PN-G bamatex

You mean someone on your own side of the aisle shows some independent thought and it was praised by one or two slovenly liberals!?!?!?!? It must be wrong! He must be a RINO plant here to stop true conservatism! Burn him at the stake! Come back and respond when you're ready to provide an answer to all the questions I posed in my prior posts. Until then, you're just another political hack willing to say and do anything to blindly advance somebody else's cause.

Most of which was probably wasted.

No, Bush 41 lost during a recession. It's common for changes of power to take place in the midst of economic hardship - in fact, if there's a single variable you can link major shake-ups in the line-up in Washington to over the last several decades, it's the shape the economy's in. That was the case in 1992, where you can trace the polling data that had Bush 41 ahead of Clinton literally up until the week of the election. Economics drives elections. So Nixon gave us the EPA. Are you saying we don't need the EPA? And how his presidency ended has nothing to do with the fact that he was elected two landslides that have only been outdone by other Republicans. And no, Romney didn't lose to the worst president in history. Why? Because... *NEWSFLASH*: Barack Obama is NOT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!! Shocking! I know! Seriously, are you actually so blindly caught up in all the rhetoric that you believe that? Do you really think Obama could compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude? Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? For the love of God, man, come to your senses. I'm not going to sit here and say that he's been a good president, because he hasn't. It's hard to make the argument that he's been a decent president. But he is not, by any means, the worst in history, and to say so is to exaggerate in the same way that so many pundits do, further driving the polarization and the demonization of the other side that is ripping this country to shreds. For the last five years, I have watched you make post after post and start thread after thread where you throw out these half-baked articles that masquerade as "journalism" from all these grassroots, far right-wing media organizations that come across normal day-to-day operations that are just part of governing, and think they've stumbled onto the next great clue Barack Obama's plot to take over the world, never bothering to even try to get some kind of opinion from someone with actual experience in governing to add context to whatever it is they're reporting on because all they want to do is jump to conspiratorial conclusions. And do you know why they're doing that? *NEWSFLASH*: Because They Want To P*ss People Like You Off, So You'll Go To The Polls And Vote For Whoever They Tell You To Vote For More shock! Seriously, how do you think we end up with crap like this? Do you think this is just coincidence? Or do you think this is the tactic of people who have turned phrases like "establishment" and "RINO" into dirty words they can use to slander elected officials who haven't really done anything wrong, but just don't go along with the hard right on every single issue? Do you actually believe that there's some great benefit to you, or any other average person, if the Republican establishment up and crumbles in the middle of this election? Do you think that's somehow going to make it harder on the Democrats? Do you actually think the people who are leading you down this path, spewing all this rhetoric and fomenting all this anger, are somehow on your side? Do you think they really have your interests at heart? Or is it really in their interest to take over an entire party and destroy the establishment political players, and they're just using you as a willing dupe? Let's forget about Donald Trump for a minute and take your conservative messiah, smitty. Ted Cruz. Do you actually think he's as anti-amnesty as he says he is? Do you really believe a guy who... SPECIFICALLY WORKED FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON THE 2006 IMMIGRATION REFORM PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED AMNESTY ... is now all of the sudden against it? Do you believe a man who... IS ON VIDEO ADVOCATING FOR A PATH TO LEGALIZED CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE ... is really as anti-immigration as he's telling you he is? Do you believe a man who... LITERALLY CHANGED HIS VOTE ON AN EXPENSIVE CROP INSURANCE BILL IN THE MIDDLE OF ROLL CALL ON THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HE WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE IOWA PRIMARY ... is really as committed to fiscal conservatism and budget reform as he says he is? Does that sound like "consistent" conservatism to you? Or does it sound like someone's spoon-feeding you things you like hearing, and doing something totally different behind your back? But the worst part of this isn't that you're buying this rhetoric and blindly following the people who are spreading it, it's that you're helping them spread it around and pull off this whole gimmick. You've let yourself get so caught up in all the anger and the bluster that you're furthering it. Every time you post one of those articles or deliver yet another rhetorical one-liner, you're helping move people one step further along down that path anger, and hatred, and blind political rage. But hey, you know what? That's fine. I really don't care at this point. Honestly, I find it funny, because while you're pushing this narrative along with your other super conservative buddies so y'all can try and get this... ... all you're doing is stoking the flames of anger, making sure that more GOP voters sign up to nominate this... ... which is just gonna end up buying us four years of this. I just hope you finally learn your lesson when it happens.

Was my post a response to you? Nope. Pretty sure that was smitty I quoted. I'm not "fond" of the establishment. Frankly, I have a lot more reason to hate the Republican establishment than you do. But unlike some people on this site and out there in the electorate, I'm not letting my anger with the "establishment" or any other element of the party leave me politically deaf, dumb and stupid. Good horse sense counts for a heck of a lot more in politics than being upset with somebody ever will. And yes, I am very much aware that you can "study" the political environment outside a classroom. You know how you do that? Things like working on campaigna, working for a legislator, helping draft legislation and digging through mountains of polling data. When did you do any of that?

The establishment was also behind the both Bushes, Nixon and Eisenhower. And when Bush 41 ran the second time, and when Dole ran, it was against a Clinton. It's kind of peculiar how half insane billionaires have a way of popping up in the Republican primary and threatening to run third party every single time there's a Clinton in the race and stiff establishment competition on the Republican side, isn't it? But hey, what do I know? I'm just some dumb college kid, remember? I didn't spend four years studying this or anything. Y'all go ahead and keep marching to your political graves. We'll see how you feel come November.

2016.

