Trump.
"Final spread was 13 points, so not quite the blowout the media is trumpeting.
Also, Trump took 44 counties to Cruz' 24."
When I turned the TV off Cruz was ahead in reported precincts by about 19 points. Very different from 13.
As far as Cruz and cheating, it will affect him greatly if true, but Wisconsin's past and the damage to Trump is done. What happened to the guy who said he'd release DC Madam's list on the courthouse steps? Was he bought off? Detained?
Thanks, Troop. I've got the candy van all gassed up ready for your abduction.
@ Haz
In the WTF category, Jeb Bush received 3,149 votes. And Jim Gilmore received 242 votes.
WTF, indeed.
Haz, thanks. Interesting how all the Cruz takes are in two contiguous sections. What's up with the green county?
What's up with the green county?
My guess is that the results were not available when the map was prepared. It's a small county, the result won't make a difference in the outcome.
If you go to the map linked above and click on Bernie Sanders, you'll see the counties he won, and more interestingly, that Hillary Clinton won only four counties in the entire state.
Accd to the map, it looks like only three. Interesting, there was the same spread in each race: 13 points.
deborah said...
As far as Cruz and cheating, it will affect him greatly if true, but Wisconsin's past and the damage to Trump is done. What happened to the guy who said he'd release DC Madam's list on the courthouse steps? Was he bought off? Detained?
That is a lawyer who still says he's barred by a restraining order. As I say, I think he's just trying to get his 15 minutes and wants to come off like another Snowden.
The Enquirer says, however, they have most of her phone records, presumably from someone else and are going over them.
FWIW, Trump carried men and women equally last night, so his big losses among women would appear to be so much propaganda.
@deborah - right about three. My error. Wearing glasses now. :-)
That is a lawyer who still says he's barred by a restraining order.
Gateway Pundit also has the phone numbers and has published them.
Yeah, Haz, and Hillary won Polk County where I live. Trump also won here.
Haz, if they have them, where have they been published?
It was my understanding it was the Enquirer.
PS For those interested and also off Gateway, a countdown to who needs how many delegates from the states left.
Considering how little he got out of it and how much was expended in the effort, you'd think Daddy Cruz was 100 up on Trump and had won by 40.
Despite the campaigns being front and center for months, there has been almost no debate or discussion of the consequences of policy ideas. Just balloons sent up to see which ones get oohs and ahhs. It's a fireworks display that titillates, and excites, and leaves no light afterward.
And how is this any different than every election in my lifetime? It isn't. They are always the same. Basic platitudes, Glittering Generalities and vague ideas.
Always.
The reality is that if a candidate were to give detailed specifics on the nuts and bolts of policies they would be sinking themselves. First of all the voter's eyes would roll back in their heads in boredom. Second. You don't detail specifics of plans that you may and most likely have to change when you get into the position or on the job. Things will change and circumstances will change. Plus....as a President, you best laid plans will be sabotaged by Congress and the political opposition. Making specific plans is just giving a club to the press and your opponents who can beat you over the head with it when the specifics need to be changed.
This election is no different than any other....except people are more pissed off than ever.
Position papers have always been for wonks. Everybody waits until it's been digested by the media and they give a summary, usually biased and inaccurate.
Besides, the media is only looking for the cheap shot or gotcha, regardless of who said it.
I don't see this hurting Trump. The outcome is still the result of his presence in the race. Voters are energized. Trump has an opportunity to take direction and clarify his approach and response. And the election is far from in the bag.
As DBQ said, people more pissed off than ever, and many for good reasons, which results in a volatile base on both sides.
In my opinion, it is good for Trump that he didn't win, as he would have become more complacent. He now has to figure out how to negotiate his way through to reach a win, which is something he appears to live to do. And if he shoots himself in the foot doing so, because this isn't something he truly wants, better that happen now then later.
Mama, I think you have something there regarding Trump. Cruz expended a lot of effort to add less than 10% of his then delegate count to his total, including a very obvious sellout to the Whigs and the Uni-Party.
According to 270towin, he needs 56% of the delegates available to get the nod, Cruz needs 81 (Kasich needs 123). The who's ahead chart of upcoming states looks even more daunting.
