I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

Read somewhere that the crowd booing was RNC plants which could be b.s. but who knows

I think there would be other obscenity laws that would be violated (and if he did it willfully and repeatedly I'm sure something would be figured out).

xp I'm pretty sure it was not bs. I think Trump has calculated that not calculating to much before opening his mouth is a strong tactic and playing it safe is always a weak one.

(xxpost) I don't doubt that--it makes more sense to me than Trump's lobbyist/donor explanation. I would think that such (moneyed) people would care a little about decorum in a public setting, and probably wouldn't be attending debates anyway.

Yeah, if Trump is actually calculating anything I think his math is, it's a divided field and he can win this primary no matter what the breakdown of the people coming in 2nd/3rd/4th/whatever. His fans will eat up the very stuff he was saying last night, and interpret the booing the way he suggested: Jeb plants, lobbyists, insiders and elites trying to shut down a common sense guy telling it like it is. Just fine for everybody else to be in chaos. And beating up on Jeb is just his whole steez at this point, he can't not do it, and even when Jeb makes a less-perfect sponge for it than usual, he still doesn't really "win" those exchanges. The self-defeating thing is that he's pummeled Jeb so hard and so long; he would have made the perfect foil in a three-man race (Trump/Cruz/Bush) which is maybe the only scenario where I'd say, yup, Trump has this in the bag - 35% plurality wins, state by state, and Jeb unwilling to give up and endorse Cruz.

Still have a dream of Trump getting fucked out of the nomination and running independent

The self-defeating thing is that he's pummeled Jeb so hard and so long; he would have made the perfect foil in a three-man race (Trump/Cruz/Bush) which is maybe the only scenario where I'd say, yup, Trump has this in the bag

I hadn't thought it through that specifically, but yeah, that makes sense--having Bush around helps Trump, so why possibly hasten his departure? Unless (and I agree it's very likely that Trump is pure id, and doesn't calculate any of this) the idea is that constantly belittling Bush actually makes him want to stick around longer than he might otherwise.

haha that works both ways - bush not wanting to look like a loser and flee, trump actually thinking "god i'm going to get bored of this without the regular opportunities to keep antagonizing this dork."

for related reasons, feel like third-party trump run would only make sense in a universe where jeb was actually the republican nominee. just an irresistible chance to keep humiliating him even if it guarantees a huge margin for clinton.

The frightening thing is, the stuff he was saying last night would actually play better in the general election campaign.

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that Trump might enter the Republican convention with more delegates than any other candidate. His winning on the first ballot still seems too unreasonable to contemplate, but a brokered convention now seems possible. In which case, if Cruz is second in delegates, it's hard to imagine how the chips would fall, except I'd expect Cruz to make any and every promise he can think of, including ambassadorships or ponies for the delegate's kids, in order to win.

it is really really hard to imagine any of the spare delegates from the other candidates going "oh well, trump, he's our man." it's pretty hard to think that about cruz too, but somehow less hard.

So could Trump just get on TV and more or less literally fuck up the network if he wanted?
― Josh in Chicago

theres prolly a broadcast delay so they can bleep that shit out live

as I understand it, live broadcasts are routinely put on five second delay in order to bleep out words the FCC deems too nasty to put on the air. these days there are considerable penalties for broadcasters who allow shit to be spoken on air.

$300K max for radio!

and yes, they have delays

I don't think CNN got busted when Biden whispered "This is a big fucking deal" to the president.

cnn is cable, though, i think they can technically do whatever the fuck they want? but dont bc they dont want to lose advertisers.

Excellent point.

They coould charge people to watch an uncensored live stream. PPV is probably the way this is going anyway.

would seriously consider paying money to see a debate where everyone could swear

Last night, when Trump called Iraq a "big fat mistake" and stretched the words out a bit, you know it killed him not to change one of them.

i think the networks would be very happy to pay fines in exchange for madcap trump action during debates.

I'd bet Trump would even make a little show out of donating to the swear jar.

Honestly, the 9/11 stuff was fun, but the real moment of glory was this:

BUSH: My mom is the strongest woman I know.
TRUMP: She should be running.

nothing tops "That's very United Nationsclear" and nothing ever will

otm

Tough call, but I'll go with this:

RUBIO: Well, first of all, I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish. And second of all, the other point that I would make...

CRUZ: (SPEAKING SPANISH).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/the-cbs-republican-debate-transcript-annotated/

This whole thing of Trump and Bush playing Connery and Trebek has been my favorite part of the GOP season.

oh man, perfect analogy

Republican debate bringing us ever closer to:

http://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/president-camacho-machine-gun.jpg

and then yeah the stuff about george w. was pretty amazing. like the 9/11 comments are what will grab the headlines but trump went hard after the iraq and afghanistan wars with "we've been in the middle east for fifteen years and we haven't won AN-Y-THING." by all accounts this is not what republicans want to hear since apparently the iraq war is still really popular with 2/3 of them. which makes me wonder if the 1/3 that supports trump is that other 1/3 or if there's some overlap since this hasn't really been the major feature of his campaign (except i guess beyond "winning" being something we need to do more).

