lol. And lol. Doubly lol that Trump who lies about the existence of a video is incensed by Hillary lying about the existence of a video.

Why do you think that disproves my point? Left sided media are trying to disprove an unquestionably true narrative by quibbling over specific details while mostly ignoring the clear lies by Hillary, and I'm saying it makes them look bad and hypocritical, further strengthening the right's support. When they make cartoons making fun of Cruz's children its really easy to think about just how much these same people would be flipping their **** if it was about Democrats. It makes them look bad and hypocritical. I'm also not denying that if you Google Hillary Trump ISIS video lie that you'll get a lot of results, but I will note that the only stuff about it from the NYT or Post is the Post article titled irony alert. Didn't think what I said was so controversial, just thought the MSM was being pretty dumb in their actions. Hahahah lol

FWIW the day after 9/11 there were videos being shown of people cheering in the streets. A few months later it was said those videos were actually taken years ago and had nothing to do with 9/11.

"And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering...It was on television. I saw it. It was well covered at the time."

None of that is the least bit true.

And it's plainly false that the media is ignoring Hillary's lie about a Trump video. It's gotten extensive coverage on a wide variety of websites, as you could see for yourself on the link I provided.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...ton-over-lies/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-trump-video/

[citation needed]

Dude, the headline of the article puts lies in quotation marks. That's my point, their clear Hillary slant is doing more harm for their cause than good.

This has been discussed in the thread.

Donald is working them by throwing out partial truths and manipulating the Overton window. He frames the conversation, he provokes an overreaction (the media cannot help themselves from sniffing farts), and then he comes out the other side unscathed while still scoring the public point. The polls prove this.

The media is already unpopular and their behavior is predictable. He is never going to get a fair shake so instead he is working them and working them expertly. And the media is never going to let up because they are just so so so so so right and all of these morons and racists and religious zealots need to be mocked. *inhale*

They use quotes because they're literally quoting someone, unlike your use of quotes.

But maybe this is too subtle for you?

Lol

Alright, well, you can move the goal posts however you want, from "MSM" "ignoring" Hillary's statement, to WaPo and NYT ignored it, to WaPo and NYT didn't write the headlines as you would have even though the articles both clearly portray what happened. Their hypocrisy is limited only by your imagination. And Trump's lies still have enough truthiness to them to stoke anti-Muslim prejudices that you know are real, so we can't really criticize that without being liars ourselves.

But my point doesn't stand because of MrWookie

The cat filling-in for Limbaugh today was an absolute joy to listen to. Total comedian. Mark Steyn. Couldn't begin to do him justice, but if the broadcast is available somewhere, somehow, it's a blast.

Steyn was the cat that Canada charged via some tribunal for criticizing Islam.

Had a decent book 8 or so years ago about the west losing the war with jihadists due to demographics. Not without its faults but worth a read.

Haven't heard him in years.

While I was too lazy/apathetic to point this out to him, it really should be repeated with emphasis for benefit of others reading the thread.

Well I don't operate at that assumption at all, so I'm sorry that that assumption fascinates you. I agree it is an easy strawman to laugh about though. I find the assumptions Nath operates from to be ludicrous myself and I am particularly curious to this argument that savers should be charged extra for saving, especially when I'm coming from an anti-consumerism anti-exploitation anti-waste position. Because some people acquire money in less noble ways the state must take money from savers? The state must take from the bigger earners at a higher rate to protect society from the evils of profit-seeking?

I agree that a lot of wealth in this society is acquired by not properly accounting for external costs(like the damage to the environment), but I don't see how discouraging innovation and saving is the solution. The allure of becoming ultra wealthy by coming up with an amazing idea or creation is a very powerful driving force whether you like it or not, and saving is essential to the market as when there are new great ideas and innovations we can properly invest in them. Why should we specifically punish and discourage this at higher rates?

Saying repealing the estate tax is a giveaway to rich kids is just preposterous. Yes their kids got lucky, but a primary motivator for a person is to provide for their family and their family's future, taking away that motivation seems like a bad idea, especially when it also encourages wasteful spending. Operating from an assumption of "They don't deserve that so it is right for the state to take it" is just a weird leap of logic to me.