It'll be 2 weeks to NY and SuperDuper Tuesday after that. And I don't doubt The Donald is going to take full advantage of Daddy Cruz shooting off his mouth about "New York values".
I think it is going to be a hard sell for Cruz in New York and New Jersey.
Bible thumping hypocrites do not do well here. It is our filthy New York Values.
The problem is not the position papers bags. Trump has laid out a bunch of position papers on his website. The problem is that you do not accept Trump's positions. On immigration. On the menace of the Muslims. On pulling back on our commitment to be the worlds policeman and to foot the bill for the defense of every other country that hates our freaking guts.
Trump had an interesting point on "the experts." You would say his foreign policy team is weak. It doesn't have any of the usual experts. That it is not presidential. Trump said that these experts have gotten us into this mess. The advice of the William Kristols and John Boltons and the Wheelchair guy. They have put us in endless wars and non-stop conflict. Trump is saying this is bullshit. Not a conservative position per se. Or more correctly it is an "old timey" conservative position. A Bob Taft/Pat Buchanan position not a George Bush one.
The establishment and their lapdog pundits have ripped away their masks. They want to replace the white working class with an malleable illegal underclass. They want these poor low class vulgar white working class communities to die. They have said it out right. This is who you side with when you stand with them. Think about that for a moment.
Trooper York said...
I think it is going to be a hard sell for Cruz in New York and New Jersey.
Bible thumping hypocrites do not do well here. It is our filthy New York Values.
Not to mention CT and PA. And maybe RI.
(I know CT and North Jersey are considered suburbs of Gotham the way South Jersey and DE are considered suburbs of Philly, but how about RI?).
PS Suppose Cruz weasels his way to enough delegates to win the nod. What does he get?
Do the Whigs suddenly love him? Or the Trump people?
I'm wondering if he's setting himself up to do deal.
This will make April's day.
SCOTUS won't allow release of DC Madam's papers.
Protecting a possible future colleague?
Now they have Sanders winning Polk County. 52.72% to 46.34%.
Other facts -- Trump got 3,542 votes to Sanders 2,473
Cruz 3,001 to Hillary's 2,179
Big Mo in Polk County!
He has answers bags. You just don't like them. Or don't believe that he will follow through on them. It's that simple. Trump is no different than Romney was in the last election. It is just the answers he gives are so outlandish to you that you can't credit it.
Does he have an detailed answer to every single thing that someone will bring up. No he does not. The press is not interested in that. They are interested in destroying him. Case in point Maureen Dowd. She asked Trump if he ever paid for an abortion. She would never ask Hillary how many abortions that Bill has paid for in all the years he has been raping and molesting his subordinates.
The media is not interested in asking these questions. To complain that it is not happening in this election is disingenuous at best or basically a big bag of bullshit.
I'm not talking about position papers. I'm talking about reporters and voters asking questions about what the candidates are saying, just like the Daily News did with Sanders in the link I posted above. He says he'll break up the banks - they ask how and then what? He has no answer, which means he has no idea what he's talking about and therefore he has no business promising to do it, and people should not vote for such cluelessness. If you were going to hire an accountant, and he said I'll save you money, and you ask how, and he says "just pay me and I'll re-figure stuff - then you'll see". I hope you would kick his ass out, and not write him a check.
This election is not alone in avoiding detail, but it is significantly worst than in the past. They used to be asked questions about what they will do, and have to defend their ideas. This time it's just tabloid bitching about the horse race and calling each other names, and personal attacks. The coverage is the same things said over and over about the numbers and who gets delegates, and the candidates'chances of wining this state or that. I mean, how many pundits have to tell us that their is going to be a contested convention. They must have said that 100 times per hour last night. Virtually no discussion of why one guy would be a better or worse President than the other, why we should vote for one, or what that vote will mean to the future.
If that stuff was discussed more, and the candidates challenged more, then it would become clear that expecting the silly things we do from electing a President is pure folly, and lower expectation would lead to more intelligent choices and less disappointment.
It is really sad that people think this is an OK way to pick a President, or even a janitor for that matter.
It's not just about Trump. They aren't asking anybody anything that matters. They aren't talking about how this will work out for us at all. The entire discussion is about who is winning, or who might win and how. It's as if the world will end on election night.
