The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: JoshuaD on January 20, 2016, 06:13:18 PM

Title: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on January 20, 2016, 06:13:18 PM
Title says it all. I'd be happy to see Senator Sanders win the Democratic Nomination, but I don't have an opinion on who I want to win on the right, mostly from lack of exposure and research. I've been waiting patiently for Trump to fade away and a serious candidate to take the lead on the right, but it hasn't happened yet. Anyone have a favorite?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 01:37:28 AM
It's a trick question for some of us.  If I hated vegetables and you asked me which was my favorite, I'd have a hard time.  When I was a kid I would gag on lima beans.  Most of the current crop make me feel that way.  The least horrific choice for me would be Bush.  He's not good, just less puke-worthy than any of the others, but I don't think he really wants the job, my next least horrible choice would be...nope, can't get there.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 01:53:54 AM
More seriously (slightly, since it *is* a clown car, after all), I think Cruz is going to tank.  The reason I am thinking that might happen is that other "establishment" Republicans are ganging up on him very openly.  Besides the Governor of Iowa, John McCain and Bob Dole (remember him?  Iowans do and they *love* him) are pretty free with their disapproval.  As ardently as he asserts his "Christian values", even Christian ministers are beginning to say he is more like a TV evangelist than a principled believer. 

If he indeed sinks, the history of the GOP in recent elections is that you never bob back up to the surface.  Carson is done, and several others died before they had hardly been born.  I can't quite figure which of the remaining clowns takes the baton, but my hunch is that it will be Rubio soon, but that the cooler heads will indeed come around to Bush.  The only way he can get the nomination is if there is a brokered convention.  With all the splintering, back biting and sameness, I don't think anyone -- even Trump -- will have enough delegates to win on the first ballot.  The way these things work is that if Trump falls just one delegate short, all of his delegates are released after that ballot to vote for whoever they individually wish to.

Watch for popcorn stocks to rise in August...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 02:37:53 AM
Al, your prediction is a grotesque horror show. Hoping for Bush to win? Bite your tongue.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 07:55:16 AM
More seriously (slightly, since it *is* a clown car, after all), I think Cruz is going to tank.  The reason I am thinking that might happen is that other "establishment" Republicans are ganging up on him very openly.  Besides the Governor of Iowa, John McCain and Bob Dole (remember him?  Iowans do and they *love* him) are pretty free with their disapproval.  As ardently as he asserts his "Christian values", even Christian ministers are beginning to say he is more like a TV evangelist than a principled believer. 

If he indeed sinks, the history of the GOP in recent elections is that you never bob back up to the surface.  Carson is done, and several others died before they had hardly been born.  I can't quite figure which of the remaining clowns takes the baton, but my hunch is that it will be Rubio soon, but that the cooler heads will indeed come around to Bush.  The only way he can get the nomination is if there is a brokered convention.  With all the splintering, back biting and sameness, I don't think anyone -- even Trump -- will have enough delegates to win on the first ballot.  The way these things work is that if Trump falls just one delegate short, all of his delegates are released after that ballot to vote for whoever they individually wish to.

Watch for popcorn stocks to rise in August...

That was fun to read. :)  getting your groove back

I haven't followed republicans since debates last summer, but my favorite was Florina. Is she still running?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: ScottF on January 21, 2016, 09:53:46 AM
Fiorina would be my pick as well, with Rubio being the 2nd choice. That said, watching Trump on the stump has been the most fun I've ever had watching politics, he's gold.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on January 21, 2016, 11:10:33 AM
Slate (I know, I know) had an article that Kasich might on his way up to second place in one or both of the two early states. If true, it will boost the entertainment value of the primaries immensely.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 11:14:25 AM
Fiorina would be my pick as well, with Rubio being the 2nd choice. That said, watching Trump on the stump has been the most fun I've ever had watching politics, he's gold.
Fiorina is still running for Churchill's office, but I would speculate that with all of her military experience she thinks "carpet bomb" means getting rid of fleas on the living room rug.  Advice to Carly (and Cruz), don't do that, innocent pets will be killed.  I have to agree about Trump, that in an Andrew Dice Clay sort of way he's excruciatingly funny to watch.  Now that he's got Sarah as a sidekick the merriment threatens to be non-stop.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on January 21, 2016, 01:16:33 PM
Al, your prediction is a grotesque horror show. Hoping for Bush to win? Bite your tongue.

We could do a lot worse than Bush vs. Sanders.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on January 21, 2016, 01:18:50 PM
Ugh. I was reading over Governor Bush's wikipedia entry, and whatever, I don't love him but I could hold my nose. Then I got to this:

Quote
Bush opposes net neutrality


 :(
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 02:30:50 PM
Al, your prediction is a grotesque horror show. Hoping for Bush to win? Bite your tongue.

We could do a lot worse than Bush vs. Sanders.

It's funny, because Bush comes off in the debates as being one of the more composed, sane candidates. And yet I know for a fact he's just as extreme if not more than most of them. And the difference between him and them is that while they bluster to try to show off, he instead remains more quiet and would actually do the scary things without making a fuss. Half of them are bags of hot air, while he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. I can only thank the stars that he's a crap debater, but we should never forget that the debates only give us a small slice of what the candidate would be like in office. It's not Bush the geeky debater that worries me - it's the real man and what I believe he would do in office.

I can't guess whether Bush would fare better against Sanders than someone like Trump or Rubio would, but on the chance Sanders would eventually lose to the GOP candidate I'd prefer to hedge my bet in advance and not have Bush win the candidacy in the first place. While I do think a couple of the candidates might actually be crazy and therefore worse than Bush (Christie, Fiorina), I would prefer literally any of the other candidates to him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on January 21, 2016, 04:01:02 PM
You would prefer Trump to Bush?  ???
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 04:23:27 PM
You would prefer Trump to Bush?  ???

Yeah. Trump is a wildcard whose acts in office I couldn't predict. I might like them or hate them. But I can predict what Bush would do and I would not like it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 05:02:25 PM
He's already said some of what he'll do.  Do you agree with that?  He's going to force Mexico to build a wall stretching across our entire border, deny Muslims entry into this country, wipe out ISIS, impose harsh business rules against China, and after lunch....
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 05:18:58 PM
He's already said some of what he'll do.  Do you agree with that?  He's going to force Mexico to build a wall stretching across our entire border, deny Muslims entry into this country, wipe out ISIS, impose harsh business rules against China, and after lunch....

You do know that a President can't actually do most of these things by fiat, right? The majority of what all the GOP and Democrat candidates say they want to do as President are not actually things for which they have executive authority, but rather are positions they'll push in whatever way they can. Topics like foreign policy and military strategy, along with domestic law enforcement, are under the President's direct domain and so statements about this by the candidates should be taken seriously because they can do it. So far Sanders is the only candidate in either party honest enough to say that he can't actually just *do* all the things he wants to get done, but will require support from the people in order to pressure the Congress to get it done.

So when Trump says he'll build a wall what he really means is he'll push the Congress to work on it and allocate funds for it. If they don't do it then it's over. The same goes for most of the things you mention other than wiping out ISIS, which I guess he could try to do if he wanted to.

So there's a big difference between knowing what a President would like to see happen, ideally, and what he will actually do while in office. The two are seldom the same and people tend to be amazed when a President actually gets something big done that he said he wanted to. The things that concern me most are foreign policy and military matters, since that's one area where a bad President really could mess things up and cost America a lot of problems.

I get the feeling that your fear of what Trump would do in office bespeaks your view of the Presidency in general, which is that of having far more powers than the President actually has. I don't know if this distortion is a Democrat/GOP thing, since Democrats apparently want the President and the government empowered whereas the GOP at least claims they want the opposite (although I don't believe them much of the time). Maybe you're projecting what could happen if a President with the powers you'd like him to have came to power and was a nutjob? That's a good argument for the Presidency not having those powers, then!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 05:54:40 PM
There's also the possibility Trump would just resign immediately after being sworn in and tell America he just "punked" us all and we should be ashamed.  See how easy it was for a wealthy media personality to steal an election?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Greg Davidson on January 23, 2016, 05:20:47 PM
D.W., the line I heard about Trump is that we shouldn't worry if he wins, because he would just leave us for a younger, prettier country in a few years
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 24, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
Does anyone here like Cruz?  I won't waste the effort to comment on him unless somebody cares.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on January 24, 2016, 11:29:45 AM
Does anyone here like Cruz?  I won't waste the effort to comment on him unless somebody cares.

He's remarkably lucid on some points - more so even than the others. But on other topics he goes bonkers. In a sense he has a very uneven approach to topics, and in terms of comportment I'd call him 'sleazy.'
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on January 25, 2016, 04:34:38 PM
Does anyone here like Cruz?  I won't waste the effort to comment on him unless somebody cares.

I don't, but I can pretend to, if that'll get you to post your thoughts. :)  A few friends like him, I haven't thought about him very much yet. All I know is that he has said a handful of things which turn me off. (That an atheist wouldn't be fit to be president, and that we ought to bomb isis until we find out if the desert glows.)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
Well, here are a couple from the past few days to chew on (remember to spit):

Cruz's family health insurance (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/25/ted_cruz_uninsured_no.html)
Quote

Last week Republican presidential candidate Ted "T-Bone" Cruz complained in New Hampshire that he was uninsured because of Barack Hussein Obama's sinister Affordable Care Act.

    "I’ll tell you, you know who one of those millions of Americans is who’s lost their health care because of Obamacare? That would be me," Cruz told a Manchester, New Hampshire, audience. "I don’t have health care right now."

    Cruz explained that he had purchased an individual policy and that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas had canceled all of its individual policies in Texas, effective Dec. 31.

This seemed at the time like a pretty bogus grievance given that Cruz had five months' warning that his policy was expiring, has access to other convenient coverage options, and is so wealthy that he could probably pay almost any health care cost out of pocket anyway. But it turns out that even those critiques of his comments gave Cruz too much credit for honesty: He actually had health insurance coverage the whole time.
He may not have realized it because he stored the policy papers with his Canadian passport.

Cruz is a great guy, the kind of guy you want to smother with a pillow (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-jerk-hated)
Quote
With the bromance between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump over, the mogul turned GOP front-runner has begun trash talking the senator from Texas. "He's a nasty guy," Trump recently huffed. "Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him." For members of the politerati, this was no revelation. As Cruz has quickly climbed the political ladder, he has left a long line of associates who complain, without much prompting, that he is an insufferable schmuck.
That's the first paragraph, but it gets better...

Then there is this quiz.  Which of the following are true:
Quote
    Did one of Ted's former pastors say that "he pretty much memorized the Bible, but I think he did it mostly so that he could humiliate kids who got quotes wrong"?
    Did a former veteran of the 2000 George Bush campaign says that "the quickest way for a meeting to end would be for Ted to come in"?
    Did Ted's wife once admit that Ted "can be a bit of a jackass sometimes, but at least you know where he's coming from"?
    Did Bob Dole say that Ted "doesn't have any friends in Congress"?
    Did Mitch McConnell respond that "I'm pretty sure Dole is wrong, but I can't figure out who his one friend is"?
    Did a John McCain advisor say that his boss "*censored*ing hates Cruz"?
    Did President Obama once get overheard asking Joe Biden "what in God's name is that *censored*'s problem, anyway"?
    Did Rep. Peter King say say about a possible Ted Cruz nomination, "I hope that day never comes; I will jump off that bridge when we come to it"?
    Did John Boehner quip that Ted was "a great American resource; when we threatened to deport him back to Canada, they suddenly agreed to drop their softwood lumber subsidies"?
    Did Lindsey Graham say the choice between Trump and Cruz was like having to choose between "death by being shot or poisoning"?
    Did a former high school teacher just shake his head and close his door when a reporter knocked and asked what he thought about Ted?
    Did a former law school acquaintance say that when she agreed to carpool with Cruz, "We hadn't left Manhattan before he asked my IQ"?
    Did Ted's torts professor remark that "I don't think there was a single question I asked the entire year where Ted didn't instantly raise his hand and practically wet his pants pleading to be called on"?
    Did his Princeton freshman roommate call Ted "a nightmare of a human being" and claim he would get invited to parties hosted by seniors because the upperclassmen pitied him?
    Did a college girlfriend of Ted's say "he was pretty smart, but sex with him once was enough—if you can call it sex"?
    Is it true that in interviews with four of Ted's college acquaintances, "four independently offered the word 'creepy'"?
Answers here (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/how-big-dick-ted-cruz-quiz).

I liked Lindsay Graham's answer when asked which of Trump or Cruz he preferred.  He answered, "It's all like being shot or poisoned. I think you get the same result, whether it's quick or it takes a long time..."
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on January 25, 2016, 08:40:28 PM
Sounds like a survey written by a creepy dick.  Critiques of a presidential candidate's sex technique? Stalk much?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 26, 2016, 05:48:08 AM
Sounds like a survey written by a creepy dick.  Critiques of a presidential candidate's sex technique? Stalk much?
Is that the only thing that catches your eye in all of that post (including the link content)?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on January 26, 2016, 09:39:13 AM
With a nickname like "T-bone" he can't be all bad. 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 26, 2016, 09:44:52 AM
This is the first election campaign where I am leaning toward a candidate for entertainment value. A Trump versus Sanders match would be a CNN producer's wet dream I'll wager.

Regarding Cruz, it strikes me as a bad sign when your colleagues are universal in their abject hatred of you. Cruz tries to spin this as being an establishment versus outislder thing, but it seems clear that he's just plain reviled and it is personal. Not a good sign!

As for the rest, Graham seemed the most cogent to me, even though he had no chance and I disagreed with him fundamentally on his war stance. Christy comes across as a liveable doofus. As for Trump, he has been a clown thus far, but a shockingly effective one. His skill at trolling the media has been remarkable. I have no idea what his real policies would be but I wouldn't count him out or assume he can't win in a general election. The guy has been immensely successful thus far laying waste to every opponent and defying all conventional logic as to how campaigns are supposed to be run.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on January 26, 2016, 09:49:28 AM
Sounds like a survey written by a creepy dick.  Critiques of a presidential candidate's sex technique? Stalk much?
Is that the only thing that catches your eye in all of that post (including the link content)?

Didn't follow the link content. Most of the 16 questions were more Dickish than the man described and a few like the one I cited were stalking. I strongly disliked Cruz in the debates but if he has become the rough beast of losers that write columns like that, maybe I should give him another look.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: DJQuag on January 26, 2016, 09:56:09 AM
Pretty much everything that has been uncovered and evertone who has been talked to have agreed on one thing - Ted Cruz is an *censored*, and not just in your normal politician way.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 26, 2016, 10:29:34 AM
This is the first election campaign where I am leaning toward a candidate for entertainment value. A Trump versus Sanders match would be a CNN producer's wet dream I'll wager.

Regarding Cruz, it strikes me as a bad sign when your colleagues are universal in their abject hatred of you. Cruz tries to spin this as being an establishment versus outislder thing, but it seems clear that he's just plain reviled and it is personal. Not a good sign!

As for the rest, Graham seemed the most cogent to me, even though he had no chance and I disagreed with him fundamentally on his war stance. Christy comes across as a liveable doofus. As for Trump, he has been a clown thus far, but a shockingly effective one. His skill at trolling the media has been remarkable. I have no idea what his real policies would be but I wouldn't count him out or assume he can't win in a general election. The guy has been immensely successful thus far laying waste to every opponent and defying all conventional logic as to how campaigns are supposed to be run.
You may be as surprised by this as much as I am, but for once I totally agree with you! :)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on January 26, 2016, 11:23:59 AM
Sounds like a survey written by a creepy dick.  Critiques of a presidential candidate's sex technique? Stalk much?
Is that the only thing that catches your eye in all of that post (including the link content)?

No: I think this is all pretty shallow crap, and if I had posted it as cogent political argument I would feel embarrassed:

Quote
Did Ted's torts professor remark that "I don't think there was a single question I asked the entire year where Ted didn't instantly raise his hand and practically wet his pants pleading to be called on"?
    Did his Princeton freshman roommate call Ted "a nightmare of a human being" and claim he would get invited to parties hosted by seniors because the upperclassmen pitied him?
    Did a college girlfriend of Ted's say "he was pretty smart, but sex with him once was enough—if you can call it sex"?
    Is it true that in interviews with four of Ted's college acquaintances, "four independently offered the word 'creepy'"?

The other parts are cogent as authority worship, which I know you dig, but I don't.  I prefer to hear specific facts (as opposed to opinions) and make up my own mind.

The fact that this sort of tripe persuades the masses has caused me to lose enthusiasm for campaign finance reform.  If the masses are brainwashed into their opinions, armwrestling over who gets to do the brainwashing is not a fight I will hitch my horse to.  I'lol just plant my garden, do what I can to see the next generation taught to reject brainwashing question authority and think for themselves, and hope that democracy will one day become what it pretends to be.

And vote for Sanders.

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 26, 2016, 07:49:51 PM
Quote
Donald Trump said Tuesday that he "most likely" will not participate in Thursday night's FOX News-Google debate, citing the participation of "lightweight" Megyn Kelly as well as FOX's "wise-guy" press release poking fun at Trump's rhetoric.

"Let's see how much money FOX is going to make on the debate without me," he told reporters in Marshalltown, Iowa.

After the press conference, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandoski told reporters that the real estate mogul "will not be participating in the Fox debate" and that it is "not under negotiation."
So, my question is if Trump's not there who gets to honk the horn in the clown car?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on January 26, 2016, 08:06:44 PM
I think the car would have less passengers.   I got to believe dignity prevents some from conceding while Trump is still in the running.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 26, 2016, 09:10:27 PM
Quote
I think the car would have less passengers.

Fewer passengers.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on January 26, 2016, 09:32:42 PM
Thanks?

Yet I get a pass on "got to"?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 27, 2016, 04:12:56 AM
Gotta.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on January 29, 2016, 10:39:54 AM
Anyone's opinions shift after last night?  The reporting seemed to indicate there was more substance to the debate once a certain someone was absent.  However, most of the reporting was commenting on that absence or how the other candidates addressed it.   ::)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on January 29, 2016, 11:07:30 AM
I actually found the debate more tolerable than the previous ones (in that I was able to watch it for more than 5 minutes without wanting to throw something at the screen :)).  The questions (for the 20 minutes I watched) seemed important, and about half the answers actually were about the question.  My view of the candidates actually went up a notch.

Of course, the Unintentional Irony Award goes to Chris Christie, who, in response to a question, spent his 3 minutes talking about how Hillary refused to answer questions, while not answering the one asked him. :D
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 30, 2016, 08:44:52 AM
Semi-seriously, I think it highlights the general attitude of several of the candidates that they don't have to answer no stinking question they don't want to.  After all, it's the press who's asking and they are even lower in the public's perception than the candidates. Fer chrissakes, they put a bimbo up there to ask questions!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on January 30, 2016, 10:53:23 AM
It may go deeper than that.  It could be a sign of alpha-male dominance, of showing that Trump can and will dominate his opponents, even the press.  He is the invincible hero, the unbeatable winner.  Josh Marshall called it (somewhat rudely), his "bitch slap theory of politics." (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-trumph-of-the-will)

Quote
When I first wrote about this a dozen years ago I called it the "bitch slap theory of politics." I'm no longer comfortable using that phrase. But I do think the heavily gendered, violent nature of that phrase is one of the only ways to really capture the nature of what's happening in these dramas.

Take Trump's evisceration of Jeb Bush.

Trump's comment about Jeb's being "weak", "low energy", "pitiful" ... these are demeaning and denigrating phrases. They seem frankly gross, with an emotional tenor we'd expect from street toughs or frat boys trash talking each other. It's raw and primal and all about dominating by denigrating. But what has really hurt Bush is not so much that Trump is calling him names. It's that Trump has used these attacks to demonstrate that Jeb is unable or unwilling to defend himself. Trump hits him and Jeb takes it. His responses are hapless and weak and generally meaningless. You probably barely remember them. The impact of this is not tied to Trump calling Bush "weak." Trump is engineering encounters that show that Bush is weak.

In an election dominated by national security, this kind of demonstration of power and dominance has a profound impact. That is why the 'Swift Boat' attacks in the 2004 presidential election were so devastating. Whether anybody really believed all these slurs and claims about John Kerry wasn't really the point. What was deadly was his seeming inability to defend himself...

Trump doesn't apologize. He hurts people and they go away. He says things that would kill a political mortal (ban members of an entire religion from entering the country) and yet he doesn't get hurt. Virtually everything Trump has done over the last six months, whether it's a policy proposal or personal attack, has driven home this basic point: Trump is strong. He does things other people can't.

This is why Trump has so shaken up and so dominated the GOP primary cycle, at least thus far. As I've said, this kind of dominance symbolism is pervasive in GOP politics. It's not new with Trump at all. Most successful Republican politicians speak this language. And yet somehow for most it is nonetheless a second language. But it's Trump's native language. I still believe it's rooted in the mix of the hyper-aggressive New York real estate world, his decades of immersion in the city's febrile tabloid culture and just being, at the most basic level, a bully. Wherever it comes from, he seems to intuitively get that for this constituency and at this moment just demonstrating that he gets his way, always, is all that really matters. Policy details, protecting the candidate through careful press releases and structured media opportunities ... none of that matters. Trump doesn't kiss babies. Babies kiss him. He doesn't have a billionaire backer; he is a billionaire. Trump doesn't ask for support. He just tells you that you need to stop being a loser and get on board.

After about an hour or so, I understand the debate moved past Trump and got down to actual policy questions.  But I think this is part of Trump's attraction to his supporters.  He's the Man.  He dominates everyone around him, even Fox News.  He has the power, and power attracts.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 30, 2016, 12:47:30 PM
Yes, he's the Man, and you're just a girly man.  Bullies do that until they get bitch-slapped enough themselves.  I wonder if his ego is big enough to survive the nuclear attacks that will be launched against him going forward. 

FWIW, I heard an interview with a reporter who has covered Iowa caucuses for many election cycles.  He pointed out that there is a huge difference in outcome if you measure voters, people who show up at campaign stops, likely voters and actual voters.  His opinion is that Trump wins hands down for the first three categories, but will lose to Cruz among actual voters.  For the campaign stop popularity, he's a spectacle, a celebrity, more a circus act than someone you might even think of to ask to lead you.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 31, 2016, 08:00:25 AM
Ted Cruz is a good man.  His father thinks he is like Jesus, but if you live in Iowa and you're a Republican he wants you to know you are in VIOLATION of the law if you don't vote (for him, of course) (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/ted-cruz-mailer-iowa-caucuses-voter-violation/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 31, 2016, 08:17:28 PM
Quote
I wonder if his ego is big enough to survive the nuclear attacks that will be launched against him going forward. 

I'm amused that you are so confident that the same types of attacks that have utterly failed thus far are somehow going to work in the general election.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's very unlikely that he will prevail if he's the nominee due to demographic realities. But then again, it was also unlikely that he'd prevail in the first place and get as far as he's gotten. The definition of stupid is to keep making the same predictions based on the same assumptions that have proven wrong over and over.

I see things in the reverse of the article. Trump doesn't beat people by attacking or bullying them. He wins by provoking them into attacking him, whether it's the media or another candidate. He's a fantastic troll. He looks strong by taking their attacks and being unaffected. They just keep coming after him and declaring his demise and they keep breaking their teeth on him, over and over and over.

Part of this is due to the general anti establishment zeitgeist that he's tapping into, part of it is the way he skillfully manipulates the traditional media into ganging up on him in just the way he wants to antagonize his electorate, and part of it is his ability to sniff out the real wants of his target constituency, even what they're unlikely to say out loud or can't express because traditional media outlets won't give them a venue.

In terms of the general election, I'd agree that certain demographic realities will be a significant challenge for Trump. The Democrats are going to have an inherent edge in this contest, due to the degree the Republicans as a group (and Trump in particular) have antagonized on the non white population (Latinos!). But if there's a terrorist attack between now and the election, watch out - this is a shot in the arm to a guy like Trump. Against an amorphous weasel like a Hillary Clinton, Trump is going to take the advantage. I happen to think that Hillary is way weaker than she's getting credit for.

The more interesting contest for me would be a Bernie versus Trump. I actually think that in terms of personality, Bernie might be an anti Trump. I don't think he can be provoked into making the kind of self-destructive attacks that have helped Trump so far. Bernie also is a type of truthteller with a direct unpretentious style that will be very hard for Trump to undermine. Bernie's only weakness in such a contest would be his socialist political background, which is further left than the natural orientation of the core American electorate.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on January 31, 2016, 09:25:42 PM
Quote
I'm amused that you are so confident that the same types of attacks that have utterly failed thus far are somehow going to work in the general election.
I'm not, I'm wondering.  He leads with his chin but others are not trying nearly hard enough to faze him.  That will undoubtedly increase, especially if he wins the Iowa caucus.
Quote
Trump doesn't beat people by attacking or bullying them. He wins by provoking them into attacking him, whether it's the media or another candidate.
I'm amused you don't see his insults and demeaning of others as attacks ;).  It's like saying if I steal your lunch it's just a provocation for you to punch me.
Quote
Against an amorphous weasel like a Hillary Clinton, Trump is going to take the advantage. I happen to think that Hillary is way weaker than she's getting credit for.
He'll accuse her of bleeding out of her whatever, but Trump has said and done things that are astonishingly crass and sexist.  In the general election his excesses will be used against him, I wager devastatingly.  I'd start with him not being able to take on someone he calls a bimbo.  I wonder if he things Merkel is a bimbo, and "not a quality person" if she disagrees with him on policy in the Mideast.
Quote
Bernie also is a type of truthteller with a direct unpretentious style that will be very hard for Trump to undermine. Bernie's only weakness in such a contest would be his socialist political background, which is further left than the natural orientation of the core American electorate.
IMO, Bernie is a lambkin.  Trump would savage him and Bernie would insist that they shouldn't be talking about his paunch or crummy haircut.  He's just a girly grampa, grist for getting Trumped on and spit out.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2016, 11:51:54 PM
He's just a girly grampa

Lol. Oh, as if your disingenuous questions about Sanders before weren't already transparent. I like how you denied it when I called you on it then. I'm sure 'research' you've done since then has led you to this erudite conclusion.

While it could be predicted that Trump might go this route if it came down to him versus Sanders, I actually suspect he might avoid that and instead play to his own strengths. In the primaries it's one thing to shoot down the competition with insults; an Iowa caucus might shift from one GOP candidate to another, but they will only caucus for the GOP in a Republican primary. When it comes to a general election, though, the swing voters may not look kindly on someone being utterly disrespectful to the only other person in the room since they might well shift from GOP to Democrat one election to the next. Trump is shrewd and does what he does now because it works. He'll have no problem shifting tactics if he doesn't think it will work later on.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 01, 2016, 06:59:57 AM
Blather on...
Quote
Lol. Oh, as if your disingenuous questions about Sanders before weren't already transparent. I like how you denied it when I called you on it then. I'm sure 'research' you've done since then has led you to this erudite conclusion.
I guess you know me better than I do.  My "research" (double quotes are more correct here) is watching GG often and listening to him talk.  He's right about most of the ills he names and his solutions are generally pretty good, too. But Clinton's a grindy grandma, the kind that rules the roost; her personal flaws are detractions rather than disqualifiers.  She's right about most of her solutions, too, so it's GG vs GG.  The "debates" are far too mild a competition; if this campaign were a cooking contest, she'd take the cake and bake it, too.

Sometimes how someone is mocked also reveals telling notes or notes their tells.  Larry David nails Bernie's utterly sincere jittery dithery better than he does himself, as Kate McKinnon and Amy Poehler do with Hillary's ambitions.  James Adomian gets Bernie, too:
Quote
I believe that my position on guns is wrong. And I’ve always believed that.

When the time comes I'll vote for either of them, because even though neither would get nearly as good first season's TV ratings as Trump, their final approval ratings would far exceed his....Blather off
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 01, 2016, 07:40:48 AM
Quote
I'm amused you don't see his insults and demeaning of others as attacks ;).  It's like saying if I steal your lunch it's just a provocation

I never claimed Trump doesn't attack or insult people. I simply said his insults aren't designed to damage his opponent (primarily), although they may sometimes have that effect. They are designed to provoke a counterattack that will hurt his opponents. He is trolling the media hoping they will gang up on him because he knows that his target constituency detests the media and will tend to favor someone perceived as under attack by them. He has trolled Jeb Bush and the more ferocious Jeb's counter attacks the weaker Jeb has become. His opponents just keep breaking their teeth on him.

Cruz is the only one who figured out this game early on and wisely refused to come after him. Even now Cruz has been very careful with how he responds to Trump's provocations and Trump has not been nearly as effective at neutralizing him. The birther issue was yet another trap Trump laid for him that he has been very careful about avoiding. Even Hillary kind of stumbled a bit into this trap recently when someone on her side made a comment about Trump's sexism and he used it as an opening to start talking about her husband's escapades and her complicity in that (a preview of things to come if Clinton and Trump are the nominees)

Trump's tactic thus far is a type of Akido. It's fascinating to watch. I do agree with Fenring though that his tactics and his style will change if it goes to a general election. Hillary is not nearly as strong as some people are giving her credit for and I wonder if he will be able to provoke her into foolishly attacking him. Sanders I think may be the tougher nut to crack, assuming he isn't done in by his socialist credentials, which would be peachy say in Canada but might be too left for the USA.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on February 01, 2016, 09:38:04 AM
Given Clinton's reaction to Sander's campaign, I suspect she'll do exactly what Trump wants her to do. I get the impression that her campaign believes in superior firepower. The first thing, at least, they'll try is to go after Trump hard and fast, which seems unlikely to work.

