WOW! POLITICAL SUICIDE! TED CRUZ REFUSES TO ENDORSE TRUMP – CROWD BOOS HIM OFF STAGE

[sneakypete]

Trumpers continue to lie about a lot of things.

@Hoodat

They HAVE to lie,and the biggest lies are ones they tell themselves so they can look at themselves in the mirror without flinching.

Just read a comment on another political board where the poster said "Watching the rabid Hillary supporters and the rabid Trump supporters arguing with each other about who is the best candidate is like listening to people argue about which is the most cuddly,alligators or crocodiles."

I think that pretty much covers it.

[libertybele]

Donald Trump is good at branding. That's how he has extended his reach in business, through branding.

The only reason that a brand or label sticks is if there is some truth to it. For example, 'low-energy' Jeb worked because it was true; crooked Hillery works because it's true.

If someone is skinny but you call him fatso, they just shrug, while others look at you like your nuts. It doesn't stick.

Lyin' Ted...well, that stuck.

Donald Trump is good at lying, deceiving and massive corruption!

#NeverTrump

[sneakypete]

Donald Trump is good at lying, deceiving and massive corruption!

#NeverTrump

@libertybele

Of course he is. He is a sociopath,and doesn't have a conscience to get in his way. EVERYTHING he does is wonderful BECAUSE it was he that did it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Cruz was right. Carpet bombing ISIS convoys would be effective....

Except that's not what he said.  Here's the exact quote when he first made the statement on December 5, 2015:

"We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out,"

No mention of targeting convoys, etc..  He subsequently issued statements walking that back, but that just confirms that the initial statement was a poor choice of words.  "Carpet bombing" has a very specific connotation, and that does not include targeting convoys.  In fact, the only think you target in "carpet bombing" is a piece of ground.  It is really the opposite of targeting, which is exactly why he got flak (pun intended) for his statement.  It's why people without military experience should be careful about using euphemisms, because they may very well have a meaning of which the person is unaware.

I think it was blown out of proportion, and I don't think he ever actually meant to endorse carpet bombing.  But that's exactly why it was a poor choice of words on his part.

[Henry Noel]

@Hoodat

They HAVE to lie,and the biggest lies are ones they tell themselves so they can look at themselves in the mirror without flinching.

How else are they going to vote against their consciences?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Which words are poor?

"Carpet bomb".

[libertybele]

@libertybele

Of course he is. He is a sociopath,and doesn't have a conscience to get in his way. EVERYTHING he does is wonderful BECAUSE it was he that did it.

I am still hoping that he finds reason to drop out of the race.

[skeeter]

Except that's not what he said.  Here's the exact quote when he first made the statement on December 5, 2015:

"We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out,"

No mention of targeting convoys, etc..  He subsequently issued statements walking that back, but that just confirms that the initial statement was a poor choice of words.  "Carpet bombing" has a very specific connotation, and that does not include targeting convoys.  In fact, the only think you target in "carpet bombing" is a piece of ground.  It is really the opposite of targeting, which is exactly why he got flak (pun intended) for his statement.  It's why people without military experience should be careful about using euphemisms, because they may very well have a meaning of which the person is unaware.

I think it was blown out of proportion, and I don't think he ever actually meant to endorse carpet bombing.  But that's exactly why it was a poor choice of words on his part.

Maybe he expected the phrase "I don't know if sand can glow" would tip people off that he wasn't talking about bombing population centers, but I did wince when he used the phrase as well.

[beandog]

Donald Trump is good at branding. That's how he has extended his reach in business, through branding.

The only reason that a brand or label sticks is if there is some truth to it. For example, 'low-energy' Jeb worked because it was true; crooked Hillery works because it's true.

If someone is skinny but you call him fatso, they just shrug, while others look at you like your nuts. It doesn't stick.

Lyin' Ted...well, that stuck.

That's simply not true.  It's more about a lie being repeated often enough soon becomes the truth among the uninformed.  That and certain people wanting to believe something is true because it makes them feel better about their own bad choices.  Unless, of course, you actually believe that Hillary is the smartest woman in the world or that the Donald is a racist and a sexist, both labels which stick to them.

[Cripplecreek]

I'm cool with carpet bombing. It would probably be considerably more effective than this was which was more smaller cluster bombs and precision munitions. As bad as it looks, it really didn't kill the numbers of personnel we once believed it killed. If you look closely a lot of the vehicles are largely untouched with doors hanging open from drivers getting out and fleeing.



Good old fashioned old school carpet bombing would kill a lot more personnel which is really how you have to fight ISIS.

[geronl]

Well...yeah.  It is.  I liked Ted much better than Trump, but that was a poor choice of words on his part.

AT least Ted Cruz wanted to bomb the enemy, not their innocent families.

[geronl]

or that the Donald is a racist and a sexist, both labels which stick to them.

Trumps own words would prove he is sexist.

[Cripplecreek]

I am still hoping that he finds reason to drop out of the race.

Trump is simply amoral.