Here's the thing about Trump. It's sort of genius and sort of just a product of who he developed himself to be...

Almost, if not all, of what he says is not designed to be nor should be taken at face value. The emotion and the confidence of random stream of babble is designed to just play at whatever the angry, disappointed, and even apathetic low-educated crowd wants to hear. And to be honest, "designed" is probably the wrong word. I don't think anyone is sitting there telling Trump to say all of these things because "X then Y then Z because Q and R and S." I think it's more like, hey, this schtick is working, so let's keep going. And Trump is such a self-confident man who has been created and reinforced by decades of 'success' and such that he just keeps rolling with it, and the train keeps going on, passing red light after red light and here we are.

I don't know what is eventually going to stop him. The establishment has tried again and again and again. And the weird thing is, a fringe guy like Cruz who has some connections and has manipulated a sector of the Washington scene for himself, has stepped in to fill that gap. And Jeb! is a guy who you can land punches on. Rubio is a guy who you maybe can land some punches on, but isn't even really trying. Like WHAT THE **** IS HE DOING. His campaign is a colossal wreck. The only guy who I think can stand in his way is Cruz, which (LOLOL) he is another guy who is hard to land punches on because he has nailed the political manipulation part of it, he plays to the strengths that Trump has been playing too inadvertently or not, and has the experience and political speaking ability to win over the voters that Trump has offended.

All of the money is very soon going to come in behind either Cruz or Rubio - more Rubio than Cruz obv. Rubio hasn't shown anything in the way of determination that he wants to campaign and win the presidency. Baffling, really, unless he's just banking on the southern Hispanic vote to carry him the whole way. I can't imagine that's a truth he should follow at this point. Cruz is a guy who should be neutral vs. Rubio in the evangelical vote, and is leading vs. Rubio in some important areas assuming Trump fades. It's probably an even-money match between Cruz and Rubio at this point, and this January and February are gonna be incredibly fun and hilarious.

He's hosting Hannity's show right now on Fixed Noise. Not the format that would allow him to vamp like three hours of radio, but I'm a fanboi. And I'm pretty darn liberal.

I got the feeling from the last debate where they were so chummy that Trump would like Cruz for his VP. I still can't tell if Trump is taking this seriously though.

Someone tell me I'm wrong

Rubio hasn't needed to make big moves in his campaign to this point. It's still relatively early (Hillary was crushing Obama at this point in 2007) and he's doing well. Trump is still out there making headlines for being ridiculous so shutting up and appearing more normal through your silence is a viable strategy. Especially when you're already leading in all betting markets. It's not some local election where you need to put your name out there. Rubio is considered a favorite and a lot of Republicans realize that he's probably their best chance in the general election.

Yeah for a while he was the only worthwhile read on national review because he's very witty and not your typical writer there.

He's def a bit of a crackpot at times, but he's smart and witty and can make a solid argument. He has value.

It's worth reading about his Canada saga and his own personal takes on it. Stuff like that is why I lol at Americans who are acting like the 1st amendment is dead here. Canada, a supposedly very progressive state, with a lot going for it, essentially has blasphemy laws at its disposal.

You're wrong

Someone tell me I'm wrong with an argument, fat boy

I understand your points and agree with most of them; however let me play devil's advocate and post the counterarguments: Rubio has almost no forces on the ground in the early states, and is polling badly. Generally a bad strategy for a favored candidate. Betting markets are legit, sure, but eventually we have to have something to show for Rubio that he is making strides on the ground and winning votes - and winning momentum. He is losing both at the moment.

He is the establishment choice right now FOR SURE. This isn't debatable. But we're 5 weeks out from the Iowa caucuses and the movement that needs to happen hasn't started. And after New Years, we'll have less than 4 weeks for that public momentum to shift in the direction that the GOP wants. Can it happen? Sure! Will it happen? Remains to be seen.

Put it this way, there's a reason I thought that Cruz +250 was a good bet.