११ फेब्रुवारी, २०१६
I can't believe this is an official Ted Cruz ad.
It really disturbs me to see children used like that. I know the idea is that adults are behaving in a way that we wouldn't accept from children, but I had a hard time understanding what the children were saying and doing that was supposed to represent something Donald Trump is doing. I found it very creepy to see young children guffawing at the idea that someone was claiming to be a Republican when, in fact, he didn't act like Republican. What little kid could find that amusing? My heart hurt for the children, and I have no clarity on the intended message.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
I agree, but people respond to Saturday Night Live skits for their political information. Blame the voters, as well.
At least he didn't use his children for this ad.
Reeks of desperation and poll testing.
The message was of the childlike, by the childlike and for the childlike.
It shows us what Cruz thinks of how stupid his followers in South Carolina are perceived to be by Texans.
Agree about the use of children, just don't. But the ad is not negative to Trump at all. This is Cruz 'pulling punches' to steal one of your phrases; just appears to be going thru the motions. Not intended to inflict damage. Not being a Republican is certainly not a negative.
Kids are used and manipulated to sell all sorts of products. I don't see this as being much different.
LBJ used a child in the infamous "daisy" ad from the 1964 campaign. Ethics aside, it was a very effective ad.
I agree with Althouse here. I hate when democrat party members pervert children into political messengers, and I'm hating it when republicans do. Some pretty bad looks coming out of that campaign these days. Geez, did Cruz hire Liz Mair when we weren't looking?
Wow. This sucks.
I wonder how many heart hurt when Obama paraded his children around and never says a word when a puff piece about them appears in the latest dentist's office lobby publication.
Heart hurt about child actors getting paid... boohoohoo. My heart hurt so bad for their parent-controlled bank accounts.
Amusing ad, the responses to it say more than the ad itself... a lot more.
I'll add my voice to the of "never use kids in political ads" chorus. We may find it repellent, but in this weird season something like this may penetrate sadly. We've descended into a morass of cheap shots and name calling. It'll get worse before it gets better.
I don't have any problem with this ad and I don't think any children were harmed in the making of it.
This disturbs me less than the parents who bring their children to political rallies and make them hold signs. No one doubts that the children in the ad are paid actors.
Eminent domain is the only issue Cruz and Trump differ on? We're in good shape then.
I am especially against having kids say and do things that kids can't understand -- using them.
It's quite different from an ad that, for example, shows children laughing and playing or reading a book in school.
"My heart hurt for the children"
Yes, it must have been terrible for them to get a paid acting credit.
Give it up- its a great add driving home Trump's childish naming calling and behavior.
Yes, the Trumpertantrums can be amusing but ultimately they are something wont dont accept and surely dont want to have our children emulate by promoting Trump to the highest stage in the country.
The little girl in the pink coat in Schindler,s List is an exception to the rule.
Except Trump didn't tear down the old lady's house. She won the battle and kept her house. Later, when she couldn't sell it for nearly what Trump offered, her family blamed it on Trump. Get angry if you like at the laws that govern the taking of someone's property, but leave the lying about your party's candidates to the other party. It's unbecoming to do it yourself. I haven't decided who I will or will not vote for in this election yet, but that's a major strike against Cruz.
Hmm. I think there's a difference between giving a kid a placard to wave, and pretending the kid thinks this, and actors in a satire. These kids are paid, not "used". Say I make a movie about the families of (pick one: spies revealed in Hillary's mail, Muslims excluded by Trump) and it has scenes with children missing their father. Those child actors are being "used"?
Did you protest Home Alone?
It's not that difficult to understand, and there's nothing wrong with letting professional actors who happen to be kids voice things that they don't understand as long as their parents are involved (which I assume they are). It's a funny ad, and drives home the point that it's trying to make... Besides, I'm sure that the kids understand at least some of this (Director: "eminent domain is when someone takes away something that's yours because someone else wants to use it" Kid: "Gotcha!"). It's a funny ad...
But it really doesn't matter -- they're actors, and get paid to act a role.
BTW, the same thing holds for the eTrade baby and those Monster.com kids who "want to be a yes man" or "have a brown nose".
"Eminent domain is the only issue Cruz and Trump differ on? We're in good shape then."