On the other hand, maybe Iowa will sort this out for us. Though people have been forecasting Trump's defeat at every potential setback. Who knows if even a major defeat will slow him down?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 01, 2016, 10:43:00 AM
Americans are not used to folks that have the guts to call themselves socialists in public. Bernie's a new creature, and has worked with Republicans and got things done.  And the term "progressive" sounds so cancerous.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 01, 2016, 10:45:20 AM
Quote
Trump's tactic thus far is a type of Akido.
More like Animal House.
Quote
On the other hand, maybe Iowa will sort this out for us.
Someone on the radio this morning said that Iowa doesn't choose the candidate so much as winnow the field.  It's an odd way of going about it.  Less than 10% of the population take part in the caucuses, so they tend to be activist and a bit ruthless.  That's not an altogether bad thing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 01, 2016, 12:09:33 PM
Given Clinton's reaction to Sander's campaign, I suspect she'll do exactly what Trump wants her to do. I get the impression that her campaign believes in superior firepower. The first thing, at least, they'll try is to go after Trump hard and fast, which seems unlikely to work.

If I am wrong, and Trump's campaign isn't a straw man to set up Hillary, then yes, I would e pet Hillary to act as you describe.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 01, 2016, 12:37:55 PM
If he WAS a straw man, would that change things?  Would they both just play out the bit?  With him occasionally giving her an opening?

I'm not sure if that's what you mean by straw man or not.  I could see him dropping the whole race and claiming it was his plan the whole time and he didn't really want the job.  But allowing someone to turn him into "a looser"?  I just don't see it in him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 01, 2016, 12:56:50 PM
While the idea of Trump as a Hillary plant has some appeal, I really really really doubt it. If it were true I suspect Trump would be guilty of some manner of fraud and may face legal (possibly criminal sanction) and if Hillary had anything to do with it she'd be a co-conspirator not mention persona non grata (to say nothing of Trump)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 01, 2016, 12:57:19 PM
If Trump was really a Clinton plant then the idea would have been to sabotage those most likely to threaten the Clinton campaign (Bush and whoever else). This is exactly what he did, but now that he's the frontrunner even if he WAS a plant I'm sure that all bets are off and he'll go for the win. I don't believe he'll bow down and 'hand' Hillary the election if it comes down to the two of them even if the original plan was for him to drop out after tarnishing Bush. I also think he could beat Hillary, since her public image would probably not survive his kind of character attack. Against Bernie I think he'd go after the socialist angle, but against her he'd go after her on a personal level, and I think it might work.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 01, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Well, Bill killed Foster, W was behind the WTC and Obama is a UN mole to deliver the US to Islam, so why not Trump fulfilling Hillary's fantasy?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 01, 2016, 01:58:52 PM
When you say "him" do you mean trump the person, or the persona that was created for this election?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 01, 2016, 02:11:39 PM
That question implicitly assumes that either of them might be real.  We know the non-candidate version has exhibited a lot of behaviors that we don't typically associate with real people, too.  They may both be avatars.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 01, 2016, 02:28:37 PM
Well, Bill killed Foster, W was behind the WTC and Obama is a UN mole to deliver the US to Islam

Those your opinions, or you pretending I believe any of that?

Trump has donated millions to the Clinton's. And how is wrecking the GOP not useful to Hillary?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 01, 2016, 02:33:17 PM
While the idea of Trump as a Hillary plant has some appeal, I really really really doubt it. If it were true I suspect Trump would be guilty of some manner of fraud and may face legal (possibly criminal sanction) and if Hillary had anything to do with it she'd be a co-conspirator not mention persona non grata (to say nothing of Trump)

Impossible to prove in court and no clear applicable law.  Election straw man date back to Roman times, and AFAIK there has never been a prosecution.
Well, Bill killed Foster, W was behind the WTC and Obama is a UN mole to deliver the US to Islam

Those your opinions, or you pretending I believe any of that?

Trump has donated millions to the Clinton's. And how is wrecking the GOP not useful to Hillary?

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on February 01, 2016, 02:46:13 PM
It'd be a neat trick if true. If Trump's campaign implodes in October, the chattering class will congratulate themselves on being essentially right, just missing the timing. If it becomes an open secret, the people who would be most upset are the powerless and disenfranchised; the monied and influential classes will see it forestalling a populist rebellion in the GOP. They've not forgotten that the Tea Party formed in response to the bailouts of late 2008. A Trump collapse might finally neuter the Tea Party and restore control of the GOP to the establishment types.

The only way to prove collusion would be if either party admits it or if there's documentary evidence. I doubt either party is stupid enough to have put it in writing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshCrow on February 01, 2016, 07:51:25 PM
I also think he could beat Hillary, since her public image would probably not survive his kind of character attack. [...] against her he'd go after her on a personal level, and I think it might work.

Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 01, 2016, 08:18:20 PM
I also think he could beat Hillary, since her public image would probably not survive his kind of character attack. [...] against her he'd go after her on a personal level, and I think it might work.

Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

That's true. Then again it seems like personal attacks tend to sour opinion against the attacker, unless your name is Trump. He seems to know how to do it right, which may be the difference. For instance when the GOP wants to smear Hillary they'll levy an accusation on a particular topic and hope it sticks, and when it doesn't they'll try something else. Trump might just dispense with making 'official complaints' against her and just say sans context "we all know SHE'S A LIAR" and leave it at that. Without context or specifics it can't be refuted and yet some people will come out saying "yeah, he's right, she does seem like a liar" without having in mind exactly what she may have lied about. This is exactly what he did to Bush, where Trump utterly annihilated his campaign by impugning him offhand without even bothering to address anything Bush actually ever said or did. It's media wars and shows how stupid campaigning is. Hillary's normal tactic of evading particular accusations won't help if Trump never accuses her of anything! He can play directly off of her general unlikeability and attack her person without attacking her campaign. You're right that we can't know if this will work, but she hasn't had to face this kind of direct assault yet since in normal politics this kind of thing isn't really done to this extent.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 01, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
Quote
Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart. Now the young women of the party are throwing their support behind an old white geezer.

On top of everything, I'm not convinced her legal issues are just going to evaporate as she would like.

People keep saying how incredibly strong Hillary is going to be in a general election. We'll see (assuming Sanders doesn't vanquish her).
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 01, 2016, 08:42:48 PM
Quote
I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart.
It learns.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 01, 2016, 11:04:31 PM
Quote
I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart.
It learns.

So it's possible she may again be defeated by upstart Sanders. Assuming he doesn't shoot himself with his off hand or have his plane go down, or have some unprecedented and sudden heart attack while in confinement.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshCrow on February 01, 2016, 11:15:28 PM
Quote
Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart.

To be clear, I was speaking strictly about how she weathers personal attacks, which wasn't the tack Obama used.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 02, 2016, 12:46:08 AM
So it's possible she may again be defeated by upstart Sanders. Assuming he doesn't shoot himself with his off hand or have his plane go down, or have some unprecedented and sudden heart attack while in confinement.

I have to admit that, despite myself, I laughed at this.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 02, 2016, 03:10:19 AM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/56afcc13e4b0b8d7c2303e12

To this date, Bernie is the only candidate to cross Sabres with Trump and leave Trump sputtering, backpedalling, and revising his statementa
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 02, 2016, 11:15:18 AM
I'm in shock.  Only a year ago I actually considered registering Republican in order to support Fiorina; now she has nothing.  Same with the next most IMO palatable candidate, Kasich.

Frightening that Cruz and Trump are the front-runners.  And surprised that Cruz beat Trump in IOWA of all places, despite his opposition to the ethanol boondoggle.

On the Democratic front, my prapers for Mr. Sanders' continued health ...!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 11:47:50 AM
Not so surprising, given Iowa demographics and the low voter turnout.  Also not quite so surprising that Trump didn't do better, given that he is at least as much a personality as a candidate.  I cited someone the other day who predicted Cruz would win for those very reasons.

As for Bernie's success, I looked at some demographic charts and he killed her in the 18-27 year old range, but with each higher age range Hillary did increasingly better. It's a bad sign for the Democrats if Bernie is their candidate since older people will be more likely to tolerate a seemingly moderate Republican if they can't vote for Hillary. OTOH, it's a bad sign for Republicans if Cruz is their candidate, since he based his Iowa effort almost entirely on the evangelical vote there, which isn't nearly as strong in most other states.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 02, 2016, 12:07:01 PM
I'm curious if this says something about Iowa or if it's more of a, "Trump is super fun to listen to and watch on TV but I'm not really going to vote for the guy!  That's crazy talk!", thing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on February 02, 2016, 12:10:04 PM
Not so surprising, given Iowa demographics and the low voter turnout.  Also not quite so surprising that Trump didn't do better, given that he is at least as much a personality as a candidate.  I cited someone the other day who predicted Cruz would win for those very reasons.

As for Bernie's success, I looked at some demographic charts and he killed her in the 18-27 year old range, but with each higher age range Hillary did increasingly better. It's a bad sign for the Democrats if Bernie is their candidate since older people will be more likely to tolerate a seemingly moderate Republican if they can't vote for Hillary. OTOH, it's a bad sign for Republicans if Cruz is their candidate, since he based his Iowa effort almost entirely on the evangelical vote there, which isn't nearly as strong in most other states.
Low turnout? Reports I'm seeing are that Republicans had a much higher turnout that usual.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 12:49:32 PM
Still low, around 10%.  NH usually gets around 60% for their primary.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 02, 2016, 01:06:08 PM
Wow!  60% for a primary?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 01:21:13 PM
Got anything better to do?  Can't harvest rocks 24/7....
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 02, 2016, 01:27:59 PM
Not so surprising, given Iowa demographics and the low voter turnout.  Also not quite so surprising that Trump didn't do better, given that he is at least as much a personality as a candidate.  I cited someone the other day who predicted Cruz would win for those very reasons.

As for Bernie's success, I looked at some demographic charts and he killed her in the 18-27 year old range, but with each higher age range Hillary did increasingly better. It's a bad sign for the Democrats if Bernie is their candidate since older people will be more likely to tolerate a seemingly moderate Republican if they can't vote for Hillary. OTOH,

LMAO.  Which leading Republican are you accusing of seeming "Moderate"?  Cruz?  Trump?  Rubio?

Surely there's been a Trump vs Sanders or a Cruz vs Sanders poll done among the elderly.  What aspect of Sanders do you see terrifying them? 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 03:29:35 PM
I don't think anyone who rides around in a clown car can be called moderate, so choose whoever you think is best suited to sit in the Oval ("hey, isn't this supposed to be a circle?") office.  Iowa is not a trend state for nominations (Santorum or Huckabee, anyone?), but the high-wattage, low-power Trump machine may be ready to fade.  If that happens, he could still affect the convention, either by driving some sort of bargain with Rubio (the eventual nominee ;)) or by forcing a second ballot in hopes of sneaking in through the back door.  Maybe he'll just spend his gazillions to get Palin as the next Secretary of Energy, which she covets, but where on the first day on the job she'll discover that she has no control over natural resources like oil.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote
Surely there's been a Trump vs Sanders or a Cruz vs Sanders poll done among the elderly.  What aspect of Sanders do you see terrifying them? 
He's not low-risk.  Rubio could charm them with promises to keep illegals out and guard their portfolios, but Sanders would ask them to pick up a weapon and fight for the revolution.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 02, 2016, 04:00:23 PM
Rubio could charm them with promises to keep illegals out and guard their portfolios, but Sanders would ask them to pick up a weapon and fight for the revolution.

Are you suggesting an actual reason the elderly might not vote for him, or a misguided reason that an ignorant person could be persuaded to believe? In reality Sanders does more for the elderly and for vets than any other candidate, and if the elders could possibly name one candidate who is totally on their side it's him. That being said I agree with you that the whole revolution thing wouldn't appeal to the elderly since old people tend to dislike the idea of change, especially when they're being asked to do something. While this may sound like a wash I think it needs to be remembered that while Sanders is calling for the people to demand change, he most likely doesn't mean that the elderly should go marching on Washington. I think it's more or less expected that a lot of the people who would take political action would be younger people, which leaves the elderly not having to worry so much about some call to arms. All they ought to be concerned about is having their social security and benefits protected, and Bernie is definitely that guy.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 02, 2016, 04:39:15 PM
What aspect of Sanders do you see terrifying them?
Many older voters have enough experience to understand the consequences of socialism.  The pretty ideas that it espouses appeal strongly to the young and uneducated.  Hence he's going to lose appeal with experienced voters and voters that are actually educated (to be differentiated from those who've received a modern education).

On the other hand, it's hard not to respect Bernie, he seems brutally honest.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on February 02, 2016, 04:53:26 PM
I think people who think Sanders is a "socialist" full stop are stretching the definition of educated.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 04:56:58 PM
I think you and Fenring are both wrong.  I don't mean he will literally line up 80-year old's with pitchforks to march on Congress, of course.  But he will try to mobilize them, which perturbs their already uneasy equilibrium with the system.  I'm technically a Sr now, and I am worried that Bernie will be an utter failure, not that he will win the revolution.  The effort would tie Congress up in knots (and nots) his entire term in office.  As for seniors being afraid of "socialism", none of them -- and none of us -- really know what that is, but it will never happen here.

The one thing I would hope he *could* accomplish if he miraculously survives to take office would be single payer health care.  It's absolutely appalling to listen to any politician claim that it would be a disaster. What we have now is a catastrophe.  I truly don't understand why you think it is overall better than the systems that virtually all other "civilized" countries provide to their citizens.  Go ahead and find an outlier in some country and pretend that it makes socialized health care an unmitigated disaster.  I'll skip that post...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on February 02, 2016, 05:41:09 PM
I was just looking at the raw numbers from Iowa (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa).

Can anyone explain why Jim Gilmore is still in the race?  :o
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 05:50:34 PM
Does he know that?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 02, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, whether this is true or not.
Quote
OP presidential candidate Ted Cruz decided to run for president based on divine calling, his father told a religious television station.

Pastor Rafael Cruz told the Dove TV that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’ decision resulted from 6 months of prayer, which culminated in a 2-hour session in which Cruz felt divine inspiration which directed him to enter the race, according to Right Wing Watch.

During the intense prayer session, Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, said “seek God’s face, not God’s hand,” the elder Cruz said. He believes this was divinely inspired as well.

“It was as if there was a presence of the Holy Spirit in the room and we all were at awe,” Cruz stated, “and Ted, all that came out of his mouth, he said, ‘Here am I Lord, use me. Here am I Lord, I surrender to whatever Your will for my life is.’ And it was at that time that he felt a peace about running for president of the United States.”
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 03, 2016, 08:08:12 AM
A not unreasonable assessment (http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/03/establishment-versus-populists-isnt-the-whole-story-of-the-gop-primary/) of how Republican voters were leaning in Iowa and in general.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 03, 2016, 10:09:12 AM
Quote
Still low, around 10%.  NH usually gets around 60% for their primary.

Apples and oranges. Caucuses are special.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 03, 2016, 10:40:23 AM
Quote
Still low, around 10%.  NH usually gets around 60% for their primary.

Apples and oranges. Caucuses are special.
Operationally, yes, but in terms of participation they both represent the same thing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on February 03, 2016, 11:23:55 AM
Quote
So it's possible she may again be defeated by upstart Sanders. Assuming he doesn't shoot himself with his off hand or have his plane go down, or have some unprecedented and sudden heart attack while in confinement.

While you may be worried about Sanders, perhaps we should be worried about Donald Trump (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-they-might-kill-donald-trump-just-mlk-and-kennedys).  :o  ;)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 03, 2016, 11:41:55 AM
I think people who think Sanders is a "socialist" full stop are stretching the definition of educated.

I think you and Fenring are both wrong.  I don't mean he will literally line up 80-year old's with pitchforks to march on Congress, of course.  But he will try to mobilize them, which perturbs their already uneasy equilibrium with the system.  I'm technically a Sr now, and I am worried that Bernie will be an utter failure, not that he will win the revolution.  The effort would tie Congress up in knots (and nots) his entire term in office.  As for seniors being afraid of "socialism", none of them -- and none of us -- really know what that is, but it will never happen here.

Well socialism *did* happen here in 1946 when Truman broke the steel strike, but when it did, it wasn't called "socialism."

I for one would rather have a nonsocialist that calls himself a socialist, than an actual practicing socialist that calls himself the leader of the free world.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 03, 2016, 02:51:08 PM
Regarding the title of this thread, my new favorites are Santorum and Rand, as they both dropped out today.  And a fond goodbye to McNalley, if that was his name, we hardly knew ye.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 03, 2016, 05:27:01 PM
So your faves are those that page the way for Ted Cruz? :)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 03, 2016, 05:41:21 PM
I'm still holding out for a brokered convention that will pick Alan Simpson.  Remember that FDR won the nomination in a brokered convention and that Dewey was also a brokered nominee.  If it can't be Simpson, I'll stick with either Clinton or Sanders, if it is him I'll still stick with either of the others, but he would be more fun.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 04, 2016, 12:16:16 PM
Kasich and Graham were probably the least objectionable of the lot to me; and I think either one of them would actually have had the best chance of challenging the Democrats by actually being able to appeal to the middle rather than only pulling at the establishment and fringe.

I do have a morbid curiosity to see if Trump will try to pull off the biggest Heel-Face Turn in history if he takes the nomination. I would not be surprised at all if he tired to retcon his entire campaign and perhaps even run a little left of the Democratic nominee in the general, as that would actually match his strategy so far.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 04, 2016, 01:16:37 PM
Kasich was OK.  Damn shame, this election.  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324, BBC asks "Why are Americans so angry?"
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 04, 2016, 03:56:05 PM
Kasich was OK.  Damn shame, this election.  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324, BBC asks "Why are Americans so angry?"

Kasich was ok in some of what he said, but went off the rails when he promised to "punch Russia right in the nose." In this area he put himself squarely in the World War III party, although I'm actually willing to believe in his case that he said this out of profound ignorance rather than bloodlust.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 04, 2016, 05:35:32 PM
Kasich was ok in some of what he said, but went off the rails when he promised to "punch Russia right in the nose." In this area he put himself squarely in the World War III party, although I'm actually willing to believe in his case that he said this out of profound ignorance rather than bloodlust.
Hence "least objectionable". There's not one that I'd prefer to a piece of burnt toast, but I can still honestly evaluate which one I least dislike.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 04, 2016, 08:28:39 PM
Short of Putin's timely sudden convenient death, I am not sure war with Russia is avoidable.  Is there anywhere you would draw the line, Fenring? Putin takes Baltics?  Putin takes Poland?  Putin retakes Warsaw pact satellite countries? 

Please don't toss away my respect for you by acting like I posed a rhetorical question.  I honestly would like to know if you would draw a red line anywhere, and if so, where.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 04, 2016, 09:02:21 PM
Short of Putin's timely sudden convenient death, I am not sure war with Russia is avoidable.  Is there anywhere you would draw the line, Fenring? Putin takes Baltics?  Putin takes Poland?  Putin retakes Warsaw pact satellite countries? 

Please don't toss away my respect for you by acting like I posed a rhetorical question.  I honestly would like to know if you would draw a red line anywhere, and if so, where.

Red line? Are you referring to the fraudulent 'red line' Obama drew in Syria? They had it in for the Assad regime prior to the use of that term and were going to claim the line was crossed no matter what Assad did, so I'd like to point out that your use of the term is, in my opinion, ironic, since it actually means crossing arbitrary non-existent lines that are drawn to support a pre-chosen course of action. The concept that the Soviet Union is back and is on the move trying to annex the world is one of the most dangerous pieces of propaganda among the quite healthy flow of it that has been sent our way in the last few years. The one single event justifying any concern about Russia was Crimea, and I'm not at all convinced Russia was entirely in the wrong there (I think multiple parties may actually have simultaneously been in the wrong and Russia decided not to get screwed as a result). Other than that you seem to be buying into Neocon fear-mongering where Russia is the big bad guy. Like all major powers Russia must be negotiated with and met in the middle, and some warhawks hate the idea that another nation has a mind of its own and won't be dictated to. In the last 20 years far more aggressive moves have been made against Russia than by Russia, by a massive margin.

Does that answer your question?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 05, 2016, 07:45:54 AM
No, it doesn't answer my question.  You are not a head of state to my knowledge, so AFAIK no one would be harmed if you disclosed a position.

For Chamberlain, the Red Line was Poland.

My question is, is there ANYTHING Putin could do that would make you reevaluate your belief of what he is about? Or do you give him unlimited Carte Blanche?

I don't assume Putin is Hitler.  Nor do I assume he is not. That bit of radioactive poisoning in London proves he passes Stalin and Saddam Hussein on the bat*censored* index. (Which is not, in itself, a reason to go to war or even blab about punching folks in the face, but neither is it reason to act as if nothing could possibly drive us to war. I would do anything for Peace but I won't do that.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 05, 2016, 09:34:31 AM
My prescience sees not Russia but China as our opponent and not for awhile yet.  It will be over rare earth metals not oil, land, coastal control or security posturing.   Putin does have carte blanche for the most part.  Even if all sides got hyper aggressive, the scope of conflict would be highly constrained.

The next (current?) front of super powers butting heads is going to be cyber-warfare and then smashing each other's satellites into clouds of debris that makes a mess out of everyone's low orbit fun.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 05, 2016, 10:06:02 AM
Russia's not our opponent so long as we give him carte blanche in Europe and the middle east.  China's not our opponent so long as we give it carte blanche in Asia and the Pacific.  Our only inherent opponent, AFAIK, is the drug cartels, which are about a lot more than drugs at this point.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 05, 2016, 11:57:01 AM
No, it doesn't answer my question.  You are not a head of state to my knowledge, so AFAIK no one would be harmed if you disclosed a position.

I did disclose a position. My position is that the question is designed to make Russia look bad by suggesting they have to be stopped and asking what the line is. I reject this proposition and therefore the question is answered, just not the way you wanted.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 05, 2016, 02:21:49 PM
Quote
I did disclose a position. My position is that the question is designed to make Russia look bad by suggesting they have to be stopped and asking what the line is

I meant a position on Russia. I really do not care what your position about my motives is. If I want to be psychoanalyzed, I will go to a shrink. You disappoint me.

I hope you are just in a bad mood, and that you reengage when you read my question intelligently.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on February 05, 2016, 02:35:24 PM
LOL.  Someday, Pete, maybe you'll stop insulting people in the hopes that they'll make it easier for you to win arguments.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 05, 2016, 02:46:46 PM
I'm not trying to win an argument.  Fenring had a valid point, and I was interested in how far he extends it.  In response to my genuine question of interest, he accused me of bad faith.  I don't think that telling him that he's misunderstood me and that I genuinely want to understand his position, constitutes "insulting" him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 05, 2016, 03:56:05 PM
Fenring had a valid point, and I was interested in how far he extends it.  In response to my genuine question of interest, he accused me of bad faith.

I accused you of no such thing. I said the question was designed to make Russia look bad, but I didn't say that you designed the question. Indeed, I believe you are merely echoing a point that has been fed by media expressly for this purpose, and therefore while I would suggest those who propagated it initially acted in bad faith, in your case I would only suppose that you've been exposed to repeated instances of the same bad information and believed it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 05, 2016, 04:11:28 PM
OK.  I can understand why you might think that.

What I meant, restating to avoid that misunderstanding, is ... what hypothetical events would cause you to re-evaluate your position?

Or

Are there any circumstances under which you think that we should be ready to risk conventional warfare with a nuclear superpower?

I don't mean a line in the sand where you openly challenge the opponent to cross it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 05, 2016, 04:18:17 PM
Are there any circumstances under which you think that we should be ready to risk conventional warfare with a nuclear superpower?

I doubt many people have a clear answer to this. I sure don't. I bet the Joint Chiefs each have their opinion on the subject and no doubt countless contingency plans are on the books for such a scenario. But as a matter of policy there is no clear way to make this determination; hence the Cold War.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 05, 2016, 04:55:53 PM
Quote
Are there any circumstances under which you think that we should be ready to risk conventional warfare with a nuclear superpower?
I expect there are plenty.  It depends on how rational and how big a factor self preservation factors into their government.  I think we could go so far as to have our planes supporting combat for another country's army in that country against Russian targets and not have the fact they are a nuclear power factor in.  Now the same can't be said for say, N. Korea where we think they may use them.

M.A.D. stopped everyone from thinking they could WIN.  I don't believe it makes everyone afraid to pursue their goals which stop short of threatening the existence of the other world power.  That said, I don't THINK Russia would attack an ally we are bound to defend.  Or if they did, they would back off as soon as we moved to do so with conventional forces.  A game of chicken maybe.  Now if it's a place where we have the desire to stop them but not the obligation to... things can get a lot messier.  I still don't think that warrants proclaiming WWIII could be just 1 bomb or tank shell away.

The "line" if it exists, are our borders and nowhere else when it comes to Russia.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 05, 2016, 05:19:36 PM
All of our borders? Or is losing Alaska OK?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 05, 2016, 06:41:09 PM
I suppose it it was strategically timed to coincide with something impressive by Palin it could be on the table... but typically, even Alaska.  :)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 12:04:38 AM
Are there any circumstances under which you think that we should be ready to risk conventional warfare with a nuclear superpower?

I doubt many people have a clear answer to this. I sure don't. I bet the Joint Chiefs each have their opinion on the subject and no doubt countless contingency plans are on the books for such a scenario. But as a matter of policy there is no clear way to make this determination; hence the Cold War.

If we have no intent to do anything short of inconveniencing Putin's little green men as they stomp over the Baltics, then we should probably let them know, so they don't get themselves killed while they think we have their back.

MAD and the Cold War only worked because we convinced the Russians we were willing to engage.  Do you disagree?  If not, then what resistance could we offer to at least pretend like we're willing to fight?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 06, 2016, 12:52:40 AM
Putin's little green men as they stomp over the Baltics

You are again arguing a point based on a premise I've already rejected as spurious. If you believe it that's fine, but obviously I can't respond to a point based on a premise I think it illusory.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 10:31:05 AM
Putin's little green men as they stomp over the Baltics


You are again arguing a point based on a premise I've already rejected as spurious. If you believe it that's fine, but obviously I can't respond to a point based on a premise I think it illusory.
I did not realize they you rejected that specifically.

So you reject that we should even think about how to deter Russia from doing in the Baltic's what they did in Ukraine?  I thought you recognized we were back to the cold war.  We didn't survive the cold war by trusting the Russians and failing to prepare for contingencies.

The noises Putin is making about the Baltics resembles those he made re ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35456535

Interesting footnote that Russia is simulation-trying attacks on Stockholm, and probing Swedish defended to the point that more than half the country is wanting to join NATO.  What's that, preparation against imminent Swedish aggression?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 06, 2016, 04:11:33 PM
Didn't I just say a few posts back that I reject the notion that the Soviet Union is back? How did you conclude the opposite?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 04:15:11 PM
When did I say you said the Soviet Union is back? 

You reference COLD WAR. and Putin has spoken publicly about wishing to reclaim USSR-like spheres of control.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 04:21:21 PM
Are there any circumstances under which you think that we should be ready to risk conventional warfare with a nuclear superpower?

I doubt many people have a clear answer to this. I sure don't. I bet the Joint Chiefs each have their opinion on the subject and no doubt countless contingency plans are on the books for such a scenario. But as a matter of policy there is no clear way to make this determination; hence the Cold War.[/I,]
Italics added.
Isn't that you saying we are in a cold war with Russia?

Not trying to trap you.  Must understand.

I DON'T ,have a firm idea on how to handle Russia and tend to like your reasoning on other topics.  You seem to have given it more thought than I have, so I wanted to pick your brain.  Sci-fi seems to think I have insulted you, and if I did, I apologize: it wasn't my intent.  I think you would know it if I insulted you, as my insults hit hard.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 06, 2016, 05:04:27 PM
I'm not insulted. Since the Soviet Union isn't literally back, when people speak of it being back they are merely referencing a Cold War mentality, on one side or the other. When I say the Joint Chiefs have contingency plans I mean by this that they must prepare for the event of Russia becoming aggressive, which isn't the same as saying that Russia is actually being aggressive or intends to go in that direction. I don't think Putin intends to invade anywhere, but he does intend to increase Russia's prominence in the Mid-East and EU economic sphere.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Greg Davidson on February 06, 2016, 10:40:27 PM
Christie looks like he would be the Republicans' best candidate to campaign as Vice President 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on February 07, 2016, 04:22:28 AM
I'm wondering what Senator Cruz offered him to launch that attack on Senator Rubio.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 07, 2016, 05:26:33 AM
In reading the post-GOP-debate coverage three of the candidates weren't mentioned, Fiorina, Gilmore and Carson.  Its only a slight exaggeration in Carson's case, as he was there but his biggest contributions were to miss his entrance and to complain about Cruz's dirty campaign trick (http://fortune.com/2016/02/07/ted-cruz-hides-truth-with-debate-claim-about-ben-carson-report/), which Cruz (dishonestly) wriggled out of by blaming CNN.  Even The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/heres-how-the-ted-cruz-ben-carson-dirty-tricks-scandal-will-play-out/) is on Cruz's case about that, partly because Cruz twisted information he got from the devil CNN, patriarch and scion of the liberal media.  They have a good line about Cruz, that the most unlikable candidate just became less likable.

