Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be The 2016 Republican Nominee? (It's Donald Trump) Who Will Be The 2016 Republican Nominee? (It's Donald Trump)

01-12-2016 , 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Zeus
Should it be a bigger fact that the potential Republican nominee is currently engaged in a high profile court case with a key allies courts?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...sh-golf-course

Not really.
01-12-2016 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Cruz characterized Tribe as a Clinton supporter when he spoke to reporters while campaigning Tuesday in Hudson, New Hampshire.​

"It is more than strange to see Donald relying on, as authoritative, a liberal left wing judicial activist Harvard law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter," Cruz said. "It starts to make you think, gosh, why are Hillary's strongest supporters backing Donald Trump?"
.
01-12-2016 , 07:14 PM
My bet with ikes tho
01-12-2016 , 07:15 PM
Cruz: "We must Audit the Fed"







Cruz no-shows on vote to Audit the Fed.
01-12-2016 , 07:17 PM
By this point I don't think anyone is doubting trump is a legit challenger. He is IMO the favourite at this point with the only realistic challenger being cruz. Between them they probably have more equity than the entire rest of the field of fifteen or whatever it still is.

Meanwhile Rand is complaining he doesn't get invited to the debate despite having a "first class" campaign that sometimes polls fifth. Bush who seemed the lock winner a year ago is absolutely nowhere. Somehow people think Christie stands a shot despite him being on fifth in NH, the state he has been concentrating on. Rubio is within sight of trump in new Hampshire if you double his polling numbers, which is clearly going to happen after he fights off Carson for the bronze in Iowa.
01-12-2016 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Would Canada have allowed him to run for President?
Renouncing his citizenship probably hurt his chances
01-12-2016 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Money2Burn
I thought Trumps appeal was that he wasn't corrupt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reztes757
Can't view without account. I think people mean he isn't politically corruptible. He won't owe any favors if he wins
I do like how Trump fans are sticking with this "corruption" thing without the slightest idea what the word even means.


Like, Trump will absolutely work to enrich himself and his cronies, sure, track record of that all over the place. But it won't be as a FAVOR that he OWED, so, you know, that's just good management. Make America Great Again!
01-12-2016 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Not really.
You reckon not? It seems that its not the best way to get a relationship started, and is it not a conflict of interest if he did become president?

I was just a bit startled by the absence of any coverage
01-12-2016 , 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by THAY3R
I want to draw attention to this and Hammering Hank's post of Hillary's excellent answer about white terrorism to wonder is there something ideological about reactionary types that makes them unwilling to stand up as an adult and clearly articulate their point?

What is this passive aggressive(By proxy, even, lol Thay3r, lol Callum Borchers, lol Thay3r again) bull****?


We all remember, Thay3r, from like last week when you got the mildest pushback on this ****. Just because some dweeb at The Fix's Young Republican Employment Stimulus program wrote a thing because he had a deadline doesn't mean ****.

I mean, for God's sake, Thay3r, idk you ever posting about it but I'd bet dollars to donuts your views on "rape culture" are pure MRA trash whenever it's not about trying to tangentially score a point against a Democratic politician.

Last edited by FlyWf; 01-12-2016 at 07:35 PM.
01-12-2016 , 07:28 PM
01-12-2016 , 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan C. Lawhon
Ted Cruz's Insistence That His Citizenship Is "Settled Law"

The irony of this is so delicious. Here you have Cruz, a self-described strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting the constitution, declaring that the issue of whether or not he is a citizen - by virtue of birth - is "settled law" and there's no issue here. As Cruz's "hero" - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, (as strict and unapologetic a constructionist as you'll ever encounter), has declared: (slightly paraphrasing): "If it's not clearly and explicitly spelled out and stated in the constitution, then the founding fathers did not intend it and it's not constitutional!" Those are Scalia's (almost verbatim) words - which he has stated many times. Ted Cruz thinks Judge Scalia is a genius.

So, if we go by the "strict constructionist" standard, then slavery would still be legal and practiced here in the United States as the founding fathers (nowhere in the constitution) explicitly stated that slavery was immoral or wrong. (There was probably a good reason for that as most of our "founding fathers" owned slaves.)