Yes, there's no way differing ideas on eminent domain could indicate important differences in terms of the role of government in our lives.
This particular usement of kids doesn't bother me. I don't like to see kids used as props, either to say "these cute kids are mine, so vote for me!" or "won't somebody please think of the etc.!". But these kids are (presumably) professional actors, hired to perform. They're not being asked to do anything dangerous or traumatic, just say some silly things and knock down a toy house. Unless one holds the position that kids should never appear in any commercials, what's to feel bad for?
I thought the ad was funny. But, then, I'm predisposed to think that anyone supporting Trump is behaving pretty childishly.
I am not disturbed by the use of the children, but I don't find the ad very effective. I find it very, very blah, a complete waste of time and money.
I really don't understand the outrage. The children are paid actors, not necessarily kids forced into an ideology by parents.
I think the ad is effective and hilarious.
Hard to imagine the ad would be effective and result in people voting for Cruz. The use of children in this way can easily become controversial, thus drowning out any substance. But the ad is simply weak, not a good sign in the way a candidate chooses to spend money.
It's has all the aura of a Canadian made video.
I think the add is funny, as is the pearl clutching cries concerning the inappropriateness of "using children." They are paid actors being used to make a point about Donald Trumps' values and behavior.
You may or may not agree with the message of the add, but using child actors to drive home the point that you think that Trump is acting in a way that you wouldn't tolerate in your children is certainly within the bounds of civilized discourse.
The Professor appears to be "triggered" by things Cruz.
"The Professor appears to be "triggered" by things Cruz."
Cruel.
But neutral!
Cruz can work on overturning Kelo v. New London in his first case as a Trump appointed Supreme Court justice.
The ad is funny. The kids aren't being told to embrace a message - like when a kid is taken by his parents to a political rally and made to carry a sign calling for an end to charter schools or an end to abortion - they are being asked to read a script. Like any other child actor. This is no creepier then, than using child actors in any endeavor. I mean they have kids killing people in Game of Thrones, it's acting.
To the extent that Cruz is a dishonest creepazoid in general, I have a problem with him in general. This ad doesn't do anything to further tarnish his image.
I am not a robot! - if only Marco could use reCAPTCHA technology to answer his critics.
1) I think it's at least somewhat effective.
2) It's inoffensive - the kids are paid commercial actors. It's not like when little kids are forced by their mom to hold up signs defending abortion or branding Boooosh a war criminal.
3) It's whacky enough to get play on news shows a/k/a FREE media. Mission accomplished.
On the third point, if the amount that Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have "paid per vote received" is any indication, they'd both be very good budgeters. Bush not so much.
@Limited blogger
I still like Cruz for president, but USSC wouldn't be the worst outcome.
Ann Althouse said...
I am especially against having kids say and do things that kids can't understand -- using them.
I doubt if the kids feel mistreated, but it seems as though the message would backfire: "this is what some little kids think (so it's probably just nonsense)". Even though, yeah, they don't understand what they're saying (like one nation under God, invisible").
but I had a hard time understanding what the children were saying
We see a fair number of locally made TV commercials with the business owners' kids apparently trying to say something. I'm sure their parents think they're cute, but if anything it makes me want to avoid the place.
Big words like Eminent Domain really scare the heck out of Cruz true believers.
Not as bad as Natural Born, but almost as bad.
All these people talking about kids holding up signs at rallies seem to have forgotten Teds prior commercial where his kids were making political jokes for him.
Keep knocking that straw man while ignoring his prior actions. Both ads fail. Snark by kids is not an effective political ad technique.
wow, that was bad.
Cruz is fucking creepy....and then there is his face and body.
have you ever seen his profile-dear lord-physically he is a mess-especially for a man in his mid 40's.
I like this Hillary doll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezCw1VJax6s
I really REALLY hate seeing adults put words in children's mouths. I couldn't finish the ad. However, I was surprised that my dad, who supports Cruz wholeheartedly, found the ad distasteful. And the Cruz people call my dad relentlessly asking for ever more donations. Eventually these tactics will wear away his patience and lose his vote.
"Big words like Eminent Domain really scare the heck out of Cruz true believers."
Fine as long as it's not your house I assume.
I don't like using kids in political ads/to send political messages. The ad didn't strike me as creepy, but I don't like the tactic and politicians should be discouraged from using kids in their messaging.
