RiverguyVT wrote:y'all are going to have to bring me up to speed on Cruz.
I really don't know. What has he done that makes him a weasel? A backstabber? What makes him a miserable human being?
Where has he lied about stuff (the dishonesty factor)?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Am I wrong with the fact that his campaign seems to publish more retractions than the rest combined? Whether it's bogus attack ads or apologizing for saying Carson was done. I'm asking a legit question.
That could be perception. Several news outlets reported the Carson thing before Cruz ever did. Would a retraction not indicate a level of honesty? (i.e, desire to set the record straight?) Contrast that with Hillary!-> telling (was it MSNBC?) that she doesn't recall ever having lied.
The news outlets reported that Carson was going to Florida immediately after Iowa, but that he was continuing his campaign.
Cruz said that Carson was suspending his campaign. The Cruz campaign then had their caucus captains tell people who had not voted yet, that Carson was suspending his campaign. That is the most egregious but he has also placed ads that were so false, they were pulled off the air by the stations running them. The Rubio-Trump was both dishonest, and stupid, at the same time.
None of it is outside the realm of political campaign hijincks. It's fluff over nothing for the most part. I like them both. Let's get the ref's out of the way, and play some f'in ball
When I compare it to how the others are running their campaigns, there is a stark difference, and he looks like your standard dirty jerk. Also, you have to measure that against my general opinion of him, which is that he's always been a one-trick pony, which is being a jerk in everything he does. His campaign activities just reinforce the opinion I have of his inability to do anything as a politician, other then call people names.
We'll have to agree to disagree. To be fair, you didn't like Cruz even before he announced his candidacy. I think you're biased. That's fine, but it does seem to factor into your perceptions of him.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
absolutvt03 wrote:As someone who doesn't really like any of the candidates left, I think if the Republicans want to win, the nominee needs to be Rubio. Just my opinion but I think if Rubio wins the nomination he'll beat Clinton (or Sanders, but most likely Clinton). If someone besides Rubio wins then Clinton will be the next president.
This is pretty much why I feel like a Rubio lean for Primary purposes next week. I think he is probably the most electable.
Right now, Rubio is the only one that is polling ahead of Clinton across all polls. Cruz is leading in all but one, but with smaller leads. Trump loses to Clinton in most polls. Kasich actually crushes Clinton in those polls, which is odd, but might indicate that a Rubio-Kasich ticket would be powerful.
Worst case scenario, (Trump is the nominee) he should select Rubio or Kasich as his VP. They both bring positives, but Kasich would be far more useful navigating DC than Rubio.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
absolutvt03 wrote:As someone who doesn't really like any of the candidates left, I think if the Republicans want to win, the nominee needs to be Rubio. Just my opinion but I think if Rubio wins the nomination he'll beat Clinton (or Sanders, but most likely Clinton). If someone besides Rubio wins then Clinton will be the next president.
This is pretty much why I feel like a Rubio lean for Primary purposes next week. I think he is probably the most electable.
Cruz is up over Clinton in current polling. He's certainly very electable.
Repeat after me, class: "General Election polls in Feb are meaningless."
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Am I wrong with the fact that his campaign seems to publish more retractions than the rest combined? Whether it's bogus attack ads or apologizing for saying Carson was done. I'm asking a legit question.
That could be perception. Several news outlets reported the Carson thing before Cruz ever did. Would a retraction not indicate a level of honesty? (i.e, desire to set the record straight?) Contrast that with Hillary!-> telling (was it MSNBC?) that she doesn't recall ever having lied.
The news outlets reported that Carson was going to Florida immediately after Iowa, but that he was continuing his campaign.
Cruz said that Carson was suspending his campaign. The Cruz campaign then had their caucus captains tell people who had not voted yet, that Carson was suspending his campaign. That is the most egregious but he has also placed ads that were so false, they were pulled off the air by the stations running them. The Rubio-Trump was both dishonest, and stupid, at the same time.
None of it is outside the realm of political campaign hijincks. It's fluff over nothing for the most part. I like them both. Let's get the ref's out of the way, and play some f'in ball
When I compare it to how the others are running their campaigns, there is a stark difference, and he looks like your standard dirty jerk. Also, you have to measure that against my general opinion of him, which is that he's always been a one-trick pony, which is being a jerk in everything he does. His campaign activities just reinforce the opinion I have of his inability to do anything as a politician, other then call people names.