The whittling continues, since with all the candidates having pretty consistent policy positions the only thing they can do to stand out is to lower everyone else's standing.  Winning by being the least worst person (not candidate) seems to be the main Republican campaign strategy this year.  What's unclear is whether it is worse to be attacked or ignored.  Bush wasn't diminished by the others, only by his lack of enough weight to draw attention and criticism to himself.

The winner, if it can be called that, was Kasich.  If Rubio stumbles because of the debate, Kasich will draw some of the interest and votes from him.  Like I said, they all want to gut the same programs and vilify the same ethnic and religious groups, so it's a personality contest to see who can promise to do those things while being more appealing than anybody else.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 11:19:15 AM
Al's remarks about vilifying ethnic and religious groups should be remembered in this context: he argues that the first Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting immigration laws discriminating against ISIS'. religious supporters. And he declares that it's "unknowable" whether Hitler was a sincere, devout "Christian."
     
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 07, 2016, 02:01:18 PM
Al's remarks about vilifying ethnic and religious groups should be remembered in this context: he argues that the first Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting immigration laws discriminating against ISIS'. religious supporters. And he declares that it's "unknowable" whether Hitler was a sincere, devout "Christian."
     
There you go again.  Find where I said that bolded view.  You won't be able to, so start working on your apology while you're looking.  As for Hitler, show that I'm wrong by defining what a Christian is and why you know that Hitler was not, rather than choosing one set of his words over another.  I want to be clear (I've tried many times and failed, but I'll try yet again) that I don't care whether Hitler was or wasn't a Christian.  The horror of his policies and actions make him evil, no matter what you claim or he believed his beliefs to be.  I'm arguing with you about your absolute authority to make those kinds of judgments about others, which you frequently, flagrantly and often wrongly make about lots of people whom you choose to oppose.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 08:35:24 PM
Al,
On the trump immigration thread, I said trump was wrong, but that it would be constitutional and advisable to as far as possible, screen and prevent entry of anyone who believed that DHAESH is Allah's legitimate Califate. You and others said no, quite strongly, on the basis of religious discrimination. You said they could not be excluded for anything short of "action" (although I reckon you'd take intent to act.).  I argued that mere religious support for ISIS should suffice.  If they tell anyone that DHAESH is the Caliphate they are effectively recruiting for ISIS.   At least one jihadi was so proselytizing openly in the UK before going back and executing people on YouTube for DHAESH.

the constitution is not a suicide pact.  When an organized religion declares war on America, Congress can and should close the borders to all sect members.

You stated your disagreement repeatedly.  If you don't recognize the above as your assertion, then perhaps you were reading me through FOX lenses and telling yourself that you were arguing with Trump or some such.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 09:28:03 AM
As part of the "and others", I will point out my objection was only that it was pointless.  I think they would just lie.  I also think that those who held no animosity towards us would be needlessly insulted.  I thought it was a bad idea, not that it was unconstitutional or illegal. 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 08, 2016, 10:41:49 AM
Al,
On the trump immigration thread, I said trump was wrong, but that it would be constitutional and advisable to as far as possible, screen and prevent entry of anyone who believed that DHAESH is Allah's legitimate Califate. You and others said no, quite strongly, on the basis of religious discrimination.
No, you said that it was okay to discriminate based on religion because that would be the only way to filter out people who believed that, and others objecting saying that religious discrimination was not okay, however filtering based support for ISIS/Daesh was fine, because that's support for an antagonistic state a clear indicator of an intent to do harm without any regard to their religion at all.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 08, 2016, 04:38:58 PM
For those Doubting Thomases here who questioned my use of the term "World War III Party" (in reference to any candidate claiming they would take on Russia in Syria, set up a no-fly zone, or punch Russia in the nose), here's John Kerry to the rescue:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/opposition-blame-syrian-bombing-kerry-tells-aid-workers-1808021537

Quote
Two Syrian aid workers said they approached Kerry at a donor conference drinks reception and told him that he had not done enough to protect Syrian civilians. He then said they should blame the opposition.

"He said that basically, it was the opposition that didn’t want to negotiate and didn’t want a ceasefire, and they walked away,” the second of the aid workers told MEE in a separate conversation and also on the basis of anonymity.

“‘What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?’” the aid worker said Kerry told her.

Both aid workers said Kerry told them that he anticipated three months of bombing during which time “the opposition will be decimated”.

The article isn't great but the MSM isn't really reporting on this. Basically Kerry is saying exactly the same thing I've been saying here, which is that anyone claiming they would force Russia to stop flying planes in Syria or would otherwise oppose Russian exploits against rebels is saying little more than they'd go to war with Russia over a regime change policy in Syria. For those who still don't think war with Russia means WWIII necessarily, go ahead and take your chances and try it out :p
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 04:56:36 PM
Have you forgotten the cold war?  We send in arms and little blue men to shoot down Soviet Russian planes. That's how we'be done it since the 1950s, neh?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 08, 2016, 05:43:02 PM
No, you said that it was okay to discriminate based on religion...
Or for those who could read, Pete said that it wasn't unconstitutional to discriminate based on religion in this context.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 08, 2016, 07:15:52 PM
No, you said that it was okay to discriminate based on religion...
Or for those who could read, Pete said that it wasn't unconstitutional to discriminate based on religion in this context.
Which it is. That does not contradict anything I said. The points taht are being discriminated on in that filtering are political and intent based, with no bearing on religion.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2016, 10:57:52 AM
It directly contradicts your statement that Pete said it was okay.  He said it was Constitutional to discriminate on that basis in this circumstance.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 09, 2016, 01:31:40 PM
It directly contradicts your statement that Pete said it was okay.  He said it was Constitutional to discriminate on that basis in this circumstance.
Does it contradict or not? He said it was okay to discriminate on a religious basis, not on the secular basis of political alignment or intent to do harm. The entire focus of the argument was his insistence that religion was an acceptable basis to filter for those attitudes. It was the point of the people arguing against him taht those elements could be watched for _without_ any reference to religion at all.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 09, 2016, 02:05:57 PM
I'm beginning to like Cruz for the GOP nomination.  Trump is so outlandish and absurd, but he pays it back by being entertaining.  In this new unenlightened age, there is no longer a line between entertainment value and information value.  I think he would be pretty harmless if he were in office, which is clearly less good than being effective, but better than evil, which Cruz is.

Let's see, the Cruz scorecard for the past week or so is:

* Sent out deceptive mailings telling people that they were in violation of a non-existent law for a phony claim about their voting history, and that they should caucus for him.  No apology forthcoming, politics as usual.
* Opened his post-caucus victory rally by saying "Glory be to God".  Shameless huckstering.  Says any candidate who doesn't begin each day with those words isn't fit to be President.
* Told his supporters that Carson was dropping out, and that they should caucus for him instead.  Phony apology offered that blames a news outlet for the mistake, but they never said what he claimed.
* Sent a mailer to NH residents promising that any donation they make to him will be matched by a "group of generous donors (http://americablog.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-launches-probably-illegal-direct-mail-fundraising-scam.html)".  This was knowingly deceptive, impossible to be true and very likely illegal.
* Said that if elected, he would abolish the IRS and institute a universal 10% VAT.  Guess who that hurts the most.

I want him to be the nominee, because if a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, a can of cat food could beat him by a landslide in the election.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2016, 02:06:57 PM
Now you're just being sad.  Are you really tripling down on not understanding the simple conceptual difference between "okay" and "unconstitutional"?  It's impossible to communicate with people who don't understand even simple words.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 09, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Now you're just being sad.  Are you really tripling down on not understanding the simple conceptual difference between "okay" and "unconstitutional"?  It's impossible to communicate with people who don't understand even simple words.
Ah, so you have no actual point here, you're just engaging in a pedantic nitpick of loose phrasing in a specific context about constitutionality to inject a tangential moralistic interpretation?

"Okay" does not necessarily mean "Constitutional" however when specifically and directly being used as the complement to "Unconstitutional" that's the best contextual reading of meaning.

The debate was Pete arguing that it was _constitutional_ to discriminate based on religion for immigration and everyone else point out that it was not, and that the factors the he actually wanted to filter for were completely orthogonal to religion.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 09, 2016, 03:30:56 PM
I don’t understand why, as seen from the outside looking in on American politics, Trump could have the support he has.
I find it disturbing on many levels and to be candid horrifically scary.

And if this statement: “there is no longer a line between entertainment value and information value” is accurate… how can that be acceptable on any level especially when it comes to selecting a leader.

During interviews of the more articulate Trump supporter I continue to hear excuses for Trump.
Just because the things Trumps says can be taken as racist he is not a racist
Just because his actions towards woman are experienced by woman as misogynist he is not a misogynist.
Just because his communication stile is based on aggressive bullying he is not a bully.
Just because his nationalism rhetoric comes off as Fascist he is not a Fascist

If it looks like *censored*, smells like *censored* and tastes like *censored*... why the hell do some many people still want to step and play in it. 


Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2016, 03:43:15 PM
Now you're just being sad.  Are you really tripling down on not understanding the simple conceptual difference between "okay" and "unconstitutional"?  It's impossible to communicate with people who don't understand even simple words.
Ah, so you have no actual point here, you're just engaging in a pedantic nitpick of loose phrasing in a specific context about constitutionality to inject a tangential moralistic interpretation?
My actual point was that your premise was false, which leads to questioning of your interpretation.  After your responses, I'm changing my view to your premise was deliberately and manipulatively false and therefore your conclusions are highly suspect.
Quote
The debate was Pete arguing that it was _constitutional_ to discriminate based on religion for immigration and everyone else point out that it was not, and that the factors the he actually wanted to filter for were completely orthogonal to religion.
Actually, it was Pete, myself and others who pointed out that in that case discrimination on religion was constitutional, not everyone gave an opinion on whether it was necessary or a good idea.   It was you, who was completely incorrect about the actual facts or legality, and couldn't separate your opinions on how the situation should be resolved from the reality.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 03:53:08 PM
The constitution does not limit Congress from enacting any class based restrictions .  That doesn't mean it's right. What Trunp proposes re banning Muslim immigration is wrong and bad policy, but not actually unconstitutional.

Now restricting DHAESH's religious followers from immigrationis FAR more specific than Trump's lame proposal.  Narrowly tailored for a national survival purpose. So even if the first Amendment had any effect on immigration rules (it does not!) The narrow restriction I suggested would still be constitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
Now you're just being sad.  Are you really tripling down on not understanding the simple conceptual difference between "okay" and "unconstitutional"?  It's impossible to communicate with people who don't understand even simple words.
Ah, so you have no actual point here, you're just engaging in a pedantic nitpick of loose phrasing in a specific context about constitutionality to inject a tangential moralistic interpretation?
My actual point was that your premise was false, which leads to questioning of your interpretation.  After your responses, I'm changing my view to your premise was deliberately and manipulatively false and therefore your conclusions are highly suspect.
Quote
The debate was Pete arguing that it was _constitutional_ to discriminate based on religion for immigration and everyone else point out that it was not, and that the factors the he actually wanted to filter for were completely orthogonal to religion.
Actually, it was Pete, myself and others who pointed out that in that case discrimination on religion was constitutional, not everyone gave an opinion on whether it was necessary or a good idea.   It was you, who was completely incorrect about the actual facts or legality, and couldn't separate your opinions on how the situation should be resolved from the reality.


Agreed with Seriati about the previous discussion with Pyr.

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 09, 2016, 06:06:14 PM
Quote
I find it disturbing on many levels and to be candid horrifically scary.
Don't mistake my sad and irritable sardonic humor for real support.  There may (or may not) be hope for us yet, but we have to somehow find our footing in this boggy fen we call the political process.  Don't cry for us, Canada, we'll figure a way out...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 09, 2016, 06:59:18 PM
Quote
What Trunp proposes...
I wish that was his name, so people would have at least a tingle of discomfort talking about him.  On the Democratic side, we could talk about Clibton or Sarnderls.  Rubot, Florida, Cludge, Christial and Butch don't clite quut it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 08:53:37 PM
I don’t understand why, as seen from the outside looking in on American politics, Trump could have the support he has.
I find it disturbing on many levels and to be candid horrifically scary.

And if this statement: “there is no longer a line between entertainment value and information value” is accurate… how can that be acceptable on any level especially when it comes to selecting a leader.

During interviews of the more articulate Trump supporter I continue to hear excuses for Trump.
Just because the things Trumps says can be taken as racist he is not a racist
Just because his actions towards woman are experienced by woman as misogynist he is not a misogynist.
Just because his communication stile is based on aggressive bullying he is not a bully.
Just because his nationalism rhetoric comes off as Fascist he is not a Fascist

If it looks like *censored*, smells like *censored* and tastes like *censored*... why the hell do some many people still want to step and play in it.

As one who walked around it and gave it wide berth, I have to wonder why some of you worry about stepping in it after you keep tasting it and rolling in it?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 10, 2016, 06:00:12 AM
Not that it means anything, but Trump won the NH primary handily.  More important is what happened down below.  At this point Fiorina, Carson, Christie, Gilmore (!) and other (1.7%) should all drop out.  That would leave Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Bush and Rubio, which is still too many to make sense of.  It doesn't look like any of them will carry enough delegates to the convention to win on the first ballot, which means that any of them -- or none of them -- will be the nominee.  I only know that if it's one of them I will have predicted their victory (except for Kasich) at one time or another.  That puts me in the same league as the professional pollsters and pundits, the difference being that I don't get paid the big bucks for swiveling my chair and pointing hopefully at every candidate who wanders by.  Lordy, what a time we live in.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 10, 2016, 10:17:44 AM
Americans ought to be ashamed that a man like Trump could even be in the running
Shame
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 10, 2016, 10:23:50 AM
Straw man candidates have been a part of elections as far back as the Roman Republic.  I'm just embarrassed he's winning.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 10, 2016, 10:48:10 AM
A lot of us are rightleft, a lot of us are.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 10, 2016, 11:46:50 AM
I'm even more ashamed (and afraid) of Cruz.  He would be like a Baptist Pope and we would all be his flock.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 10, 2016, 12:46:30 PM
All I know about him is that you compare me to him, and given the precedent, you must think I would hate him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on February 10, 2016, 01:18:46 PM
I still gotta ask, what's with Jim Gilmore?

He received fewer votes yesterday than Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.  Isn't there a message in there somewhere?  ;)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 10, 2016, 02:01:43 PM
Right, getting beat by "other" has got to eat at him, wherever he is. Somebody should tell him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 10, 2016, 05:28:11 PM
Actually, it was Pete, myself and others who pointed out that in that case discrimination on religion was constitutional, not everyone gave an opinion on whether it was necessary or a good idea.
Exactly. Pete was arguing that it was constitutional. Which is, again, what I said above.

The people arguing against him were point out that it's not, and that the things that he actually wanted to filter for had nothing to do with religion in the first place, so a direct violation of freedom of religion was not necessary to try to filter for them.

So, again, we're back at you not contradicting what I said in any way.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 10, 2016, 06:40:17 PM
That's cool.  You've given me a number of nice surprises today.  Will try to dial back vitriol and sarcasm.  Glad to have some common ground in reality and morality. I can work with that.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 07:37:46 AM
From different radio discussions and online articles in recent days I've decided how the battle for the GOP nomination will be waged through the primaries and into the convention.  Some people have reflected on the 2012 campaign and concluded that Romney got the nod because he was the only Establishment candidate vying for the title.  In order to oppose him there needed to be a single anti-Establishment contender, which meant that all the nuts had to go the Darwin route and only one would ultimately survive.  So you had Santorum, Huckabee, Bachmann and my personal favorite, Herman (999 anyone?  "How about Secretary of Defense?") Cain on the far fringes of reality where it meets fantasy hurling thunderbolts at each other.  We know how that turned out, where Romney prevailed and miraculously received 47% of the popular vote in the general election.  47...47...where have I heard that number?

Now we have a similar division among the candidates.  In lane one the Establishment pits Bush, Rubio and Kasich to try to turn each other into mulch. I'd say that's going pretty well, though Kasich hasn't been a target of the others' attentions up to this point.  That will change.

In lane two, the non-Establishment food fight pits (pun) the outlandish Ted Cruz against the fictional candidates, Carson and the crowd-fave Trump.  It's like watching a 3-way fight among people hallucinating, two on PCP and one on quaaludes.  It's not a fair fight, as that third guy fell asleep in the entryway to his last appearance and hasn't woken up yet.  The others pour napalm on each other and even on the audience, which nevertheless cheers even louder when they're getting burned by them (another pun alert).

In the end, there can be only two.  Like the pollsters and pundits, I've already said who they will be many times.  Let me say that again: many times.  Then, maybe then, their fans will see just how hard reality bites.

Are we having pun yet?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 11, 2016, 10:52:32 AM
Ted Cruz is non establishment? (Taking notes)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on February 11, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Oh, yeah, Cruz is non-establishment.  It's a toss-up whether the Democrats or Republicans hate him more.  ;D  Apparently because he paints every Republican as "a corrupt phony and himself as the only honest man."

Just check out this analysis of the introduction to his autobiography. (http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10846212/ted-cruz-republicans-hate)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 11:46:52 AM
Ted Cruz is non establishment? (Taking notes)
I was going by his own self-assessment, and Wayward got the goods.  The man is truly inspiring.  Has anyone noticed how much he looks and sounds like ol' Joe McCarthy?  OTOH, Trump's demeanor as a florid flamboyant fraud reminds me of the little flower, Fiorello.  It's not a negative to be alliterated in politics.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 11, 2016, 11:52:15 AM
".  Has anyone noticed how much he looks and sounds like ol' Joe McCarthy"

Is anyone else that old?  ;) just glad you didn't stack him up against your memory of Nero :p
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 11, 2016, 11:56:00 AM
Oh, yeah, Cruz is non-establishment.  It's a toss-up whether the Democrats or Republicans hate him more.  ;D  Apparently because he paints every Republican as "a corrupt phony and himself as the only honest man."

So does preferring kasich and fiorina in the GOP debates and Sanders in the dems make me establishment, anti, or establishment-agnostic


Just check out this analysis of the introduction to his autobiography. (http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10846212/ted-cruz-republicans-hate)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 12:01:28 PM
I'm not that old, either.  My memory stops at Howdy Doody and Mighty Mouse.  But watching clips of McCarthy literally gives me the shivers.  My family has lots of stories where as Jews they were treated and mistreated with the same kind of contempt and suspicion as he doled out.  Cruz gives me the creeps in the same way, because I am a l-l-l-lib...I can't bring myself to say it right after muttering his name.
Quote
So does preferring kasich and fiorina in the GOP debates and Sanders in the dems make me establishment, anti, or establishment-agnostic
Kasich is not the moderate we've been led to believe.  It makes you dyspolitical to dream about them and me dyspneatic to even think about them.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 11, 2016, 12:07:03 PM
I wouldn't accuse Lasing of moderation either.  Just offering more so than trump, Cruz, Rubik, or Carson. Any disagreements?

(By Trump I mean his present political persona. I have no position on if or what a real Trump.  Perhaps the blue fairy never turned him into a real boy.)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 12:08:10 PM
In some ways Kasich is the least worst of the remaining candidates, though the same could be said about the others.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 05:17:43 PM
Cruz's wife in South Carolina:
Quote
We are at a cultural crossroads in our country, and if we can be in this race to show this country the face of the God that we serve — this Christian God that we serve is the foundation of our country, our country was built on Judeo-Christian values, we are a nation of freedom of religion, but the God of Christianity is the God of freedom, of individual liberty, of choice and of consequence.
...
I think that’s something that this country really needs to be reminded of, is that Christians are loving people, are nonjudgmental people, but there is right and wrong, we have a country of law and order, there are consequences to actions and we must all live peaceably in our own faiths under the Constitution. And Ted is uniquely able to deliver on that combination of the law and religion.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 11, 2016, 05:31:07 PM
Actually, it was Pete, myself and others who pointed out that in that case discrimination on religion was constitutional, not everyone gave an opinion on whether it was necessary or a good idea.
Exactly. Pete was arguing that it was constitutional. Which is, again, what I said above.
I went back and looked at what you said very closely, you're engaging in a bit of a gas lighting.  You completely mischaracterized the argument from the previous thread repeatedly.  No one actually argued that there were not other basis on which one could filter immigrants for views that are contrary to our way of life.  You were however, wrong then and wrong in your repeated assertions here that it's a violation of the freedom of religion to discriminate in that context on the basis of religion.
Quote
The people arguing against him were point out that it's not, and that the things that he actually wanted to filter for had nothing to do with religion in the first place, so a direct violation of freedom of religion was not necessary to try to filter for them.
That's it not what?  Constitutional?  False.  A good idea?   Opinion.  Consistent with our principals?  Probably.  Something as nebulous as "okay"?  No real answer.   
Quote
So, again, we're back at you not contradicting what I said in any way.
Glad to hear that you agree that I've accurately stated your errors on the prior thread.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 11, 2016, 06:33:18 PM
Cruz's wife in South Carolina:
Quote
We are at a cultural crossroads in our country, and if we can be in this race to show this country the face of the God that we serve — this Christian God that we serve is the foundation of our country, our country was built on Judeo-Christian values, we are a nation of freedom of religion, but the God of Christianity is the God of freedom, of individual liberty, of choice and of consequence.
...
I think that’s something that this country really needs to be reminded of, is that Christians are loving people, are nonjudgmental people, but there is right and wrong, we have a country of law and order, there are consequences to actions and we must all live peaceably in our own faiths under the Constitution. And Ted is uniquely able to deliver on that combination of the law and religion.

I hope you were just *censored*ting me when you compared.me to this guy.  Closest I get to that is citing Mark 12:17 for "thank Jesus for the separation of church and state.".
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 06:45:18 PM
Mostly.  The moment has passed.  You're not a bad person and you have far more conscience than any of these evil imps.  It's just sometimes a mood passes over you that then rages over us.  I might mention that if I feel it happen again, but I'll try not to hit back as hard as I have been.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 11, 2016, 06:51:32 PM
I appreciate that, Al.  I think I have, with the patient help of sci-fi and others, identified some of the unfunny and unnecessarily outrageous things I say that invite quarrel.   Will try to behave.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 11, 2016, 06:56:14 PM
Quote
Cruz gives me the creeps in the same way, because I am a l-l-l-lib...I can't bring myself to say it right after muttering his name.

Cruz is deep in the evangelical camp, whether for mere expediency or for true belief I cannot say. He's nowhere near the creepiest of the evangelicals we've seen in this process over the years (Bachman has to win that contest) but all evangelicals are creepy from where I sit. These guys not only believe the world is going to end and everybody who doesn't buy their specific brand of Christ is going to roast in the fires of hell (certainly down to the older toddlers, although maybe not the babies to be fair) but gleefully hopes for and welcomes that day.

The only reason I don't pay them much heed, to be honest, is because I see them as a spent force in American politics, one that has lost every major battle they have waged for the past 50 years.

But getting back to Cruz, I don't know quite what to think about him. Reputedly he was a master debater and even once debated Canada's current Prime Minister (and I'm sure made short work of that lightweight). He sounds from reputation like he might have been an uber policy nerd and political wonk out of his mother's womb, and consequently didn't win too many friends. Indeed, his colleagues in the Senate seem to loathe him almost universally. In an interview with John McCain, the point was made that Cruz was all too happy to throw his colleagues under a bus to prop up his own ambitions and they didn't appreciate it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 07:04:54 PM
It's interesting that the GOP can unite the disparate vectors of political thought here on Ornery ;).  But what we do with moving along in-step on this is unclear.  Maybe we just have a Texas line dance...

FWIW, if you don't remember, Bachmann actually was happy with Obama for the most special of all possible reasons.  She's convinced that he is accelerating the rush to the End Times.  May she be raptured!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 20, 2016, 12:50:28 PM
An interesting view from across the pond:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35521558

Quote
John Kasich is the very popular conservative governor of Ohio, a not-very-conservative state.
Ohio is a microcosm of American conflicts - labour v management, nativists v immigrants, blacks v whites, Occupy Cincinnati v the 1%. They all hate each other, but they don't hate John.
Kasich beat an incumbent Democratic governor and was re-elected by a landslide. Before that he served nine terms shovelling important manure in the Augean stables of the House of Representatives - 18 years on the House Armed Services Committee and six years as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
No wonder he's so far behind. Republicans are in no damn mood for competent, experienced politicians with broad popular appeal.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Mynnion on February 20, 2016, 01:05:05 PM
Kasich would be my choice if I was voting Republican this election.  I probably won't be but only because I believe the conservatives have controlled the Supreme Court for too long.  I like balance but in my opinion that balance needs to be shifted a little left.  I currently have a 100% record of voting for the next president (and I'm not that young).  I am not choosing until after the primaries.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 20, 2016, 09:55:21 PM
So now Bush is out, leaving Kasich as the most establishment blessed GOP candidate with Rubio ahead in the tally so far, but seen as faltering. At this point Kasich is a hail Mary long shot,  but he's all they've got going forward unless they draft someone not in the race today at the convention.  I have to ask why they can't field even one quality candidate and haven't since 2008, if not all the way back to Bush I.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 21, 2016, 10:38:49 AM
Quote
I have to ask why they can't field even one quality candidate and haven't since 2008, if not all the way back to Bush I.

What's wrong with Rubio? He seems respectable enough and from what I've read, he is still a serious contender.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 21, 2016, 11:34:16 AM
Other than his extreme and shifting positions as he does little but troll for votes,  not much.   What you think is right about him?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 23, 2016, 02:57:48 PM
A plausible theory holds that in a 3+ man race for the GOP (Trump, Cruz, Rubio [, Kasich, Carson]), Trump wins without ever getting more than 35% of the vote in any primary or caucus, because none of the others can get that much with the crowded field consistently due to their limited appeal.  OTOH, if all but one other drops out before March 1 (or at the outside March 15), then Trump is no longer the favorite, no matter who the other candidate would be.  Trump's problem is that his appeal is maxed out to a plurality of potential voters, who are overwhelmingly white, under-educated, rural and anti-government.  That's odd all by itself, since they would be voting for someone who might well be be the most autocratic ruler in the nation's history, if elected.

It won't be Carson or Kasich, who have limited organizations and no real presence in the field.  So it comes down to Carson and Kasich withdrawing because it's obvious that they can't win, giving back about 15% of the vote to the other candidates, but since Trump is maxed out, it would be split between Rubio and Cruz. One of them would then have to sacrifice himself for the good of the party.  The problem there is that they view each other with such deep suspicion and animosity that it's hard to imagine either of them would consider that, even if not doing it would sink the party for years to come.

So, as the wags have it, Trump will win the nomination and get slaughtered in the general by Clinton, Sanders or perhaps by a ham sandwich.  Doesn't matter to me which one beats him, as any of them would be better by a long shot.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: yossarian22c on February 23, 2016, 06:25:52 PM
I hate to think what a Cruz or Trump nomination would do to our standing in the world. 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 23, 2016, 07:00:05 PM
I don't think Rubio would be much better.  He's just a kid.  I have flashbacks to the movie "Big" whenever I think about him running the country.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on February 23, 2016, 07:38:17 PM
A trampoline in every pot.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 23, 2016, 10:08:35 PM
I don't laugh at Ornery posts often, but you got the better of me there :).
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 24, 2016, 10:59:23 AM
Interesting poll after the Nevada caucus says that the voters say that Rubio has a far greater chance of winning in November than Trump, and Cruz has almost no chance. I tend to agree.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 12:36:51 PM
Trump wins the Nevada Hispanic vote???

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35648058
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 12:54:55 PM
Some clever pimp, I'm betting Trump or Hillary, hired a porn start to go apply for Ted Cruz tele endorsements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/12/ted-cruz-porn-star_n_9218184.html
Quote
The Cruz campaign said Lindsay responded to an open casting call.

"Unfortunately, she was not vetted by the production company," campaign spokesman Rick Tyler said. "Had the campaign known of her full filmography, we obviously would not have let her appear in the ad."

Among Lindsay’s back catalogue are “Confessions of a Lap Dancer,” “Intimate Sessions.” “Silk Stalkings,” “Secrets of a Chambermaid” and the much underrated “MILF.” It’s all lightweight fare but enough to have Cruz and his team clutching for their pearls.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 24, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
Heard about this awhile back.  Are you speculating or did someone put her up to it? 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 01:00:54 PM
Do you think no one put her up to it?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 24, 2016, 01:45:47 PM
Yes, that's what I think.  I expect it was "just another gig" or it was her idea as a good joke.  This however seems less likely to me.  If you were against the message I doubt you would participate as a smear.