Looking at one level, it's a foolish ad, suggesting that children care about eminent domain.
But, look at the bigger picture- what's the tag line? We don't tolerate certain kids' behaviors, and much of Trump's behavior is similarly unacceptable.
The desired conclusion is that Trump's behavior rules him out as an acceptable president.
Whether the ad is successful is up to discussion, but it's message was received, at least by me.
My heart hurt for the children
Spontaneous reaction: "Oh, JESUS, Althouse!"
Seriously. When you see a movie with child characters who suffer pain or sadness, does your heart hurt for the actors too? Sometimes you say things that just make no moral sense at all.
I found the ad mildly amusing, but probably ineffective in that I can't imagine even a very lukewarm Trump supporter being affected by it. I thought the parents' expressions at the end were the funniest part. (And I suspect the kids had a fine old time pounding on the dollhouse. How often does a child get to destroy something and the adults not only allow it, but are actually pleased you're doing such an enthusiastic job of it?)
It's possible the "child actor vs. real kid" distinction is what keeps it from feeling creepy to me.
People don't seem to mind much when child actors deliver lines they can't understand, that sort of thing, so maybe this is just another example of that.
It's still not a great idea, though--there had to have been some young-ish adult Cruz campaigners who could have done a similar commercial (w/the same idea).
So it sounds like most of the responders would boycott child actors and deprive them of their chance to keep off the welfare roles
Also I think the ad actually is revealing of Ted Cruz: what he chooses to highlight as things we shouldn't like about Trump tell us a lot about Cruz's values.
The Trump action that is most highlighted in this ad is his use of eminent domain to take some woman's house from her. I suspect that's the one act of Trump's that Cruz is most fundamentally offended by: his abuse of the power of the state to rob someone with much less power and money of something so important to her as her house. The scenario and actors are a sidelight. What is Cruz saying we should be offended by? What should we not tolerate in a president, according to Cruz?
This is an illustration of why women should never have been allowed to vote.
Your heart hurts for paid child actors?
My wife was a paid child actor on the wonder years and I assure you, she is just fine.
If we lived in an Althouse world, we would have no paid child actors because of hurting hearts.
The ad does not bother me.
It was amusing.
The kids were good actors.
It makes a point that much of Trump's conduct is immature.
AA: With respect to children in political ads, "It really disturbs me to see children used like that."
The first child used in a political ad, that I recall, was the famous Daisy ad by LBJ trying to falsely scare folks about Barry Goldwater.
I'm sure AA would object to it today, but did she object to it at the time?
I am pretty sympathetic to the positions Cruz stakes out, but I cannot imagine supporting him for President. Unlike Rubio, who just strikes me as ridiculously inexperienced, Cruz (who doesn't have much more experience than Rubio) does come across as a credible candidate for President, not just an Obama-esque glib tongue in an attractive suit. But after that creepy voting violation mailer in Iowa, he deserves to lose. Also, his polished, lawyerly affect is so smarmily lawyerly that I find him a bit unbearable.
I am coming around to the reality that I am probably going to end up voting for Trump, not because I think Trump is good (he is the antithesis of what I think a President ought to be -- a bombastic demagogue who is aggressively rude), but because I think the leadership of both parties deserve to lose.
I think populism is abhorrent -- in the contest of elitism vs. populism, my instincts are all in favour of the elites and against the people. But I also believe that the elites have a responsibility to respect and protect the interests of the people. Our elites have abandoned that responsibility as comprehensively as it is possible for them to do, and they must be taught a lesson. If that means electing Trump (or Sanders), then so be it. Ruat caelum!
Kids in political ads are pretty terrible. Just don't do it.
How else do you illustrate childish behavior than having children act the same way. I loved the ad.
Kid ads fail when they use the "cute" factor. This one didn't so much. It was more of a joke. I laughed.
The real problem with this ad is the issue is a boilerplate conservative issue that is just a bunch of words which, when push comes to shove (or more like when Bush tarts to shove) everybody caves on. National Review's whole anti-Trump argument fails in this way. Who cares about the old dogmas since they are all hypocritical concerning them anyway?
