Amanda Terkel ‏@aterkel
Scott Walker says there are a handful of reasonable, moderate followers of Islam. http://huff.to/1hy6ROy
Their ideal candidate probably carries himself like Walker but has the intelligence of Cruz.
That would be a terrifying combination. Thank god Cruz is completely unlikable and Walker is a moron.
Would this strategy actually work? lmao @ Rick Perry's miserable polling in Texas. I thought people here liked him.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The "intelligence" of Cruz? Ted Cruz is a fucking idiot.
This is a guy who thinks climate change is fake, who called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and who continues to claim gay marriage will lead to Christian persecution.
Plus, all the god shit; in an ideal world the guy would be institutionalized.
If Trump can place well in the races until he reaches the South, no lower than 3rd in Iowa or NH, he might just be able to pull it off. He would just need to find a way to keep his momentum going through those races.
Which he inevitably would by sweeping those states.
Would this strategy actually work? lmao @ Rick Perry's miserable polling in Texas. I thought people here liked him.
Kerry won Michigan by more than 3 points. That makes it at least lean Democrat.
Oh, Scott.
You seem to think that Cruz believes all the shit he says.
He doesn't. He's a very cynical opportunist that knows perfectly well how to appeal to his base.
You seem to think that Cruz believes all the shit he says.
He doesn't. He's a very cynical opportunist that knows perfectly well how to appeal to his base.
Oh, Scott.
You seem to think that Cruz believes all the shit he says.
He doesn't. He's a very cynical opportunist that knows perfectly well how to appeal to his base.
This claim is starting to get so stale. Talk about undeserved credit. We've heard this a million times and not just about Cruz. Where is the evidence? Is this assumption - that he doesn't believe what he's saying - because he went to some good schools decades ago?
There are millions and millions of examples of Ivy League standouts way back when who sound like simpletons today, all because they have not evolved with society. They look at current events through a decades-old filter (not to mention a Biblical one), still convinced communism is a real threat, that people who think humans can affect climate are "arrogant" because only God can do that, and that the solution to all of America's problems are unregulated markets, guns and the Bible. Not to mention that poor people can just stop being poor and that our foreign policy should be to drop bombs on any country who even looks at us the wrong way.
These peoples' minds are stuck in some ancient world but they exist physically in the modern world. This makes them sound stupid, because they are stupid. Ted Cruz is one of these people and he is stupid.
According to most profiles of him and his history he does
It will be hilarious when Carson inevitably leads for a few weeks.
Bam Bam Baklava said:More conflicting poll action.
Clinton commanding wins in Wisconsin but losing Michigan...makes sense.
According to most profiles of him and his history he does
Who said she's losing Michigan?More conflicting poll action.
Clinton commanding wins in Wisconsin but losing Michigan...makes sense.
And what this most likely means is that Carson voters move to Trump if Carson drops out.
As I've been saying here for months, Michigan's turn red is coming sooner than you all think. Detroit's population tanking and a ton of middle-class citizens leaving the state set it on its path.
But he's not stupid. You can't get through Harvard Law and clerk at the Supreme Court being stupid. He's an ideological zombie. It's the Biblical filter.
What do you call a person like that?
Wheres the bachmann blitz and the santorum spread?
Year? I dare they spend money in MI. Like PA it is a fools gold for them.
Aaron Strife said:Who said she's losing Michigan?
Regardless of your answer they're a fucking idiot
You seem to think that Cruz believes all the shit he says.
He doesn't. He's a very cynical opportunist that knows perfectly well how to appeal to his base.
But he's not stupid. You can't get through Harvard Law and clerk at the Supreme Court being stupid. He's an ideological zombie. It's the Biblical filter.
In a sermon last year [2012] at an Irving, Texas, megachurch that helped elect Ted Cruz to the United States Senate, Cruz' father Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as "kings" to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the "Seven Mountains" mandate, and "bring the spoils of war to the priests", thus helping to bring about a prophesied "great transfer of wealth", from the "wicked" to righteous gentile believers.
lol yeah no.Maybe this election, maybe 2020. 2024 at the latest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/do...MI_Press_Release_8-20-15_Rubio_Prez_Final.pdf
I think they're referring to this poll. Reading through, it appears extremely flawed. It appears to have only included Trump, Jeb, and Rubio. It was also done weeks ago, before Trump spoke in Michigan.
Is that steve carrels dadNow, if i had to point at a man that i'd be willing to bet good money is, in fact, an idiot, i'd go with the Great
either that or he's god's greatest thespian.
lol yeah no.
Give trump another couple weeks plus the next debate, and I think we'll finally have to admit that hell is freezing over.
Interesting idea on Vox: Forcing pregnancy is somewhat like forcing organ donations. It kind of makes sense. If people with the capability were forced to donate organs, we would save a great deal of lives so the "pro-life" stance should be forced organ donation. They have a bit of a different take than that last sentence, but it's an interesting idea to explore.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9183529/pregnancy-risks
Not really. Trump's inflammatory remarks are guaranteed ratings boost for the media. If Bernie said half the shit Trump did it'd be different. Bernie is boring, as much as I like his stances on issues. I actually hate saying that last part because I don't want to be lumped with the crazy supporters of Bernie.It is sort of insane that Trump's rallies are getting all this media attention and Bernie's get nada.
Bernie pretty much needs to skydive out of a C-130 to Metallica in order to compete.It is sort of insane that Trump's rallies are getting all this media attention and Bernie's get nada.
Every time I see a Trump tweet, I wonder how many of those favorites and retweets are really liberals/Democrats encouraging him along..They said they got 35k RSVP from people so I wonder if they got trolled by a lot of people.
It's an idea from philosphical debates on abortion that's been going round for some time. The original scenario went something like:
Imagine after a drunk night out with friends, you wake up in a hospital bed connected to a patient in the next bed. The doctor explains that the person next to you is a world class pianist, who was in a car accident, and that the only way to save them is for you to remain linked to the person so they can use your blood and organs to survive for the next 9 months. Is this fair or right that the state can impose this on you, and if not why?
Right, and this is basically the justification for rape exemptions. It's also why pro-lifers tend to focus on the woman being responsible for the existence of the fetus - the situation looks pretty different if you're responsible for the violinist needing your blood.
I think the problem with these analogical devices (while interesting nonetheless) is that they don't map out very well to the actual real world. What does being responsible mean in the context of real life behavior and not just hypothetical binaries? If one takes precautions by using contraception but it fails, how do we map that over to these analogy scenarios? Do we try to fashion some type of assumption of the risk argument using expected probabilities (say a car accident caused by extremely unlikely but foreseeable mechanical failure)? At a certain point, getting the analogy to 'fit' ends up creating more complexity and confusion than simply addressing the points directly.