I'm glad the standard for Trump supporters is "riled up drunks at a sporting event." It'll speak volumes about our country if he wins.

i have literally seen it happen 20+ times

pacino wrote:and the Breitbart reporter?
and the blind person?
and the multitude of others who were NOT 'mouthing off'?
the n words? the swearing? the violence?

no different than a sporting event, so no big. except, this is for the presidency of the United States, not a game between the Flyers and Rangers. it's disgusting. it's pathetic and it makes a complete joke of our country. i'm ashamed.

Wait.........there are shitty human beings who go to Trump rallies?

The hell you say!

Brantt, you are missing the point. Trump rallie/events are pretty unique in this regard as far as political events. Do you disagree?

We're screwed as a country, aren't we?

CalvinBall wrote:i have literally seen it happen 20+ times

Minimum. Just at Eagles games alone.

Then again, my season tickets were in section 701, so it's not a surprise.

CalvinBall wrote:Brantt, you are missing the point. Trump rallie/events are pretty unique in this regard as far as political events. Do you disagree?

i don't think he's missing the point. he just doesn't care.

I did not watch the entire debate last night but, for the 20 minutes or so I did watch, I thought Rubio absolutely killed it. Maybe the funniest part of the portion I watched was that Trump Rubio'd a response about US relations with Cuba repeating three or four times that "he would look to make a better deal". Forget political scientists, this election will provide social scientists fertile ground for the next 50 years. This was the bit I referenced (emphasis mine). I left Rubio's part in to because I thought he handled it really well:

Mr. Trump, you said the concept of opening Cuba is fine. You said the concept of opening Cuba is fine. Why do you agree with President Obama and disagree with what Senator Rubio just said?

TRUMP: Well, I don't really agree with President Obama. I think I'm somewhere in the middle. What I want is I want a much better deal to be made because right now, Cuba is making -- as usual with our country, we don't make good deal. We don't have our right people negotiating, we have people that don't have a clue.

As an example, I heard recently where the threat was made that they want reparations for years of abuse by the United States, and nobody's talking about it and they'll end up signing a deal and then we'll get sued for $400 billion or $1 trillion.

All that stuff has to be agreed to now. We don't want to get sued after the deal is made. So I don't agree with President Obama, I do agree something should be -- should take place. After 50 years, it's enough time, folks. But we have to make a good deal and we have to get rid of all the litigation that's going to happen.

This was just a little story but it was a big story to me because I said oh, here we go, we make a deal, then get sued for a tremendous amount of money for reparations. So I want to do something, but it's got to be done intelligently. We have to make good deal.

BASH: Senator Rubio, I know you want to get in. But just to be clear, Mr. Trump, are you saying that if you were president, you would continue the diplomatic relations or would you reverse them?

TRUMP: I would want to make a good deal, I would want to make a strong, solid, good deal because right now, everything is in Cuba's favor. Right now, everything, every single aspect of this deal is in Cuba's favor. It the same way as the Iran deal.

We never walked -- we never -- all we do is keep giving. We give and give and give.

BASH: But Mr. Trump, just to be clear, there is an embassy that you would have to decide whether it would be open or whether you would close it. Which would it be? In Havana.

TRUMP: I would probably have the embassy closed until such time as a really good deal was made and struck by the United States. (APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: All right, first of all, the embassy is the former consulate. It's the same building. So it could just go back to being called a consulate. We don't have to close it that way. Second of all, I don't know where Cuba is going to sue, but if they sue us in a court in Miami, they're going to lose.

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

Third, on the issue of a good deal, I know what the good deal. I'll tell you what the good deal now, it's already codified. Here's a good deal -- Cuba has free elections, Cuba stops putting people in jail for speaking out, Cuba has freedom of the press, Cuba kicks out the Russians from Lourdes (ph) and kicks out the Chinese listening station in Berupal (ph) Cuba stops helping North Korea evade U.N. sanctions, Cuba takes all of those fugitives of America justice, including that cop killer from New Jersey, and send her back to the United States and to jail where she belongs. And you know what? Then we can have a relationship with Cuba. That's a good deal.

CalvinBall wrote:Brantt, you are missing the point. Trump rallie/events are pretty unique in this regard as far as political events. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree at all.

That's kind of my point. A Trump rally is more like a sporting event or a concert than a political rally. You can't compare them to anything we've really ever seen before in politics. When you get 10,000 to 30,000 people in an arena or stadium, just like a sporting event or concert, there are going to be idiots who do stupid things. They should be arrested if the break the law.

That said, the venues probably shouldn't serve alcohol. I've seen numerous rallies on TV where people appeared to have adult beverages.