I don't see a problem with it. It's a formuala that's used all the time to sell an idea or a product. Children acting as adults. It gets the attention of some & it's harmless. In this case, the children have made an analysis & discussing it as adults. It doesn't bespeak desperation, impropriety or anything negative except as it reflects on the Left.
The ad would have been funny if the kids waived the Trump doll and said "Jeb's a pussy"
echoing everyone, kids in a commercial = same as any child actor scenario.
now, what i don't understand is the simpering parents. very creepy vibe. they're terrified of these trump-kids, just like the 'grown-ups' are terrified of trump.
One of the problems I see with Conservatism is that it has strayed into utopianism.
Milton Friedman, for example, is outstanding in describing the invisible hand of the free market. He is a true genius. But it is overly idealistic. Milton Friedman never ran a company, never negotiated with a union, never got sued by a minority, never broke a strike, never had to hire political lobbyists to thwart some bad left-wing legislation.
The real business world is messy. True, it is capitalistic, but it is somewhat deformed, because there must be a lot of compromises simply to: (a) comply with the battery of regulations and (b) make the trains run on time.
Trump, to his credit, has mastered all this. Not the Utopian world of free market capitalism and Conservatism ideology, but the real world of Manhattan commercial real estate. And, had a successful TV show to boot.
He's does more in a week, than Bernie Sanders achieved in 30 years. That's why Trump exudes so much self-confidence.
This is different from using your kid to ask a planted question at a rally or putting words in their mouths by making them hold a sign at a political rally. Or even using Cruz's own kids in an ad. Or exploiting kids by selling their home life on reality t.v. These are child actors--they know they are acting, and the audience knows they are acting. It's no more creepy than that Family Ties episode where Alex P. Keaton told the evil taxman story at the preschool.
When you watch product commercials, do you really think little Timmy only brushes with Aquafresh, or that he cares about what percentage of dentists recommend it?
For what it's worth, my kids saw the Cruz ad and they all think it's hilarious. My five-year-old watched some of the early debates, and immediately started calling Donald Trump "that guy with the wall." He'd have a field day with a Trump action figure.
"I also believe that the elites have a responsibility to respect and protect the interests of the people." They have. "The people," i.e., the actual voters, want high entitlements and low taxes. Actual voters chose reps who want illegal immigration dealt with gently. They chose Obama twice, knowing full well who and what he was the second time. Outside of a few states, GOPers mostly pick moderates i.e., the Ryans and McConnells. To argue that both Sanders and Trump will "respect and protect the interests of the people" is incoherent. Rejecting Cruz because he's too smarmy or Rubio because he's inexperienced to "teach the elites a lesson" is a recipe for disaster.
Cruz is counting on stupid people believing Eminent Domain robs widows. And some of the commenters don't see how they are being played. Condemnation pays the owner much more than an owner will get selling it themselves. All the widows lose is the opportunity to hold up the development by the Government and adjoining owners until they are paid all the money on earth.
It makes them negotiate a deal. The widows go away rich. Can any conservative comprehend that. Not if you feel God wants you to blindly follow Canadian liars like Cruz.
It is not about the children. It is about a narcissistic fascist liar whose only agenda is glorify The Donald. Andy McCarthy (NRO) sees Trump as: "Irrational, mercurial, draconian, solipsistic — all wrapped up in a neat little persecution complex." I'll admit that I had had to look up solipsism to determine that it means "extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption."
The children in the ad are paid actors (and Mommy and Daddy are glad!) for goodness sake. Their use is designed to wake up the mind-impaired Trump followers. My thought is that these folks will elect another Obama - so any effort to turn the lemmings from the sea is worthwhile. And if, at first, you don't succeed . . .
I would like to see kids playimg eminent domain. That would lead to a good discussion.
If you believe the government should be able to take a widow's property to build a limousine waiting area for a billionaire strip club owner, you don't believe in private property and don't belong in a putatively conservative party.
The kids are actors! They can say stuff adults can't.
The ad is brilliant and funny. And about time to hit Trump. There's plenty more dirt on Donald.
Cruz wins SC with that ad. Mark it down.
traditionalguy:
The government, the federal government, is well known for its use of eminent domain to secure its policy objectives, to make friends and influence people, and to create pariahs.
Whether it's through regulation, redistributive change, or eminent domain, the government is well known for the use and abuse of its constitutional powers to seize or manage the use of private property.