Well, the next time Donald Trump comes strolling down my street, I'll ask him about stuff.
But I do get your point. Candidates were once a lot more accessible, but only up to a point.
Most candidates for President 100 years ago didn't go on handshake tours across the country. Many never even left their homes. That was all done by surrogates.
The other issue is most people really haven't got a laundry list of policy preferences, they're too busy worrying about the kids and putting food on the table. They want to hear what A and B say and then decide which sounds better.
Didn't mean to mock you, but you're talking about an ideal rarely seen.
I think you are off base about this bags. This is no different than any election for the last 100 years. Nobody is asking about the minutiae of positions on various policy questions. That is not the way most people make up their mind anyway. The press is corrupt and worthless. That is why they are held in contempt by most of the public.
I think I see your reasoning. You think if the press pressed the candidates about the issues Trump would reveal himself to be uninformed. Or that he would say things that would turn people off. Because he is a huckster and a scammer in your estimation. If only people realized this they would not vote for him. Well I think most people know who Trump is. For good or ill. He has been a public figure for twenty years. This isn't some obscure governor or even a not very well know first term Senator. Most people have a pretty good idea of who Trump is and they are not scared of him.
Much of what Trump says is just common sense. The Muslims are dangerous. The Mexicans are pouring over the border bringing drugs, disease and disorder. Our border is broken because political correctness is calling the tune instead of the public interest of native born Americans. That other countries are living off of our dime and we are losing blood and treasure in conflicts that really aren't our concern. That we should either bring our boys home or that the countries we are protecting should pay the whole bill. That maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. That if North Korea has the bomb maybe Japan and South Korea should too since we don't want to be the target or have to drop a bomb if North Korea bombs them. Tough questions. Unconventional common sense answers. It makes Charlie Rose and Maureen Dowd and David Brooks and Paul Ryan shit their pants.
This will make bag unhappy because it has nothing to do with policy, but Trump breaks 50 in NY with Cruz in 3rd place.
Since the polls were consistently off in WI, this really means nothing - seriously, Trump could be at 80 for all we know, but it does take us back where we were before Rubio dropped out with Daddy in 3rd.
Before we're done, "New York values" may go down beside "Remember the Alamo".
Actually it will go down with two most common lies in the Polish language.
"The check is in your mouth."
"I won't come in the mail."
Hey, what ever happened to that greasy little sweat hog Rubio? Last I heard he was seen in a swimming pool yelling out his first name and no one was responding. Not sure they will ever get the oil slick out of the pool, however.
Marco the Magnificent is hanging onto his delegates in the hope Rinse, Ryan, and McConnell pick him as the party nominee instead of Daddy Cruz.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
And how is this any different than every election in my lifetime? It isn't. They are always the same. Basic platitudes, Glittering Generalities and vague ideas.
Always.
The pomp and circumstance is just different that's all. However, I will say that this has been the nuttiest election cycle of my lifetime.
As I've said, I'm reminded of '68.
A couple of interesting items, this off Drudge:
President Pissy is making Trump, not Cruz, his big target.
Then, one off Last Refuge. Does this make you think Presidential?
What a puss.
PS Also off Last Refuge, 25% of Bernie voters say they won't vote for Hillary. That's a number to dream on, but, if the Demos lose 5% or more for whatever reason, no Hillary.
If she's still around.
I'm just not built to be a populist. I have questions. I want answers, and yes, I can handle the truth.
Question: What do we do about immigration?
Answer: Build a wall. Make Mexico pay for it. Send back any illegals we catch instead of keeping them on welfare and clogging our emergency rooms and social services. Just the way that Mexico does.
Question: How do we force Mexico to pay?
Cut off the remittances sent to run their economy. Close off the border. Abrogate NAFTA.
Question: What do we do about Terrorism and ISIS?
Carpet bomb them regardless of collateral damage. Suspend Muslim immigration until a vetting procedure is in place that actually works.
Question: What do we do about our foreign policy commitments abroad?
Stop being the worlds policeman. Stop the endless wars. Make our so called allies pay more than just what they think is a "fair share." Have them pay for it all or don't station troops there. Reexamine every treaty and commitment to see if it is in America's best interest.