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Brantt, you are missing the point. Trump rallie/events are pretty unique in this regard as far as political events. Do you disagree?

i don't think he's missing the point. he just doesn't care.

Accurate.

Brantt wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Brantt, you are missing the point. Trump rallie/events are pretty unique in this regard as far as political events. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree at all.

That's kind of my point. A Trump rally is more like a sporting event or a concert than a political rally. You can't compare them to anything we've really ever seen before in politics. When you get 10,000 to 30,000 people in an arena or stadium, just like a sporting event or concert, there are going to be idiots who do stupid things. They should be arrested if the break the law.

That said, the venues probably shouldn't serve alcohol. I've seen numerous rallies on TV where people appeared to have adult beverages.

Both Obama and Sanders had almost 30,000 people at rallies and had no issues.

I have to say I am rather mystified by Rubio's utter inability to get people to vote for him. I was of course also mystified by Rick Perry's total failure in Republican primaries, so maybe I'm the problem. (I mean, Perry's no rocket scientist, but he was a reasonably effective governor who had bona fide conservative credentials.)

Ultimately though the reality is the Republican economic policies are simply not popular, even with Republicans. Alas, Democratic economic policies don't fare much better because they're different only at the margins. (And that's not totally true, but in terms of their effect, the fact that Dems are more sympathetic to organized labor and equal pay type policies simply have no real impact on most ordinary Americans.) So then the contest becomes one between who can most persuasively ape the racist and sexist (and homophobic) views of the the Republican base. Trump wins. Cruz comes in second.

pacino wrote:

Brantt wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Brantt, you are missing the point. Trump rallie/events are pretty unique in this regard as far as political events. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree at all.

That's kind of my point. A Trump rally is more like a sporting event or a concert than a political rally. You can't compare them to anything we've really ever seen before in politics. When you get 10,000 to 30,000 people in an arena or stadium, just like a sporting event or concert, there are going to be idiots who do stupid things. They should be arrested if the break the law.

That said, the venues probably shouldn't serve alcohol. I've seen numerous rallies on TV where people appeared to have adult beverages.

Both Obama and Sanders had almost 30,000 people at rallies and had no issues.

Were there any protesters trying to disrupt the events?

To be clear, there is no excuse for violence, and I can't be more clear that anybody who breaks the law should be arrested immediately. That said, and this is why I compare it to a sporting event, in a lot of cases you have protesters who are acting aggressively, taunting people and cursing at the crowd. It's a recipe of disaster and it shouldn't be a surprise what happens next.

It's very comparable to what happens at sporting events. I'm not comparing the importance of the two, just saying it's comparable situations.

SK790 wrote:You care way too much what one person on the internet thinks, moz.

Maybe I do. This was my long-winded and heavy-handed way of saying that I was getting annoyed with DiM chiming in with a "Rubio is a sweaty robot!" at every opportunity - it's repetitive and not, in my estimation, particularly useful or true.

Monkeyboy wrote:Are we talking about the same rubio?

He may be all of those things, but he hasn't shown it when it mattered, in front of the electorate.

Sure he has. His debate moment in NH was a stinker. But then he turned it around and had very good performances in subsequent debates. I don't know how any fair, objective person could have watched last night and not thought Rubio was excellent. Again, not that he is right or his positions were right - we're Democrats, of course we think he's wrong! - but that as a performance it was first rate. The biggest knock I can think of against him in terms of his performance is that it was a bit too tepid in its approach to Donald, and this has been the flaw of his campaign of late - he can't settle on a strategy. First it's lay off Trump and let others do the dirty work, then it's respond-sort-of-in-kind to Trump's antics (but at a mostly more elevated level), and now it's back to a more hands-off approach, with some but not too much criticism. All of what I just said is what in my mind constitutes "legitimate" - i.e., interesting to read - critiques of Rubio's performance. As opposed to "sweaty robot!"

Monkeyboy wrote:Yeh, I don't dislike Rubio more than the other two clowns, but let's not even pretend that he's a moderate, unless you are comparing him to the others in the GOP race

I think I explained myself above, twice, on this point. I did not mean that Rubio is somehow more appealing a candidate on policy questions from a leftist's standpoint than either Cruz or Trump - although, in fact, he is, albeit very modestly so - but that he has a very good handle on the performative aspects of candidacy and "being president," and for this reason would - or should anyway - make a formidable general election candidate whatever his policy positions might be. I am trying to separate the performative from the policy - work with me here people, it is a hallmark of objective political commentary to be able to do this. Ronald Reagan was goddamn awful on almost every policy he (or his handlers) ever dreamed up, but that is largely a matter of opinion of course. But at performing the "role" of "President of the United States"? He was damn near a genius. And that should be something people can recognize as cloer to objective truth than subjective opinion if they are thinking clearly.

