It must be the same people who say "you gotta run a 'moderate' to win."

quote:

So, one of the most heavily baggaged candidates for POTUS in history waltzes along unscathed, while her principal Republican opponents mud wrestle nude.

We are getting past the time where Trump and Cruz need to stop this juvenile, petty, playground theatrics game they have going on and start attacking Hillary the real enemy.
I'm tired of hearing it from both of them.
Get back to the issues and start sounding and acting like adults.

Right now neither one of them are acting like they are remotely qualified for the job.

Watching Cruz recently it appears he is tearing pages out of Obumbo's play book. I didn't know about that, someone else did it or it isn't my fault. Will he be blaming GWB next?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bettysnephew,

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

quote:

So, one of the most heavily baggaged candidates for POTUS in history waltzes along unscathed, while her principal Republican opponents mud wrestle nude.

We are getting past the time where Trump and Cruz need to stop this juvenile, petty, playground theatrics game they have going on and start attacking Hillary the real enemy.
I'm tired of hearing it from both of them.
Get back to the issues and start sounding and acting like adults.

Right now neither one of them are acting like they are remotely qualified for the job.

AMEN! It is beyond time for these two to stop this idiotic shit and START DUMPING on the Hildebeast!

There sure is a lot of gullible and cynical people posting in this and the Cruz thread.

If you are a Trump guy, then everything he says is golden, and everything that comes up about Cruz is Cruz's fault because he is responsible for anything and everything.

If you are a Cruz guy, then Trump is the devil, and he has no scruples and will not stop or stoop to say or do anything to make himself look better than everyone else.

I almost wish I could sleep off the next 7 months.

quote:

Originally posted by SuhlShooter:
I almost wish I could sleep off the next 7 months.

The next 7 months will probably be historical on many levels.

quote:

If Jesus was running as a republican it would be the same outcome.

The Dems would vote for Barrabas.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

Like always the media covers republicans negative and glows with admiration for the Dems no secret.

Like the old joke when W was in the White House.

If George W. Bush walked across the Potomac, the headline in the NYT would be "BUSH CAN'T SWIM".

I thought I'd poke my head in here and see what you guys were up to The W joke was definitely worth it.

Carry on.

PS our thread has hotter women, faster cars, and all the cool kids hang out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Himiko:

quote:

If Jesus was running as a republican it would be the same outcome.

The Dems would vote for Barrabas.

I have no doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

Like always the media covers republicans negative and glows with admiration for the Dems no secret.

Like the old joke when W was in the White House.

If George W. Bush walked across the Potomac, the headline in the NYT would be "BUSH CAN'T SWIM".

I thought I'd poke my head in here and see what you guys were up to The W joke was definitely worth it.

Carry on.

PS our thread has hotter women, faster cars, and all the cool kids hang out there.

Want some candy, I got all kinds of yummy good candy come here and see......

Get in the van NOW!

Sorry but you came on a little creepy.

PredictIt is set up to let you bet on what will happen in politics. (real money)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...n-6-state-primaries/

Current PredictIt odds for the April primaries show

Cruz favored to win Wisconsin, but Trump somewhat close at second place

Then Trump heavily favored to win New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island

“the evidence clearly shows that markets where you can bet on — or invest in — political outcomes are more accurate than any collection of pundits or statistical polling averages — and extremely well calibrated.

Is it gambling? Is it investing? Call it what you will, but putting your money where your mouth is has a beneficial impact on democracy. People start paying attention in a way that they never did before, so they make an effort to learn about politics, to understand politics, to engage in politics.”

Wisconsin Rep Primary 5 April

42 delegates:

statewide winner gets 18

then the winner in each of the eight congressional districts gets 3

18 + 3*8 = 42

Under Wisconsin state party rules, the delegates must support their candidate unless that person releases them .

They can also support someone else if their candidate does not receive at least one-third of the total votes cast in any vote for the nomination.

http://www.greenbaypressgazett...-sidelines/81938594/

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

It's just plain dumb for the two of them to be flinging shit at each other like pissed off monkeys. It does neither of them any good, and only helps Hillary.

Yes. They would both be smarter to start working together to make each of them look presidential (even while competing against each other). Time to take this thing to a higher plane.

At least Hillary is trying to be more presidential. Unfortunately for her, it's the Hall of Presidents - in Disney's animatronic kind a way.

