Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Palin's Endorsement in Context

YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:12:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

I think that Cruz has spent too much time and money on Iowa to plan on losing it.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:22:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:12:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

I think that Cruz has spent too much time and money on Iowa to plan on losing it.

I think that he initially planned to win it, but he's realized that he can't do that now.
Tsar of DDO
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:32:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:22:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:12:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

I think that Cruz has spent too much time and money on Iowa to plan on losing it.

I think that he initially planned to win it, but he's realized that he can't do that now.

He bet too much on it during the past few months to accept losing.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:48:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.

Ok, I think I understand. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with what you are speaking of specifically to disagree or agree with you on the situation of attempting force.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:50:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:48:11 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.

Ok, I think I understand. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with what you are speaking of specifically to disagree or agree with you on the situation of attempting force.

I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the government shutdown, and his threats to do it again, right?
http://nymag.com...
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:54:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:50:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:48:11 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.

Ok, I think I understand. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with what you are speaking of specifically to disagree or agree with you on the situation of attempting force.

I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the government shutdown, and his threats to do it again, right?
http://nymag.com...
Ahwwww. Of course. I don't think he was threatening the shutdown. I thought it was the Executive branch doing so if the Legislative branch used the purse to stop certain moves. Am I incorrect. I have not checked your link yet.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:57:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:54:08 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:50:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:48:11 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.

Ok, I think I understand. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with what you are speaking of specifically to disagree or agree with you on the situation of attempting force.

I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the government shutdown, and his threats to do it again, right?
http://nymag.com...
Ahwwww. Of course. I don't think he was threatening the shutdown. I thought it was the Executive branch doing so if the Legislative branch used the purse to stop certain moves. Am I incorrect. I have not checked your link yet.

He did it over ACA, and threatened over Planed Parenthood.

This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:03:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:57:19 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:54:08 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:50:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:48:11 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.

Ok, I think I understand. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with what you are speaking of specifically to disagree or agree with you on the situation of attempting force.

I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the government shutdown, and his threats to do it again, right?
http://nymag.com...
Ahwwww. Of course. I don't think he was threatening the shutdown. I thought it was the Executive branch doing so if the Legislative branch used the purse to stop certain moves. Am I incorrect. I have not checked your link yet.

He did it over ACA, and threatened over Planed Parenthood.

This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.

You are so right sir. I have to stand corrected. It isn't only the Executive branches fault for a shutdown, it's both branches fault because they act as children and can't come to terms. but I tell you one thing they both enjoy their breaks. I for one don't believe that Planned parenthood should be getting funding from the government, but that is a red hearing and will stick to the point. The President has the power to cancel recess of congr
Robkwoods
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:13:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:57:19 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:54:08 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:50:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:48:11 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:45:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:42:16 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:29:41 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:21:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:11:09 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:45:52 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:31:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

So, what's going to happen is that Trump is going to win Iowa; and he got a one-two punch on Cruz yesterday in three areas. (1) Palin endorsed Trump, despite having previously worked with Cruz in Texas --meaning that she snubbed Cruz; (2) Cruz has changed his strategic calculation to look beyond Iowa; and (3) The Governor of Iowa, and the Corn lobby in Iowa, has slammed Cruz... like overwhelmingly.

Thus, the two key constituencies (movement conservatives and farmers) are going to be at least against Cruz, and many will be for Trump. Palin's appeal is limited to only movement conservatives in Iowa, but there are a lot of them there, and I think she'll be influential with persuading them. I don't think that Palin's endorsement will scare anyone who already supports Trump away from him. I also think that in context, Trump is the most likely to win Iowa.

(Note: the Iowa caucuses are weird as hell, and anything in realty can happen.... so it's hard to predict what will happen.)

I agree. Palin has sh1t numbers with the GOP in general at this point, only holding the fundamentalists. Trump was looking weak with the same groups, and Palin shores that up. Iowa is gone from Cruz at this point.

There is no one in that field I fear more than Cruz. Kicking him around is a win for me, and opens room for another one to move up.

Interesting statement. I for one enjoy Cruz. I would feel more comfortable with him besides Trump.

Cruz is a dangerous "true believer". Trump is a buffoon, but not a lunatic.

What is a true believer?

Trump is emotional and impulsive. The self-confidence he alludes is not very deep. He, to me, screams someone compensating for inadequacies. Cruz is smart. He feels no need to tell anyone that, he knows it. He, like Trump, is a bully, but a bully with a mission to leverage power. literally "my way or the highway" sort of attitude. Hold the government hostage? If that's what I want, that's what I will do.