But... It is very possible.  That's why I asked.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 24, 2016, 03:01:48 PM
Ah, what could be better than the smell of conspiracy theories in the morning...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on February 24, 2016, 03:33:56 PM
I've seen some of her work. :p It's softcore stuff, and it seems pretty likely to me that she auditions for advertising gigs just for the money and career furtherment (wouldn't you want to do TV ads in her shoes?).  If this was meant to embarrass Cruz why not a hardcore porn actress?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 24, 2016, 05:07:24 PM
If this was meant to embarrass Cruz why not a hardcore porn actress?
He'd have recognized her right off the bat?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on February 24, 2016, 05:31:06 PM
Ha!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 10:46:06 PM
"(wouldn't you want to do TV ads in her shoes?)"

Ordinary TV ads, sure.  Ads for, say Hillary or Sanders, absolutely.  But serious ads for Ted Cruz?  How popular is he with the Hollywood crowd?  She's got to be either very stupid or very smart canny and risk-taking.

I've seen some of her work. :p It's softcore stuff, and it seems pretty likely to me that she auditions for advertising gigs just for the money and career furtherment (wouldn't you want to do TV ads in her shoes?).  If this was meant to embarrass Cruz why not a hardcore porn actress?

That's a convincing argument, scifi.  Assuming that you're right on the softcore stuff.  My own knowledge of porn actresses is limited to the cast of "Totally Busted."  I have a weakness for candid camera shows, and that one was too funny to pass up.  Even though the episode where they faked a nuthouse sex riot was over the top, probably placed the mark (an institution worker who thought he had a new job) into a lifetime of PTSD, and probably was what ended the show in the 4th season.

Al, you're technically right to call it a "conspiracy theory" but it's more in the nature of what we call a "prank."  And I've pulled bigger pranks in my own time.  Doesn't involve violence or fraud.  So you're being hysterical. 

Nevertheless, Scifi has me persuaded that my theory is unlikely given the facts SciFi has presented.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 10:54:48 PM
Yes, that's what I think.  I expect it was "just another gig" or it was her idea as a good joke.  This however seems less likely to me.  If you were against the message I doubt you would participate as a smear.

I knew a soft porn actress in law school.... mostly from arguing via email re SSM.  If Ted Cruz had been looking for actors in Las Vegas in 2008, I TOTALLY would have emailed her and suggested that she and her girlfriend apply as a smear on Cruz.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 09:18:28 AM
Quote
Al, you're technically right to call it a "conspiracy theory" but it's more in the nature of what we call a "prank."  And I've pulled bigger pranks in my own time.  Doesn't involve violence or fraud.  So you're being hysterical.

I know I'm very funny, but why a prank?  I assume she's an actress getting gigs where she can.  Maybe she's not so offended or jazzed by some of the "prurient" roles she's done in the past, but evangelical family values candidates can't afford to be seen hiring actors who have less than pious pasts to act in staged commercials expressing sincere support for them.  One wonders if the ad agency that produced the piece thought to ask the actors what they think about health care? If they use Obamacare THAT would be a bigger blunder than being a Porn Actress for Ted.

But hold on a sec.  Let's say that she once acted in soft porn movies but she SINCERELY supports Ted now.  Wouldn't that be a wonderful story of redemption?  Wouldn't that accrue to Ted's character as a beacon of faith that he drew her out of the darkness into his light?  How can he crush the heart of a sinner who comes to his bosom for succor?  Especially one with such a photogenic...face? 

What gives?  Is Ted not to be TrusTed (tm)?  Is he only pretending to be a beacon of light, hope, pure Christian faith and integrity?

Yes, I do find it hysterical.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 09:38:31 AM
Quote
Al, you're technically right to call it a "conspiracy theory" but it's more in the nature of what we call a "prank."  And I've pulled bigger pranks in my own time.  Doesn't involve violence or fraud.  So you're being hysterical.

I know I'm very funny, but why a prank?  I assume she's an actress getting gigs where she can.

Yes, that's probably what it was, based on what SciFi brought to light.

I thought it was a prank by the opposing party.  I thought you were reverting to your morbid hysteria when you described my prank theory as a "conspiracy theory."

You actually can be quite funny when you are lucid.  I really thought you'd turned a bend, and sorry to see you back in the loopy soup.

Since I do believe in redemption, and since that's a hope that's kept me from the brink of suicide and worse when I was in the gutter, the idea of a desperate person turning to Ted Cruz for redemption is less funny than painful.

I'd probably sympathize more with your jabs on Ted and on fundamentalist evangelicals and Jesus politics in general, if I didn't know from sad experience that these are nothing but a platform for you to vent your spleen on Christianity generally, and to smear Christians on this board.  You've even compared me to Cruz, which is kind of like Bubba saying that Mr. Sulu looks like Mao because Bubba can't tell one Asian from another.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 10:08:46 AM
Why is this a big issue for you guys?  I really don't see much inconsistent about a career in porn and having views that are otherwise conservative.  It's only moral conservatives that should have a problem (and not even all of them) with a current career, and with their views on redemption a past career in porn shouldn't even bother them.  It seem kind of anti-woman to associate this woman with "shame" and thereby to claim its a joke on Cruz or should somehow tarnish him, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 10:24:46 AM
Why is this a big issue for you guys?  I really don't see much inconsistent about a career in porn and having views that are otherwise conservative.  It's only moral conservatives that should have a problem (and not even all of them) with a current career, and with their views on redemption a past career in porn shouldn't even bother them

Am I mistaken in believing that Ted Cruz has cast himself as THE moral conservative of this election?

If she'd gone to work for Romney or McCain or Trump or almost any other Republican candidate, I'd never have so speculated.  It would have been no big deal.

Quote
It seem kind of anti-woman to associate this woman with "shame" and thereby to claim its a joke on Cruz or should somehow tarnish him, doesn't it?

The Cruz campaign dropped the ad, and it was by far the best Cruz ad out there.  She actually was quite convincing.  So I didn't come up with the idea that it tarnished him.  That was the opinion of his own campaign managers.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 10:41:38 AM
Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 10:43:41 AM
Quote
I'd probably sympathize more with your jabs on Ted and on fundamentalist evangelicals and Jesus politics in general, if I didn't know from sad experience that these are nothing but a platform for you to vent your spleen on Christianity generally, and to smear Christians on this board.  You've even compared me to Cruz, which is kind of like Bubba saying that Mr. Sulu looks like Mao because Bubba can't tell one Asian from another.
Apparently I offended you with some reference or comparison I made, so I apologize for that.  As for your continual jabs at me for "venting [my] spleen on Christianity", I'm well aware that you are hypersensitive about criticism of your faith or Christianity more generally.  For me Christianity is a specialization of belief and politics that is squarely within range for criticism. FWIW, I am also quite critical of Israeli defense of Judaism.  Every time I mention the self-avowed Christian connection of a mass shooter, dictator or terrorist you rush to the defense of Christianity and deny that that other person's connection is real.  You'll have to live with that kind of critique, especially as it happens so often.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 10:45:06 AM
Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?
When ironic things come packaged with such pious sanctimony, what else should one do?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 10:46:50 AM
Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?

Yes, but then I think my assumptions about Cruz are correct.  (OTOH I guess everyone thinks their assumptions are correct)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 11:06:16 AM
Quote
I'd probably sympathize more with your jabs on Ted and on fundamentalist evangelicals and Jesus politics in general, if I didn't know from sad experience that these are nothing but a platform for you to vent your spleen on Christianity generally, and to smear Christians on this board.  You've even compared me to Cruz, which is kind of like Bubba saying that Mr. Sulu looks like Mao because Bubba can't tell one Asian from another.
Apparently I offended you with some reference or comparison I made, so I apologize for that.  As for your continual jabs at me for "venting [my] spleen on Christianity", I'm well aware that you are hypersensitive about criticism of your faith or Christianity more generally.  For me Christianity is a specialization of belief and politics that is squarely within range for criticism. FWIW, I am also quite critical of Israeli defense of Judaism.  Every time I mention the self-avowed Christian connection of a mass shooter, dictator or terrorist you rush to the defense of Christianity and deny that that other person's connection is real.

That's only happened with three figures.  One dictator -- hitler (who taught followers that they had "no need for Jesus Christ"), one mass shooter -- the norwegian one, who insists that he is an atheist and not a believer in Jesus, and one Terrorist, a PLO dude who says that he renounced all believe in Christianity back in the 1960s.  So I don't think that it's "hypersensitive" to treat your identifications of these guys as "Christians" as something of a blood libel.

"FWIW, I am also quite critical of Israeli defense of Judaism."

Good for you, so long as your "criticism" doesn't reach the level of blood libel.  See, e.g., Torquemada.

There have been Christian dictators, e.g. Musollini, Franco, Peron.
There have been Christian mass shooters, e.g. Frank Silva Roque, the literal moron (IQ 80) who shot up a bunch of Sikhs because he thought they were Muslims. Ruled too stupid to execute.
There are even Christian terrorist groups, including the horrific KKK.

So if your point was that being Christian doesn't prevent one from being a terrorist, a mass shooter, or a dictator, you could have gone for any of those low hanging fruit, and remained an honest man.  Hitler has no more to do with Christianity than Torquemada and Mohammed (both born Jews) have to do with the religion of Judaism.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 11:39:19 AM
More Christian terrorists:

Paul Jennings Hill.  After a series of abortion clinic bombings, Hill went on to do the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. (the one that poor Paul Blart-like guy, Jewel? was railroaded for by the still unapologetic FBI).  There's some talk of him being connected to a broader Christian terrorist group called the Army of God.

Joseph Stack.  Suicide strike on the IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010, using 9/11 tactics on a small scale.

David Lane and Bruce Pierce.  Member of "The Order" terrorist group, who murdered journalist Alan Berg for speaking up against white supremacists.

That's not to mention all the abortion clinic bombers.

Christian terrorism is real, it's dangerous, and it's underreported.  It's also under-punished and under-recognized.  Journalists never call them "terrorists" and they seldom if ever get the death penalty.  If you need to go on anti-Christian screeds, put it to good use and use your time to bring to light the people who use the faith of my fathers to justify atrocities that would have made Jesus weep.

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 12:10:05 PM
As for my sensitivity. John the revelator places a religious obligation (in chapter 2 of John epistle I, aka. 1 John 2) on Christians to repudiate the identification of an Antichrist as a "Christian."    and all three of the men that you misidentified as Christians, fit John's definition of an Antichrist. 

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 01:53:41 PM
Obama and Nancy Pelosi, among other prominent Democrats fit many Conservative's definition.  Who gets to decide who is or isn't the Antichrist?  Leading while claiming Christ as your spiritual light doesn't disqualify you, nor does simply proclaiming your faith.  It's not a call you can make about yourself, but one that others who proclaim their own faith and believe themselves devout make about you that counts.  If you're not devout enough why should any claim you make be taken on faith?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 02:53:10 PM
Obama and Nancy Pelosi, among other prominent Democrats fit many Conservative's definition. 

You are not only wrong, but I don't believe you even understand what you just asserted.  Would you like me to explain?

Yes, there are dumb conservatives (not "many") that claim that Obama is "the antichrist" but that's not by the definition of an antichrist.    "The antichrist" is the traditional Bible illiterate moron's way of speaking of the figure known as "the Beast" in the book of Revelations, who, if you have read the book and have compared it at all to history, is a straightforward description of Emperor Nero.

That misuse of the term "the antichrist" is actually older than the bible itself, because in 1 John 2, John the beloved aka the Revelator said:

Quote from: 1 John chapter 2 of the New Pete Translation
Please don't listen to the jackasses that talk about "the antichrist." Because antichrists are a dime a dozen.  Don't confuse them with the Beast I wrote about in the Apocalypse.  Now pay attention.  An antichrist is anyone who claims to ever have been Christian, who denies that Jesus Christ actually returned to us in the flesh.

Quote from: New International Version
Beware of Antichrists
Warning about Antichrists

18Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come. 19These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.

20But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you his Spirit,e and all of you know the truth. 21So I am writing to you not because you don’t know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and lies. 22And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ.f Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.g 23Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. 25And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life he promised us.

26I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray

The warning about antichrists had zero to do with political leadership and everything to do with false spiritual leadership, aka apostasy.  (Hitler from this perspective was a false spiritual leader; the fact that he was a head of state has little to do with his being an antichrist).

Returning to your erroneous statement, I bet that you won't find more than one or two nimrods who believe that both Obama AND Pelosi are "antichrists" because such an assertion would deviate from standard fundamentalist stupidity even more than it deviates from actual Canon.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 02:56:36 PM
Who gets to decide who is or isn't the Antichrist? 

John the Beloved, who coined both the word "antichrists" and described the Beast of Revelations, the figure who illiterate morons of the last 2000 years have erroneously called "the antichrist."  Even though John SPECIFICALLY called them out on that error.

Quote
If you're not devout enough why should any claim you make be taken on faith?

Who said anything about faith?  Some statements are self-fulfilling.  For example, if I tell you "I am making a statement," that's inherently true, albeit circular.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on February 25, 2016, 02:59:58 PM
Quote
Returning to your erroneous statement, I bet that you won't find more than one or two nimrods who believe that both Obama AND Pelosi are "antichrists" because such an assertion would deviate from standard fundamentalist stupidity even more than it deviates from actual Canon.
The 'AND' might make it tricky. For just one or the other the trick would be identifying any sincere belief in the sea of brainlessly repeated slander (and what I continue to hope is massive amounts of astro-turfing in website comments).
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 03:04:52 PM
Well, John is a pretty good authority, but he's a bit out of date for today's sharp minds.  I guess there are different ways to answer the question.  Like everything else the term "antichrist" has been appropriated by lots of people who don't care whose beliefs they trample.  They may define the term differently than you or other religious types, but they want you to know that what they say speaks for you, as well.

Quote
There is rampant misinformation being spread around that makes unbiblical statements about the antichrist, attempting to create links with Barack Obama. One of the most common states that the antichrist will be a man of Muslim/Arab descent, in his 40s, and will rule for 42 months (close to the length of a U.S. presidency). The Bible nowhere says anything about the ethnicity, religion, or age of the antichrist. Further, Barack Obama vehemently denies accusations that he is a Muslim, and he is not of Arab descent. The “42 months” concept is taken from Revelation 13:5-8, but there is absolutely nothing to connect the 42 months with the 4-year (48 months) tenure of a U.S. President. Intentional misinformation like this is deceptive and counterproductive. It likely will, in fact, make it more difficult to recognize the true antichrist once he appears on the scene.

With the distractions and misinformation put aside, that still leaves the question—is Barack Obama the antichrist? First, let’s look at a few things that argue against Barack Obama being the antichrist. There is some debate among Bible prophecy experts as to the ethnicity of the antichrist. Some believe that the antichrist will be of Jewish descent, as he would have to be a Jew to claim to be the Messiah. Others believe that the antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire, most likely identified with modern-day Europe. Barack Obama is the son of a white, non-Jewish mother, and a black, non-Jewish, Kenyan father. He is neither Jewish or European (unless the United States is considered part of Europe in terms of Bible prophecy). Ethnically/racially speaking, Obama does not seem to match what the Bible says about the antichrist. Also, Barack Obama claims to be a Christian and claims to have faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. While anyone can make such claims, it seems highly unlikely that the antichrist would even claim/pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

Let’s look at a few items that the Bible ascribes to the antichrist that are similar to traits possessed by Barack Obama. Barack Obama is undeniably a charismatic, intelligent, determined, and revolutionary individual. Often, hundreds of thousands of people attend events when Obama speaks. Believing him to be a great leader is one thing; mass-hysteria and complete devotion are another thing entirely. Barack Obama seems to have the ability to lead and inspire millions of people. The antichrist, who will be the leader of a one-world governmental system in the end times, would have to also possess such traits. It will take just such a person to deceive the entire world in the end times (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The Bible prophesies that the antichrist will come to power peacefully (Revelation 6:2) and will rule the earth in a time of tremendous peace and prosperity, which will then be followed by the evil and devastation of the end times (Revelation chapters 6-19). Barack Obama’s message of world unity and peace is similar to what the Bible says about the beginning of antichrist’s reign. Further, Barack Obama seems to favor a “big government” approach to solving the world’s problems. While the end times’ one-world government is far beyond anything that Obama is proposing, his view of government does lead in that general direction.

Probably the most important factor in identifying the antichrist is the nation of Israel. The Bible teaches that the antichrist will create a 7-year peace covenant with the nation of Israel, but then break the covenant after 3.5 years (Daniel 9:27). The antichrist will then essentially attempt a second Holocaust, the annihilation of the nation of Israel and Jews around the world. Barack Obama has stated his strong support for the nation of Israel. Obama claims that he will come to Israel’s defense should it be attacked. At the same time, Barack Obama has made some unclear statements regarding his support of Israel. Obama has had relationships with individuals and groups that have anti-Semitic tendencies. This claim of support for Israel, contradicted by dubious statements and troubling relationships, does seem reminiscent of what the Bible says about the antichrist and the nation of Israel.

Here's another one claiming Obama *is* the antichrist with a purely political message:

Quote
According to a recently published report, the report states While a traditional political party may have a line that it won’t cross,the Tea Party has a stone-engraved set of principles, all of which are sacrosanct. This is not a political platform to be negotiated but a catechism with only a single answer. It is now a commonplace for Tea Party candidates to vow they won’t sacrifice an iota of their principles. In this light, shutting down the Government rather than bending on legislation becomes a moral imperative. While critics may decry such a tactic as “rule or ruin,” Tea Party brethren celebrate it, rather, as the act of a defiant Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple. For them, this is not demolition but reclamation, cleansing the sanctuary that has been profaned by liberals. They see themselves engaged in nothing less than a project of national salvation. The refusal to compromise is a watchword of their candidates who wear it as a badge of pride. This would seem disastrous in the give-and-take of politics but it is in keeping with sectarian religious doctrine. One doesn’t compromise on an article of faith.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
Quote
Returning to your erroneous statement, I bet that you won't find more than one or two nimrods who believe that both Obama AND Pelosi are "antichrists" because such an assertion would deviate from standard fundamentalist stupidity even more than it deviates from actual Canon.
The 'AND' might make it tricky. For just one or the other the trick would be identifying any sincere belief in the sea of brainlessly repeated slander (and what I continue to hope is massive amounts of astro-turfing in website comments).

Exactly.  According to the illiterate sister-*censored*ing definition of "the antichrist", you can't have two of them.  And according to John the evangelist/beloved/revelator, neither can at present be an antichrist since neither has denied that Christ is come in the flesh.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 03:10:02 PM
My nearly illiterate reading on the bible says that John 2:22 says you can identify the antichrist (http://biblehub.com/1_john/2-22.htm) this way, which is one of many translations the page lists:

Quote
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

That would include anyone who is not a Christian, right?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 03:47:53 PM
Well, John is a pretty good authority, but he's a bit out of date for today's sharp minds. 

Yes.  Gotta love those "bigger than Jesus" Christians.  If you abhor them, think how I must feel about their teachings, as a flawed but sincere believer in what He actually taught?

Quote
I guess there are different ways to answer the question.  Like everything else the term "antichrist" has been appropriated by lots of people who don't care whose beliefs they trample.  They may define the term differently than you or other religious types, but they want you to know that what they say speaks for you, as well.

You have to understand that when I quarrel with you over those terms, it's really with them I tangle with.  Just as moderate muslims who decry the antimuslim right's characterization of Islam, are really fighting against the fundamentalist bastards who say it's OK to *censored* a goat as long as you sell it to someone else and OK to *censored* a baby as long as you eat it afterwards. (/slight overstatement).  That's why I reject the FAUX news term "extreme islam" and use the term that moderate muslims have propounded, ie. ISLAMIST.

I would like to persuade you merely to give the same consideration to the Christian religion that I do to the Muslim religion.  Divide and conquer, man.  Neo-Christendomers can only be empowered when you cast him as Christianity central, just as Wahabeasts gain traction when anti-muslims describe wahabist trash as Islam 101.



Quote
There is rampant misinformation being spread around that makes unbiblical statements about the antichrist, attempting to create links with Barack Obama. One of the most common states that the antichrist will be a man of Muslim/Arab descent, in his 40s, and will rule for 42 months (close to the length of a U.S. presidency).

The 42 months refers to the Beast of Revelations persecution of Christians, not his reign.  Nero's persecution of Christians lasted 42 months.

Quote
The Bible nowhere says anything about the ethnicity, religion, or age of the antichrist.

Mostly true.  The Bible says that antichrists, plural, are former Christians, or persons who at least pretended to be Christian, but now assert that Christ did not come in the flesh.  Obama's made no such assertion.  HOWEVER, and more importantly, we must remember that when the illiterate literalists speak of "the antichrist" they actually mean the beast.  The Bible says that the beast's "number" is 666, which is what the Roman numerals in Nero's official name add up to. 

 
Quote
Further, Barack Obama vehemently denies accusations that he is a Muslim, and he is not of Arab descent.

Well-refuted.

Quote
The “42 months” concept is taken from Revelation 13:5-8, but there is absolutely nothing to connect the 42 months with the 4-year (48 months) tenure of a U.S. President. Intentional misinformation like this is deceptive and counterproductive. It likely will, in fact, make it more difficult to recognize the true antichrist once he appears on the scene.

It's possible that Nero was just a "type" for the beast, like Isaiah's "lucifer" references a Babylonian king as well as Satan.  In that case, you'd be right.

Quote
With the distractions and misinformation put aside, that still leaves the question—is Barack Obama the antichrist? First, let’s look at a few things that argue against Barack Obama being the antichrist. There is some debate among Bible prophecy experts as to the ethnicity of the antichrist.


That's an amusing and pointless endeavor, since first they've ignored prophesy by calling the beast "the antichrist", ignoring John's command that they not commit that specific blunder, and most ironically, they set themselves up to play 'herod/bavmorda' for an imaginary antichrist.  It's like a serial killer's wet dream, playing whack a mole against prophesy.

Quote
Some believe that the antichrist will be of Jewish descent, as he would have to be a Jew to claim to be the Messiah.
That's Fallwell's opinion.  Based on nothing other than racing to the bottom to the craziest possible extension of the misapplied word "anti-Christ." Fallwell's logic is like eating a pound of antipasta to cancel out the pound of pasta you just ate.


Quote
Others believe that the antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire, most likely identified with modern-day Europe.


Asuming you mean beast instead of antichrist, that's actually a lucid interpolation of scripture.  Well if Hitler magically comes back from the dead, that would be pretty clear evidence that he's the beast of Revelations. (who received a wound that all thought was fatal, and when he came back, all wondered at the power of the beast).  Since Naziism did proclaim itself a "reich" patterned after Rome.


Quote
Barack Obama is the son of a white, non-Jewish mother, and a black, non-Jewish, Kenyan father. He is neither Jewish or European (unless the United States is considered part of Europe in terms of Bible prophecy). Ethnically/racially speaking, Obama does not seem to match what the Bible says about the antichrist. Also, Barack Obama claims to be a Christian and claims to have faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. While anyone can make such claims, it seems highly unlikely that the antichrist would even claim/pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

All solid arguments assuming you mean the Beast.  OTOH, an antichrist, by John's own definition, is anyone who used to be or pretend to be Christian, who then denies that Christ is come in the flesh.  I don't think the Bible really rules out the Beast being a Christian.  I wouldn't bat an eye if Vladimir Putin ended up making Beast moves.  If he appoints a new Tsar of Russia, that might fit your description of a renewed Roman empire.  There are other things he is doing that set him up for that.  He's driving the refugee crisis through his manipulations in Syria, and setting himself up to position himself to be the savior of Europe from Islam in about 12 years.

Quote
Let’s look at a few items that the Bible ascribes to the antichrist that are similar to traits possessed by Barack Obama. Barack Obama is undeniably a charismatic, intelligent, determined, and revolutionary individual.


Quibble on revolutionary.  I'd skip that part in your argument, otherwise good.

Quote
Often, hundreds of thousands of people attend events when Obama speaks. Believing him to be a great leader is one thing; mass-hysteria and complete devotion are another thing entirely.

Not your best argument, since mass hysteria and complete devotion are subject to interpretation and opinion.  I don't think Obama has near as devoted a following as say Rush Limbaugh had in the early 1990s, but it's still enough to alarm and annoy.  Not alarm as in thinking he's the beast, of course.  Please realize that I'm not arguing with you so much as trying to strengthen your argument that Obama is neither an Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation, or the hybrid "the beast" propounded by folksy bible illiteralists.

Quote
Barack Obama seems to have the ability to lead and inspire millions of people. The antichrist, who will be the leader of a one-world governmental system in the end times, would have to also possess such traits.

Suggested rephrase:
Quote
while millions see Obama as an inspired leader, he also has millions of folks dedicated to opposing his every move, including more than half of Congress.  the Beast aka the Antichrist is described as leading a united world government, whereas Obama cannot even appoint a replacement for a dead Supreme Court justice.  John prophesied that many shall ask "who can oppose the power of the beast," while no one has to look very far to find dedicated and powerful people who oppose Mr. Obama's power.

Quote
It will take just such a person to deceive the entire world in the end times (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The Bible prophesies that the antichrist will come to power peacefully (Revelation 6:2) and will rule the earth in a time of tremendous peace and prosperity, which will then be followed by the evil and devastation of the end times (Revelation chapters 6-19).


YES!  That's a solid argument!  Ask them if they would characterize Obama's reign as a time of tremendous peace and prosperity.  Kick ass, dude.  Mind if I borrow that?

Quote
Probably the most important factor in identifying the antichrist is the nation of Israel. The Bible teaches that the antichrist will create a 7-year peace covenant with the nation of Israel
,


LOL.  Compared to Netanyahu, the Republicans have been positively cuddly and conciliatory to Obama.  The idea of Israel following Israel on a 7 year peace covenant seems pretty doubtful.
[/quote]


Need to run.  Will get back to this.  Funny that after all our tangles we share an agenda re interpretation of New Testament scripture.  Who'd have thunk it?  (and honestly I never thought of that odd Putin connection until you raised that Roman issue. What was your source on that?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
My nearly illiterate reading on the bible says that John 2:22 says you can identify the antichrist (http://biblehub.com/1_john/2-22.htm) this way, which is one of many translations the page lists:

Quote
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

That would include anyone who is not a Christian, right?

No, because later in the chapter John specifies that it only applies to people that we used to count among us.  So either Christians or folks from Christian families, or who used to identify as Christian.  And we don't go denouncing them as antichrists unless they are coming among Christians and promoting themselves as spiritual leaders.  My understanding is that John uses this dramatic term for no other reason than to make Christians remember who is not and cannot be their spiritual teachers.  The terror and dread of the word "antichrist" is something he never intended, and even denounces in 1 John 2.  It means nothing more or less than a specific type of Christian apostate.

Remember also that while Deuteronomy and the Koran stipulate death as a penalty for apostasty, there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to indicate that Christians should treat an antichrist or other apostate violently.  (although the book of Luke does have some disturbing stuff that could be interpreted as violence directed to church members that try to embezzle collective church money intended for the poor)

Anyway, I do know my bible, and I offer myself as a resource.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 04:03:44 PM
Not as an authority, but as one who can help you find stuff.

I do NOT mean to suggest you are a bible illiterate.  I recognize that you are simply trying to adress the fundamentalist illiteralist argument in their own words. I actually admire the depth of thought that you have given a foreign religion to adress this issue.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 05:54:33 PM
Al, check this out:

https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22obama+is+the+antichrist%22 (https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22obama+is+the+antichrist%22)145000 hits

Putin Antichrist (https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+Putin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) 12000 hits

Clinton antichrist (https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+Clinton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22Clinton+is+the+antichrist%22)

Barney Dinosaur antichrist (https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=barney+dinosaur+antichrist)

That's frightening!  Obama gets more hits as the Antichrist than Clinton, Putin, and Barney the Purple dinosaur combined!

Thankfully, 230000 odd hits suggest that a plurality of Christians recognize that the details of the "Beast" actually refer to the emperor Nero. https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Nero+antichrist

Note also the blessed small number that say it this way: (https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22Nero+is+the+beast%22)
14000.  That would be funnier if that number were 144,000 :)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 06:17:45 PM
Quote
Here's another one claiming Obama *is* the antichrist with a purely political message:

Quote

    According to a recently published report, the report states While a traditional political party may have a line that it won’t cross,the Tea Party has a stone-engraved set of principles, all of which are sacrosanct. This is not a political platform to be negotiated but a catechism with only a single answer. It is now a commonplace for Tea Party candidates to vow they won’t sacrifice an iota of their principles. In this light, shutting down the Government rather than bending on legislation becomes a moral imperative. While critics may decry such a tactic as “rule or ruin,” Tea Party brethren celebrate it, rather, as the act of a defiant Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple. For them, this is not demolition but reclamation, cleansing the sanctuary that has been profaned by liberals. They see themselves engaged in nothing less than a project of national salvation. The refusal to compromise is a watchword of their candidates who wear it as a badge of pride. This would seem disastrous in the give-and-take of politics but it is in keeping with sectarian religious doctrine. One doesn’t compromise on an article of faith

Huh? What does that have to do with "the antichrist"??

Honestly, that thing about Obama being the beast aka "the antichrist" is the stuff of spooks and kooks and you need not worry about it.  For any literate Christian to take it seriously, we'd have to see Obama ascend to secretary general of the UN, be given unprecedented power, receive a wound no one thought he'd recover from, and yet recover (like Clinton from Monica :) ), create and break a 7 year covenant with Israel, and persecute Christians for 42 months.  Seems fairly unlikely.