Question: How do we jump start the economy?
Renegotiate trade agreements to be in our favor. End free trade agreements that hemorrhage American Jobs. Institute tariffs to stop cheap goods that destroy American manufacturing capacity. Cut corporate tax rates to end inversion. Drill baby drill. Let oil from fracking jump start the economy. Hobble the EPA so coal can be mined. Jump start nuclear power.
Those are some of the questions and some of Trump's answers. I know you don't accept them. You think he is a fraud. I think all politicians are frauds. But if he can come through on 50% of them he will be pretty good in my book.
On the last point, that would be better than most.
One of our most underrated Presidents, James Polk, fulfilled every promise he made and went home after one term.
PS Something for Troop:
Daddy Cruz' first taste of New York values.
Can I ask a question?
Apropos of Trooper's 1:24 PM, how is it that forever footing the perpetual "defense" of basket-case countries with no steady history of any civilized Western norms became a conservative position?
Conservative or not, whatever you call it, it's just a damn folly. All the people in our own country that you want to kick to the curb off of any kind of basic safety net and yet all the trillions more that the establishment wants us to spend to make Muslim despots permanently dependent upon our military to enforce basic order over in their own countries. What madness. What incoherence.
At least a good two (or at least one and a half) of Trooper's answers are why there is some overlap between Trump support and Sanders support.
All the talk about cutting government, and the most wasteful and questionable practices (U.S. global cop and unfavorable trade deals) are supposed to remain a damn sacrament. It makes no sense. We cannot improve the deplorable state of our union with the same minds that are too afraid or lazy to do a damn thing about these basic, sensible, BROADLY popular goals.
Voting for mentally lazy people is destructive. You don't want a big government? Get it OUT of the business of Mid-East rent-a-cop security and developing world economic philanthropy. Just stop it, already. That's as good a start as any; from there we'll already improve things quite a bit. So much so that who knows if there's anything we'll still bother to argue over from that point.
Also I'm fine with suspending immigration. I'm hearing it's become damn near impossible to get permanent residency status these days (and probably even less much less new citizenship), but you won't hear any griping from me on that point. As for H-1B's, I'm open to negotiation on that. We can (and IIRC always could) keep Muslims out by just reverting to those same old country or origin quota systems and barring long-term entry to anyone coming from a country ending in "-stan". A no-go encompassing a few lines of latitude from Morocco to Pakistan, or possibly even Indonesia. You honestly think the American people would argue with that?
The Daily News story was debunked, and by the most pro-Hillary outlet available.
Sanders doesn't need to have all the answers, and for that matter neither does Trump. Having a Grand Master Plan is often a bad thing. Like Hillary and health care reform. The point is that he's grumpy enough to stop doing their bidding. We will have big banks after Sanders wins. We will still have Wall Street. What we won't have is any more of this idiocy of thinking that big banks and Wall Street should be buying their agenda from the government carte blanche. Lloyd BLankfein said Bernie's dangerous, so that right there tells you that he's not so clueless as to be a deterrent to government of, by and for Wall Street.
Bernie is not a fatuous ideologue. He even got "criticized" during a debate by a moderator by voting WITH Ted Cruz against the import-export bank. Look, even Bagsie's favorite, Reason Magazine, agrees with him! Oh boy.
It's time to end the logjam of destroying the country and the American people by defaulting into phony and over-simplified conflicts, camps and positions. There's enough that stands in the way and that can be cleared out to everyone's benefit and with widespread support and agreement. Enough with the dumbed-down, Tim Russert/Chris Matthews 1990s politics.
IIRC Cruz says he's going to abolish the IRS. Why not just say restructure, or the like. We KNOW the IRS is not going to be disbanded.
IIRC Cruz says he's going to abolish the IRS. Why not just say restructure, or the like. We KNOW the IRS is not going to be disbanded.
Lol. You guys still haven't figured it out. Probably never will. ;-)
Cruz's job is to put red meat on a long stick and wave it high above the crowd of angry lions. But to keep it forever out of reach.
His job, like any right-wing pol's job, is to tease his followers with ever-unattainable promises of red meat.