Now, to the specific question of whether or not Ted Cruz is an American citizen by virtue of birth. Since Mr. Cruz is a strict constructionist, just what, exactly, does the constitution have to say (or infer) about a candidate for the Presidency being born outside the physical borders of the United States? The requirement, as spelled out in the constitution, that a candidate for President must be born on the soil of the United States was intended to ensure that no King of a foreign country - like say England - could lay claim to our sovereignty. That is what the founding fathers intended. They wanted to make it as clear as possible that King George (or any other monarch) could not wrest back control of those "rebellious colonies" by installing a hand-picked puppet as "President" - a hand picked surrogate who would be more loyal to the King than to the citizens of the 13 colonies. That's why the requirement that a candidate for President must be born "in the United States" was inserted into the constitution. That's what the founding fathers intended.

.
On the first bolded, I think that Amendment XIII covers it. Even Scalia believes the Amendments are part of the constitution.

Its always been my perception that the "natural born citizen" clause was put in place to deny 1 single controversial figure the presidency- Alexander Hamilton.
01-12-2016 , 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I do like how Trump fans are sticking with this "corruption" thing without the slightest idea what the word even means.


Like, Trump will absolutely work to enrich himself and his cronies, sure, track record of that all over the place. But it won't be as a FAVOR that he OWED, so, you know, that's just good management. Make America Great Again!
I'm not so sure Trump cares about making more money. He's lost a lot of business during his campaign and continues to make comments that he knows will increase his poll numbers while hurting his business, so no I do not think it is an absolute fact.

More talk about trump enriching his cronies and business partners, who are these people specifically and why would he work to enrich people he owes nothing too?
01-12-2016 , 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Maybe by consolidation. If the anti-Trump wing of the party can finally settle on who their candidate is, a coalition of Cruz/Rubio/Jeb/Fiorina voters can win. Trouble is that Cruz is hated by all these guys, and Jeb might be too stubborn to admit defeat
I disagree with this idea that Trump won't get much of the Bush/Carson/Fiorina/Kasich/Paul/Huckabee/Santorum/Christie votes after those candidates drop out early. Trump has gotten super popular with all groups of GOP voters, as measured by favorable/unfavorable numbers. He's seen a massive increase in favorability and a massive decrease in unfavorability among all groups in the GOP, including establishment-friendly demographics (women, college-educated, moderates, etc.), which I think that the Nate Silvers of the world have been wrongly ignoring. And it means that very respectable chunks of (say) the Christie vote will move to Trump instead of defaulting to the remaining establishment candidate (Rubio, in this scenario). That makes a big difference.

And I don't see Cruz or Rubio dropping out before Super Tuesday. They both have to know that they have a real chance to grab the brass ring this year, and that they might well never have the opportunity again. So I think they'd split the vote on Super Tuesday, and Trump emerges with a big delegate lead.

I haven't really been right about anything this election, but I feel pretty strongly that Trump winning Iowa will lead to Trump winning the nomination. I guess there's nothing left but to wait it out. And pray.
01-12-2016 , 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by renodoc
On the first bolded, I think that Amendment XIII covers it. Even Scalia believes the Amendments are part of the constitution.

Its always been my perception that the "natural born citizen" clause was put in place to deny 1 single controversial figure the presidency- Alexander Hamilton.
it did take a certain amount of convincing, but eventually he came around.

i think we ought to throw the whole "natural born" **** out. either you are a citizen, and entitled to every right in the constitution, or you ain't.
01-12-2016 , 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by reztes757
I'm not so sure Trump cares about making more money. He's lost a lot of business during his campaign and continues to make comments that he knows will increase his poll numbers while hurting his business, so no I do not think it is an absolute fact.

More talk about trump enriching his cronies and business partners, who are these people specifically and why would he work to enrich people he owes nothing too?
I don't have a dossier of his business interests at hand, but what? You don't get to invent your standard, claim Trump doesn't care about money anymore, and then ask me to divine what sort of policies Trump will implement from his vague grab basket of populist nonsense as an "absolute fact" before you will believe it.