That said, Trump's offer was probably too high because the property ultimately sold at a fraction of its market value which was less than his estimate.
You just don't like Cruz.
The ad is perfectly straightforward. The children are not supposed to be speaking like children. This is a simple illustration written by and for adults. Unlike lots of pretentious fiction putting adult thoughts and words in children's heads, one of my pet peeves when it's intended seriously,these thoughts and words are given to children in order to characterize Trump as a child. The characterization is apt. The people whining about the children are being intentionally obtuse. It's a pain in the ass and even augments the message unintentionally, I think.
Blogger David Begley said...
The kids are actors! They can say stuff adults can't.
The ad is brilliant and funny. And about time to hit Trump. There's plenty more dirt on Donald.
Cruz wins SC with that ad. Mark it down.
Or what? This is what I hate about political predictions. There is no repercussions for being wrong.
How confident are you about this prophecy? Will you quit posting at Althouse if you're wrong?
I didn't think the ad was very effective.
The Eminent Domain issue is being tried against Trump but it doesn't really represent what happen3d. If Cruz or the Democrats rely on the issue we may get an explanation of the facts eventually.
"LBJ used a child in the infamous "daisy" ad from the 1964 campaign. Ethics aside, it was a very effective ad."
That ad was shown once, I believe. It was "effective" because the news media played it over and over in an early example of MSM in-kind contribution to the left.
Blogger traditionalguy said...
Cruz is counting on stupid people believing Eminent Domain robs widows. And some of the commenters don't see how they are being played. Condemnation pays the owner much more than an owner will get selling it themselves. All the widows lose is the opportunity to hold up the development by the Government and adjoining owners until they are paid all the money on earth.
And their home. Let's not forget their home. Maybe the home their father built. The home they grew up in. The home they raised a family in.
They lose that too.
But what would we dumb, played, conservatives know about it? We need to be edumacated by the smart people like Tradguy, because he is smart and we are all stupid.
This is the winning strategy. Everyone who disagrees with you, call them stupid.
Traditionalguy
Until Kelo came along, ED was limited to taking land for public purposes: highways, schools, pipelines, etc.
Trump wanted to use ED for his soon to fail casino. A bridge too far. He completely misrepresented ED in the last debate.
And at least in Nebraska, the owner only gets fair market value. It can be gamed but it is no windfall.
Eric
If you pay me money, I'll stop posting.
And Nebraska beats the Badgers in football next season. Ha!
Blogger David Begley said...
Eric
If you pay me money, I'll stop posting.
I wanted to point out how worthless such predictions are. They aren't backed by anything. Therefore you have no confidence in your own predictions.
Cruz has had, for me, the best ad of the campaign (the lawyers and bankers crossing the Rio Grande). This didn't do much.
And, fortunately, with the ridiculous number of ads running here, it will likely be forgotten.
All these people talking about kids holding up signs at rallies seem to have forgotten Teds prior commercial where his kids were making political jokes for him.
His kids as opposed to other people's kids. Not the same thing. His kids will support daddy. Simple reality.
Cruz is counting on stupid people believing Eminent Domain robs widows.
With Kelo , can't it be argued that it does precisely that? That decision is an amazingly bad one and I cannot figure out why the GOP hasn't battered the Dems about it the way the Dems bitch about Citizens United.
"I also believe that the elites have a responsibility to respect and protect the interests of the people." They have. "The people," i.e., the actual voters, want high entitlements and low taxes. Actual voters chose reps who want illegal immigration dealt with gently. They chose Obama twice, knowing full well who and what he was the second time. Outside of a few states, GOPers mostly pick moderates i.e., the Ryans and McConnells. To argue that both Sanders and Trump will "respect and protect the interests of the people" is incoherent. Rejecting Cruz because he's too smarmy or Rubio because he's inexperienced to "teach the elites a lesson" is a recipe for disaster.
Except that isn't what happened. In 2014, the GOP ran on stopping Obama's illegal immigration policy. They caved on it as quickly humanly possible.
They promised to do something about foreign policy and decided the Iran treaty isn't REALLY a treaty and as long as they are allowed to read it --- which, mind you, they were not --- they will treat it as regular legislation.
They promised to deal with the IRS problem. Nothing changed. At all.