It seems sinful to speculate, because that's obviously whoring the scriptures and seeking to steady God's ark.  The point of such prophesies isn't to make us responsible for saving the world.  The point of Revelations is that the beast will even take in the faithful, and we're not given the information in order to prevent it, but rather, that WHEN it happens to us, that we know that God foresaw it, and that God will save us from it in the end if we just endure.  God didn't give us prophesies to encourage us to play Herod and try to thwart them.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 09:51:10 PM
Quote
Huh? What does that have to do with "the antichrist"??
It was from a site that calls Obama the antichrist.  I didn't think I needed to infect the thread with their diseased thought process, but I thought their justification for everything Tea Party was interesting and weird enough to bring over.   It shows just how crazy Obama haters can be when they put their minds to it, or leave them out of their deep thoughts.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 10:42:12 PM
Quote
Huh? What does that have to do with "the antichrist"??
It was from a site that calls Obama the antichrist.  I didn't think I needed to infect the thread with their diseased thought process, but I thought their justification for everything Tea Party was interesting and weird enough to bring over.   It shows just how crazy Obama haters can be when they put their minds to it, or leave them out of their deep thoughts.

Oh, some Christians use "the Antichrist" as a pious blasphemy to smear against anyone they don't like -- not unlike some Jews use the Holocaust.  E,g, marriage between a Jew and a non Jew is "worse than the holocaust."   ::)  I imagine some spoiled Jewish kids have told their parents that brussel sprouts and green beans are worse than the holocaust, like the spoiled Christian kids who come back and say they think their math teacher is the antichrist.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 06:48:08 AM
Quote
E,g, marriage between a Jew and a non Jew is "worse than the holocaust."
A failed attempt at humor, I hope.  If not, it's a disgusting comparison.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 07:46:09 AM
Do you really want to elect one of these people (http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/gop-debate-implodes-out-control-screaming)?
Quote
Trump: I know politicians believe it or not, better than you do and it's not good (looking at Cruz)

Cruz: Oh I believe it. For 40 years you have been funding liberal Democratic politicians

Trump: I funded you.

(laughter)

Trump: I gave him a check (at Cruz)

(yelling)

Cruz: You gave me $5000

Rubio: He never funded me

(clapping and overtalk)

Trump: Autograph (yelling) thank you for the book

(overtalk)

Cruz: Donald, I understand rules are very hard for you, You are very confused

(yelling)

Trump: This is very fun up here (laughing)

Cruz: Donald, relax

(overtalk)

Trump: I am relaxed. You are a basket case. Don't get nervous.

(overtalk)

Cruz: I promise you, nothing about you makes anyone nervous

(yelling)

Wolf: gentleman, gentlemen

Cruz: Excuse me, he called me a liar

(screaming)

Cruz: Do I not get a response? (raised voice)

Wolf: you will get plenty of response...but let's talk about ISIS
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 11:25:47 AM
Quote
A failed attempt at humor, I hope.  If not, it's a disgusting comparison.

To explain my strong reaction further, the reason that the Obama-antichrist association is apt and the poor marriage choice-holocaust is not is that in the first case the speakers are led to believe the possibility by and as an article of faith that is above challenge by reason.  The second (if it ever actually would happen -- I have never heard that comparison made) only expresses disappointment and disapproval coming from a caricature of an overbearing Jewish mother.  Like the shyster meme and the chiseling businessman it is nothing more than a bigoted joke that should be avoided.   I don't joke about Mormon underwear for the same reason.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 26, 2016, 11:47:19 AM
Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?
When ironic things come packaged with such pious sanctimony, what else should one do?
Feel a strong measure of pity for the kind of damage that leads people to that kind of self destruction.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 12:31:30 PM
We're so far beyond mere pity.  It's as if roughly 1/4 - 1/3 of the country has been brainwashed to believe that another 1/4 - 1/3 hates this country and by extension hates them, too, and a further 1/4 - 1/3 don't belong here.  You can't just shake your head and laugh it off anymore.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: seekingprometheus on February 26, 2016, 07:26:51 PM
Has anyone landed on the possibility that the problem is democracy?

If you let the mob rule, is it really any surprise that it acts like a ridiculous mob?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 07:52:46 PM
Quote
E,g, marriage between a Jew and a non Jew is "worse than the holocaust."
A failed attempt at humor, I hope.  If not, it's a disgusting comparison.

I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?  I found the comparison rather common there, and no, they are dead serious.  It's common enough to appear in various works of fiction, including Chaim Potok's work (Potok seems to decry fanatics that say this).


Google search.  OK,
  Q: My fiance's parents told me that for a Jew to marry a non-Jew and have children is worse than the Holocaust!
A: Our only route to survival is for Jewish people to marry Jewish people  (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQwITk2pbLAhUBGh4KHSdkDIMQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chabad.org%2Flibrary%2Farticle_cdo%2Faid%2F39606%2Fjewish%2FWhy-Do-Jews-Exclude-Other-People.htm&usg=AFQjCNEcC5diwrZWOdUClOqFvabTmlOC3A&sig2=id0jw4MbBXK83OxOd4WzvQ)

I am NOT trying to suggest that Chabad is typical of all Judaism, or even of Orthodox Judaism, but it's certainly the fastest growing sect of Judaism, neh?

Suggests that some folks who used to say marrying a gentile was worse than the holocaust are not hurling that vile phrase at same sex marriage.  ::) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQwITk2pbLAhUBGh4KHSdkDIMQFgg3MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D221x45108&usg=AFQjCNHMkUlenBh5cfaUZnhsGwiuegaJLQ&sig2=UFmoknr2yuNSLeVPwBPSxw)

Quote from: http://www.wrmea.org/2000-january-february/is-israel-prepared-to-confront-increasingly-widespread-jewish-intolerance.html
In November, an army officer in Israel was removed from his position because he likened non-Orthodox Judaism to Nazi crimes. In a talk to 60 soldiers about the status of women, the instructor, Lt. Gamliel Peretz, began by citing the traditional morning blessing in which, he said, all Jewish men thank God for not making them women.

The New York Times (Nov. 23, 1999) reports that, "One young soldier, the teenage daughter of a Reform rabbi, raised her hand to challenge him. Not all Jews say that, she said. Some use an alternative blessing which thanks God for making people as they are. According to army records, the lieutenant, who is Orthodox, then said, 'The Reform and Conservative are not Jews to me...The Reform and the Conservative caused the assimilation of eight million Jews, and this was worse than the Holocaust, in which only six million were killed.'"
Jonathan Rosenblum, a spokesman for an Orthodox media resource center, said he did not consider the lieutenant's statement to be "extreme," but condemned the comparison to the Holocaust. He said, however, that he detected "an aura of witch-hunt in the rapidity with which Lt. Peretz was tried, expelled from the army and classified as some sort of pariah forever."

In fact, the treatment of Lt. Peretz is indeed extraordinary, since denunciations of non-Orthodox Judaism in similar terms are widespread, even in high government circles.

Rabbi Richard A. Block, president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said he faced a similar verbal assault from a member of parliament. He and another well-known Reform rabbi had been invited to attend a parliamentary committee meeting on conversion. A legislator from the United Torah Judaism Party entered the committee. "He started screaming," Rabbi Block said. "He said he wouldn't sit with the Reform because we have caused the assimilation of millions of Jews, worse than the Nazis. It was the same thing this officer said, but I guess it's okay for a Knesset member."

Please let me know if I'm making you feel uncomfortable.  I have no desire to bash Jews, but rather explain a spiritual and intellectual malady that exists among Christians, Jews, and many other groups.  I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you and I agree in condemning this sort of ... for want of a better word, blasphemy against humanity.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 07:56:20 PM
Has anyone landed on the possibility that the problem is democracy?

If you let the mob rule, is it really any surprise that it acts like a ridiculous mob?

I've made that argument for Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey.  I guess we saw it in the deep south in the 1960s, in Detroit in the 1990s, and in New York City today, with the disgusting coddling of the Central park muggers, who got their 41 million and now are coming back for another 52.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on February 27, 2016, 02:05:21 AM
Has anyone landed on the possibility that the problem is democracy?

If you let the mob rule, is it really any surprise that it acts like a ridiculous mob?

I think the problem is not so much democracy, but rather in whose hands democracy is put. A people unprepared to defend it from within will lose it quickly enough. And apparently nothing makes a people unprepared as much as (in no particular order) calamity and comfort.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 27, 2016, 08:14:08 AM
I think it's reasonable to imagine a DQ scale like is used to measure IQ.  The average person is no genius, but functional.  The healthier the environment where Democracy takes place, the better decisions they and everyone else can make about it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 27, 2016, 09:19:11 AM
Quote
I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?
Being Jewish by heritage in a city with a relatively high Jewish population and surrounding suburbs with even higher concentrations of Jews, why would you take that view :( ?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, since I don't talk that much about my own religious background, and assume you were being ironical.

As for the rest, the phenomenon is sad and overblown, especially when applied to individuals.  It's a shameful accusation something like accusing someone of genocide if the person mugs their son or daughter.  As for orthodox revulsion about trends in Jewish culture, the totality of the effect of Jewish assimilation has had a very significant impact on the ways Jews involve themselves in society, so I can see why people with the most rigid and committed views about that are upset.  Like fundamentalists of every religion and bigots of every persuasion, they should either stay in their bubbles and not venture out, or pop the bubble and join the free world.

But a holocaust is the willful attempt to exterminate an entire religious and ethnic population through genocide**.  It's laughable and unsettling to make any claim to equivalence.  I've never heard it from any of my Jewish friends or relatives, and until you dug up those references (thanks) never would have thought it happens.

** In the original, the term holocaust predates Christianity and meant a (ritual, ceremonial) burnt offering to one's Gods.  The OT uses a form of the word in that way, but as we've used it since the middle ages the term has come to mean to burn something wholly by ritual or absolute intent, as to utterly destroy a body through fire.  The Nazi's intended to exterminate all Jews and destroy most of the bodies as a matter of formal (ritual) policy, so the term holocaust applies to them in ways it doesn't apply to all ethnic cleansings or massacres of even large populations.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 09:21:08 AM
I don't think it's a question of general social health.  There are some particular valuable social strengths (e.g. family cohesion) that don't make for safer democracies.  And then there are social maladies, weaknesses, etc. that make Democracy extremely dangerous.  Close ethnic division and rivalry, for example.  Bloody Kansas, and the nearby similar persecution of the LDS in Missouri (culminating in the Lt Governor Boggs' "extermination order") never would have occurred if it were not for democratic forces.  The killings and pogroms had everything to do with the vote.  Similarly, the KKK never existed prior to the Civil War (Tarantino's revisionism notwithstanding), but formed initially to suppress the black vote.

When one or more groups of 25%+ hate and fear another group or groups more than they love justice, Democracy becomes a very dangerous thing. 

This is why I am very suspicious of a candidate whose main argument is that you need to vote for me because my rival hasn't shown enough "respect" to a candidate of your color, or women need to vote for me because I'm a woman, and there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for me.  These are appeals to identity factionalism, which is a good deal more dangerous and potentially murderous than ideology factionalism.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 09:34:52 AM
Quote
I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?
Being Jewish by heritage in a city with a relatively high Jewish population and surrounding suburbs with even higher concentrations of Jews, why would you take that view :( ?

???
No, I'm not Jewish, but my family lived in the Detroit area at least four times, once of which my dad was assigned to shepherd an LDS congregation ("branch") in the heart of Detroit.

Quote
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, since I don't talk that much about my own religious background, and assume you were being ironical.

Not at all.  It's in Detroit that I was first (and repeatedly) exposed to Jews who made that "worse than the holocaust" argument.  Are you saying you're from that area?  Perhaps you read different news than I do.  Can't remember if it was Detroit news or the Detroit Free Press that published those local rabbis blathering against Jews marrying non-Jews being "worse than the Holocaust."  I thought it was a freakish Detroit anomaly, but have since run into the naziesque meme from New York rabbis and also in an article from Israel, which I cited and linked to in a forum discussion a couple years ago. 

Note it's also a pack of New York and Detroit area shuls that sent money to Baruch Goldstein's widow and paid for the legal defense of Rabin's murderer. :(


Quote
As for the rest, the phenomenon is sad and overblown, especially when applied to individuals.  It's a shameful accusation something like accusing someone of genocide if the person mugs their son or daughter.  As for orthodox revulsion about trends in Jewish culture, the totality of the effect of Jewish assimilation has had a very significant impact on the ways Jews involve themselves in society, so I can see why people with the most rigid and committed views about that are upset.  Like fundamentalists of every religion and bigots of every persuasion, they should either stay in their bubbles and not venture out, or pop the bubble and join the free world.

That's a tough issue that affects more than just fundamentalists.  Jesus talks about being in the world but not of the world.  I think there's a third way where you recognize that the world hates you and your values, but you don't hate the world back.  But that's a very hard path to follow, reserved for the likes of Martin Luther King and other saints.

Quote
But a holocaust is the willful attempt to exterminate an entire religious and ethnic population through genocide**.  It's laughable and unsettling to make any claim to equivalence.  I've never heard it from any of my Jewish friends or relatives, and until you dug up those references (thanks) never would have thought it happens.

I'm sorry to have popped that bubble. :(  But relieved to hear that you could have grown up without hearing such references.  Now you know how I feel when I hear about David Duke, etc.

Quote
** In the original, the term holocaust predates Christianity and meant a (ritual, ceremonial) burnt offering to one's Gods.  The OT uses a form of the word in that way, but as we've used it since the middle ages the term has come to mean to burn something wholly by ritual or absolute intent, as to utterly destroy a body through fire.  The Nazi's intended to exterminate all Jews and destroy most of the bodies as a matter of formal (ritual) policy, so the term holocaust applies to them in ways it doesn't apply to all ethnic cleansings or massacres of even large populations.

Interesting background; thank you.  Does it apply to other groups the Nazis intended to and attempted to exterminate in entirety, such as Gypsies?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 27, 2016, 11:02:31 AM
Interesting mix of anti-semitism and rightwing ghoulishness (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/24/gawker-compares-cold-weather-to-holocaust.html) from the severe winter of 2013:
Quote
“I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this cold weather is far worse than the Holocaust,”

BTW, I live in Ann Arbor and and travel to other suburbs and Detroit regularly, and know Jews and non-Jews everywhere I go.  The comment cited above is much worse than anything I have ever personally experienced from anybody I've met anywhere around here.  If I'm living in a bubble, it's a pretty big one.

Quote
Does it [holocaust] apply to other groups the Nazis intended to and attempted to exterminate in entirety, such as Gypsies?
Depends on the magnitude of the slaughter and the determination of the murderers, I suppose.  Overall, I think people (even Jews) have come to see the Nazi efforts to eradicate undesirable populations as a holocaust in its totality.  Having lost all of my European relatives who were alive in what are now Germany and Poland during the war, I can't compare the sense of loss and devastation to anything else I know of.  For equivalency of evil we can consider the bombings our side carried out Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden, but the combined death tolls from those horrific attacks, which were considered strategic and carried out in far more dramatic fashion, pale in comparison to the "banality of evil" that drove the Nazi program.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 03:37:55 PM
As best I can tell, the origin of the putrid phrase that 'Intermarriage is worse than holocaust' came from none other than Golda Meir, once Prime Minister of Israel.   :(

I have never been to Ann Arbor but have never heard anything bad about it or anyone there, other than university nonsense.

I strongly suspect that tweet was misunderstood, and that he was poking fun of the common meme of Jews saying that Jewish intermarriage is worse than the holocaust.  But even if he's serious, I'm not sure how you'd get it to "right wing."  Some sorts of dickishness transcend politics.

Here's what I'm talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Holocaust
Quote
The silent holocaust is a phrase that is used to refer to multiple unrelated items.

    Certain Jewish communal and religious leaders have used this term to describe Jewish assimilation (cultural assimilation, religious assimilation) and interfaith marriage of Jews with gentiles.[1][2]
    Abortion, among some involved in pro-life activism. One group has even named itself "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.

http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/top-rabbi-jews-assimilation-europe-worse-holocaust/

www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/IntermarriageWhyNot/
Quote
Jews are assimilating at rates rivaling the holocaust. Find out why a Jew should not intermarry.

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/rabbi-intermarriage-plays-into-nazis-hands/

israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2014/03/europes-spiritual-holocaust.html

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26067980 "worse than Hitler"

Bemoaning holocaust shiksas is by far the most common species of holocaust denial on the internet.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 08:19:58 PM
Quote
I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?
Being Jewish by heritage in a city with a relatively high Jewish population and surrounding suburbs with even higher concentrations of Jews, why would you take that view :( ?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, since I don't talk that much about my own religious background, and assume you were being ironical.

As for the rest, the phenomenon is sad and overblown, especially when applied to individuals.  It's a shameful accusation something like accusing someone of genocide if the person mugs their son or daughter.  As for orthodox revulsion about trends in Jewish culture, the totality of the effect of Jewish assimilation has had a very significant impact on the ways Jews involve themselves in society, so I can see why people with the most rigid and committed views about that are upset.  Like fundamentalists of every religion and bigots of every persuasion, they should either stay in their bubbles and not venture out, or pop the bubble and join the free world.

But a holocaust is the willful attempt to exterminate an entire religious and ethnic population through genocide**.  It's laughable and unsettling to make any claim to equivalence.  I've never heard it from any of my Jewish friends or relatives, and until you dug up those references (thanks) never would have thought it happens.

BTW, it gets worse!
Quote
Hitler was not only sent by Heaven, but was sent as a kindness from Heaven…. Because assimilation and intermarriage are worse than death.

-Rabbi Avigdor HaKohen Miller (August 28, 1908 – April 20, 2001)  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Miller)

I wonder what Samuel Willenberg, a Treblinka survivor who passed away last week, would say about Rabbi Miller's florid reductionism.

 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/20/samuel-willenberg-last-survivor-treblinka-death-camp-dies-93/80663314/)
Quote from: USA Today
Samuel Willenberg, the last survivor of the Treblinka Nazi death camp in Poland where 875,000 were systematically murdered, died Friday in Israel at the age of 93.

Only 67 people survived the death camp in Poland, according to the Associated Press. It was designed and built almost entirely for the factory-like killing of human beings, nearly all Jews. The Nazis worked to destroy and erase all evidence of the camp and genocide before advancing Soviet armies could find it.

Willenberg, the son of an Orthodox Christian mother and Jewish father, was brought to the camp in 1942. As an able-bodied 19-year-old, he was spared death and was given the task of sorting through the belongings of those murdered in the gas chambers.

In August of 1943, Willenberg joined a group of Jews who stole weapons, set fire to the camp and tried to escape. Most of them were killed. Willenberg was shot in the leg but managed to clamber over a pile of bodies, climb over a fence and make his way into the woods. He later joined the Polish resistance and took part in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944.

Personally, I would call Willenberg a hero.  But to some entitled old gasbags, Willenberg's very existence was "worse than the holocaust," because his father married an Orthodox Christian.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 09:31:22 PM
Damn, there's more of this rot.  Please note that other than Wikipedia all my sources cited here are Jewish sources!

 Describing a visit to Israel, the Canadian Jewish writer Modechai Richler, in his book, This Year in Jerusalem, reports: "...unable to sleep, I read The Jerusalem Post in bed...The Post paid tribute to cartoonist Noah Mordechai Birzowski, who had just turned 75. A contributor since 1940 to The Palestine Post, as it then was, and other Israeli newspapers, Birzowski signed his name Noah Bee. One of the cartoons reproduced for the tribute was in two final frames with the headnote, 'Final Solutions.' The first frame showed Jews in striped concentration camp uniforms, lining up to be consumed in a crematorium, smoke billowing out of its tall chimney. The second frame was a drawing of a couple being married in church, standing before a crucifix with the footnote 'intermarriage.' (http://www.wrmea.org/2000-january-february/is-israel-prepared-to-confront-increasingly-widespread-jewish-intolerance.html)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 28, 2016, 05:56:50 AM
The GOP has entered a bizarre kind of fugue state (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?emc=edit_th_20160228&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=869778&_r=0) now due to the Party's inability to either control or thwart Trump's candidacy. I'm quoting extensively from the article, which has a longer and more detailed review of the maneuvering that once was behind the scenes but is now being done and talked about openly.  Note the two mentions of Paul LePage, the wacko Governor of Maine, at the top and bottom of the article.  The glaring omission is that none of the discussion revolves around uniting behind Ted Cruz.  That means that as bad as they can imagine a Trump presidency would be, they all see Cruz as an even worse alternative.  Who's driving this car, anyway?

Quote
The scenario Karl Rove outlined was bleak.

Addressing a luncheon of Republican governors and donors in Washington on Feb. 19, he warned that Donald J. Trump’s increasingly likely nomination would be catastrophic, dooming the party in November. But Mr. Rove, the master strategist of George W. Bush’s campaigns, insisted it was not too late for them to stop Mr. Trump, according to three people present.

At a meeting of Republican governors the next morning, Paul R. LePage of Maine called for action. Seated at a long boardroom table at the Willard Hotel, he erupted in frustration over the state of the 2016 race, saying Mr. Trump’s nomination would deeply wound the Republican Party. Mr. LePage urged the governors to draft an open letter “to the people,” disavowing Mr. Trump and his divisive brand of politics.
...
Efforts to unite warring candidates behind one failed spectacularly: An overture from Senator Marco Rubio to Mr. Christie angered and insulted the governor. An unsubtle appeal from Mitt Romney to John Kasich, about the party’s need to consolidate behind one rival to Mr. Trump, fell on deaf ears.
,,,
Despite all the forces arrayed against Mr. Trump, the interviews show, the party has been gripped by a nearly incapacitating leadership vacuum and a paralytic sense of indecision and despair, as he has won smashing victories in South Carolina and Nevada.
...
Should Mr. Trump clinch the presidential nomination, it would represent a rout of historic proportions for the institutional Republican Party, and could set off an internal rift unseen in either party for a half-century, since white Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party en masse during the civil rights movement.
...
Late last fall, the strategists Alex Castellanos and Gail Gitcho, both presidential campaign veterans, reached out to dozens of the party’s leading donors, including the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and the hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, with a plan to create a “super PAC” that would take down Mr. Trump. In a confidential memo, the strategists laid out the mission of a group they called “ProtectUS.”

“We want voters to imagine Donald Trump in the Big Chair in the Oval Office, with responsibilities for worldwide confrontation at his fingertips,” they wrote in the previously unreported memo. Mr. Castellanos even produced ads portraying Mr. Trump as unfit for the presidency, according to people who saw them and who, along with many of those interviewed, insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.
...
Mr. Trump’s challengers are staking their hopes on a set of guerrilla tactics and long-shot possibilities, racing to line up mainstream voters and interest groups against his increasingly formidable campaign. Donors and elected leaders have begun to rouse themselves for the fight, but perhaps too late.
...
In Washington, Mr. Kasich’s persistence in the race has become a source of frustration. At Senate luncheons on Wednesday and Thursday, Republican lawmakers vented about Mr. Kasich’s intransigence, calling it selfishness.
...
Mr. McConnell was especially vocal, describing Mr. Kasich’s persistence as irrational because he has no plausible path to the nomination, several senators said.

While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.
...
“There’s this desire, verging on panic, to consolidate the field,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former supporter of Mr. Bush. “But I don’t see any movement at all.”
...
Fred Malek, the finance chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said the party’s mainstream had simply run up against the limits of its influence.

“There’s no single leader and no single institution that can bring a diverse group called the Republican Party together, behind a single candidate,” Mr. Malek said. “It just doesn’t exist.”

On Friday, a few hours after Mr. Christie endorsed him, Mr. Trump collected support from a second governor, who in a radio interview said Mr. Trump could be “one of the greatest presidents.”

That governor was Paul LePage.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 28, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?

Yes, but then I think my assumptions about Cruz are correct.  (OTOH I guess everyone thinks their assumptions are correct)

Did a bit of checking, and looks like other Republican candidates are supported by porn stars, and don't have a problem with that.  Mary Cary, has tweeted support for Mark Rubio.  I'm a fan of MC's non-porn antics, like running for Governor of California, and hope she goes back to comedy and stops getting bad surgery.  And Orrin Hatch, LDS senator from Utah, IIRC talked about a constitutional amendment so that a former porn star known as Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. 

In other news, media heads are angry with Trump for not repudiating David Duke's endorsement until he had the time to look up who the *censored* David Duke is.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 11:23:38 AM
He didn't need to look it up.  Back in 2000 he decided not to run (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/28/donald_trump_is_lying_about_david_duke_and_kkk.html) partly because he didn't want to be associated with Duke/KKK and Pat Buchanon:
Quote
“The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani,” the New York Times quoted Trump saying in a statement. “This is not company I wish to keep.”
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 29, 2016, 02:21:32 PM
so?  You never forget a name in 16 years?

The first statement 16 years ago he'd researched and decided Duke wasn't someone he wanted associated with.

The second, just days ago, he claims he didn't remember who Duke was and wanted to make sure before saying something.  He checked, and then disavowed for his third statement. 

You have any more plausible reason that he asked to check before he disavowed?
His latest rejection of Duke is the first fact I've seen to cause me to question about him being Clinton's straw man.

Occam's razor says it happened like he said it did.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 29, 2016, 03:58:18 PM
Quote
Occam's razor says it happened like he said it did.
I don't think Trump is an idiot.  I actually think he's extremely calculated.

This delay, which sparks a media outrage, then his statement that, of course he disavows Duke/KKK makes perfect sense.  It diffuses the issue neatly.  It lets the crazy racists brush it off as, "Well he HAS to say that". 

Nothing about this campaign season is served well by use of Occam's razor.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 29, 2016, 04:04:01 PM
And how would that play differently if he'd disavowed the first time?  Saying he doesn't know who Duke is, is more of a slap in the face.  And it's more of a disavowal if he's had time to look and see who it is, rather than just disavowing by peer pressure.

Dunno if Duke is a crazy racist like Lester Maddox, or a canny racist like governor Wallace.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on February 29, 2016, 04:51:31 PM
It wouldn't be news...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on February 29, 2016, 04:59:30 PM
The endorsement alone was enough to make it news, regardless of how quickly its disavowed.  It's play too well into a narrative that people want to hear.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on February 29, 2016, 05:00:02 PM
You know from past posts that I'm no friend to Mr. Trump, and I think this is the first time  I've defended him on anything.  But I actually like it that he asked time to look into who Duke was rather than just take his interlocutor's word on it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 05:40:49 PM
If this doesn't take care of Trump (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-oliver-skewers-serial-liar-donald-trump-hbo-show-article-1.2547672), we'll have to step up to a silver bullet or a stake in the heart -- or maybe a world-class steak.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: TheDrake on February 29, 2016, 06:24:08 PM
I find it hard to believe that anybody with a passing interest in politics or issues of race can't remember David Duke. He's the most famous white supremacist that I'm aware of. Then also, Trump could very reasonably have answered the KKK part of the question without addressing Duke by name, in his own personal style such as...

"I think the Ku Klux Klan is absolutely disgusting. They are a bunch of racist slob losers. I hope they'll keep their ugly faces out of the voting booths. If Duke is a member of the KKK, and I don't know that he is, but if he is then he's a loser."

Of course, he fielded a question about Duke two days prior to the interview with this statement...

"David Duke endorsed me? OK, alright. I disavow, OK?"

Prior to that, and not ancient history, in an August interview he was asked if he would repudiate an earlier endorsement, and he said, "Sure, I would if that would make you feel better."

Which is a particularly odd response for anyone but the Donald.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 01, 2016, 05:49:29 AM
I read an article about Trump's penchant to pass along wild conspiracy theories.  I find this quote by Erick Erickson criticizing him for that pretty amusing, as Erickson is himself quite comfortable challenging Obama's religious faith:

Quote
It was a question that most major presidential candidates would have quickly dismissed as absurd, even offensive: What do you make of these theories that Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered?

For Donald J. Trump, it appeared unavoidably juicy, and possibly the next big pop-culture fixation. “You know, I just landed, and I’m hearing it’s a big topic,” Mr. Trump told the radio host Michael Savage from South Carolina, in an interview just a few days after the Supreme Court justice’s unexpected death
...
... to publicly entertain such theories, Mr. Erickson said, means sliding down a dangerous slope. “You hand yourself over the idea that there’s an invisible hand at work that you can’t see,” he said. “You then begin to cast about to blame someone for controlling that invisible hand, and you lose perspective on what is and is not happening, and what is and isn’t real.”

Isn't the belief in an "invisible hand" the essence of "faith"?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
Quote
I find it hard to believe that anybody with a passing interest in politics or issues of race can't remember David Duke. He's the most famous white supremacist that I'm aware of.