Am I safe in assuming that your description of Cruz is what makes him a true believer? I don't see him as a bully either. But I do agree with the leverage of power, I don't like an over powerful government. Is what you mean by holding the government hostage, not allowing it to control as much as it does? I'm only trying to understand.

In part, that is what makes me describe him as a "true believer". People moderate their stances when needed, but will talk with great conviction. He believes he is right no-mater the objection. As for bully, I can't think of any better term. He has been a bully from the second he entered senate. Well, that's not true, I assume he has been one his entire life!

What I mean by holding the government hostage is, that is what he did. He does not get to decide for the entire country what is right or wrong, and do it with a gun pointed at the government. You may like smaller government, but if someone, anyone, did that sort of thing to get MORE government, you would call it out too.

I'm not to sure about the gun to the government, but I do try and stay consistent. If he you are saying his filibustering of certain things he disagrees with then I see no problem with that. The Government should be slow and hard to make changes. It's the people that are represented that should hold the true power. Now this is based on what I am decoding from your sending. Please correct me if I have taken this in error.

The government SHOULD be hard to change, and it should be the will of the people. His shenanigans were in direct conflict with BOTH! He couldn't get the votes, do he did as he pleased and attempted to get with force what he couldn't accomplish according the the democratic process.

Ok, I think I understand. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with what you are speaking of specifically to disagree or agree with you on the situation of attempting force.

I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the government shutdown, and his threats to do it again, right?
http://nymag.com...
Ahwwww. Of course. I don't think he was threatening the shutdown. I thought it was the Executive branch doing so if the Legislative branch used the purse to stop certain moves. Am I incorrect. I have not checked your link yet.

He did it over ACA, and threatened over Planed Parenthood.

This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.

80% of the government still runs while "shutdown". And because Dems love Government so much, it is a threat that usually sways them. However BO used it against a Republican Congress, which is fvcking absurd, and shows how off base the GOP is.

A Cruz presidency will completely gut the establishment on both sides.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:13:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.

I ran out of space:

You are so right sir. I have to stand corrected. It isn't only the Executive branches fault for a shutdown, it's both branches fault because they act as children and can't come to terms. but I tell you one thing they both enjoy their breaks. I for one don't believe that Planned parenthood should be getting funding from the government, but that is a red hearing and will stick to the point. The President has the power to cancel recess of congress and held until there was an agreement through debates and conversation. Congress represents the people. But I don't see a problem with the government shutting down. When it opens again everyone gets back paid and it is only non-essential departments. I say come to an understanding first and foremost. That's the adult thing to do.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:22:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:13:34 PM, liltankjj wrote:
This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.

I ran out of space:

You are so right sir. I have to stand corrected. It isn't only the Executive branches fault for a shutdown, it's both branches fault because they act as children and can't come to terms. but I tell you one thing they both enjoy their breaks. I for one don't believe that Planned parenthood should be getting funding from the government, but that is a red hearing and will stick to the point. The President has the power to cancel recess of congress and held until there was an agreement through debates and conversation. Congress represents the people. But I don't see a problem with the government shutting down. When it opens again everyone gets back paid and it is only non-essential departments. I say come to an understanding first and foremost. That's the adult thing to do.

Again, I will point out that every republican was willing to say it was THEM that shutdown the government until it was an obvious failure, then they deflected.

Taking your ball, so to speak, is the act of a child. Cruz acted like a child, and when everyone called them out on the nonsense, they pretended it was the pitchers fault.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:24:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
80% of the government still runs while "shutdown". And because Dems love Government so much, it is a threat that usually sways them. However BO used it against a Republican Congress, which is fvcking absurd, and shows how off base the GOP is.

A Cruz presidency will completely gut the establishment on both sides.

1) Nonsense, the lot of it. 2) When has it worked? "Usually? 3) Using something that they clearly DID and was disliked by the people (you know, us) is not bad.

Cruz is no statesman.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:28:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:22:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:13:34 PM, liltankjj wrote:
This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.

I ran out of space:

You are so right sir. I have to stand corrected. It isn't only the Executive branches fault for a shutdown, it's both branches fault because they act as children and can't come to terms. but I tell you one thing they both enjoy their breaks. I for one don't believe that Planned parenthood should be getting funding from the government, but that is a red hearing and will stick to the point. The President has the power to cancel recess of congress and held until there was an agreement through debates and conversation. Congress represents the people. But I don't see a problem with the government shutting down. When it opens again everyone gets back paid and it is only non-essential departments. I say come to an understanding first and foremost. That's the adult thing to do.

Again, I will point out that every republican was willing to say it was THEM that shutdown the government until it was an obvious failure, then they deflected.

Taking your ball, so to speak, is the act of a child. Cruz acted like a child, and when everyone called them out on the nonsense, they pretended it was the pitchers fault.

I still don't get how Cruz took the blame. It's much deeper than just congress It falls on The President as well. It's just like if we look at it in a different level. If my Wife and I fail to come up with a budget then my household will be shut down. It isn't just my fault or hers. It's ours because we didn't sit down and hash out the differences. I don't see why it didn't shut down it should have if they couldn't come to an agreement.
Robkwoods
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:37:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
80% of the government still runs while "shutdown". And because Dems love Government so much, it is a threat that usually sways them. However BO used it against a Republican Congress, which is fvcking absurd, and shows how off base the GOP is.

A Cruz presidency will completely gut the establishment on both sides.

1) Nonsense, the lot of it.
Not really

2) When has it worked? "Usually?
Power of the purse is and has been a common strategy for a legislature. It should be a staple of Republican, because we are limited government. Government shutdown has occur 18 times since 76. This is not a new thing.

3) Using something that they clearly DID and was disliked by the people (you know, us)is not bad.

Government shutdown is not a bad thing and has little to no effect on the people.

Cruz is no statesman.
I don't want him to be. I want him to be a true Conservative.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:40:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:12:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:18:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Thett asked me in the hangout last night what I thought of Palin's endorsement of Trump, and at that time I couldn't really give a good answer because I hadn't thought about it at all.

But, here's my initial impression... contingent upon what Trump's poll numbers look like in a week or so:

Palin's endorsement came at the same time that Ted Cruz was really sharply denounced by the Governor of Iowa for Cruz's opposition to ethanol subsidies, which many farmers in Iowa depend on for their livelihood --especially in low yield seasons.

I have mixed feelings about farming subsidies, but my thoughts are irrelevant. What matters is what Iowans think, and I think that Cruz has made a strategic calculation that he is willing to lose Iowa in order to win New Hampshire and South Carolina on a campaign theme of "fiscal conservatism."

I think the reason he made that choice is because regardless of the Palin endorsement, Cruz knows he's not going to win Iowa --which is a huge surprise, because he's got some really spectacular infrastructure there. However, good infrastructure doesn't take the place of substance, which is what Trump is offering.

I think that Cruz has spent too much time and money on Iowa to plan on losing it.

I'm not sure if he's planning on losing it so much as he realizes it's a possibility and is trying to position himself to become the anti-Trump in other states. Cruz is likely the only candidate with any chance to stop Trump, ESPECIALLY if the "establishment" candidate who does best in Iowa is not the establishment candidate who does best in New Hampshire.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:41:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:28:45 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:22:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:13:34 PM, liltankjj wrote:
This "who turns out the lights" question is childish (not calling you childish). If congress holds the purse, the government shuts down if THEY stop funding. The only reason for the deflection that has become a common narrative on the right (it was the president who shutdown the government) is because it failed so badly. Same way it during the Clinton years.

I ran out of space:

You are so right sir. I have to stand corrected. It isn't only the Executive branches fault for a shutdown, it's both branches fault because they act as children and can't come to terms. but I tell you one thing they both enjoy their breaks. I for one don't believe that Planned parenthood should be getting funding from the government, but that is a red hearing and will stick to the point. The President has the power to cancel recess of congress and held until there was an agreement through debates and conversation. Congress represents the people. But I don't see a problem with the government shutting down. When it opens again everyone gets back paid and it is only non-essential departments. I say come to an understanding first and foremost. That's the adult thing to do.

Again, I will point out that every republican was willing to say it was THEM that shutdown the government until it was an obvious failure, then they deflected.

Taking your ball, so to speak, is the act of a child. Cruz acted like a child, and when everyone called them out on the nonsense, they pretended it was the pitchers fault.

I still don't get how Cruz took the blame. It's much deeper than just congress It falls on The President as well. It's just like if we look at it in a different level. If my Wife and I fail to come up with a budget then my household will be shut down. It isn't just my fault or hers. It's ours because we didn't sit down and hash out the differences. I don't see why it didn't shut down it should have if they couldn't come to an agreement.

That is simply not what happened. The issue was ACA. They simply count NOT, using the proper democratic process, get rid of the ACA, so they did something else! They used a tactic. A "gun" if you will.

You don't get to shutdown the government because you dislike the laws that are passed, and you can't get enough support for your own side. That is being a child and a bully. It is not statesmanship. Its not democratic.