Recent events have raised the question of just how hard a male candidate can go after someone in the political arena. It has been said the Trump hates strong women or bullies women. So how far should he go?

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr dueled to the death of Hamilton over honor. Well, those days are, obviously gone. So, now where even men do not defend their honor with a duel to the death, how do we draw the lines?

I saw a video posted recently in the Lounge showing a woman facing another trainee (male) with a pugil stick. The woman was simply bowled over. When women demand to be treated equally, is it not incumbent on those women to prepare for the realities of what they seek? I can understand the divide with more chivalrous thoughts, but should the arena be tapered to the advantage of the fairer sex in politics or business?

For instance, if a woman enters the arena of business and a competitor uses a bullying tactic to get an advantage in negotiation, should that be deemed sexist bullying? I understand that there are a lot of factors but if the same tactic was used against a man, it would probably be recognized as bullying and, then, ignored.

Trump bullies everyone. Male. Female. Disability. It just makes no difference to him. He has softer modes and after he negotiates hard, he seems to befriend many of his opponents.

There is also the notion out there that Trump has a problem with strong women. But, is it not that he has a thing against strong opponents? Trump was pretty tough on Jeb, Rubio, Graham and Perry. But, they were not women. They were opponents. As has been said by others, Trump does not see gender when he hits back at strong opponents who hit him first.

So, in this race with, presumably, Hillary, she will bring out the Democrat play book to try to shame into silence anyone who can be tagged with bullying, or some “ism” like sexism. For too long, Democrats have used shaming to shape the debate. Trump challenges such shaming and mercilessly ignores the Democrat boundaries.

In previous elections, I have felt like the Democrat ground rules have boxed in the debate and like kryptonite, Republicans candidates are tarred with an “ism” and its all over.

Trump’s political incorrectness is refreshing to many. We are being told that we can’t say “All Lives Matter.” We are shamed into avoiding chanting, “USA. USA. USA.” We are told that saying that the “United States of America is the Land of Opportunity” is some proscribed “micro-aggression.” The people are sick of it.

So, that leaves us with Trump and deciding whether his treatment of opponents, male or female, is subject to some limit of decency or chivalry. Is chivalry a concept that should be left out of this political campaign or is there so much at stake that that particular governor should be taken off the pedal?

If Trump takes it to Hillary, he will need to smash the Democrat-imposed shame tactic. When Hillary had Kimmel basically make a campaign ad for her the other night to conclude that people do not like Hillary because she is not a “man,” she is telecasting her strategy for this election cycle. She wants to say that people do not warm to her automatonic demeanor, not because she is wrong, but because she is a woman – or, at least not a man. If Trump is the nominee, should he not ignore Hillary’s gender-oriented shaming and burn her tail feathers as he would any other man or opponent?

For the chivalrous, there should be a limit and decorum to fighting a woman. But, for those in battle, does one disregard gender and play for keeps without regard to the chivalrous concerns? This election cycle leaves us with more than a few questions about decorum because decorum has seemingly sailed the ship of state into terrible waters partly because timidity prevailed over tough battles.

At some point we will likely say, “O.K. You wanted to be equal and this is what it feels like.” I have spoken to many women who tell me that they are well past that point and are voting for Trump to set him to the task - one was 88 years old. There is so much at stake.

quote:

He has softer modes and after he negotiates hard, he seems to befriend many of his opponents.

Isn't that what the United States did after WW2? After hard "negotiations" with Germany and Japan, we befriended them.

This bullshit of attacking somebody's wife is beyond stupid . I have no respect for a candidate that goes down that road .I don't give a damn who started it .

Here's Rush Limbaugh's analysis of the whole stupid mess started by an Anti-Trump PAC...not pro Cruz...Anti-Trump. Apparently it is strictly illegal for a candidate to comment on anything the PAC's put out, which includes disavowing things they say or do.:

quote:

Trump vs. Cruz: This Time It's Different
March 25, 2016
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We have the contretemps between Ted Cruz and the Trumpster. To put all this in context, bring it into focus, the Trumpster got mad at something Cruz did, and Cruz didn't do it. A PAC published a photo of the wife of the Trumpster, Melania, from 15 years ago in GQ, back in her modeling days, and it was, ah, kind of risque. She wasn't wearing much, if anything.