Does your awareness extend to anything outrageous Mr. Duke has actually said or done, other than being a member of the sheetheads or supporting Mr. Trump?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 01, 2016, 10:26:40 AM
*former leader, not member
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 01, 2016, 11:25:47 AM
Trump (Drumpf?) denounced him on Friday, so either he's drifting into a new form of dementia or he had just been lucky in answering previous questions that he couldn't hear on Sunday and gave up when the letters K.K.K were too badly distorted by the cheap earpiece they gave him.  Hmmm, I'm going with option 3...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on March 01, 2016, 11:34:45 AM
Here's a decent rundown on the Trump/Duke inconsistencies:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/01/fact-check-donald-trump-david-duke/81146158/

He was lying when he said he didn't know anything about Duke.  The only explanations that make sense are:

1) memory/cognition problems that should disqualify him for office
2) hedging because he needs/wants support from Duke's allies but realizes he can't admit that

I'm leaning #2.  The whole "he says what we're all thinking" has all along been about race.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: TheDrake on March 01, 2016, 12:28:21 PM
Quote
I find it hard to believe that anybody with a passing interest in politics or issues of race can't remember David Duke. He's the most famous white supremacist that I'm aware of.

Does your awareness extend to anything outrageous Mr. Duke has actually said or done, other than being a member of the sheetheads or supporting Mr. Trump?

Being a Klan leader is sufficient for me, and the only degree of granularity that I remembered about him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 12:34:50 PM
I agree it's enough to want to dissociate from him.  I disagree that it's enough that everyone should instantly remember his name and piss our collective pants when uttered.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on March 01, 2016, 12:55:40 PM
I'm actually ambivalent about the implied standard that no one should accept or welcome support from someone who is evil.  It doesn't strictly make sense; it doesn't necessarily make you evil to accept votes from someone who is evil.  Of course we do want to pay attention to financial contributions and question the loyalties of those who accept money from evil people. 

But Trump is a liar who will say whatever he thinks is most advantageous at the time.  Given his inconsistency over mere few days, there just isn't any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 01, 2016, 01:09:58 PM
I'm actually ambivalent about the implied standard that no one should accept or welcome support from someone who is evil.  It doesn't strictly make sense; it doesn't necessarily make you evil to accept votes from someone who is evil.  Of course we do want to pay attention to financial contributions and question the loyalties of those who accept money from evil people. 

Excellent point. In order to claim there is a problem with receiving support from an 'evil' person one would have to assert one of two things:

1) The evil man will have influence over you, causing you to do evil things.
2) By aligning with your views, the fact that the man is evil implies that your views are evil.

Let's set aside #1 for now and look at #2. This is an easily faulty line because it equivocates between all a person's views under the over-large umbrella of "evil." We can say "Hitler was evil", for instance, but then make this generalization ridiculous by saying that since he was a vegetarian it is therefore evil to be a vegetarian. We could call this a misuse of universal specification, but more accurately it means that the title "evil" should properly be understood to refer to some, but not all, of a person's views. In order to claim that a KKK member supporting Trump is a bad thing it would therefore have to be determined which precise views of that person cause him to support Trump. "I think minorities are inferior and therefore I support Trump" would be a bad mark for Trump, whereas "I think normal politicians are snakes and therefore I support Trump" would be benign. But what if there's no particular view that 'causes' a man to support Trump; what if it's a combination of things, or no one thing, or entirely irrational? In short this type of support cannot be inspected rigorously and so must be left alone. You can't solve for direct motive without solving for the entire brain's existence.

This leaves us with the only directly problematic case, which is whether support for Trump makes him beholden to an evil man. Aside from the fact that I would argue most politicians are beholden to even more evil men even than the KKK, I will also point out that since Trump doesn't take donations it seems unlikely that he will be obliged to repay favors for support in the usual way. Of all candidates, Trump is the least likely to be beholden to special interests (even evil ones) due to his campaign policy.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: scifibum on March 01, 2016, 01:17:20 PM
At this point, it remains to be seen who will repay the loans that Trump has made to his campaign.  I think it's somewhat likely that he'll have some large donors later on.  I agree that he's unlikely to be beholden to his small individual donors.  That'd count in his favor if he was remotely acceptable otherwise.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 01, 2016, 02:05:03 PM
If an evil man says, "I support him because he wants what I want."  Then it doesn't matter if you repudiate him or not.  It's not about being beholden to an evil man.  It's not about an evil man exerting influence over you. 

If you consider yourself a good man, you should evaluate what you are doing and why your path (if not your goals) align with an evil man.

Now motivations matter, but it is possible to end up at the same location by taking different roads.  Simply declining to walk through this particular mud puddle doesn't change the fact you are both heading in the same direction.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 01, 2016, 02:42:43 PM
If an evil man says, "I support him because he wants what I want."  Then it doesn't matter if you repudiate him or not.  It's not about being beholden to an evil man.  It's not about an evil man exerting influence over you. 

If you consider yourself a good man, you should evaluate what you are doing and why your path (if not your goals) align with an evil man.

Does a person "want" one thing? Or many things, often unclear or jumbled together? If a war criminal endorsed vegetarianism on the grounds that he thought killing animals for food was bad, does this have any relevance to whether vegetarianism needs to be re-evaluated as a path of life? In order to link the supporter with that which is supported you'd have to show very specifically that the aspect of the supporter that is bad is precisely the thing in the candidate that he's endorsing.

I would almost argue that motive speculation about political support is inherently dangerous, since in every person there are bad traits or characteristics (or even very wrong views) and yet these should not disqualify the value of a person making a choice to support someone. Can you imagine a libertarian having to re-evaluate the path of his life because he might have gun nuts supporting him alongside hippy pot advocates and also Satanists? If you think bad things of one or more of these groups and want to tell a libertarian that his way of life is wrong you'd have to show in some way that he is possessed of bad traits in common with all of these groups to find a strong pattern. Cherry picking one group, such as Satanists, and trying to argue that libertarians must be bad because they're supported by Satanists, is not only a misleading line to take but also dangerous in a democracy.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 01, 2016, 02:51:48 PM
You are right.  I'm sure Duke supports Trump because of some totally benign reason.  Like his dietary preferences maybe.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 01, 2016, 03:54:54 PM
You are right.  I'm sure Duke supports Trump because of some totally benign reason.  Like his dietary preferences maybe.

Heh, probably not. But does that mean it's because Trump believes in apartheid? It just seems to be too much of a short circuit to blame a person for receiving support from someone you don't like. If we take that to the extreme you could even begin to accuse Democrat candidates who receive support from Republicans or vice versa.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 01, 2016, 04:01:52 PM
You make a good generalized point.  You just happen to be ignoring pretty much Trump's entire race to the present and how it aligns to the stated (mainstream?) goals of white supremacists.  In this case, the shoe fits.  Trump may not be motivated by racism (I believe he is just employing it as a political tool myself) but his conclusions/proposals (again quite possibly just political showmanship rather than beliefs) align with those of the KKK.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 01, 2016, 04:49:30 PM
You are right.  I'm sure Duke supports Trump because of some totally benign reason.  Like his dietary preferences maybe.
Why is it so clear he supports him because of his views?  Duke is a racist, is he more likely to support Bernie - Jewish, Cruz or Rubio - Hispanic or Carson - Black?  No idea if he's a sexist, but the Clinton's are generally seen with great regard in the Black community, which is probably also unpalatable.  It was really down for someone like him to a choice between Trump and Kasich, was it not?  And Kasich has established himself as incredibly soft on illegal immigration.  So basically, just by the process of elimination based on race and simple policy splits directly related to race, a racist would only have one clear choice.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 05:08:59 PM
You mean a white racist, right?  Clinton's blather about Bernie not "respecting" Obama is a very clear appeal to black racism, and more overtly racist than anything Trump has said.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 01, 2016, 05:12:39 PM
Well Seriati, I can't argue that.  Trump is the most likely candidate when you eliminate the obvious, "No way I'd vote for THAT candidate" options.

It could be ONLY for that reason he got Duke's nod.  I wonder if Duke endorsed Obama's opposition last spin around.  That may lend some credibility to the "nominating anyone opposing the people I don't want to win" vs. "I like the way this guy talks!" theory.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 05:15:59 PM
You make a good generalized point.  You just happen to be ignoring pretty much Trump's entire race to the present and how it aligns to the stated (mainstream?) goals of white supremacists.  In this case, the shoe fits.  Trump may not be motivated by racism (I believe he is just employing it as a political tool myself)

IMO, that's worse than actually being a racist.

OTOH, I don't think the interests of white males are all necessarily "racist."  Anyone who disagrees is essentially saying say that preventing prison rape would be "racist" since such protection would disproportionately help white males.  There are some jackasses who would make such an argument, mind you ...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 01, 2016, 05:23:19 PM
While an interesting point, I'm not sure how it's relevant.  I mean, unless you are trying to establish Trump is only hedging his bets for any future prison time to get the A.N. to safeguard him from rape...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 05:35:09 PM
While an interesting point, I'm not sure how it's relevant.  I mean, unless you are trying to establish Trump is only hedging his bets for any future prison time to get the A.N. to safeguard him from rape...

It's an illustration of a principle.  If you are interested in going down the rabbit hole with me and turning your world upside down to see how it applies, then find a friend who has Netflix, or otherwise get access to the movie "CARTEL LAND."  Watch.  Then let's talk on the so far empty thread I tried to start on Cartel Land, which IIRC is up for an Oscar.  Pure first hand footage and documentary, btw.

Another reason my prison illustration is relevant is because the only reason that organized white supremacy has survived as it has is because whites are forced to join in prison for survival.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 01, 2016, 05:53:52 PM
You mean a white racist, right?  Clinton's blather about Bernie not "respecting" Obama is a very clear appeal to black racism, and more overtly racist than anything Trump has said.
I um.. deleted the section where I pointed out that President Obama overwhelming won the black vote in his primary results with Hilary Clinton, notwithstanding, the acknowledged excellent support she otherwise receives from black voters.  It's kind of hard to explain in non-racist terms, and as far as I am aware no one said anything suggesting that that President Obama should have rejected support based on race in that context.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 06:21:28 PM
You mean a white racist, right?  Clinton's blather about Bernie not "respecting" Obama is a very clear appeal to black racism, and more overtly racist than anything Trump has said.
I um.. deleted the section where I pointed out that President Obama overwhelming won the black vote in his primary results with Hilary Clinton, notwithstanding, the acknowledged excellent support she otherwise receives from black voters.  It's kind of hard to explain in non-racist terms, and as far as I am aware no one said anything suggesting that that President Obama should have rejected support based on race in that context.

I think racial =/racist.  Identification with Obama as a hope, as racial identification, is IMO different than directly appealing to a racial or gender-based duty to vote for such and such.  Like when Hillary supporters called Oprah a traitor to her sex.  Or appealing to race-based resentments, as when Hillary accuses Bernie of "not showing respect" to Obama.  "Respect" being a well known low-brow buzz word in the African-American community, one that needs no specifics, as Hillary knew well as she smirked in the debate after delivering that charge.  And she's getting parrotted all over the place, black churches, etc.  No facts necessary.

Against those who habitually pretend that I source right wing sources, please note that THE NATION is a devoutly liberal source.  Check this out:

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-has-an-obama-problem/

Quote
 After noting that “relations between the races” hadn’t gotten better under Obama, Judy Woodruff asked him: “So race relations would be better under a Sanders presidency than they’ve been?” And he answered, “Absolutely.”

So basically, if Sanders seeks to do anything better than it's being done under the status quo, he's undermining Obama, and pissing off the more racist elements of the black community, ie the ones that Clinton is overtly appealing to. 

Quote
 But it’s the issue of Obama that’s giving Sanders his toughest political challenge right now. Some of that is unavoidable. His candidacy is premised on the fact that the political establishment—and that includes the president—refuses to create meaningful solutions to the problems of income inequality, student debt, and, yes, race relations, because it’s beholden to forces that profit from the way things are. Sanders genuinely believes Obama hasn’t done enough—and on some issues, he’s right.

The administration rescued the banks from the brink of disaster, but did little to help their victims. His team chose not to prosecute or punish the people responsible for the crisis. And back when Sanders was suggesting Obama should face a primary challenge, there were many people on the left—I was among them—who disagreed, but who were also discouraged at his efforts to reach a “grand bargain” with Republicans that would have cut Social Security and Medicare in exchange for some tax hikes. Sanders can’t disavow all of his criticisms of the president, nor should he.

But given that political bind, he should go out of his way to avoid unfair, unnecessary criticism, like the kind he delivered on Thursday. Sanders doesn’t—yet—grasp the sense of protectiveness and pride many African Americans feel about the president.

Even The Nation admits that Bernie is dead right in his assessment that we can and should do better than Obama has done, and yet warns that Bernie needs to try harder to kiss ass to avoid being perceived as anti-black. 

Quote
 In a November 2014 interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, he was rather dismissive of black support for Obama:

[qb]    What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that’s kind of natural…. But that’s not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? [/qb]

Sanders may find out the hard way that African-American voters don’t enjoy being instructed as to what they should base their politics on.

The Clintons learned the hard way, eight years ago. Their increasingly tone-deaf and sometimes racially tinged attacks on Obama helped accelerate then-Senator Clinton’s loss of black support—including the defection of civil-rights hero Representative John Lewis, who endorsed Clinton on Thursday.

No doubt Clinton is enjoying the role reversal, which feels unfair to his supporters, especially African-American Sanders backers. “The kind of criticism [of Obama] I hear from Senator Sanders, I expect from Republicans,” she said in Thursday night’s debate. “I do not expect it from someone seeking the Democratic nomination.” That’s politically opportunistic, of course. But Sanders should listen to her anyway.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2016, 10:03:54 PM
So, should the Senate GOP change strategy regarding replacing Scalia and not just hold hearings but also allow a vote on the nominee?

I imagine most establishment Republicans now realistically fear losing both the Senate as well as the Executive branches in November, and maybe they will be amenable to cutting their losses with a relatively moderate nominee, as opposed to what they would end up with having lost both branches to the Dems and being faced with a short-handed court for over a year...
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 07:42:05 AM
Quote
1) The evil man will have influence over you, causing you to do evil things.
2) By aligning with your views, the fact that the man is evil implies that your views are evil.
I'll go with option #3, that by accepting Duke's endorsement he legitimizes Duke.  By not condemning it he provides a degree of legitimacy to the KKK.

Quote
Why is it so clear he supports him because of his views?  Duke is a racist, is he more likely to support Bernie - Jewish, Cruz or Rubio - Hispanic or Carson - Black?
I think he sees in Trump someone willing to dismiss an entire race, religion or class of people without considering their members as individuals, hence he appears to espouse indiscriminate disenfranchisement of the groups.  All of the others either support at least some of those groups or hedge on their avowed views.  In other words, the other candidates *say* that they are anti-PC; Trump proves it every time he opens his mouth.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 07:49:12 AM
Quote
So, should the Senate GOP change strategy regarding replacing Scalia and not just hold hearings but also allow a vote on the nominee?
My hunch is that Obama will nominate someone the GOP would overwhelmingly support in more sane times.  He (or she) will be a moderate Republican or independent chosen from the outside of government so they won't have a record of supporting or disappointing anyone.  Then we get to watch McConnell and every Republican Senator who signed on with his position twist in the wind.  If he doesn't move forward, then I agree that it adds more reason to think the Democrats will take the Senate by shifting support of moderates and independents away from the intransigent and obviously partisan political way that the GOP has mismanaged the mandate they were handed in 2014.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 02, 2016, 09:44:06 AM
So, should the Senate GOP change strategy regarding replacing Scalia and not just hold hearings but also allow a vote on the nominee?
I have never supported the idea of not holding hearings.  Not an expert on it, but it looks like the Senate has voted to "postpone indefinitely" confirmation votes before.  Sometimes they've voted no.

I'm a big fan of giving people no votes if they are unacceptable.

I want to go on the record, there is no way President Obama makes a neutral or midline pick.  He doesn't have it in him to compromise or to go for anything other that a salted earth victory.  Nothing in his 7 years as President would indicate otherwise.  This is one of the rare times I make a prediction.  I don't see any chance he goes for the "clever" strategy of nominating someone the Republicans can't afford to pass up, just in case Hilary is the next President.  (In fact, I think they'd rather take their chances with a Hillary appointment with a majority, but not super-majority Democrat Senate than with an Obama pick).
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 10:19:08 AM
I'll go with option #3, that by accepting Duke's endorsement he legitimizes Duke.  By not condemning it he provides a degree of legitimacy to the KKK.

That's the thing, though. By having a vote someone is already legitimized vis a vis the franchise. By 'accepting' their vote you are not saying anything at all other than you accept that people may exercise their rights. On the contrary, condemning someone's voting choice would be the strange thing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 10:38:53 AM
Quote
I want to go on the record, there is no way President Obama makes a neutral or midline pick.  He doesn't have it in him to compromise or to go for anything other that a salted earth victory.  Nothing in his 7 years as President would indicate otherwise.
Amusing that you think so :).  People on the right have a habit of seeing everything that isn't squarely what they want as an extreme and adversarial position.  Let's see how this plays out; one of us will have to admit we were wrong :)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 02, 2016, 10:45:32 AM
Well I'm not terrible "on the right," I just tend to believe that conservatives make better justices.  I'm less interested in seeing an activist religious conservative on the bench than any kind of activist liberal, I just tend to believe that there is no other kind of liberal judge and with the conservative ones you can win and get ones that are principled about adherence to what the law says rather than what they think it should say.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 11:00:27 AM
Well, if you overlook a number of key Scalia positions and decisions, you might be right.  But then you'd also have to overlook Clarence Thomas's incredibly weak judicial acumen whereby he doesn't even need to ask any questions of people who appear before the court before rendering his predictable far right opinions.  Alito reliably votes the same way as either of them virtually 100% of the time.  Believe it or not, the court runs better when people of *different* viewpoints are involved, not just the ones that have a commitment to your way of looking at things.

BTW, I don't understand why people on the right are so incredibly adamant about their own personal liberties but welcome government (and SC) interference in medical, religious and business situations to prevent people from the full exercise of theirs when they go against the conservative or so-called majority view.  Isn't that what they were supposed to protect?  Thanks to the conservative courts and legislatures, even pharmacists can deny a woman contraception because they don't approve, and lowly municipal clerks can deny lawful marriage licenses if the applicants don't line up with their beliefs.  The Republican/conservative sense of preserving individual liberties only appears to extend to people who want to deny and disallow the rights of people they don't approve of.

Donald Trump had a dozen or so blacks removed from one of his campaign stops before he came on stage.  I recognize he can do that if he wants, but which of the Constitutional provisions or even the 10 Commandments supports that?  As John Oliver said in his wonderful segment on Trump/Drumpf (that I assume no one bothered to watch with the link I provided), they should expect him to file suit against them in the morning.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 11:08:35 AM
Donald Trump had a dozen or so blacks removed from one of his campaign stops before he came on stage.  I recognize he can do that if he wants, but which of the Constitutional provisions or even the 10 Commandments supports that?

I read that they were protesters and he didn't want them disrupting the event. I didn't investigate this thoroughly though, so I can't verify whether it's true.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on March 02, 2016, 11:32:07 AM
Quote
I want to go on the record, there is no way President Obama makes a neutral or midline pick.  He doesn't have it in him to compromise or to go for anything other that a salted earth victory.  Nothing in his 7 years as President would indicate otherwise.
A neutral or midline pick is a salted earth victory. Someone palatable to the GOP forces them to either contradict their oh-so-principled declaration that a President shouldn't nominate a justice in an election year or endure the spectacle of refusing even to consider obviously qualified individuals.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 02, 2016, 01:00:48 PM
Quote
I want to go on the record, there is no way President Obama makes a neutral or midline pick.  He doesn't have it in him to compromise or to go for anything other that a salted earth victory.  Nothing in his 7 years as President would indicate otherwise.
A neutral or midline pick is a salted earth victory. Someone palatable to the GOP forces them to either contradict their oh-so-principled declaration that a President shouldn't nominate a justice in an election year or endure the spectacle of refusing even to consider obviously qualified individuals.
No that's just the "clever" strategy I dealt with in the very next sentences of the paragraph you partially quoted.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 01:11:19 PM
Besides being clever, might it also be the right thing to do in his estimation?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 02, 2016, 01:12:02 PM
But then you'd also have to overlook Clarence Thomas's incredibly weak judicial acumen whereby he doesn't even need to ask any questions of people who appear before the court before rendering his predictable far right opinions.
He's written plenty of opinions.  Can you actually describe a reasonable basis for his "weak judicial acumen"?  This is one of those things that the left asserts without evidence, and eventually end up calling him an "uncle tom".
Quote
Alito reliably votes the same way as either of them virtually 100% of the time.
Virtually?  Lol.  Just admit you don't have much of a clue.

By the way, what do you think the "virtually" voting the same way stats look like for the liberal justices?  I can honestly say, I don't recall a single one of them ever surprising me by leaving the "party" line.
Quote
Believe it or not, the court runs better when people of *different* viewpoints are involved, not just the ones that have a commitment to your way of looking at things.
As a person who cares about the law and has spent substantial time studying it, I'm of the view that the court "runs better" when the Justices predictably apply the law as written and leave making new laws to the political branches.  There should be differences of opinion that influence the decision about whether common law or black letter law controls, not about whether abortion is right or wrong.  Diversity is not a goal of judicial interpretation as it shouldn't have an impact.
Quote
BTW, I don't understand why people on the right are so incredibly adamant about their own personal liberties but welcome government (and SC) interference in medical, religious and business situations to prevent people from the full exercise of theirs when they go against the conservative or so-called majority view.
No idea what you're talking about.  Can you be specific, because I think you're overgeneralizing nonsense here.
Quote
Thanks to the conservative courts and legislatures, even pharmacists can deny a woman contraception because they don't approve,...
Is this what you mean?  You think think this is an example of conservatives interfering in "medical, religious and business" situations?  This is a case of conflicting rights, not of interference.
Quote
...and lowly municipal clerks can deny lawful marriage licenses if the applicants don't line up with their beliefs.
Or is it this?  Most conservatives, as well as liberals, thought that lady was wrong.
Quote
The Republican/conservative sense of preserving individual liberties only appears to extend to people who want to deny and disallow the rights of people they don't approve of.
You love to overgeneralize, don't know why I even bother responding when you make these claims.  I might as well just say Democrats love to kill people (since most violent felons are Democrats).  It has as much logical validity as your overgeneralized claims.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 02, 2016, 01:13:30 PM
Besides being clever, might it also be the right thing to do in his estimation?
You tell me.

I already said that in my opinion, there's no way he'll nominate a moderate or trap candidate.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on March 02, 2016, 01:33:04 PM
Quote
No that's just the "clever" strategy I dealt with in the very next sentences of the paragraph you partially quoted.
Except it isn't just clever, it helps damages the GOP in the Senate where the Democrats need a lot more help than in the presidential race. Forcing GOP senators to state again and again they're unwilling to do their jobs is one of the best ways to give Clinton a Democratic Senate. I don't doubt they'll cast anyone Obama nominates as an extreme leftist but in the absence of being able to appoint Justice (since there's no way Obama will nominate an "originalist"), motivating the Democratic base is the best Obama can do in this situation.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 03:02:19 PM
Quote
By the way, what do you think the "virtually" voting the same way stats look like for the liberal justices?  I can honestly say, I don't recall a single one of them ever surprising me by leaving the "party" line.

Well, you're at least a little wrong, but it happens on both sides to about the same degree.  In your mind, does that make the conservative side more legitimate because they hang together and the liberal ones less so for the same reason?  Draw your own conclusions here (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html).  Looks like Scalia, Alito and Thomas have a 90%+ agreement ratio.  On the other side, GInsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan have a similar ratio.

Quote
As a person who cares about the law and has spent substantial time studying it, I'm of the view that the court "runs better" when the Justices predictably apply the law as written and leave making new laws to the political branches.  There should be differences of opinion that influence the decision about whether common law or black letter law controls, not about whether abortion is right or wrong.  Diversity is not a goal of judicial interpretation as it shouldn't have an impact.

That's a good argument for finding the one judge who would actually do that and eliminating the other 8.  They're obviously just confusing everybody with their bogosity.  BTW, which one is The One?

Quote
Is this what you mean?  You think think this is an example of conservatives interfering in "medical, religious and business" situations?  This is a case of conflicting rights, not of interference.

Really, how generous of you to give civil servants and workers the right to deny service to anyone they don't like.  Can a judge refuse to hear a case if the defendent looks shifty or his name is K'wan! Hussein?  Can a city deny a Muslim community a permit to build a mosque on private land?  Guess that's cool, right?  You seem to agree with the Rand Paul idea of how to fix racism.  Just don't go to a restaurant or other businesses that discriminates.  They will simply go out of business or welcome blacks because it's good for business.  That's gone well, hasn't it?

Quote
You love to overgeneralize, don't know why I even bother responding when you make these claims.  I might as well just say Democrats love to kill people (since most violent felons are Democrats).  It has as much logical validity as your overgeneralized claims.

OK, show me an example of a Democratic position that discriminates against a class of people.  FWIW, Democrats *do* love to kill people.  That why there are so many shootings of blacks by Democrats/liberals and never ones by Republicans/conservatives.  That's because Democrats are against freedom.  Wait...did I get that backward?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: JoshuaD on March 02, 2016, 03:11:27 PM
I didn't read the whole exchange here, but..

Quote
OK, show me an example of a Democratic position that discriminates against a class of people

Plenty of democratic policies are discriminatory against whites and men. They aren't considered "protected classes", but they are both classes of people that the polices discriminate against.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 03:42:53 PM
The operative phrase was "show me", not just say they exist.  Seriati has already done that.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 03:48:23 PM
Ugh, Carson dropped out.  I was hoping he would wait another few weeks in order to draw more votes away from Cruz.  But, since his name is still on the ballot in the upcoming primaries he'll probably still do about as well as he has done up til now.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 02, 2016, 03:51:00 PM
You looked at our ballot yet AI?  Lots of ghosts of candidates past listed on that thing.  :P
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 04:28:05 PM
Wow, besides the usually suspects and McNalley on the Democrat side, there's also someone named "Roque Rocky De La Fuente".  I confess I'm a little tempted, as I'm sure he would be fun to kick around for 4 years.  There are 14 on the GOP side, including Gilmore and Uncommitted.  I bet he will lose out to the latter like he lost out to Others in New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 04:31:05 PM
Quote
That why there are so many shootings of blacks by Democrats/liberals and never ones by Republicans/conservatives. 

If that's not true, then why is the Democratic party so intent on getting rid of fully constitutional laws that ban violent felons from voting?  Isn't the assumption that violent felons (who predominantly target black and hispanic victims) will vote Democrat?

I'm willing to bet you that if we made a list of black gunshot victims, and identified their shooters, that we'd have more pro-Hillary folks than any other candidate.  Or do you only count gunshot victims when the guns were legally acquired?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 02, 2016, 04:43:22 PM
So... people who end up involved in crime, at least in some part due to lack of lawful opportunities, tend to support candidates who may improve their lawful opportunities?  Shocking stuff there.

I wasn't aware that the party was pushing hard for violent felons to regain voting rights.  But I suppose that's the under the radar hush hush type of intensity?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 06:00:08 PM
So... people who end up involved in crime, at least in some part due to lack of lawful opportunities, tend to support candidates who may improve their lawful opportunities?

Are you just *censored*ing with words for the hell of it, or can you show that Hillary is more likely than Bernie Sanders to support the sort of "lawful opportunities" that would prevent disadvantaged kids from growing up to rape, murder, rob and extort from the most disadvantaged persons within their reach?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 06:05:39 PM
I wasn't aware that the party was pushing hard for violent felons to regain voting rights.  But I suppose that's the under the radar hush hush type of intensity?

No.  Just read the voting rights arguments about Republicans banning convicted felons from the vote.  Aren't you old enough to remember the arguments during Bush v. Gore?

or, look at the list of states that ban felons from voting, and tell me which of them is a Democratic party state?

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: DonaldD on March 02, 2016, 06:18:31 PM
I assume quite a number of those felons are felons simply due to drug possession convictions and the war on drugs.

If one has a philosophical issue with over criminalization in general, then fighting against the removal of voting rights for felons would be consistent and not necessarily a sign of self interest.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 06:22:53 PM
Quote
If that's not true, then why is the Democratic party so intent on getting rid of fully constitutional laws that ban violent felons from voting?  Isn't the assumption that violent felons (who predominantly target black and hispanic victims) will vote Democrat?
They should be allowed to vote because they've paid their debt to society.  Why should that fundamental right be denied them?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 06:35:33 PM
In a surreal but real way Trump is actually resurrecting the Republican Party by pulling it back from the fringe toward the center.  That's not to say that he's sane or even tolerable as a candidate (his horse, which he will nominate as his VP should be shot first just to make sure the succession skips him), but some of his positions are decidedly to the left of most of the vocal contingents of the GOP.  The current establishment will have to choose whether to support or abandon him.  If they choose the former, then they have to embrace some of his positions, else the bizarro endorsements will mean absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 06:45:01 PM
I assume quite a number of those felons are felons simply due to drug possession convictions and the war on drugs.

That's only because felonies have been applied to things that they never should have, violating 5th and 14th amendment due process, and injuring the 9th amendment rights as well.  I would strongly support restoration of voting rights to "felons" whose "felonies" were not in the scope of what was considered a "felony" back at the time the 14th Amendment was signed.  That includes the corporate wet dream of an expanded definition of burglary that attacks basic shoplifters rather than folks that break and enter an actual domicile.