― the thirteenth floorior (Doctor Casino), Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:01 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is precisely why there are people who are deciding between voting for sanders and trump!

as for trump's shots at GWB for the failure of our middle east policies, it's easy to applaud those. but although sometimes trump makes isolationist gestures and suggests we should just stay out of the middle east, other times it seems like he's not criticizing the interventionism but just the fact that bush et al are "losers" and haven't "won"--whatever that means. i guess it means dropping a few H bombs.

honestly if trump gets the nom i hope someone shoots him.

I was trying to figure out what kind of cuss an H bomb was for a moment...

srsly, post less, ppl

honestly if trump gets the nom i hope someone shoots him.

Might finally get the ball rolling on gun control ...

i'd say the same about someone else. :o

i didn't quite get the Trump "pussy" controversy. Howard Stern said that 20x a day on broadcast radio in the '90s.

And theres trumps vp

struggling to find a good-size image of the newsweek cover from 2000 positing trump, jesse ventura and warren beatty as presidential possibilities

haha, what was this.

http://i.imgur.com/7JiJW9N.jpg

In December 1998, Trump finally said that he would explore the possibility of running for president, but he didn’t offer any specifics on platform or political party, People reported:

Donald Trump declared Thursday he is moving toward a run for the U.S. presidency. “I will be forming a presidential exploratory committee,” Trump, 53, said on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” The New York real estate developer and New Jersey casino owner said his top choice as a running mate would be Oprah Winfrey. “She is terrific, ” he said. A Winfrey spokesperson said she is not interested. Trump, who claims he’ll pay his own campaign expenses, had dinner with Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura Thursday. Ventura, leader of the Reform Party, has been recruiting Trump for months to seek his party’s nomination — but after the meal the two men joked to reporters that they were throwing their support behind their dinner companion, actor Woody Harrelson.

http://i.imgur.com/WX8JVzU.jpg

that! thank you. veepstakes 2016, ready to roll.

http://i.imgur.com/vKLBAWP.jpg

"And I told those two that I would not seek nor would I accept their party's nomination..."

the thermals - the body, the woody, the trump

i'd say the same about someone else. :o

eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YfvBnTe16o

So the Clintons and Kissingers do hang out.

Ugh Clintons are such POS.

The ex-President isn't the only on the trail for Jeb. (sic)

Barbara Bush, the former first lady, hit the trail with Bush in New Hampshire, boasting to voters that her son is an honest and decent man.

Lower-profile Bushes have made cameo appearances as well: Jeb Bush introduced his uncle, John Bush, at a campaign stop in Mount Pleasant on Wednesday, and joked for two minutes about various members of his family, including a granddaughter, Georgia Helena Walker Bush, who has the same initials as Bush 41.

rapidly going from Poppy Bush to Scrappy Bush, Yabba-Bush, Bushy-Dum etc.

Freddie deBoer:

The problem, from my perspective, is that the politics of association — the ways in which politics becomes about establishing a given in-group identity, and more importantly, an out-group identity, threaten to become the only kind of politics, in general and especially among progressives. I’ve written a lot about this and I don’t want to belabor the point. Suffice is to say that the tactic involves spreading a particular political belief through associating it with a social or cultural group people want to be a part of, and that this tactic has become inescapable in the past decade or so. It’s no coincidence that this has occurred along with the rise of social media, as the lines between the social space and the political space have blurred considerably in those forums. Again, I should point out that this isn’t an entirely bad thing. These tactics have proven to be remarkably effective at, for example, spreading a particular vocabulary. Look at the rise of the language of academic feminism. I don’t think people realize how quickly that language has taken over progressive politics and media circles. Go back in time even ten years ago and a lot of the language would be just unrecognizable to the people then. And that’s in a world where the humanities are often treated as a joke. But there are deep problems with this situation, too.

What does this have to do with “bro”? I think “bro” is the purest distillation of this associative function of politics, and that the only meaningful definition of “bro” in this sense is “person from the outgroup,” “person who I can treat as ridiculous or irrelevant without argument.”

I’ve written a lot about this and I don’t want to belabor the point.

He belabors it all the time though.

politics becomes about establishing a given in-group identity, and more importantly, an out-group identity, threaten to become the only kind of politics, in general

seriously nobody even has to pretend to give a shit about history anymore do they? It's the most irrelevant subject possible!