Well, this offended the Trumpster, and so the Trumpster warned Cruz to be careful or he would spill the beans on Cruz's wife, Heidi. Everybody said, "What are the beans? What's there to spill about Heidi Cruz?" And it turns out there was something. It would not have amounted to much of anything. It was something from 15 years ago, but it never came out. It never really mattered much because the Trumpster fired back with a tweet of his own. Side-by-side photos of Heidi Cruz looking like she was mad at somebody, her mouth is wide open, she's screaming at something, right next to a picture of the Trump's wife, Melania, looking like she looks.

And the Trumpster says: "No need to spill the beans. The picture says it all." And I have to tell you -- and Mr. Snerdley confirmed this with me today. For the first time a number of women -- the Megyn Kelly didn't evoke much of a reaction from women. The insults of some of the other women, like Carly Fiorina and her face, no big deal. But this one for some reason has resonated with a lot of women. And Trump has a gender gap already. Details coming up. Don't know how serious it is, but it's said to be a serious gender gap, serious problem with women even before this. And this side-by-side picture of Heidi Cruz next to Melania with the tweet: "No need to spill the beans. Picture says a thousand words." For some reason all that other stuff about women didn't raise a hackle, but this one has.

Has it with you? I have to tell you, I'm curious about it. I mean, let's review this. (imitating Trump) "She had blood coming out of -- well, everywhere." I don't know. Hey, you know what, no big deal. It's funny, hardy-har-har. She kind of deserved it 'cause of the way she treated Trumpster. I mean, this is the reaction people had. Then Carly Fiorina. (imitating Trump) "Who would want to elect somebody with a face like that," Trump said. No big deal.

What is it about this? Is it that there's a picture? Is that what it is? I mean, you have to admit here, folks, that some of the things -- and I've got my objectivity cap on here. I'm just reviewing all this. Some of the things that Trump has said about women prior to this Heidi Cruz thing, I mean, do they not measure up? Are they not just as egregious? Are they not just as over the line? But they didn't seem to be harmful. Women didn't seem to be particularly upset over any of that, not like this. This is in its own league.

And then -- I don't know if I got the timeline exactly right, but somewhere in the midst of all this a very hot rumor starts percolating out there across the Internet on Twitter and Facebook. What? What now? That Cruz has been catting around out there with five different mistresses. It turns out the National Enquirer is the source for this. There isn't any story yet. It's just scuttlebutt out there, that The Enquirer has the data, has the information, sitting on it. Everybody says, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, Ted Cruz? Five mistresses? Ted Cruz?" People can't imagine Ted Cruz ever taking his clothes off even to go to bed. Am I right? Five? And then we find out that it's not being given a lot of credence out there on the Internet because it just sounds so incredulous. And if The Enquirer has this news now, where was it a month ago, where was it two months ago? Why now?

More: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da..._time_it_s_different

Here's the picture of Melania Trump put out by the Anti-Trump PAC. For what it's worth, I want Melania to be First Lady more than I did before...

http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/...melania-tweets-utah/

I would think the Trumpster would be the Feminist dream dude. He treats them exactly like what they have been asking for for the past 40-50 yrs, equals. To cry about not playing favorites to the weaker sex is ridiculous. Ladies you asked for it. Here is the unvarnished item. Trump!

quote:

Apparently it is strictly illegal for a candidate to comment on anything the PAC's put out, which includes disavowing things they say or do.:

whether or not they knew or were involved, the legal status provides perfect plausible deniability. If they're involved it's perfectly constructed to deny, deny, deny. Expert level politics, I suspect, carried out through friends of friends and such.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Apparently it is strictly illegal for a candidate to comment on anything the PAC's put out, which includes disavowing things they say or do.:

whether or not they knew or were involved, the legal status provides perfect plausible deniability. If they're involved it's perfectly constructed to deny, deny, deny. Expert level politics, I suspect, carried out through friends of friends and such.

I agree. I think Rush has it wrong if he really believes that candidates cannot denounce a PAC ad. I do not wish to cross post so I will just say that Cruz, Kasich and Clinton have all done it during this primary season. Many others have done it as well.

The coordination rules are about making ads with the help of the candidate or his/her surrogates but they are really about giving the campaign value or money that campaigns are not allowed to control. Fines have been $2,500, for instance, and are rare for simple coordination of content and I do not believe there has ever been a claim based on denouncing an ad.