He sued Univision for hundreds of millions of dollars for some of that lost business(odd behavior for someone who no longer cares), when he's President how do you think he'll instruct the DOJ to treat his enemies?
01-12-2016 , 08:02 PM
Again the entire premise is ****ing nonsense, which previous President's actions were because that President "owed" favors to people?
01-12-2016 , 08:07 PM
Trump isn't bought by corporate interests*, so when he proposes drastically cutting corporate taxes that is different than when Rubio proposes it.

*Edit: Also why are we assuming this again? Because Trump says so? Which candidate is admitting being corrupt?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politi...p-fundraising/

It's not like Trump doesn't raise money. Is he just going to **** over his donors, while other candidates won't? Like I said, nonsense from top to bottom.
01-12-2016 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Wice

When you do this, knowingly lie, it's just bullying. You want to make it socially undesirable to be a trump supporter and shame that. That's pathetic and why I'm calling it out.
Alex,

Yeah- it's socially undesirable to cuddle up with racists. That's a feature, not a bug. You should feel ashamed, you're an awful person because you don't.
01-12-2016 , 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Zeus
You reckon not? It seems that its not the best way to get a relationship started, and is it not a conflict of interest if he did become president?



I was just a bit startled by the absence of any coverage

It made the news but this has been kicking in the courts for years.
01-12-2016 , 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Again the entire premise is ****ing nonsense, which previous President's actions were because that President "owed" favors to people?
So it's your opinion that it's an absolute fact trump will do favors for his "cronies" whoever they are but that no President in the past ever had. Interesting theory
01-12-2016 , 08:21 PM
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/...medium=twitter


Yeah that white supremacist robocalling for Trump thing...
Quote:
William Daniel Johnson has a vision for America. The Los Angeles-based lawyer thinks that the United States will see the creation of a white ethno-state within his lifetime.

“I think Trump’s candidacy is helping move us in that direction,” Johnson said in a Monday phone interview with TPM. “Whether he is elected or not, his candidacy is a big factor in helping destroy this middle-of-the-road Republican mindset.”
Somewhat odd that notoriously thin-skinned self-tweeting Donald Trump hasn't pivoted away from this guy yet, right?

So just to recap the offensive claim that caused hurt butts across the spectrum in this thread:

Angry and skeptical about claims Donald Trump's supporters are racist-
1) 2p2 posters of just the highest sigma intelligence levels

vs.

Agree, through both word and deed, that Trump's support is bitterly racist-
1) 2p2 posters of fallacies, emotions, and not even listening to his stump speeches
2) Actual white supremacists
3) Donald Trump
01-12-2016 , 08:24 PM
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Trump 36, Cruz 19, Rubio 12, Carson 6, Bush 6, Christie 3, Fiorina 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Santorum 0 Trump +17

Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Trump 28, Cruz 26, Rubio 13, Carson 8, Bush 6, Christie 3, Paul 3, Huckabee 3, Kasich 3, Fiorina 3, Santorum 2 Trump +2


(35 16 9 13 3
Trump Cruz Rubio Carson Bush
Last month's CBS so everybody picks up from carson who lost 7)

bigger news is PPP showing Hill up only 6 vs Bern nationally)

Last edited by anatta; 01-12-2016 at 08:30 PM.
01-12-2016 , 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by reztes757
So it's your opinion that it's an absolute fact trump will do favors for his "cronies" whoever they are but that no President in the past ever had. Interesting theory
Trump would easily be our least ethical President ever, so yeah, pretty much.

But lol still trying that "absolute fact" dodge, and now you're so excited to try to catch me in this hypocrisy you're abandoning your whole ****ing argument. So Trump's corruption or lack of corruption is a non-issue? OK. Sure.


So you're supporting him because you hate Mexicans, right?
01-12-2016 , 08:25 PM
Arguing with reztez is a endless windy road, many arguments will be abandoned along the way
01-12-2016 , 08:31 PM
Hopefully the Des Moines Register polls soon. I don't think the others do a good job.

      
m