They campaign promising one thing and NEVER delivering.
AA, you are too easily disturbed. I guess that means you would not appreciate one of my all-time favorite filmed song-and-dance numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Sperm_Is_Sacred
The city of Arlington Texas took private property to build a baseball stadium for W and his crony investors in the Rangers. Local, state, and federal government always take property for the cronies. Private gains and public losses. It's a big part of what we call our capitalist economy.
I misread a comment above that mentioned the "federal government." I thought is referred to the "feral government." I think my Freudian misread may have expressed something many of us feel today.
Somehow. I'm finding it very hard to be outraged.
I'm sure it's just me.
Althouse, man up! You have been uncomfortable with Cruz ALL ALONG!!! "I don't think Ted Cruz can be President of all Americans" is not forgotten. As opposed to whom? Obama, whom you voted for? The travesty of the Obama years have left me in a state of near rebellion. Rubio is all teeth and trousers. If Trump declared himself a Democrat after securing the nomination I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Kasich fired his one shot and "we have to bring people together to bring people together" isn't too inspiring. I cannot handle another squishy Bush. I do not WANT to be "brought together" with Democrats. I want a President so conservative that progressives are filled with outrage every single days for eight years as the edifice of their evil statist works is dismantled. I LOVE the fact that Ted gives mainstream Republicans the vapors. I fully expect if Cruz is the nominee you will vote for the open socialist or the open criminal.
@traditionalguy said...
Cruz is counting on stupid people believing Eminent Domain robs widows. And some of the commenters don't see how they are being played.
No- traditionalguy isn't very traditional and he certainly doesn't understand how he is being played. Condemnation is not always about money. Squeezing down the essence of a 1998 NYT article:
In 1998, Vera Coking, a little old grandmother appeared on the ABC television news show "20/20" after the court ruled in her favor. "You are not just talking about a lifetime of memories," she said. "Not just a house but a home that you have spent your whole life in. To have someone, anyone, regardless of who they are come and tell you that it's not yours and you can't make your own decision, it's tough to understand and even tougher to accept."
The NJ Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, on behalf of the Trump Organization had offered to purchase three properties -- Vera Coking's home for $251,250, Peter Banin's Golden Island Pawn Shop for $189,500 and Sabatini's Restaurant, an Italian eatery run by Clare and Vincent Sabatini for more than 33 years, for $700,000. None of the owners would agree to sell for those prices.
[Donald Trump hasn't changed much.] Mr. Trump also appeared on "20/20" to discuss the case. "In life you have a thing called condemnation," he said. "And cities have the right to condemn for the good of a city [and more to the point, Donald Trump] -- whether it's New York, whether it's Los Angeles, whether it's any other place. Atlantic City is one of those cities, and it's got the right to condemn." He added that he thought Mrs. Coking's house was ugly.
"Location, location, location," said Peter Banin, "I am quoting Mr. Donald J. Trump." "How do you spell relief? Case dismissed."
How about this one then? No children were used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLuk691tbo&feature=youtu.be
In 45 years of legal practice every client that came in said to me that it was not the money. It was the principle of their case they wanted to win. They were feeling strong and determined to fight, no matter the cost.
But after the money costs were intelligently analyzed and compared to to available outcomes, then 100% of them decided the money was the principle all along. . Bragging rights were all they wanted they said, but not when the the money was right .
A good lawyer had restored them to sanity. A bad lawyer would have made more money off them feeding their stubborn self righteous feelings.
Those same feelings routinely surface in boundary disputes and in Church splits. Slick Lawyers make mega bucks off them, like Lawyer Cruz plans to make votes.
Cruz was copying the format of this old Reform Party ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjU948M0ARw
Sebastian: "I also believe that the elites have a responsibility to respect and protect the interests of the people." They have. "The people," i.e., the actual voters, want high entitlements and low taxes.
Hard time seeing the difference then, between the "demagoguery" and "populism" that you claim to deplore, and what you allege to be the "adult" leadership you wish to maintain in power.
Actual voters chose reps who want illegal immigration dealt with gently.
That's must be why nobody is ticked at Rubio for his Gang of 8 shenanigans.
Outside of a few states, GOPers mostly pick moderates i.e., the Ryans and McConnells.