The "establishment" was behind the candidate that could win. Mark my words, Donald Trump cannot and will not win the presidency of the United States.

Y'all better get used to the words, "Madam President," because we're all gonna be saying 'em a lot more after November.

Ted Cruz isn't half the man Ronald Reagan was.

Buddy, that's no conspiracy theory.

What you heard was correct. Make no mistake, the establishment does not like Ted Cruz, and frankly, they have very, very good reason not to. But Ted Cruz will set the party back a decade whereas Donald Trump will send it down in a blaze so cataclysmic that it will go down in history as the most divisive end to any American political movement, ever. Between those two poisons, the establishment will pick the former.

^ That, and as much as I hate to say it, in American politics, there are some people who are just made of Teflon.

Not that it's hard to do or anything.

On the bright side, he won Minnesota. No more of that "he hasn't won anything" crap.

I'm just saying, if it's Hillary versus Trump, I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Super PACs are supposed to be independent, although as pointed out in a previous post, they often trade staff with the campaigns, employ friends or big financial backers of the candidate, etc. I'll be fair. Where his campaign is concerned, Cruz has one of the best grassroots operation in the race. He's received more small donations as a proportion of his overall fundraising total than any other GOP candidate. But the truth is the polar opposite with respect to the Super PACs that support him. And you'll notice that in that same metric, Rick Perry places third, and he hasn't been in the race for months. Here's a friendly word of advice. If you ever want to find out who really makes the tea party movement in the State of Texas work, take a drive around Uptown the next time you're in Dallas. You're bound to run across seven or eight of 'em. The candidates may come from Houston, but the money comes from the Metroplex.

World travelers? One of them's never even left the country. And that's beside the point, which is that a couple of Libertarian economics grads aren't going to go for anything even remotely resembling a "central planner." Which, by the way, isn't inextricably tied to government spending; we don't have a centrally planned economy right now despite the spending, and we've had quasi-centrally planned economies during war efforts in which we spent less than we do now. In any case, you have more reason to believe Rubio's sincerity with regard to the debt based on his actual record than you do Cruz.

When, exactly, did Rubio advocate for central planning? I'm pretty sure my two hardcore Rand Paul-supporting, super Libertarian, economics grad student best friends wouldn't be going for Rubio since Rand dropped out if he was a central planner. Oh, that's right, he's not. That's just another dirty, *untrue* tagline Cruz supporters like to throw around.

Dude, I don't even like Kool Aid. I haven't "drank" anything. I didn't decide to "settle" for Rubio this past week, or this past month, or even this past year. I knew I would be voting for Marco Rubio one day when I watched his victory speech after winning his Senate seat while I was still a senior in high school back in 2010. I posted on this very site in 2012 that if Mitt Romney didn't win, Marco Rubio would be the next President of the United States. I stand by that now. My mail in ballot was sealed in its envelope with the box beside Rubio's name filled in days before the South Carolina primary even took place. My support for Rubio isn't engendered by the fact that he's a conservative candidate for president that's actually electable, it's merely bolstered by it. I agree with Marco on more issues than any other Republican candidate. I knew that when this race first started, but took the ISideWith policy test anyways just to quantify it. I agreed with 96% of his policy positions. Furthermore, I disagree with your contention that he won't do anything to slow the rate of spending. Marco cut the built in bailout fund for health insurers out of Obamacare. That's more of a cut than Ted Cruz has ever come close to passing. Where the border's concerned, that evil, unpalatable "Gang of Eight" bill included massive increases in the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border - a part of the bill Marco continues to campaign on now. Cruz has never proposed a single piece of legislation that would do anything to shore up border security. Oh, and about the Cruz campaign firing that guy, they never fired Dan Gabriel or their high-ranking fundraising official that got caught cheating on a law school exam. I wonder why that is? Oh, that's right, because it wouldn't yield a PR boost.

On the contrary. I'll refer you to my previous post on this very subject. And that was before the video accusing Rubio of insulting the Bible, or the photoshopped picture with Obama, or the fake Facebook page impersonating Trey Gowdy that said he was no longer endorsing Marco.

No, I get your point. I do. I'd bet very, very good money that I'm a lot more involved in politics than you are. I know that head-to-head polls aren't always the best long term indicators of a candidate's success. What are good indicators, though, are favorability polls, in which Ted Cruz comes in ahead of absolutely nobody but Donald Trump, while both Marco Rubio and John Kasich post numbers that are, not surprisingly, as good as or better than the two potential Democrat nominees among general election voters. And if you'll notice, I didn't pick any "squishy," moderate candidate. I picked Marco Rubio, whose conservative bona fides are every bit as strong as Ted Cruz's (arguably stronger in certain areas). If I was going for "squishy" candidates, Ted Cruz would be my man. I mean, how could I pass up on this face?

I hate to break this to you, but you are every bit as delusional as Ted Cruz himself if you think he's the new Ronald Reagan.

Back to the thread's original question.... No, Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton, and I seriously, seriously doubt Ted Cruz could either. Trump can't even beat Sanders, and Cruz has a coin flip's chance. All of the polling indicates that this party has (barring disaster) two sure things right now: Marco Rubio and John Kasich. If this party has any sense left at all, Marco Rubio will be the nominee in November. Otherwise, y'all better get ready for four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

Jeb and Marco are from the same state. That's a common occurrence between candidates from the same state. Ted Cruz got a big fundraising boost from Rick Perry's donors when he dropped out. Though if you're really concerned about money.... [Hidden Content] ... you might want to see this.

Well, Bush dropped out and Kasich stayed in. I guess I called that one bass ackwards.