We'll have to agree to disagree. To be fair, you didn't like Cruz even before he announced his candidacy. I think you're biased. That's fine, but it does seem to factor into your perceptions of him.
I just said that I'm biased....everyone is. But my bias is also based on his "career" as a politician, and the things he does/says.
absolutvt03 wrote:As someone who doesn't really like any of the candidates left, I think if the Republicans want to win, the nominee needs to be Rubio. Just my opinion but I think if Rubio wins the nomination he'll beat Clinton (or Sanders, but most likely Clinton). If someone besides Rubio wins then Clinton will be the next president.
This is pretty much why I feel like a Rubio lean for Primary purposes next week. I think he is probably the most electable.
Cruz is up over Clinton in current polling. He's certainly very electable.
Repeat after me, class: "General Election polls in Feb are meaningless."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what, you think you're some of kind of teacher? LOL, that's rich. Translation, you just don't like Cruz and so spew garbage since the facts undermine your position, as usual.
HokieFanDC wrote:
I just said that I'm biased....everyone is. But my bias is also based on his "career" as a politician, and the things he does/says.
Understood, but I never exactly grokked why you have such a dislike for him.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Major Kong wrote:I'm going to vote early and often for Clinton.
Seriously I'm looking at Rubio or Cruz in that order.
Pisses me off that I have to change my party affiliation just to vote in the primaries. Hmmm, do I register as a Dem so I can vote for Bernie to deny the witch a vote or do I register Rep to vote for Cruz or Rubio where it makes no difference. I hope they change the requirement in the future to allow Ind's to vote in either of the primaries in AZ. Doesn't seem right to deny someone the right to vote because of their party preference.
Agree. I got my change in tonight - hope it counts after business hours.
HokieFanDC wrote:
I just said that I'm biased....everyone is. But my bias is also based on his "career" as a politician, and the things he does/says.
Understood, but I never exactly grokked why you have such a dislike for him.
Got it. By the same token, I can't grok what people find good about him.
And never the twain shall meet I suppose.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieFanDC wrote:
I just said that I'm biased....everyone is. But my bias is also based on his "career" as a politician, and the things he does/says.
Understood, but I never exactly grokked why you have such a dislike for him.
Got it. By the same token, I can't grok what people find good about him.
And never the twain shall meet I suppose.
And Cruz now fires his communications director for yet another lie. Someone had to be a scapegoat in this mess. The buck stops a little bit lower than the top with this guy.
HokieFanDC wrote:
I just said that I'm biased....everyone is. But my bias is also based on his "career" as a politician, and the things he does/says.
Understood, but I never exactly grokked why you have such a dislike for him.
Got it. By the same token, I can't grok what people find good about him.
And never the twain shall meet I suppose.
And Cruz now fires his communications director for yet another lie. Someone had to be a scapegoat in this mess. The buck stops a little bit lower than the top with this guy.
It's just one thing after another with the Cruz campaign.
Bay_area_Hokie wrote:I am going all in with Trump. Rubio is the third Bush IMHO. His personal finance issues show a character flaw.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
My Wall Street banker buddy, Republican, said that if he were to liquidate and then short his entire savings, and then the next day he somehow became president, he would do exactly what trump is proposing with respect to protectionist tariffs.
I tend to be to the left of this guy and sometimes disagree with him, but he does generally have a firm grasp on economics IMO.
Take it for what it's worth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
nolanvt wrote:Nate Silver seems to be writing off Trump based on his net unfavorable rating. It's the lowest of any viable candidate since '92.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
absolutvt03 wrote:As someone who doesn't really like any of the candidates left, I think if the Republicans want to win, the nominee needs to be Rubio. Just my opinion but I think if Rubio wins the nomination he'll beat Clinton (or Sanders, but most likely Clinton). If someone besides Rubio wins then Clinton will be the next president.
This is pretty much why I feel like a Rubio lean for Primary purposes next week. I think he is probably the most electable.
Cruz is up over Clinton in current polling. He's certainly very electable.