And appear to have grown disillusioned with what the Ryans and McConnells of the world have done for them lately. You got a problem with this? Politicians are politicians, Sebastian, they're not a priestly class with a divine right to govern.
To argue that both Sanders and Trump will "respect and protect the interests of the people" is incoherent. Rejecting Cruz because he's too smarmy or Rubio because he's inexperienced to "teach the elites a lesson" is a recipe for disaster.
When "the people" decide that those in power are no longer serving their interests, or that they can no longer tolerate their corruption and "out of touchness", they may move to replace them. Contrary to the apparent belief of hysterical party-boys like you, "the people" choosing a Trump or a Sanders over your preferences will be a completely lawful and peaceful procedure. It's, ahem, the way things are done around here. You have to be very, very far gone to believe that lawfully and democratically replacing an office-holder, or rejecting the sub-mediocre offerings of an on-its-way-to-the-dustbin political party, is a "recipe for disaster". What, you'd prefer bullets?
I watched the ad after reading all the comments. I thought the ad was incomprehensible: a kid using a Trump doll to smash an enormous dollhouse that fell apart suspiciously quickly considering its size and apparent interior complexity. It was hard to figure out exactly what the kid was doing "wrong," as far as his parents were concerned, since the dollhouse looked as though it was made of something like Legos and could be easily put back together. Were the parents supposed to punish the child for taking apart a plastic dollhouse with modular parts?
Furthermore the ad focused on an act of attempted (and only attempted) eminent domain that took place nearly 20 years ago. Is this supposed to be the only objectionable thing about Trump?
I can't say that I objected much to the use of children. They were obviously child-actors, and no one was putting foul language into their mouths, as has actually occurred in some lefty political ads. But this ad lacked focus. And it looked as though Cruz was grasping at straws: Oh dear, what bad thing can I point out about Trump? Oh yeah, one of his companies was the intended beneficiary of an eminent domain case back in the 90s! I'll go with that!
Althouse still has not answered my question. If a movie showed the consequences to a family of Trump's Muslim ban and employed paid child actors, would she have the same reaction? This is the key question because this tells us if her reaction is just Cruz cruel neutrality bullshit.
I liked the ad.
Progressives have lost their sense of humor.
Lost? They never had one.
@traditionalguy said...
In 45 years of legal practice every client that came in said to me that it was not the money. It was the principle of their case they wanted to win. They were feeling strong and determined to fight, no matter the cost.
But after the money costs were intelligently analyzed and compared to to available outcomes, then 100% of them decided the money was the principle all along.
In the case of the Trump and the CRDA taking Mrs. Coking's 29 room (former boarding house) home, the Eminent Domain offer of $250K was only 25% of the million dollar offer received for the property in 1983 from Bob Guccione (think Penthouse) to permit him to build a casino. The Cokings turned down the offer so Guccione built a high rise steel structure around three sides of the Coking building - but hard times never allowed him to finish the project. So Trump bought from BG and enlisted the CRDA which offered a low $250K along with the Eminent Domain demand to get out.
So the first court granted ED, the appeals court concurred but the NJ Supremes said "No way, Jose." All this legal stuff cost lots of money and had it not been for the support from the Institute for Justice, Trump would have ripped them off.
In 2014, Mrs. Coking sold the property for $530K because she had moved to California. By that time, Trump Plaza had gone caput. That sounds just like Kelo.
http://victorygirlsblog.com/dumptrump-trump-used-eminent-domain-to-bully-widow/
1. I would like a campaign to pay my kids to say stuff.
2. I want the government to condemn all of my investment properties and pay me "fair market value." Please put a strip mall on them. Shit you can put one on my house too.
3. The old widow tried to sell her property after she won the case and couldn't get as much for her house as she would have if she lost the case.
4. I think kelo was a poor decision and the government shouldn't be in that business.
I imagine those kids were plenty old enough to understand the concepts of "paying somebody to be your friend" (those campaign contributions to Hillary) and also "getting powerful people to take stuff from others and give it to you" (eminent domain). Trump *really* did try to use to the government to take an old lady's house and use it for limo parking -- that's no exaggeration:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-time-donald-trumps-empire-took-on-a-stubborn-widow--and-lost/2015/09/09/f9cb287e-5660-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा