The Next President of the United States: III

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
You know what frustrating about all this Trump stuff?

From a Fiscal standpoint, I can see some real change coming from a President Cruz with Ryan as the House Speaker. (The Senate is there for the GOP’s taking if sentiment in America stays the way it’s been).

Cruz certainly is “moving up”.

One other thing about Cruz. There was some thought that he may be maneuvering himself for the Vice President spot (under a Trump Presidency). However; over the past few days its as if he had heard enough and became critical of Trump.

What do you guys think?

Mufasa[/quote]

The news I’m reading is that Cruz may have flubbed his moment by trying to distance himself from his (completely legitimate) criticism of Trump behind closed doors. Cruz looked vacillating and weak, like a toady, not like a leader.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m just sitting here adding up the support Trump gets with the support Sanders gets and realizing… It’s over.

This goose is fucking cooked.

The only question that remains is if total collapse is necessary to cleanse the pallet, or if a moderate shake up via soapbox and ballot box can do it. [/quote]

To be fair-

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Don’t worry Countingbeans. It seems exceptionally unlikely that Sanders will become the Democratic nominee.

Though I suppose I shouldn’t be saying this since the primaries haven’t even started yet… Fucking Obama and his miracle run in '08. Predicting a Clinton nomination is a dumb thing to do nowadays.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Right-wing enablers of Trump need to read this, maybe even memorize it:

Related: how an opportunistic political shapeshifter has become the true conservative voice of authenticity against the phonies is simply baffling. [/quote]

Worthwhile to bump this link, so that our resident enablers - especially those like Push, who “dare” others to read Limbaugh’s piece - can review and respond.
[/quote]

Now I’m a “Trump enabler?” My gawd man, thou art turning into quite the crybaby. I encourage folks to explore the Trump phenomenon because it indeed IS one and it offends you, eh? Put your big boy pants on, for crying out loud.

Limbaugh’s piece was good analysis and to pick up where Muf left off regarding Cruz, I have a theory that Trump’s “extremism” will cause Cruz’ “extremism” to appear “milder” and more “reasonable” and help propel him to the nomination (along with his aforementioned "ground game).

So yeah, in a way, Trump is plowing a path for Cruz. [/quote]

Yeah, you’re an enabler - this quote, though specific to the media, is a good explanation:

"A number of Trump’s enablers in the conservative media firmament (some of whom loudly expressed contempt for him not long ago) are caught up in the same sort of feedback loop they routinely ridicule when it exists on the Left or within the GOP establishment. Here’s how the coy game has worked: When Trump is right, they praise him. Fine. When Trump is factually wrong, while making an argument that may contain a “larger truth,” they justify his inaccuracies. When Trump lies, they deflect and excuse. And when Trump does something indefensible, they side-step the substance, resorting to marveling at how masterful he is at “driving a narrative,” playing the media, and aggravating all the ‘right’ people. Sure, he may be a sloppy, impulsive, non-conservative ignoramus on actual policy, but at least “he fights” in a manner that gratifies our audience’s political id; plus, “without him, we wouldn’t even be talking about [fill in the blank]!” There’s never an explicit endorsement, mind you, just loads of adulation. "

Exactly. And that’s the thing we see on this forum. No one will actually cop to liking or supporting Trump, but these enablers think, damn, he’s kinda awesome if you think about it.

And identifying those who are serving as useful idiots to Trump’s self-serving (but party destructive) act isn’t cry babying. But you knew that - you’re just trying to distract from the point.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You Trump haters do get yourselves worked up, I must admit:

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/12/11/aclu-board-member-resigns-after-urging-people-to-kill-supporters-of-trump/[/quote]
Thats some true color showing there. In one breath shes calling Trump Goebells, then in the next shes calling for the murder of people who oppose her ideology.
Don’t ignore it when someome tells you who they really are!

Typical liberal hypocracy. Celebrate diversity. That is an order. Oh~ you disagree? DIE!!!

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Now I’m a “Trump enabler?” [/quote]

If whenever Trump opens his mouth you don’t criticize and call him a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, then you are enabling him. If you don’t call his supporters stupid, racist, and uneducated, then you are enabling him. According to the common wisdom of the day, if you are not attacking Trump, you are enabling him.

TB’s point is being expertly demonstrated.

“Stupid” gets obliquely questioned or sarcastically invoked as “common wisdom,” as if this alters its truth value. Notice that nobody has touched the wealth of objective fact showing beyond the hint of a shadow of a doubt that stupid – and much, much more – is apt (and this is to understate the matter). Conspiracy theory (again: fucking conspiracy theory; and again: con-spi-ra-Cy the-o-ry), policy-free extemporaneous horseshit; inability to communicate clearly at even a 3rd-grade level; histrionic midnight Tweeting (like an early-adolescent girl lashing out against some social slight in the lunchroom) – nobody has touched any of it, because it can’t be touched, it can’t be denied. Instead we get vague, utterly futile nonsense designed to make a spade look like maybe it’s something else. It’s fatuous and transparent and it may well come back to bite you (and the country) in the collective dick.

Harsh, yeah, but again, we’re talking about a conspiracy theorist. Running for president. And doing well, at least with one large and dumb set of sad clowns.

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
I don’t have the luxury of unlimited free time to dink with this thread. Someone focused on the 10 commandments vs Satan thing - fair enough. My other points was ignored though.

Let’s look at government subsidized religious education. I’ll be back at some point in the next 24 hours.

Don’t get sidetracked with the charter and private schools, even if they do receive state funds. Lets keep the focus.[/quote]

Meanwhile…

Back to the next President…

If Trump is like the loud, drunk uncle at Christmas - and I believe he is - then it appears as though we’re starting to tire of the bombast and stupidity.

Washington (CNN)Ted Cruz has soared ahead of Donald Trump in a new Iowa poll, opening up a 10-point lead in the critical first-in-the-nation voting state.

The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics poll released on Saturday finds Cruz commanding 31% of likely Republican caucus-goers in the state, 10 points ahead of Trump, who received 21%.

For Cruz, the poll represents a massive 21-point jump from a survey conducted by the two outlets in October.

Cruz and Trump will face off Tuesday in Las Vegas at the next Republican presidential debate, sponsored by CNN.

“We have more work to do, but we can definitively say the message is working,” Cruz’s Iowa state director, Bryan English, told CNN in a statement.

The results are the most tangible sign yet that Cruz’s strategy in Iowa – heavily dependent on winning over pastors and their evangelical congregations – is succeeding. For months, Cruz labored behind the scenes, courting and organizing influential faith leaders as he slowly worked to peel off the born-again believers of candidates like Ben Carson.

On Thursday – after the poll was fielded – the Texas senator won his biggest Christian booster yet: Bob Vander Plaats, who has endorsed the last two Iowa winners.

Ben Carson dropped to third place with 13%. Marco Rubio has 10%, which puts him in fourth place – the same spot he held in October. Jeb Bush has 6% – a 1% increase from two months ago.

Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie are tied with 3%. The rest of the field, including Carly Fiorina and John Kasich, is at 2% or less.

The poll of 400 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted between December 7 and 10, after Trump called for a ban on allowing Muslim immigrants into the U.S. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Trump has often derided the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest newspaper, as biased against him. He blasted the poll in a tweet Saturday night, though he appears to have mistakenly said the paper was biased “towards” him instead of against his candidacy.

“New CNN Iowa poll — Trump 33, Cruz 20. Everyone else way down! Don’t trust Des Moines Register poll - biased towards Trump!” he tweeted.

A CNN/ORC poll released on Monday found that the real estate mogul had 33% support among likely GOP caucus-goers in Iowa, followed by Cruz at 20%. Nationally, a CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month found the brash billionaire sitting atop the GOP field with 36%, 20 points ahead of Cruz, the GOP’s runner-up.

High expectations

Cruz now will have to contend with expectations that, for months, he has sought to carefully manage. Drawing a contrast with less well-resourced candidates, Cruz often told reporters that he did not view Iowa as a “must win,” stressing that he could run a nationally-focused campaign.

Given his standing 50 days before the caucuses, that’s a harder argument to make.

But much can change during the next seven weeks, for better or for worse. Cruz and his allies have so far spent very little money on advertising in Iowa, raising the prospect that his numbers could rise even more. Yet his opponents, for the most part, are only beginning to target him, attacks that when launched will make it difficult for Cruz to maintain his field-high favorability ratings – 73% favorable, in this survey – as voting draws closer.

A historic surge

In a story accompanying the poll results, the Register said no one had made Cruz’s 21-point leap in five previous caucus cycles.

In the 2012 race, Mitt Romney, the GOP’s eventual nominee, jumped eight points from 16% to 24% in the final poll before the vote. That came at the expense of Newt Gingrich, who plunged 13 points (25% to 12%) in the same survey.

In 2008, Mike Huckabee – who would go on to capture the caucuses that year – zoomed 17 points between October and November. In 2004, John Edwards also completed a 17-point leap in the final poll before the Democratic caucuses, while John Kerry rose 10 points, 15% to 25%. Kerry ended up defeating Edwards by 6 points in that year’s caucuses and eventually captured the party’s nomination.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If Trump is like the loud, drunk uncle at Christmas - and I believe he is - then it appears as though we’re starting to tire of the bombast and stupidity.[/quote]

Let’s hope so, I’ve been saying that Cruz has a great chance to win Iowa. And Rubio is doing well in New Hampshire. If Trump drops those first two, even though Iowa is only a caucus state his momentum will be stunted. Then South Carolina is next. If he loses that state as well (and I’m not making any predictions) he is done.

Trump is leading a revolution, so this election is unlike previous elections.

In addition, the worldwide economy is tanking. Economic issues will be on the main burner next year.

As an aside, JP Morgan is predicting a stock market rout for tomorrow. Here’s the quote/link:

“Beware The “Massive Stop Loss” - JPM’s Head Quant Warns This Unexpected Downside Catalyst Looms Next Week”

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
TB’s point is being expertly demonstrated.

“Stupid” gets obliquely questioned or sarcastically invoked as “common wisdom,” as if this alters its truth value. Notice that nobody has touched the wealth of objective fact showing beyond the hint of a shadow of a doubt that stupid – and much, much more – is apt (and this is to understate the matter). Conspiracy theory (again: fucking conspiracy theory; and again: con-spi-ra-Cy the-o-ry), policy-free extemporaneous horseshit; inability to communicate clearly at even a 3rd-grade level; histrionic midnight Tweeting (like an early-adolescent girl lashing out against some social slight in the lunchroom) – nobody has touched any of it, because it can’t be touched, it can’t be denied. Instead we get vague, utterly futile nonsense designed to make a spade look like maybe it’s something else. It’s fatuous and transparent and it may well come back to bite you (and the country) in the collective dick.

Harsh, yeah, but again, we’re talking about a conspiracy theorist. Running for president. And doing well, at least with one large and dumb set of sad clowns.[/quote]

Hillary’s campaign started the birther bullshit back in 2008, and she is the Democratic front runner, so why aren’t you calling her supporters all the names you are calling Trump supporters ?