Nevertheless, the fact is that Democrats (e.g. Al on this forum) supports deenfranchisement of violent felons, committers of fraud, and other traditional felons whose rights were revocable under the 14th Amendment.  And why?  Because of the assumption that (contrary to what Al said before) the primary group who commits gun crimes against African Americans are a group that is predominately likely to vote Democrat.

Note that I did not raise this question.  Al did.  I'm not anti-Democrat; merely anti-self-serving-bullcrap.  I'll open with similar ferocity against any Republican who spouts sanctimonious soft-serve bull*censored*.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 06:47:15 PM

If one has a philosophical issue with over criminalization in general, then fighting against the removal of voting rights for felons would be consistent and not necessarily a sign of self interest.

Agreed.  Let's look at the number of death penalty and life in prison without parole crimes that were signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton, and new felonies signed into law by Barrach Hussein Obama, and then ponder whether it can be said that the Democratic Party by principle objects to overcriminalization.  Feh!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 02, 2016, 09:11:31 PM
Quote
Nevertheless, the fact is that Democrats (e.g. Al on this forum) supports deenfranchisement of violent felons, committers of fraud, and other traditional felons whose rights were revocable under the 14th Amendment.  And why?  Because of the assumption that (contrary to what Al said before) the primary group who commits gun crimes against African Americans are a group that is predominately likely to vote Democrat.

I look forward to the day when you stop making *censored* up just to start a fight.  In the meantime, enjoy yourself as I have no interest in pretending to have a debate with you on this.  Feh, indeed.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 09:17:13 PM
Trump doesn't seem to be playing to win.  If he wins the Republican nomination, he's pissed off enough Republicans that they will stay home.  If he loses the nomination, then if he's Hillary's straw man, he runs as independent, and wins her the victory.  Only way Trump could win would be if Hillary won the Democrats and Sanders ran as an independent.  OTOH, with Trump the Republican alternative, it's just possible that Sanders could actually WIN the election as an independent.  LOL!
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 03, 2016, 07:13:33 AM
It's amazing how quickly everything can abruptly change in this goofy and scary election cycle on the Republican side.  Until -- almost literally -- yesterday, the strategy had been to defeat Trump by pointing out his weaknesses and simply beating him at the polls, and finally after Tuesday's primaries by uniting the party (consolidating) around either Cruz or Rubio.  Now, just a day later, the plan has changed again.  Nobody should drop out.  Instead, feed money and support to every remaining candidate, which could be any of Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, in hopes of diluting his vote totals among the rest of them. 

You can do that without the other candidate's willing cooperation by putting the money into super-PACs and managing the process independently.  But even though the other three don't have to help this effort, why wouldn't they?  If that works, Trump won't reach the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, and neither would any of the others.  The delegates would then be free to vote for anyone they like on any ballots that follow.

That would leave the others, and any other draftable alternative, campaigning to be the "other guy", not the guy at the convention with the most votes.  I think that raises Kasich's chances to get the nomination to be as good as the other two, but would allow Paul Ryan to leapfrog them all, too. 

But, that's today's plan.  Here are two more ways to play it out, where the second is the nuclear option.

1. Spend the necessary money to find out what Trump has buried in his past that would force him to drop out of the race if it were exposed.  Then blackmail him with the threat to reveal it or destroy the evidence if he withdraws.  He says he would date his daughter if he could. Did he?  He hires illegal workers and has been sued for their mistreatment.  Has he done worse than that?  What other kinds of things may lurk?

2. If Trump does have enough delegates to win on the first ballot by the time of the convention, I think the Party might be willing to take even more extreme steps, like changing the rules so that some delegates, perhaps from a few states with the weakest delegate binding rules, are freed to set aside their commitment on the first ballot.

Trump doesn't have this locked up yet, and the Party seems determined to stop him at any cost.  How far are they willing to go?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 03, 2016, 10:00:33 AM
Pete, your words, on the post I responded to invited some *censoring* with.   If by “for the hell of it” you mean, “in a silly attempt to get you to make less sensational statements and just make your point”, then yes.  Guilty.

And to your second question, I AM old enough, but honestly didn’t pay as much attention back then.  If you are amending out the “violent” qualifier on felons, then I withdraw my objection.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: LetterRip on March 03, 2016, 12:01:57 PM
The party is reacting to Trump this way, because while he may win the Presidency - he will alienate hispanic voters from the Republican party.  And while they aren't critical for this election - due to demographic shifts the party could permanently lose the white house from 2020 onward if they do alienate the hispanic voters (losing many south western states including Texas).  Similarly alienating black voters could lose a lot of republican southern strongholds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/10/the-demographics-of-2016-look-brutal-for-republicans/
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 01:38:50 PM
Quote
Nevertheless, the fact is that Democrats (e.g. Al on this forum) supports deenfranchisement of violent felons, committers of fraud, and other traditional felons whose rights were revocable under the 14th Amendment.  And why?  Because of the assumption that (contrary to what Al said before) the primary group who commits gun crimes against African Americans are a group that is predominately likely to vote Democrat.

I look forward to the day when you stop making *censored* up just to start a fight.  In the meantime, enjoy yourself as I have no interest in pretending to have a debate with you on this.  Feh, indeed.

Pardon the typo.  I meant RE-enfranchisement.  And I didn't make that up, you said it right here:

 
Quote
If that's not true, then why is the Democratic party so intent on getting rid of fully constitutional laws that ban violent felons from voting?  Isn't the assumption that violent felons (who predominantly target black and hispanic victims) will vote Democrat?
They should be allowed to vote because they've paid their debt to society.  Why should that fundamental right be denied them?

DW had just questioned my assertion that Democrats had, on the agenda, the re-enfranchisement of violent felons.  And you had said, rather foolishly, that it was primarily whites that hurt black people with guns. (duh).  Thanks for rebutting both statements.

Also, poking you for using that bromide about serving time in prison being some sort of paying one's debt to society.  Nope.  You gun down some kid in a drive by shooting, then deny you did it in court and claim that the man is targeting you because of your skin color, then spend ten years as part of a prison gang, tell me how the hell you've paid society any restitution?  All that's happened is that your violent impulses have been redirected at the prison population for a few years rather than the community at large.

If someone actually makes restitution to society, on their own initiative, they can appeal to the governor for restitution of rights.  And that's how it ought to be.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 01:45:41 PM
Pete, your words, on the post I responded to invited some *censoring* with.   If by “for the hell of it” you mean, “in a silly attempt to get you to make less sensational statements and just make your point”, then yes.  Guilty.

I have no idea what you mean. Do you?


And to your second question, I AM old enough, but honestly didn’t pay as much attention back then.  If you are amending out the “violent” qualifier on felons, then I withdraw my objection.

If Democrats that cry against disfranchisement, such as Al, will modify their arguments and call only for the reenfranchisement of NON-VIOLENT felons, then I will happily not complain that they aren't trying to reenfranchize violent criminals.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 03, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
Again, when you slow down, not only do I understand your points but a lot more often than not I agree with them Pete. 

THAT is what I meant, or what I intended.  So your understanding was apparently not required to get the intended result. 

I have reading comprehension problems the more worked up you are.  Maybe it's my problem and not yours.  Judging by some of the other responses that fall on the gradient from WTF? to hostile refutation, I'm betting it's not just me.  :P 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 02:20:36 PM
You're right.  It's probably me going into brainspin.  Thank you for persisting until I made sense.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 03, 2016, 03:34:33 PM
Quote
DW had just questioned my assertion that Democrats had, on the agenda, the re-enfranchisement of violent felons.  And you had said, rather foolishly, that it was primarily whites that hurt black people with guns. (duh).  Thanks for rebutting both statements.

Also, poking you for using that bromide about serving time in prison being some sort of paying one's debt to society.  Nope.  You gun down some kid in a drive by shooting, then deny you did it in court and claim that the man is targeting you because of your skin color, then spend ten years as part of a prison gang, tell me how the hell you've paid society any restitution?  All that's happened is that your violent impulses have been redirected at the prison population for a few years rather than the community at large.
Have you looked at the range of voting restrictions different states impose?  It's absurd that there is no uniform standard for any aspect of it.  It even can be applied to misdemeanors or crimes of moral turpitude, depending on where you are and who you are more than what you did.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 05:56:02 PM
Have you looked at the range of voting restrictions different states impose? "

Uh, yeah, I just linke4d to the chart.

" s absurd that there is no uniform standard for any aspect of it. '

That absurdity is called federalism, and it's one of the two key pillars of the US constitution.  The other absurdity is called separation of powers.  The idea is, focus on your own *censored*ing state, We4ssex, and call us when you achieve Utopia.  Then, and only then, we will consider doing things your way.  The 15th amendment explicitly allows states to set that standard re voting.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 03, 2016, 07:49:09 PM
Quote
That absurdity is called federalism, and it's one of the two key pillars of the US constitution.  The other absurdity is called separation of powers.

I just love it when you fling around these grand announcements, as if delivered from a higher podium than I can aspire to.  Federalism is not absolute, nor is separation of powers.  That's why we have the SC to interpret laws and standards against all of the glorious writ in gold standards.  I hope someone brings a test case before the SC to challenge the state's right to deny anyone their franchise.  It has to be one of the most shameful aspects of southern democracy that being black is a hindrance to one's right to vote, almost as bad as being a Democrat.

Quote
The 15th amendment explicitly allows states to set that standard re voting.

How does the 15th grant states individual right to impose voting rights?  It guarantees that people cannot be disenfranchised by race, etc.

Quote
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
 Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 08:50:45 PM
Al, dont blame me for youur failuure to aspire to higher thought, and failure to read carefully exce4pt for purpose of nitpicking.

You are correct that the license for voting restriction is n ot in 15a as i misspoke. It is in 14a,


Federalism and separation of powers are not a complex.matter beyond your reach. Try harder.

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 08:53:08 PM
"ederalism is not absolute, '

Of course not.  But 14a apecifically reserves a power to disfrnchise those who commit treason or other legislator designated crimes.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 03, 2016, 09:40:16 PM
Quote
But 14a apecifically reserves a power to disfrnchise those who commit treason or other legislator designated crimes.
Yes, I realize. I'm saying it's shameful the way it is used.  Is that statement clear?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 12:33:33 AM
Quote
But 14a apecifically reserves a power to disfrnchise those who commit treason or other legislator designated crimes.
Yes, I realize. I'm saying it's shameful the way it is used.  Is that statement clear?
No.  I rarely get clarity from a Passive voice Pronoun statement wrapped inside another passive voice pronoun statement. 

Can you give me a specific example of some "non shameful" way a state could use that 14a clause?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 05:55:16 AM
The shameful aspect is due to the wide differences in how states choose to apply this rule and how many people are barred from voting even though they served their time, sometimes for a single event or minor offenses, and have not been convicted of later crimes.  I'll give a few examples. You don't need to point out again that states are allowed to do this, or challenge my opinion that I think it needs to be changed.  You have already done that.

Except for Wyoming, all states with over 5% voter disenfranchisement are in the south, and all disproportionately use these laws to target blacks.  All states with high percentages have conservative and Republican legislatures and Governors.  About 2.5% of all potential voters in the country can't vote, but that includes 7.6% of blacks.  It's obvious that even if blacks disproportionately are convicted of crimes (another racist issue), the laws allow states to suppress black voting.

Florida's rules have flip-flopped from one extreme to another over the past 8 years.  The current policy was instituted with no clear reason, other than to be punitive to ex-cons who would most likely vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans.  That covers over 1.5 million people in Florida, or about 10% of the population, and a mind-boggling 23% of the black population.  Really?  It's clear that if the state ever swings Democratic (which is harder to do with so many potential Democratic voters barred from the polls), the law will be reversed again.  If that happens, it's likely the state will never elect a Republican Governor or Senators again, which is why  todays Republican government of the state has such a strict law.  This is the nastiest kind of Jim Crow in the country, and as you point out, it's allowed by the Constitution.
Quote
Florida - On Mar. 9, 2011 the Florida rules of Executive Clemency were toughened. Automatic restoration of civil rights and the ability to vote will no longer be granted for any offenses. All individuals convicted of any felony will now have to apply for executive clemency after a five year waiting period. Individuals who are convicted, or who have previously been convicted, of certain felonies such as murder, assault, child abuse, drug trafficking, arson, etc. are subject to a seven year waiting period and a clemency board hearing to determine whether or not the ability to vote will be restored.

Prior to the Mar. 9, 2011 rule change some individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies were re-enfranchised automatically by the Clemency Board upon completion of their full sentence, including payment of fines and fees.

Kentucky similarly recently reversed the policy for no apparent reason.  That state also can withhold voting privileges of people who have been convicted of "high misdemeanors", but as best I can determine that term means that the person was convicted of a crime that made them "infamous".:
Quote
Kentucky - On Nov. 24, 2015, Kentucky Gov. Steven L. Beshear issued executive order 2015-871 to automatically restore the right to vote to nonviolent felons who have completed probation, parole, and who have no outstanding court-ordered restitution payments. On Dec. 22, 2015, newly elected Gov. Matthew G. Bevin issued executive order 2015-052, rescinding the previous Governor’s executive order.

As a result, people convicted of any felony in Kentucky must individually apply with the Governor to have their voting rights restored.

In Hunter v. Underwood (1985) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v._Underwood), the SC ruled in favor of two men who were convicted in Alabama of "moral turpitude" for trying to cash a bad check.  Amazingly, when they first sued in Federal Court, they lost with the decision noting:
Quote
Edwards and Underwood sued the Board of Registrars at a Federal District Court, which found that indeed the outspoken purpose of the constitutional change was "the disenfranchisement of blacks", but could not find it proven that this was based on racism, and decided against the plaintiffs.
The south is so twisted when it comes to matters of black repression that it's possible to believe that systematic attempts to deny blacks the right to vote is somehow not due to racism.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 06:02:27 AM
Well, we needn't worry about Trump's ability to get his way with a recalcitrant Congress or the leaders of other countries, as last night he pointed out in the debate (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/republican-debate-highlights/) that as far as having a big penis, you can be assured that he doesn't have a problem in that area.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 08:02:08 AM
Quote
The shameful aspect is due to the wide differences in how states choose to apply this rule and how many people are barred from voting even though they served their time, sometimes for a single event or minor offenses, and have not been convicted of later crimes.  I'll give a few examples. You don't need to point out again that states are allowed to do this,

To the extent that you are essentially saying that federalism (the ability of different states to enact different laws within constitutional limits) is shameful, the shame rests on you.

To the extent that you use a single law of over 30 years ago to stand for a whole class of laws today, well, come on.

However, you have raised other valid issues such as disfraqnchisement for bouncing a check, etc, where basic crimes of poverty disfranchise.  But if you doctrinaire Democrats dont care about the poor enough to represent their plight (rather than laundering it as racism) then who do you expect to nominate justices who care about them?  Republicans?  Not no one. 

As for 7.5% vs 2.5%, that"s a function of blacks being more poor.  As is most of the effect of disproportionate violence by police (both justified and nonjustified). 

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 08:34:37 AM
Quote
To the extent that you are essentially saying that federalism (the ability of different states to enact different laws within constitutional limits) is shameful, the shame rests on you.
You're diverting. I'm not attacking federalism, but a weakness in the 14A that allows states to selectively disenfranchise a group of citizens it wants to keep away from the polls.

Quote
As for 7.5% vs 2.5%, that"s a function of blacks being more poor.
You're ignoring the cultural suppression (aka racism) that pushes more blacks into poverty and crime.  Nobody is blameless, in that if you do the crime you should do the time, but this is a lifetime sentence that wealthy or middle class whites don't suffer in the same proportions.

Quote
But if you doctrinaire Democrats dont care about the poor enough to represent their plight (rather than laundering it as racism) then who do you expect to nominate justices who care about them?
If I am reading you right this time, you're saying that although I'm raising this issue and liberal groups like the ACLU (not really liberal, but Constitutional) are driving to find solutions for this issue, that it's our fault for not raising this issue and driving to find solutions for it.  So doing something about it is not doing anything about it.   At least you agree that Republicans have no interest in fixing this problem, as it serves their purposes to keep certain classes of people away from the polls where they would vote them out of office if they could.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: D.W. on March 04, 2016, 09:16:59 AM
Well, we needn't worry about Trump's ability to get his way with a recalcitrant Congress or the leaders of other countries, as last night he pointed out in the debate (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/republican-debate-highlights/) that as far as having a big penis, you can be assured that he doesn't have a problem in that area.
He apparently has no problem in the balls department either...

The highlight that shocked me, as his vulgarity really doesn't at this point, was his insistence that, the military WOULD follow his orders, because he knows how to lead.  This was in response to, "what do you say to those in the military who have said they would disobey orders you have proposed because they are illegal. 

Obama is a menace that must be stopped when he bends the law (in some's opinions) but Trump will just ignore them and get others to do what he says despite them.  Well, at least Trump informed us in advance he intends to rule not govern.  That was generous of him.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 11:37:40 AM
Quote
You're ignoring the cultural suppression (aka racism) that pushes more blacks into poverty and crime

You fail to show any evidence that present racism rather that past racism resulting in blacks being disproportionately born into poverty is the cause.  You live in too much privilege and rub shoulders with too few poor to grasp that poverty crosses generations.  In this, talking to you is as painful as talking to a devout tea partier.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 11:43:54 AM
Quote
that it's our fault for not raising this issue and driving to find solutions for it.

Causally it's as much your fault as the Republicans.  Morally, it's more your fault because of the hypocrisy problem, since you.pretend to stand for the downtrodden against the forces of privilege, when you are really raising the walls around the ghetto while welcoming a handful of token race representatives into the elites.

No sir, you dont get to take credit for the ACLU. They are their own collection of constitutional and anticonstitutional ecclectics, and neither conservative nor or liberal at heart.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 11:51:40 AM
Quote
You fail to show any evidence that present racism rather that past racism resulting in blacks being disproportionately born into poverty is the cause.  You live in too much privilege and rub shoulders with too few poor to grasp that poverty crosses generations.  In this, talking to you is as painful as talking to a devout tea partier.
You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.  And then you pointedly accuse me of somehow ignoring the generations that they have suffered the consequences.

Quote
No sir, you dont get to take credit for the ACLU. They are their own collection of constitutional and anticonstitutional ecclectics, and neither conservative nor or liberal at heart.
That's what I said :), if you ignore the anti-constitutional eclectic thing, which I don't understand.

Quote
Morally, it's more your fault because of the hypocrisy problem, since you.pretend to stand for the downtrodden against the forces of privilege, when you are really raising the walls around the ghetto while welcoming a handful of token race representatives into the elites.
That's just a rhetorical flourish, and oh by the way a stupid thing to say.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 12:14:01 PM
"f you ignore the anti-constitutional eclectic thing, which I don't understand"

I said aclu pursues an ecclectic assortment of constitutional and anticonstitutional positions.  For example, they defend seven amendments of the bill of rights, ignore two, and staunchly oppose one (ie. The 2nd amendment). They are like shakespeare's "sanctimonious pirate" parable... See Measure for Measure.  He set to sea with the ten commandments, but "Razed" one of them, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 12:18:35 PM
Quote
You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism

How can i have ignored it, brainiac, when i said it before you did?  "PAST RACISM resulting in blacks being disproportionately born into poverty is the cause."

The fire has been followed by a flood, and those burnt out by fire are suffering more from the flood, yout you arent doing them any *censored*ing good with that stupid fire extimguisher.  And where were you when the fire was raging?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 04, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
[You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.
Except that's a false story.  The current "trend" of being born into poverty is the direct result of the expansion of social programs advocated by the left, which altered the trajectory of an entire people from upwards to downwards. 

Shouldn't the "party of science" base their policies on actual results rather than feel good beliefs?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 12:57:50 PM
[You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.
Except that's a false story.  The current "trend" of being born into poverty is the direct result of the expansion of social programs advocated by the left, which altered the trajectory of an entire people from upwards to downwards. 

Shouldn't the "party of science" base their policies on actual results rather than feel good beliefs?
Sure :).  Thank goodness the right wing is there to protect blacks from the ravages of social programs and civil rights protections. 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on March 04, 2016, 01:05:27 PM
[You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.
Except that's a false story.  The current "trend" of being born into poverty is the direct result of the expansion of social programs advocated by the left, which altered the trajectory of an entire people from upwards to downwards. 

Shouldn't the "party of science" base their policies on actual results rather than feel good beliefs?

Really?  In the past, people who were born poor were less likely to be poor when they were old?

What is your source for this?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2016, 01:45:52 PM
The fire has been followed by a flood, and those burnt out by fire are suffering more from the flood, yout you arent doing them any *censored*ing good with that stupid fire extimguisher.

This is a good line, I may steal it some day. I also think it applies fairly well to the issue you're discussing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
Thank you Fenring. At least 2/3 of the credit belongs to Uncle Screwtape as channeled by CS Lewis. 

Quote
“The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under.

I just weaponized Screwtape's analogy for this discussion with a scenario where flood follows fire, as here intergenerational ghetto poverty has followed racism. 

I can only imagine what it must feel like for someone old enough to have participated at Selma to deal with the fact that it happened without them.  Hence, I think the institutional denial among DNC old-timers that the racial problems of today are not identical to those of 1965... particularly since it's safe to march now.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2016, 02:27:56 PM
Thank you Fenring. At least 2/3 of the credit belongs to Uncle Screwtape as channeled by CS Lewis. 

Another reference I missed from something I read recently :(

For what it's worth I like your phrasing better.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 02:38:27 PM
I think my version better captures what's being done with racism, but Lewis' original really captures the essence of the trendiness compulsion currently repackaged as social and political "progressivism." 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 06, 2016, 08:56:52 AM
March 5, 2016:

Quote
A day after announcing he would not order the American military to make any moves that would break international law, Trump said he would instead seek to "broaden" such laws to allow the U.S. to use tactics that are currently banned.

"I will obey the laws, but I will try to get the laws extended," the billionaire businessman and former Atlantic City casino tycoon said during a news conference Saturday night. "I will try and get the laws broadened. Because it's very hard to be successful in beating someone when you're rules are very soft and their rules are unlimited."

Quote
Donald Trump on Saturday led a mass rally in taking a pledge affirming their commitment to voting for him, and vowed to broaden existing laws regarding the interrogation of captured terrorist suspects.
...
"Let's do a pledge. Who likes me in this room?" Trump asked the crowd. "I've never done this before. Can I have a pledge? A swearing? Raise your right hand."

The Republican front-runner then had the audience repeat after him.

"I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there are hurricanes or whatever, will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for President."

The crowd ended the pledge with cheers.

"Now I know. Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did," Trump said before continuing with his speech.

This one swings both ways:
Quote
"God bless Kansas. And God bless Maine," Cruz said, and argued that his performance on Saturday represented an important pivot point in the GOP race. "What we are seeing is Kansas is a manifestation of a real shift in momentum."

Trump lobbed criticism at his GOP rivals. He said Rubio had a "very, very bad night" and called on him to drop out of the race. And he took at shot at Cruz, after spending months saying the Texas senator is ineligible to run for President because he was born in Canada.

"He should do well in Maine because it is very close to Canada," Trump said.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 06, 2016, 06:03:45 PM

"Now I know. Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did," Trump said before continuing with his speech. "

That's pretty gentle stuff compared to Mad "Easter-Cluster-Bomber" Albright saying that there's a "special place in hell" for women who don't vote for Hilary Clinton.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 07, 2016, 06:19:15 AM
Really?!  A comment by supporter Madeleine Albright at a rally is somehow more egregious than candidate Donald Trump mockingly asking people at his rally to swear to vote for him, come hell or high water?  Really!  Here's her explanation:

Quote
I have spent much of my career as a diplomat. It is an occupation in which words and context matter a great deal. So one might assume I know better than to tell a large number of women to go to hell.

But last Saturday, in the excitement of a campaign event for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, that is essentially what I did, when I delivered a line I have uttered a thousand times to applause, nodding heads and laughter: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” It is a phrase I first used almost 25 years ago, when I was the United States ambassador to the United Nations and worked closely with the six other female U.N. ambassadors. But this time, to my surprise, it went viral.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 07, 2016, 09:12:06 PM
25 years ago stuff didn't go viral so you didn't have to think through the morality of what you were saying.  You could say crap at a political function, counting on the fact that most everyone in the room already agreed with you.

But if you look non-carelessly at what I said, you might note that I have a chip on my shoulder about Albright that goes back to the Kosovo war where we dropped cluster bombs on children to support slave-trading terrorists.

Time Magazine: "The Kosovo conflict is often referred to, by both her fans and foes, as Madeleine's War."

slate: Ever since Kosovo, Putin has planned revenge (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/putin_s_crimea_revenge_ever_since_the_u_s_bombed_kosovo_in_1999_putin_has.html)
Quote
From this point on, Russian President Boris Yeltsin's administration, already weak and embattled, would be unable to justify its friendly, perennially de-escalating posture toward the West. Anti-American feelings ran so high you would have thought the U.S. were bombing Russia. By turning his plane around, Primakov had endeared himself to the nationalist opposition and turned his back on Yeltsin. The liberals in Moscow were in a panic. The nationalists were mobilizing not only politically but also militarily: Men lined up outside the Yugoslav Embassy in Moscow to sign up to volunteer to defend Serbia.

Thus I blame Albright for Putin's ascension as well as for the damage of Kosovo proper.  In short, Albright and the Clintons rebooted the Cold War with Russia. 

Internationally, the choice seems to be a Trump who will antagonize China and kiss Putin's ass, or a Clinton who will antagonize Putin and kiss China's ass. 

Hey, Fenring, which do you think is worse?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 07, 2016, 11:17:58 PM
Internationally, the choice seems to be a Trump who will antagonize China and kiss Putin's ass, or a Clinton who will antagonize Putin and kiss China's ass. 

Hey, Fenring, which do you think is worse?

I thought of making a joke here about kissing Trump's ass but instead I'll answer. China is already half an antagonist and the TPP furthers that, sidelining their market in favor of other developing Asian markets. The apparent divide between the IMF and BRICS highlights this shift away from good business with China, as does the hijinx in the SA Sea. Since Trump is against TPP this would actually be more welcome to China than anything Clinton might do for them. Regarding Putin, Trump has issued far less aggressive rhetoric regarding both him and Syria than Clinton has, so I guess you'd be right that he would try to avoid being opponents of them, but I doubt he'd kiss anyone's ass, as in, actually giving in to them just like that. Trump strikes me as far more likely to strike a mutually beneficial deal with Putin than Clinton would. She can talk the talk, but she's too beholden to make any agreements that aren't in the company line. If the company doesn't want common cause with Russian then she wouldn't broker it. Trump might, since he doesn't care what they think. At least that's what he says. Back when candidates like Fiorina stupidly said they would close off dialogue with Putin and dictate terms, Trump was the one saying that he'd absolutely talk to Putin because they understand each other. Take that to mean what you want, I call that a good thing.

The other side of the coin is the military war-hawk agenda, and between Trump and Clinton I think Clinton is by far the bigger war-hawk. Trump talks tough, especially about domestic security, but he's never said anything I head that's aggressive regarding foreign sovereign powers. He said a lot of tough talk about attacking ISIS, but never about usurping Syria or going toe to toe with Russia like Clinton has. That puts him more in the peacemaker camp than her, and that's saying something.

In short, antagonizing anyone is worse, and I think Trump is a deal-maker. This can include bad deals too, but at least it might mean he won't trade in little more than threats.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 08, 2016, 04:11:53 AM
Quote
Internationally, the choice seems to be a Trump who will antagonize China and kiss Putin's ass...
More likely that both will play him for the clown he is.  Clinton at least has a shred of sense and a boatload of international experience.  This election process has and will continue to embarrass the US on the world stage and will diminish our standing unless Trump is utterly wiped out in the election.  If it looks like close to half of US voters pull the lever for him the rest of us look like morons for letting him ride around performing his Clown act and taking him seriously.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 08, 2016, 04:46:55 PM
Fenring, my understanding is that Putin and Trump have publicly said very kind words about each other.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 08, 2016, 04:51:20 PM
Fenring, my understanding is that Putin and Trump have publicly said very kind words about each other.

Ok?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 08, 2016, 08:52:59 PM
Quote
Really?!  A comment by supporter Madeleine Albright at a rally is somehow more egregious than candidate Donald Trump mockingly asking people at his rally to swear to vote for him, come hell or high water?

Feminists generally get a pass on their rampant bigotry. If I were to apply the same standards to them as they do to men like Trump, it wouldn't be pretty.

I am not really too worked up over Albright's comment frankly, although it's always delicious on the rare occasion where man bites dog and a feminist gets raked over the coals by the media.

My personal preference would be that the media would not create stories out of nothing, create narratives and shape campaigns by piling onto supposed "gaffes" and blowing every stray comment into national news.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 08:10:58 AM
Quote
Clinton at least has a shred of sense and a boatload of international experience.  This election process has and will continue to embarrass the US on the world stage and will diminish our standing unless Trump is utterly wiped out in the election.