The thing people never got about George W. Bush was that for all of the ways in which he was deeply flawed, his "performance" of the "role" of "President" was going to be - and was - perceived as effective for great swathes of the country, which is why he was able to win, twice. He was no Reagan - or Clinton, for that matter - but he was, for one example, considerably better at it than his own father (or brother).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... op/462900/

drsmooth wrote:DiM wouldn't like him, and might not vote for him, as a Democrat or a Socialist or a Zoroastrian. That doesn't make your theory about Rubio's chances of success as a Democrat less plausible.

What I was trying to say - and I concede I could be wrong about this - is that when commentary about a particular candidate is reduced to things like "sweaty robot," it implies to me the exact opposite of this: that if the guy had positions DiM agreed with down the line, and every time he opened his mouth Rubio said something new that DiM agreed with, I think he'd be a whole lot less likely to quibble about perceived defects in his glandular secretions or "robotic" responses.

And speaking of that "robot" criticism, two things:

(1) It's a tad ironic to reflexively reach for that word as a descriptor of Rubio or any candidate, don't you think? Perhaps a little - oh, I don't know - robotic?

(2) Rubio, and all politicians who are actually trying to be good at their jobs, are repetitive to some extent, and for some very good reasons, which Rubio himself explained last night - in a very natural, relaxed, and off-the-cuff style, ironically enough:

Marco Rubio said not wrote:Well, let me say, I know that a lot of people find appeal in the things Donald says cause he says what people wish they could say. The problem is, presidents can't just say anything they want. It has consequences, here and around the world.

And so let me give you one. Two days ago, I met this extraordinary couple who were on furlough because they are missionaries in Bangladesh. It's a very tough place to be a missionary. It's Muslim. And their safety and security very much relies upon friendly Muslims that live along side them, that may not convert, but protect them and certainly look out for them. And their mission field really are Muslims that are looking to convert to Christianity as well. And they tell me that today they have a very hostile environment in which to operate in because the news is coming out that in America, leading political figures are saying that America doesn't like Muslims. So this is a real impact. There's no doubt that radical Islam is a danger in the world. I can also tell you if you go to any national cemetery, especially Arlington, you're going to see crescent moons there. If you go anywhere in the world you're going see American men and women serving us in uniform that are Muslims.

And they love America. And as far as I know, no one on this stage has served in uniform in the United States military. Anyone out there that has the uniform of the United States on and is willing to die for this country is someone that loves America. No matter what their religious background may be.

This is a perfectly eloquent, natural response to the kind of knee-jerk and - dare I say it? - "robotic" lines Trump keeps trotting out there about Muslims and Mexicans and all the rest of it. If Rubio is repetitive, he is repetitive in the way disciplined politicians must be, for the sake of "staying on message" during campaigns - annoying, yes, but as a tactic, it works - and because speaking without thinking can and does have consequences when you start talking about real-world problems.

Again, I don't agree with most things Rubio has to say - but to reduce him to a "sweaty robot" - repeatedly - is neither well-considered, nor interesting, nor correct.

re Brantt

Trump incites this stuff though. Verges on encouraging it. Is that not disconcerting when looking to elect someone as the President of the United States?

CalvinBall wrote:re Brantt

Trump incites this stuff though. Verges on encouraging it. Is that not disconcerting when looking to elect someone as the President of the United States?

I don't think he thought people were actually going to punch other people in the face.

I would assume we'll see him dial it back a bit.

Yikes.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9j ... e=youtu.be

Brantt wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:re Brantt

Trump incites this stuff though. Verges on encouraging it. Is that not disconcerting when looking to elect someone as the President of the United States?

I don't think he thought people were actually going to punch other people in the face.

I would assume we'll see him dial it back a bit.

he has told them to knock the crap out of protesters and has defending it at times saying, "maybe [the protesters] needed roughed up."

BUT HE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO ACTUALLY DO IT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND AND THE PART ABOUT PAYING THEIR LEGAL FEES WAS ALL A JOKE TOO!!!

CalvinBall wrote:

Brantt wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:re Brantt

Trump incites this stuff though. Verges on encouraging it. Is that not disconcerting when looking to elect someone as the President of the United States?

I don't think he thought people were actually going to punch other people in the face.

I would assume we'll see him dial it back a bit.

he has told them to knock the crap out of protesters and has defending it at times saying, "maybe [the protesters] needed roughed up."

he also stated HE wanted to punch one in a face

the master list of racist shit that's happened at Trump rallies