But keeping you forever hungry and never lowering the pole is all part of the act.
What do you call a Republican politician who actually accomplishes his aims?
Retired, and on their way to a better-paying lobbying job for an industry that takes unwavering advantage of the rule he just loosened for them. Usually at the expense of the country and the people.
He can try it, but he'd better be prepared to repeal the XVI Amendment, Social Security, and Ocare since they depend on the guys in cheap suits to make sure the money keeps coming.
And they say Trump is out in La La Land.
PS Ritmo wants us to believe the Lefties are different. Actually, some Republicans do keep their promises and leave the country a better place, but we can't talk about that here.
The Lefties are no more and have been replaced since Reagan-Clinton by DINOs who do their best to see how similar to Republicans they can be, and I can talk about that here. This will continue for as long as Hillary remains her disbarred husband's surrogate and face of the DNC.
If you don't believe me check out comments on sites like Politico. You usually don't hear the pro-Hillary people, but there they come out in full force. They stand for one thing: Blocking Republican election and SCOTUS wins, and nothing else. They have no stance, they have no position. It's just anti-Republican. They are a machine without a base.
But it's always the base and the constructive visions that win elections and set agendas. That's why Hillary and her pet DINOs are faltering.
DINOs?
Oh, how cute.
Well, you'll always have Bernie.
Bernie (Warren, etc.) are the future, as there is no purpose for a party without a distinct direction - in this case, progressive. Just as Republicans gained the power that they did under a "conservative" label.
There is a reason why FDR was one of the country's greats (along with other progressives like TR), whereas Clinton and Obama are ranked a good deal lower. And Carter, lower still.
Oh, progressivism is the way to go?
Seems like that's shot its bolt, too.
You might want to wait for the next go-round.
And Roosevelt wasn't that great, but the Lefties have been writing the history lately.
And Roosevelt wasn't that great, but the Lefties have been writing the history lately.
Hey ed. I guess there's no pleasing regressives (anti-Progressives?) like you, is there? But those elusive conservatives seem to have chimed in with ranking FDR at least #3. The WSJ ranks him #2 (graph above), along with mainstream opinion. It's not writing the history lately that you need to complain about, unless it's the revisionist Amity Shlaes garbage out there you're talking about.
Oh, progressivism is the way to go?
Reaganist "conservatism" doesn't seem like it any longer. Hey, you're the one getting into trouble with your supposedly conservative party by propping up an ideological weathervane like Trump as its standard-bearer, so it seems that if anything ideologically rigid allegiances are more in flux, and a little less important this year. Whether that means we need more anti-progressive foreign interventionism or more anti-progressive favors to Wall Street, among others, seems if anything in question, to say the least.
Sorry to burden you with facts and reason, which I know you hate. You may continue your tribalist, knee-jerk talking points as before.
Considering who's determining who's a Conservative these days, Ritmo's little scale means nothing.
PS No burden. I have yet to see any facts or reason, only someone's arbitrary opinion.
There is no "factual" way to determine what is or is not "conservative" opinion other than by asking people who call themselves conservatives what they think, angry guy.
A ranking by individuals on presidential greatness is pretty much the definition of an opinion. That I have cited their opinion is itself a fact. Fact: This is how conservatives academics and everyone else (who could be bothered to answer) thought of all the presidents queried. I am very, very sorry if we haven't found some sekrit group of astroturfed conservatives authentic enough to fit your very exacting specifications and exalted standards what they should think on the matter. But then, you wouldn't tell us who the real ones are. Maybe they're like the Real Slim Shady. Maybe no one's good enough.
We have not yet been converted into a nation of robots who lack all the subjective assessment that we humans have on what makes a president great, O Wise One. But if Wall Street has their way, who knows...
R&B wrote: Totally rite. I've never seen a black-out in coverage this extreme in my entire life.
Just wait until you see the upcoming Megyn Kelly televised deposition wherein she asks Bernie Sanders to explain his 1972 writings.
Kelly: Mr. Sanders, isn't it true that you once said that women fantasize about being raped simultaneously by 3 men?
Wait for it. Megyn Kelly is in the tank for Hillary.
Post a Comment