This pile of poo rest squarely in the GOPs yard. They just refuse to pick it up, because it smells so bad.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:52:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:37:54 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
80% of the government still runs while "shutdown". And because Dems love Government so much, it is a threat that usually sways them. However BO used it against a Republican Congress, which is fvcking absurd, and shows how off base the GOP is.

A Cruz presidency will completely gut the establishment on both sides.

1) Nonsense, the lot of it.
Not really

2) When has it worked? "Usually?
Power of the purse is and has been a common strategy for a legislature. It should be a staple of Republican, because we are limited government. Government shutdown has occur 18 times since 76. This is not a new thing.

That was not the question. When did it work? Look as all the shutdown during Carter. Do you think you would call them successes?


3) Using something that they clearly DID and was disliked by the people (you know, us)is not bad.

Government shutdown is not a bad thing and has little to no effect on the people.

Please... The republicans have tried every tack in the book to walk away from this debacle. You, along with them, are deflecting.


Cruz is no statesman.
I don't want him to be. I want him to be a true Conservative.

So, you want him to be a bully, right? That is not governing, that is being a bully. Just because YOU like conservatives does not mean the remainder of the country does. The government represents all, not your narrow interests.
Robkwoods
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 6:10:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:52:33 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:37:54 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
80% of the government still runs while "shutdown". And because Dems love Government so much, it is a threat that usually sways them. However BO used it against a Republican Congress, which is fvcking absurd, and shows how off base the GOP is.

A Cruz presidency will completely gut the establishment on both sides.

1) Nonsense, the lot of it.
Not really

2) When has it worked? "Usually?
Power of the purse is and has been a common strategy for a legislature. It should be a staple of Republican, because we are limited government. Government shutdown has occur 18 times since 76. This is not a new thing.

That was not the question. When did it work? Look as all the shutdown during Carter. Do you think you would call them successes?

Don't forget Ford, Reagan, Big Bush, and the 3 wk shutdown with Clinton.

3) Using something that they clearly DID and was disliked by the people (you know, us)is not bad.

Government shutdown is not a bad thing and has little to no effect on the people.

Please... The republicans have tried every tack in the book to walk away from this debacle. You, along with them, are deflecting.

Yeah because the republican party is full of a bunch mushy moderates willing to compromise their voters for political power.

Cruz is no statesman.
I don't want him to be. I want him to be a true Conservative.

So, you want him to be a bully, right? That is not governing, that is being a bully. Just because YOU like conservatives does not mean the remainder of the country does. The government represents all, not your narrow interests.

I don't call using the power bestowed upon you to fight for the will of the people being a bully. Actually the majority of the country holds conservative values. Government doesn't care about you or your interests. The last 8yrs should be proof of that.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 6:19:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Cruz is the old party Russian who is being outmaneuvered at every turn from crazy Bobby Fischer. He has already lost and he doesn't even realize it yet.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 6:21:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 6:10:08 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:52:33 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:37:54 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
80% of the government still runs while "shutdown". And because Dems love Government so much, it is a threat that usually sways them. However BO used it against a Republican Congress, which is fvcking absurd, and shows how off base the GOP is.

A Cruz presidency will completely gut the establishment on both sides.

1) Nonsense, the lot of it.
Not really

2) When has it worked? "Usually?
Power of the purse is and has been a common strategy for a legislature. It should be a staple of Republican, because we are limited government. Government shutdown has occur 18 times since 76. This is not a new thing.

That was not the question. When did it work? Look as all the shutdown during Carter. Do you think you would call them successes?

Don't forget Ford, Reagan, Big Bush, and the 3 wk shutdown with Clinton.

Still not answering the question I see.


3) Using something that they clearly DID and was disliked by the people (you know, us)is not bad.

Government shutdown is not a bad thing and has little to no effect on the people.

Please... The republicans have tried every tack in the book to walk away from this debacle. You, along with them, are deflecting.

Yeah because the republican party is full of a bunch mushy moderates willing to compromise their voters for political power.

Fair enough. Its the truth too. It is their mess.


Cruz is no statesman.
I don't want him to be. I want him to be a true Conservative.

So, you want him to be a bully, right? That is not governing, that is being a bully. Just because YOU like conservatives does not mean the remainder of the country does. The government represents all, not your narrow interests.

I don't call using the power bestowed upon you to fight for the will of the people being a bully. Actually the majority of the country holds conservative values. Government doesn't care about you or your interests. The last 8yrs should be proof of that.

Most of the country do NOT hold conservative values.
48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

As to the last eight years, you again make the assumption (wrongly) that since Obama did not represent YOUR exact wants he was not representative. That is simply not true. Its called "where's my pony".