Repeat after me, class: "General Election polls in Feb are meaningless."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ehh..not exactly. Hillary is a known quantity, so polls now are a good measure of the support she can expect in the fall. If she's under 50%, that's a problem for her unless a Ross Perot jumps in.
nolanvt wrote:Nate Silver seems to be writing off Trump based on his net unfavorable rating. It's the lowest of any viable candidate since '92.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
nolanvt wrote:Nate Silver seems to be writing off Trump based on his net unfavorable rating. It's the lowest of any viable candidate since '92.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didnt vote for Trump so he's not my 1st choice, but I'll take a "lefty populist" candidate that will build the wall, secure the border, and protect my 2A rights over a radical "lefty" candidate that will allow illegals to flood across the border and eviscerate my 2A rights. Trump is 1000x better than anyone on the democrat side. But even 1000x a very small number is still a small number.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
nolanvt wrote:Nate Silver seems to be writing off Trump based on his net unfavorable rating. It's the lowest of any viable candidate since '92.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didnt vote for Trump so he's not my 1st choice, but I'll take a "lefty populist" candidate that will build the wall, secure the border, and protect my 2A rights over a radical "lefty" candidate that will allow illegals to flood across the border and eviscerate my 2A rights. Trump is 1000x better than anyone on the democrat side. But even 1000x a very small number is still a small number.
Yep. Trump is a JFK type of democrat, not the European socialist types the left of today is.
nolanvt wrote:Nate Silver seems to be writing off Trump based on his net unfavorable rating. It's the lowest of any viable candidate since '92.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didnt vote for Trump so he's not my 1st choice, but I'll take a "lefty populist" candidate that will build the wall, secure the border, and protect my 2A rights over a radical "lefty" candidate that will allow illegals to flood across the border and eviscerate my 2A rights. Trump is 1000x better than anyone on the democrat side. But even 1000x a very small number is still a small number.
Last edited by ip_law-hokie on Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
nolanvt wrote:Nate Silver seems to be writing off Trump based on his net unfavorable rating. It's the lowest of any viable candidate since '92.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didnt vote for Trump so he's not my 1st choice, but I'll take a "lefty populist" candidate that will build the wall, secure the border, and protect my 2A rights over a radical "lefty" candidate that will allow illegals to flood across the border and eviscerate my 2A rights. Trump is 1000x better than anyone on the democrat side. But even 1000x a very small number is still a small number.
Yep. Trump is a JFK type of democrat, not the European socialist types the left of today is.
If you say so. If it's Hillary v. Trump, Wall Street money is going to flood in for Hillary. They must like socialists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Him against Hillary is lock city for Hill
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didnt vote for Trump so he's not my 1st choice, but I'll take a "lefty populist" candidate that will build the wall, secure the border, and protect my 2A rights over a radical "lefty" candidate that will allow illegals to flood across the border and eviscerate my 2A rights. Trump is 1000x better than anyone on the democrat side. But even 1000x a very small number is still a small number.
Yep. Trump is a JFK type of democrat, not the European socialist types the left of today is.
If you say so. If it's Hillary v. Trump, Wall Street money is going to flood in for Hillary. They must like socialists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They actually do because under socialism, they can buy favorable regulations. Especially with the Clintons who literally sold sleep overs in the Lincoln bedroom. There's nothing they won't sell, uranium to Russia, secrets to China, they even stole the White House china.
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Yeah, and people never thought he could come close to winning the GOP nomination when he first started. So underestimate him at your own peril.
OK. Enjoy your populist lefty candidate. Probably better than Cruz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didnt vote for Trump so he's not my 1st choice, but I'll take a "lefty populist" candidate that will build the wall, secure the border, and protect my 2A rights over a radical "lefty" candidate that will allow illegals to flood across the border and eviscerate my 2A rights. Trump is 1000x better than anyone on the democrat side. But even 1000x a very small number is still a small number.
Yep. Trump is a JFK type of democrat, not the European socialist types the left of today is.
If you say so. If it's Hillary v. Trump, Wall Street money is going to flood in for Hillary. They must like socialists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They actually do because under socialism, they can buy favorable regulations. Especially with the Clintons who literally sold sleep overs in the Lincoln bedroom. There's nothing they won't sell, uranium to Russia, secrets to China, they even stole the White House china.
Got it. If you replaced "socialism" with "Hillary," you'd be making some sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