To Donald Trump, right and wrong are as simple as what he does or doesn't want at any given moment.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm cool with carpet bombing. It would probably be considerably more effective than this was which was more smaller cluster bombs and precision munitions. As bad as it looks, it really didn't kill the numbers of personnel we once believed it killed. If you look closely a lot of the vehicles are largely untouched with doors hanging open from drivers getting out and fleeing.



Good old fashioned old school carpet bombing would kill a lot more personnel which is really how you have to fight ISIS.

That wasn't carpet bombing.

I don't know why this is so difficult.  Anyone being remotely honest would acknowledge, "yeah, it was a poor choice of words, but he clarified it and it's been blown out of proportion."   That's fine, but instead, we get the arguing that it really wasn't a poor choice of words at all.

It was.

[Cripplecreek]

That wasn't carpet bombing.[/b]

I don't know why this is so difficult.  Anyone being remotely honest would acknowledge, "yeah, it was a poor choice of words, but he clarified it and it's been blown out of proportion."   That's fine, but instead, we get the arguing that it really wasn't a poor choice of words at all.

It was.

That might be why I made the point of saying it was smaller munitions.

[skeeter]

Donald Trump is good at lying, deceiving and massive corruption!

#NeverTrump

So, Trump uses lies to brand an honest man a liar. 'Cause he's just so good at branding.

Ironic, isn't it.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Trump is simply amoral.

To Donald Trump, right and wrong are as simple as what he does or doesn't want at any given moment.

Yep, Donald Trump has a mindset befitting a feudal lord from the middle ages. Who are we peasant to question him? Sad to see so many collaborateurs in the Republican party defending him and his way of living.

[geronl]

Yo, ISIS...... look up!!

[skeeter]

That wasn't carpet bombing.

I don't know why this is so difficult.  Anyone being remotely honest would acknowledge, "yeah, it was a poor choice of words, but he clarified it and it's been blown out of proportion."   That's fine, but instead, we get the arguing that it really wasn't a poor choice of words at all.

It was.

Literal vs. historical interpretations.

[geronl]

Carpet bombing sure beats prayer mat bombing




I see a new smilie! 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Literal vs. historical interpretations.

But...the literal interpretation is the historical interpretation.  The best you can do is perhaps "literal/historical meaning v. colloquial meaning", but even that is a stretch.  "Carpet-bombing" has never had any meaning other than flattening specific geographic areas.  It is the exact opposite of targeting, and the exact opposite of using precision-guided munitions.  With modern capabilities, it's frankly a huge waste of sorties.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That might be why I made the point of saying it was smaller munitions.

Okay, I see the point you were making there.  But targeting a specific vehicle convoy isn't carpet-bombing by definition.  Moreover, those bombs don't just magically get there.  To "carpet-bomb" an area takes an absolutely massive commitment of air assets, many of which are simply going to be firing ordnance into the dirt, injuring nobody.  And while all those assets are committed there, they can't be used elsewhere.  It's a waste of ammo.

Additionally, the fact that there are undamaged vehicles there isn't a negative.  After the bombing started and troops abandoned those vehicles to go into the desert or get away from the bombing, what possibly military benefit is there to continue to bomb thousands of abandoned vehicles?

[beandog]

Trumps own words would prove he is sexist.

I agree with you that tRump is  a sexist, in that unless you are an attractive woman he has know use for you.  I firmly believes he loves his daughter because she is attractive with know noticeable deficits.  If she was not attractive he would have no use for her.  The question I was really asking is that if labels stick because there is some truth to them, do tRump supporters believe there is at least some truth to the fact that he is a racists and sexist, and if they do believe it, how could they possibly support him.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree with you that tRump is  a sexist, in that unless you are an attractive woman he has know use for you.  I firmly believes he loves his daughter because she is attractive with know noticeable deficits.  If she was not attractive he would have no use for her.  The question I was really asking is that if labels stick because there is some truth to them, do tRump supporters believe there is at least some truth to the fact that he is a racists and sexist, and if they do believe it, how could they possibly support him.

I'm not sure if he's a racist, though I do think he's a sexist.  But so is Hillary (more so, even), so that really doesn't enter the calculus for me.

I get your point.  I'm voting for Trump, but I absolutely cannot understand those who support him, but can't/won't admit that he's a turdball in many ways.  He is a very, very crappy consolation prize.  But honestly, in watching the DNC, that party has gone completely off the rails.  They have leapt on identity politics and collectivism to a degree that would have ashamed even many Democrats in 2008.  So, warts and all, I vote for him.

As a wart, he's ugly and hairy, but at least he's benign.  He can be cut out or removed at some point, 4 years max.  But those Dems over in Philly are malignant.  They have an organization, machine, committed doctrine, intensely loyal interest groups, and a good slice of the judiciary behind them.   They will grow, and spread if they aren't stopped.

[Smokin Joe]

It's neither here nor there...now is it?

You didn't answer my question. Right at the top of that post, so you didn't have to ignore the whole thing to ignore it.