Yanked from a friend on Facebook: "When Ben Carson speaks, it reminds me of the second half of ‘Flowers for Algernon.’ "
Surfing the ‘Tubes, the consensus seems to be that Trump gave his best performance yet. The way he played the 9/11 card against Cruz’ disparagement of NYC culture was genius.
Also, everyone perceives Cruz has finally given up on conciliation and decided to attack Trump head-to-head. Before this, he held back in hopes of eventually inheriting Trump’s base (and vice-versa).
Who picked the audience? This was a “ticketed” event, yes? So who got to decide the makeup and demographics of the audience?
I wasted time and effort recording the earlier debates, but I’ve learned my lesson. Should I look for the comedy highlights on Youtube, or just read the best jokes here?
Given their Rush- and Fox-besotted “base”, all they’re doing is spouting totally conventional rightist wisdom. These things aren’t matters of opinion or of policy. They’re matters of well-settled self-evident fact in the right-o-sphere.
And I don’t mean this thinking applies only the base for the radicals. I mean the base for the mainstream as well.
I think that a lot of right-wingers live in a world where there are only two things: Good and evil. All good things are the same, all evil things are the same, and everything is exactly one or the other. America is good, Christianity is good, therefore America is Christian. Islam is not Christianity, therefore it is not good, therefore Islam is evil. Abortion is evil, homosexuality is evil, therefore the gays are all getting abortions.
With such a worldview, once you’ve come to the conclusion that Obama is evil, it then follows that everything he has ever said, done, or been associated with is also evil, and so the only possible response is to attack all of it.
Obama started a war on cancer?
Screw that! If elected, I promise to GIVE everyone cancer!
I wish Ted would explain, in little, Republican-spellable words, what New York values are, and why they’re bad.
What Cruz said in regards to Trump’s Scottish mom disqualifying Donald from the presidency was really stupid. Not to mention the New York comments. Trump really came out on top.
Had the debate on briefly in the background for the New York values bit (turned off soon after) and it seems to me like a potential good bit blown by a he just can’t help himself tendency to demonize some “other” … it sounded from my barely listening POV to start off as a pointing out Trump’s shifting views, and in the past taking liberal perspectives stating that it’s what we in New York believe. The hit should have been focused on that Trump’s views are merely convenient things to mouth, when playing to New York say what they want to hear, here and in Iowa say what you think Iowan and South Carolinan Republicans want to hear. If stated effectively Cruz’s reply could have been “You misunderstand Donald. I am not insulting New Yorkers; just you.” Blown chance.
BWAHAHAHAHA…
BWAHAHAHAHAHA…
My god. Do you even bother to read this board? Where anyone who doesn’t toe the liberal line is pure evil, where all republicans/conservatives want to kill everyone who doesn’t look like them, where every republican/conservative is a racist, where every republican/conservative is either too dumb to breathe or superduper smart and planning to take over the world so that they can enslave everyone.
There are a bunch of people living in a black and white world. Most of the posters who post in political threads on this board fall into that category.
Slee
He was pointing out the ludicrousness of the arguments being made by birthers against him, so I thought the point about Trump’s mother was proper.
Well, obviously YOU don’t bother to read it.
Take gun control, for instance. There is no ‘liberal line’ on gun control, beyond the basic notion that we need more of it than we’ve got. (Though there are posters here on the SDMB who are liberal on most other issues, but would disagree even with this.) What sorts of restrictions do liberals think we need? You could get a good argument going among liberals.
Or nuclear power. Many liberals are for it, and many are against it - and you’ll find that split to be a thing right here on the Dope.
Or climate change. Sure, we libruls are all for doing something about it, but what and how? Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? How fast or slow should we phase out coal? Lots of room for debate there - among liberals.
Or the Keystone XL pipeline or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I’d say most liberals are against each of them, but it’s hardly a united front, and even many liberals who are nominally opposed to them don’t really think it’s worth expending much energy on the fight. And I’m sure you’d find liberals of all positions on these issues here on the Dope.
So nice try.
However he created an opening for Trump to just use a facile zinger to bury the point. Trumpeteers don’t care about birtherism being ludicrous.
You’re confused – but, it’s easy to get confused here. RWs see LWs as (for the most part) evil. LWs see RWs as (for the most part) stupid. (Or, so obstinately and willfully ignorant as to make no difference.) This difference allows LWs to take more nuanced views all around, just because intelligence, more than morality, is the field they’re playing on.
Of course I’m talking continua, not dichotomies – liberals do have plenty of moral arguments against conservatism, just as conservatives have intellectual arguments against liberalism – but the emphases are different.
He could start with having his wife work for Goldman Sachs, who bankrolled his Senate campaign.
I hear Christie is a former federal prosecutor! Did anyone else know that? 