True on Clinton . probably true on Trump, but since Europe made exactly the same noises about Reagan and Bush Jr, the parable of the boy who cried wolf kicks in.  :( 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 10:45:17 PM
Now it's both sad and pathetic.  Trump *may* not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but a second ballot can only have candidates who won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses and/or primaries.  Right now no one but Trump qualifies, but Cruz may well qualify by the convention.  In other words, it's very conceivable that he will be the *only* alternative to Trump on the second ballot, and it's therefore a certainty that one of them will win on that ballot.  The question is whether Cruz can convert enough of Trump's delegates to his side.  It truly is a choice between being shot or poisoned.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 15, 2016, 11:51:47 PM
I
Now it's both sad and pathetic.  Trump *may* not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but a second ballot can only have candidates who won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses and/or primaries.  Right now no one but Trump qualifies, but Cruz may well qualify by the convention.

If Cruz doesn't qualify by the convention is Trump the candidate by default? Or can two other candidates do something like merge their wins by naming themselves as a 'ticket'?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 12:16:43 AM
Quote
Clinton at least has a shred of sense and a boatload of international experience.  This election process has and will continue to embarrass the US on the world stage and will diminish our standing unless Trump is utterly wiped out in the election.

True on Clinton . probably true on Trump, but since Europe made exactly the same noises about Reagan and Bush Jr, the parable of the boy who cried wolf kicks in.  :(

Note also today the UK was making angry noises about a US military dude voicing doubts about the UK leaving the EU, and how that might affect NATO's alliance against DAESH.  So it's not just Americans that don't like to be told what to do by foreigners
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 16, 2016, 08:43:19 AM
Quote
If Cruz doesn't qualify by the convention is Trump the candidate by default? Or can two other candidates do something like merge their wins by naming themselves as a 'ticket'?
Interesting question. Most likely, even if it's just Trump and Cruz, the two monotone monotheme monosyllabic candidates, I would expect Kasich to bring forward a request for a rules change to allow him in.  That isn't such an unlikely or rare maneuver.  The last time it happened was the last time in order to pry delegates loose from Ron Paul for Romney.  It worked.

Quote
Yesterday, the Republican National Committee in Tampa adopted some changes to the rules of the national Republican Party that shift power from the state parties and the grassroots to the RNC and the GOP presidential nominee. Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire touted the new rules as providing “a strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years. But in fact the new rules should be very troubling and disappointing to conservative grassroots activists, because they move the national Republican Party away from being a party that is decentralized and bottom-up toward becoming one that is centralized and top-down.

The Romney rules effectively disenfranchise grassroots delegates, and will thus tend to weaken and splinter the party over time. They specifically represent a blow to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul insurgency -- movements that have sprung up precisely because Washington insiders (of both parties) have abandoned the traditional bedrock principles of the Republican party, namely, economic freedom, fiscal common sense, and smaller, constitutionally limited government.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on March 16, 2016, 10:36:46 AM
I
Now it's both sad and pathetic.  Trump *may* not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but a second ballot can only have candidates who won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses and/or primaries.  Right now no one but Trump qualifies, but Cruz may well qualify by the convention.

If Cruz doesn't qualify by the convention is Trump the candidate by default? Or can two other candidates do something like merge their wins by naming themselves as a 'ticket'?

It appears that the Republicans can do do just about anything they please (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/a_contested_republican_convention_explained.html), if they are willing to pay the political cost.

(This is the same link I put in the Trump the Reality Show thread, but I fear it may have been lost in the bickering there.  ;))
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 16, 2016, 10:39:38 AM
I understand they can change the rules, but I was asking about what the current rules say, since I'm not familiar with them.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: rightleft22 on March 16, 2016, 11:10:56 AM
If you think the rest of the world is making the same noise about a possible Trump Presidency as they did for Reagan and Bush Jr your not paying attention.
Perhaps equating noise as noise and not listening to what is actually being said.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 11:31:13 AM
If you think the rest of the world is making the same noise about a possible Trump Presidency as they did for Reagan and Bush Jr your not paying attention.
Perhaps equating noise as noise and not listening to what is actually being said.

I quoted what they said here on Ornery, silly boy.  I read the BBC more than any US news source.  And I don't watch TV news except in links and only when I can't find what I need in text. 

I concede that what they said about Bush Jr isn't the same.  But Reagan was voted in when I was in an international school in Mexico City and I remember very well what they said.  I doubt you can say the same.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 16, 2016, 11:50:52 AM
Quote
(This is the same link I put in the Trump the Reality Show thread, but I fear it may have been lost in the bickering there.  ;))
Yep, it may have been because I posted it before you did :).

Here's today's dose of the Trump polivirus, for which so far there's no treatment or antidote: "Donald Trump just threatened more violence. Only this time, it’s directed at the GOP (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/16/donald-trump-just-threatened-more-violence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/)."
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 12:02:00 PM
If they change or bend the rules, Trump goes 3rd party and carries off most of their voting base. He's already told them that was coming, so they can do it, but they know what the cost will be.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2016, 05:47:41 PM
I want to go on the record, there is no way President Obama makes a neutral or midline pick.  He doesn't have it in him to compromise or to go for anything other that a salted earth victory.  Nothing in his 7 years as President would indicate otherwise.  This is one of the rare times I make a prediction.  I don't see any chance he goes for the "clever" strategy of nominating someone the Republicans can't afford to pass up, just in case Hilary is the next President.  (In fact, I think they'd rather take their chances with a Hillary appointment with a majority, but not super-majority Democrat Senate than with an Obama pick).
And this may explain why I rarely try to make predictions.  I was wrong, he clearly nominated someone far more midline than I anticipated.  Garland would have been an uncontroversial appointment for either of his first two slots.  Not sure if I'd vote against him now, but he definitely should get his hearings.

I can see why he appeals to President Obama, notwithstanding his other credentials he appears to be completely on the side of administrative agencies making law, which for an authoritarian like the President has to be appealing.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 16, 2016, 07:48:30 PM
The idea that the Republican leadership is going to sunder their party and slit their collective throats to stop Trump strikes me as improbable. Even if you believe Trump spells disaster for the party, shooting yourself in the head to cure brain cancer is - unwise.

The idea that they'd take such a disastrous move to put someone like Cruz in Trump's place seems even more ridiculous. Cruz is scarcely more electable than Trump (according to traditional metrics), is probably more hated by the party establishment, except he has no magic shield around him and is vulnerable to conventional attack. With Trump, at least there's always the chance that he'll use his sorcery to do in the general election what he's done so successfully in the primaries and continue making fools of the pundit class. With Cruz, he'll be poison with everyone but die hard evangelical nutjobs and with the number of enemies he's made, his own colleagues will probably throw him in front of a train.

Trump is the nominee, end of story.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on March 17, 2016, 11:30:12 AM
Still depends on how lucky the Republicans feel (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-one-thing-worse-for-the-gop-than-a-trump-nomination/) (to paraphrase Dirty Harry :)).

Quote
The lessons of history suggest, instead, that significant damage to party reputations is done by unsuccessful presidencies, not unsuccessful presidential candidates. Unsuccessful presidents like Herbert Hoover and Carter shaped their parties’ reputations for decades after (see, for example, attempts to compare Obama to Carter). But Trump’s approach and lack of real party roots probably make him more like an even worse president, Andrew Johnson, whose myopia and racism brought down more than just his party. Republicans stand a smaller chance of electoral loss if they nominate Trump than if he launches a third-party bid. But nominating Trump might be the outcome that should worry party leaders the most. Trump winning the nomination, and then winning the presidency — as unlikely as that may be — probably represents the greatest long-term risk to the Republican Party.

His winning could be worse than splitting the party.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 11:45:05 AM
How Trump moves in the general election will also have a big effect. It's pretty clear that he'll do whatever it seems like it takes to get the most votes, whether it's openly pandering to every divisive tacting the GOP has used to condition and control its base over the past half century or completely repudiating it to scoop up disaffected voters on the left. His current adherents are pretty much a lost cause. IF he can get them to act out fascist salutes and pledges, there's now way that most of them are going to be willing to own up to the fact that they were taken in enough to do anything but continue to rationalize every single thing he asks them to do until well after the campaign is over and they wake up with a hangover, and a massive case of whiplash.

The way he trolls the media is a thing of horrifying beauty though:
"I talk to me self. I have a great brain. I say a lot of things." And the free press flows, because no one wants to admit they've been trolled.

I'm surprised he didn't quote Rick Astley. I'll bet he's saving that for the general where it's going to score them most points with the young internet crowd.

(That's a prediction I will 100% stand behind, honestly. It just fits perfectly. At some point, during some rally or press conference we will hear some variant "I'm never going to give you up, I'm never going to let you down," etc... come out of his mouth.)
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 11:58:01 AM
In previous discussions we've had about politicians we outlined two distinct types of politician: the chameleon and the principled politicians. The discussion was interesting because some people here saw merit in the chameleon type, since shifting one's position to fit what the people want could be construed as good representation rather than merely being a liar. In Trump's case he seems quite willing to say whatever will gain him votes, and although some people are surprised that his types of comments do get him votes the fact remains that he's zeroed in on some demographics to whom his rhetoric is appealing. The typical response is to blame him for these views, but in lieu of our conversation here wouldn't it make more sense to just label him as a classic chameleon and to congratulate him for being apparently responsive to how many Americans feel? The fact that some of his statements may be offensive seems to me beside the point if they do, in fact, mirror the sentiments of many Americans. If the job of a chameleon is to represent what the people feel, and if the people feel offensive things, then isn't an offensive-sounding candidate an example of good representation?

As Pyr mentioned, in a general he might even shift his focus more towards the center to attract voters who didn't get their favorite in the primaries (Bernie or Hillary supporters). This is just the sort of thing he'd do, and by then whoever voted for him in the primaries won't suddenly go out and vote Democrat just because he shifts center for votes. So he'll have their votes plus however more he can sway.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 12:49:13 PM
On strategy itself, he's a wizard- I'll give him that entirely.

It's the second part that's less clear- there's a difference between understanding and shifting to support what people want and need, even if you personally believe differently and in playing to those wants and needs without actually intending to work toward them.

That's where Trump is a wildcard. If his pandering ends up putting him in the first category (particularly if he ties the success fortunes of the US to his self esteem and reputation) then he could end up being a pretty impressive President, despite the damage he played into on the way up. On the other hand if he keeps gaming the system to get what he wants for himself without caring about his historical legacy, then he'll wreak havoc. I'm not willing to risk Trump B enough to bet on Trump A. But can bet that he's suddenly going to start projecting Trump A in the general in order to win it.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 12:57:52 PM
It's the second part that's less clear- there's a difference between understanding and shifting to support what people want and need, even if you personally believe differently and in playing to those wants and needs without actually intending to work toward them.

That's the thing about a chameleon, you never know what you're going to get. They can claim down the line that people want something else and they'll support that, which would just be an excuse to do whatever they please. But tell me, since Hillary was put forward as a prototypical Democrat chameleon - does anyone legitimately expect her to follow through on the shifts towards the left she made to co-opt Sanders supporters? She began months ago to spout rhetoric about changing the minimum wage and taking on Wall Street. What are the chances, would you say, that she'll actually do these things, especially 'taking on' Wall Street? I'll make a prediction right now that if she becomes President nothing significant changes with regard to a) campaign finance, b) lobbying, and c) too big to fail. I'll even predict that she makes no significant attempt to change these things. If I'm right about this then I still don't particularly see the difference between her and Trump other than their aesthetic style of presentation.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 01:41:12 PM
Some yes, some no, which is why I pick Sanders over her in the primary. Her track record shows that she will meaningfully shift on civil rights, employment, and  commercial private sector issues. But that same record makes any foreign policy or financial sector promises suspect. She isn't likely to make them much worse, but, without evidence of action, they're not credible shifts.

Trump, as he stands now is not credible for any shift he makes. There's no way to even begin to sort it out, and it may never be possible to, even if he makes a decent show of it at first.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: NobleHunter on March 17, 2016, 01:58:02 PM
I'm pretty confident that Clinton can be trusted to govern so that she is well-remembered by history. Which includes trying to control what is permitted to become history, but it places boundaries on she'll actually do. I think she's more interested in being seen to have been a "Good President" rather than proving an ideology (Cruz, less-so Sanders) or accruing the benefits of having been President (Trump???).

It's mind-boggling to think that Trump could pivot or reframe himself during the general election, but his whole run is mind-boggling. I think his ceiling in the general election is higher than Cruz's though.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Wayward Son on March 17, 2016, 02:10:51 PM
Quote
I'll make a prediction right now that if she becomes President nothing significant changes with regard to a) campaign finance, b) lobbying, and c) too big to fail. I'll even predict that she makes no significant attempt to change these things. If I'm right about this then I still don't particularly see the difference between her and Trump other than their aesthetic style of presentation.

The problem is that no one is a perfect principled politician or a chameleon.  Even the principled politician has to listen and respond to the will of the people and the exigencies of national and international events.   And the chameleon needs to keep satisfied those who elected him, if only to have a chance at re-election or to prevent from being removed from office.

So while Clinton and Trump may be both chameleons, they each have a side that they are aligned with, and need to keep somewhat satisfied.

So while Clinton may not make any changes to campaign finance or banks that are too big to fail, she will have more sympathy for reproductive rights and limiting the power of the powerful, while Trump will have more sympathy for the rights of the unborn and increasing the power of the powerful.  And so will the staff that they appoint.  And don't forget the Supreme Court appointment that is pending for the next President (unless the Senate sees who it will be and **** in their pants :) ).

So even if they are the same as politicians, the results of them in office won't be the same.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 02:53:09 PM
Good points, WS. The argument being made was that Trump's promises may be vacuous, and I was just pointing out that I think the same is true for Hillary. You're right that they nevertheless can be expected to at the very least keep their base satisfied, although in Trump's case I find it difficult to predict what sort of steps he'd take to do that. Pyr also made a good point that Hillary may be reliable in some areas and unreliable in others, but my general point is that I think this notion that Trump makes empty promises and it therefore not trustworthy is overblown. I basically think that of all politicians anyhow, with a notable exception being Sanders (another notable exception was Ron Paul, who I believed 100% meant every word he said).
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 03:22:21 PM
It's not that Trumps promises are vacuous, but that he might be willing to allow active harm to happen in order to serve his self interest if it doesn't happen to align with the common good. It's similar to the problem that true believers in damaging policies have, at that point. I'm even careful of true believers taht I agree with on that matter, because dedication to a cause to the point of being unwilling to compromise can do more harm than good in some cases, even if the cause is good. Someone willing to shift at least a little in light of sentiment and evidence is a much better person to to build robust solutions.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 03:32:57 PM
It's not that Trumps promises are vacuous, but that he might be willing to allow active harm to happen in order to serve his self interest if it doesn't happen to align with the common good.

What, what? What is the 'common good'? Is this a defined thing that can be surgically separated from self-interest? I'm not even against having a discussion about defining what the common good might be, or even just 'the good', which is more general, but absent a hard definition how to do declare a given action for or against the common good?

But even more to the point, how would this make Trump any different from any other politician, such as for instance George W Bush or even Obama? It seems to me that politicians pursue their chosen agenda and this results in...well, some result. Some people seem pleased with the result and some are offended by it, pretty much invariably. Is 'net pleasure' at the result what you're calling the common good, or is it some abstract that exists aside from anyone's opinion on it, in which case public opinion is irrelevant when considering that matter?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 03:41:13 PM
What, what? What is the 'common good'? Is this a defined thing that can be surgically separated from self-interest? I'm not even against having a discussion about defining what the common good might be, or even just 'the good', which is more general, but absent a hard definition how to do declare a given action for or against the common good?
What's good for the population or country as a whole, as opposed to, what benefits the particular individual in power, without regard to the effects on the country.

There's a wide difference between someone having a different vision on what's good for the country and working toward it and someone that doesn't actually care, so long as they come out more wealthy and perhaps having ground a few choice axes with their power.

Surely you could agree that if Trump gets into office and starts cutting diplomatic ties with and threatening to apply military force against any country that doesn't sign an exclusive contract to only allow Trump Bottled Water to be sold within its boundaries, that he's using the office to serve his own whims and not giving a fig about any semblance of the common good?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 17, 2016, 03:57:26 PM
There's an honest discussion in here somewhere about the difference in effective governance when contrasting different kinds of leadership and control.  Trump might be closer to a personal trainer who will force march you through an exercise regimen that, if it doesn't kill you, will allow you to reach your goals.  I don't think Trump aspires to that kind of public service, but his strongarm authoritarianism will be viewed as something like that by many of his adherents.  Even now, people who support him (and other conservatives) don't realize the harm they do themselves or accept it if they think it's in pursuit of some higher purpose.

I can't fathom what they think they're accomplishing, but our history of war, in particular, is a series of personal sacrifices for the vision of a larger good.  That analogy is perhaps too apt, as Trump's supporters are among the most militant and dedicated rogues in our society.  That Trump and they lack any sort of discipline or reasoned approach to their "solutions" is also no surprise.  It's also no wonder that Sarah Palin likes him so much.  He's even roguer then she is.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 03:58:06 PM
What's good for the population or country as a whole, as opposed to, what benefits the particular individual in power, without regard to the effects on the country.

Yeah? And since when did individuals in power package self-interested goals as anything other than for the good of the country? And how do you determine when something is 'meant' for the good of the country when half the country thinks it's going to sink the country and the other half think it's salvation?

Quote
Surely you could agree that if Trump gets into office and starts cutting diplomatic ties with and threatening to apply military force against any country that doesn't sign an exclusive contract to only allow Trump Bottled Water to be sold within its boundaries, that he's using the office to serve his own whims and not giving a fig about any semblance of the common good?

Are you speaking about breaking diplomatic ties because Trump has said he'd do this, or because it's a random example of something bad? Because on the record he was least willing to break diplomatic ties out of pretty much all of the GOP candidates. As far as bottled water goes, I assume you're referring more generally to disfavorable trade contracts negotiated under duress? Well this happens all the time anyhow and private interests always benefit, so the "what if" aspect of this hypothetical seems to be nullified by the fact that it's already a reality.

More broadly I would suggest that personal glory is probably a larger motivator for extreme action in a President than personal gain, and so I would entertain the notion of a President screwing things up just to have made a mark on history. In Trump's case this could potentially happen, but amusingly if he becomes President he will have already accomplished that before issuing his first order. The personal gain angle to me seems more accurately framed as being one where the President assists private interests to acquire gains for themselves, rather than him personally reaping the reward. Down the line ex-Presidents will be taken care of anyhow, one way or another. From this standpoint I'd consider it far more dangerous to have someone in office who has a strong interest in assisting those private parties in amassing windfalls, especially those beholden to Wall Street and the military industrial complex. A President doing something dumb for personal glory pales compared to the harm wrought by the standard corruption already in the system, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 04:37:10 PM
Quote
As far as bottled water goes, I assume you're referring more generally to disfavorable trade contracts negotiated under duress?
No, I mean using thew power of the office to pad his bottom line by ramping up the profits of his holdings. I was not being general- I was being very specific as to actions intended to profit himself and only himself regardless of the cost to others.

The rest of your response seems to suggest that you actually get the general idea, so it feels like you're just being contrarian at the point. There's a difference between trying to use the office for the good of the country as you see it even if we might disagree on what that is, and using it for personal gain without any regard at all for the good of the whole.

Trump, in one form or another represents the absolute greatest risk of that because thus far hes demonstrated an outright willingness to put self-aggrandizement over any other ethical concern. He doesn't seem to care who gets hurt, so long as he wins. Continuing that attitude can easily be extremely destructive so long as he doesn't, once he's president, associate future acclaim with personal victory. If he cares about how he's remembered, then that care could temper him. If he just wants power, money, glory, or what have you without regard to what he destroys in getting it, then he could tear the whole system down.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 05:38:29 PM
The rest of your response seems to suggest that you actually get the general idea, so it feels like you're just being contrarian at the point. There's a difference between trying to use the office for the good of the country as you see it even if we might disagree on what that is, and using it for personal gain without any regard at all for the good of the whole.

I'm not just being contrarian. You posited a scenario where Trump literally sells out the country for his own personal profit, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you might have meant selling out the country for profit in general. I don't take seriously the threat of a President trying to earn a buck on the side using his position; it's too easily caught and punished, and besides, that's small potatoes and not worth it. The real money is to be made on a larger scale by multinationals, and they reward far better than a person could earn by himself with petty corruption ambitions. A mining or munitions contract can be worth billions to these companies, and those candidates who will be aiming to supply it to them are the ones to watch out for. On this particular topic I actually trust Trump more than most of the other candidates who are guaranteed bought and paid for. There are other scores on which I don't trust him, mind you.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 06:04:50 PM
So again, you get the gist of the example I used to illustrate the point, but are arguing because you don't like the example, not because you didn't get the point. That's being contrarian, or, at best, arguing the example. If you get the difference between being completely self-serving and the expense of the public good and actually trying to act in service of what one sees as the public good, then it's a bit fussy to nitpick because you think there's a better example.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 06:44:50 PM
So again, you get the gist of the example I used to illustrate the point, but are arguing because you don't like the example, not because you didn't get the point. That's being contrarian, or, at best, arguing the example. If you get the difference between being completely self-serving and the expense of the public good and actually trying to act in service of what one sees as the public good, then it's a bit fussy to nitpick because you think there's a better example.

No, I understand why you think I'm being contrarian but you don't understand why I'm not. Take Dick Cheney during W's presidency, for example. Granted he was only the VP but in the case of that presidency that was only a technicality. You have a foreign policy that heavily favored private interests such as Halliburton, who were awarded contracts for billions in Iraq after the invasion. Now you might think I'm splitting hairs in separating that type of profit from some adventure for purely personal profit, except that I legitimately think many people like Cheney do, in fact, believe that having large multinationals reap windfalls is actually good for America, because they classify 'good for America' as being that which leads to power and control. It also creates jobs in 'aggressive' sectors. So this is a tactical consideration for them, rather than a moral one. There is greed in there too, absolutely; but it's not just greed - it's the desire to see their power bloc win while making sure they're the ones to have their pockets lined in the process. It's extremely hard to paint such a doctrine as being for 'the good of America' or not, since in their eyes it's definitely good for America in some real sense. Without specifying precisely what this so-called 'good for America' is you fall down the rabbit hole of having to consider all kinds of divergent opinions of what that is, including ones that eschew Judeo-Christian morality in favor of realpolitik.

So no, I'm not just being contrarian. I legitimately think you're on shaky ground suggesting that profiteering and scheming can cleanly be separated from working for the common good. This is especially true to whatever extent world power functions as a zero-sum game, where it essentially becomes necessary to make a judgement call about whether or not to pursue maximum power for your nation at the expense of someone else. Power typically works best when centralized, and therefore having a solid core of powerful corporations whose power dwarfs the common man involved in the decision-making process (see: oligarchy) is more conducive to the nation being successful in exercising raw power. Whether this is a morally good thing is sadly unrelated to whether it's effective, and therefore America can prosper as a result of very greedy actions. Their mistake, of course, comes when they go too far and break the illusion enough to wake up the middle class and the poor by neglecting them. Enter: Trump and Sanders.

So yeah, I guess the specifics of the examples matter.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 11:50:52 PM
The can't always. My point was only to illustrate the extreme poles, particularly in relevance to being completely unable to predict where a specific candidate happens to fall because he doesn't have enough of a track record to measure him by, not to somehow suggest that most activity didn't take place somewhere between them. So yes, arguing the example is a bit absurd when the example was presented to articulate an abstract ideal, not a real position.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 19, 2016, 08:50:49 AM
More of the "It's Nothing New" from the wayback machine, this time about the 1964 election and the first and last speaker is none other than Jackie Robinson (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/goldwater-jackie-robinson/474498/):

Quote
“During my life, I have had a few nightmares which happened to me while I was wide awake,” Robinson wrote in 1967. “One of them was the National Republican Convention in San Francisco, which produced the greatest disaster the Republican Party has ever known—Nominee Barry Goldwater.” Robinson, a loyal Republican who campaigned for Richard Nixon in 1960, was shocked and saddened by the racism and lack of civility he witnessed at the 1964 convention. As the historian Leah Wright Rigueur describes in The Loneliness of the Black Republican, black delegates were verbally assaulted and threatened with violence by Goldwater supporters. William Young, a Pennsylvania delegate, had his suit set on fire and was told to “keep in your own place” by his assailant. “They call you ‘*censored*,’ push you and step on your feet,” New Jersey delegate George Fleming told the Associated Press. “I had to leave to keep my self-respect.”
...
“A new breed of Republicans has taken over the GOP,” Robinson wrote just after Goldwater claimed his party’s nomination. “It is a new breed which is seeking to sell to Americans a doctrine which is as old as mankind—the doctrine of racial division, the doctrine of racial prejudice, the doctrine of white supremacy.” He continued, “If I could couch in one single sentence the way I felt, watching this controlled steam-roller operation roll into high gear, I would put it this way, I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 19, 2016, 10:23:39 AM
So you ok with that kind of holocast trivialization, as long as it's against the Republicans?

You think there arent Hillary-friendly meetings of Seattle Black Lives matter that dont use racial expletives for Jews?
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 19, 2016, 10:42:19 AM
Which is worse:

A presidential candidate who proposes an ethnic cleansing campaign since he personally loathes the target.

A presidential candidate who proposes an ethnic cleansing campaign since he personally knows the target is unpopular among the voters he is courting.

A secretary of state who supports an ethnic cleansing campaign as retribution since others of the target's "kind" had gotten away with ethnic cleansing in a different country.

A sitting president who supports an ethnic cleansing xampaign, because it's the only convenient war to distract the constituents from news stories about where the president has been putting his penis.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 19, 2016, 12:17:48 PM
So you ok with that kind of holocast trivialization, as long as it's against the Republicans?

You think there arent Hillary-friendly meetings of Seattle Black Lives matter that dont use racial expletives for Jews?

This is a contemporaneous set of remarks by a well-respected observer with other commentary; you should read the whole article before you go into a spitting rage.  The thread that binds much of the Party's membership today was set in motion in the 1964 election, so the vivid way it describes Republicans back then is unfortunately consistent with some of the themes the Party exhibits now.  I can tell you from personal experience that I watched the election cycle closely even though I was still in Jr HS, and with my family and relatives was anxious about the sentiments and attitudes that Goldwater stirred up in his campaign.  Our biggest concern was that he was inciting aggressive action against the Soviet Union, with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would have been far worse for all of humanity than the holocaust of WWII. 

There is a legitimate discussion in here if you could climb down from your high perch of outrage and vitriol and talk sensibly. 
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pete at Home on March 19, 2016, 08:41:10 PM
"Our biggest concern was that he was inciting aggressive action against the Soviet Union, with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would have been far worse for all of humanity than the holocaust of WWII. "

What does that have to do with the writer feeling like a *Jew* in Nazi Germant?


The fact that Goldwater could have baited the USSR into global annihilation has zero to do with Jews in Nazi Garmany.  I think that Clinton is more likely than trump to trigger Nuclear war with Putin, but i dont go around saying that I feel like a Jews in Nazi Germany.

" is is a contemporaneous set of remarks by a well-respected observer "

To be sure.  But that bit about Jew in Nazi Germany was stupid. You should have omitted it because it's. Outrageous.  I know the aujthor is a goof guy, but we all say stupid crap from time to time. 

" before you go into a spitting rage"

I am not Jewish, so holocaust trivializations just make me facepalm. Please dont project emotions on me.  That's offensive.  Not splitting rage annoyin, just poo on my shoe annoying. No apology expected, just please desist.

Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: AI Wessex on March 20, 2016, 08:52:58 AM
Quote
I am not Jewish, so holocaust trivializations just make me facepalm.
That's funny coming from you, as you make Nazi and Hitler references more often here than anyone else.  I would even say it's one of your trademark go-to lines of argument, almost as much as your gratuitous sexual imagery.

Robinson's reference to Nazism is not as far-fetched as, for example, Cruz and Huckabee likening Obama to Hitler and his policies to Nazism.  These days likening the President (or Bush before him) to Hitler is a crowd-pleasing way to show disdain and rabble-rouse.  Back then WWII was still fresh in the lives and memories of all adults who voted in the 1964 election.  No President before that year had been compared to Hitler, no President's policies had been compared to Nazi socialism.  Robinson was reacting to the fear incited by the racism stirred up by Goldwater's arch-conservatism and viscerally was saying out loud what Jews and many other American adults feared in his saber-rattling militant attitude toward the Soviet Union.  In the 1964 election the only states that Goldwater carried were Arizona (his home state) and 5 deep south states that had been targeted by the Civil Rights Act, and less than 40% of the popular vote nationally. 

Like I said, because my family was Jewish we had the direct experience of Hitler and Nazism, and the creation of the state of Israel in our daily thoughts.  Robinson had something to be afraid of, too, given his experiences as the first black Major League baseball player.  I can't say whether he truly believed Goldwater could have become a Nazi-esque leader, but his "principled" stands for his own interpretation of the Constitution were deeply troubling to a great many people.  Those principles, btw, are the genesis of hard-core conservative opposition to "liberal" policies today.  Robinson did have plenty of reason to fear that Goldwater would speak for the goals of the most racist elements in society, as he had voted against the CRA and declared that the SC ruling in Brown v BoE was an abuse of power and should not be considered the law of the land.

But we (my family and most Jews) didn't think Goldwater would revitalize Nazism (though the KKK and other far right fringe groups declared their support for him) nearly as much as he would push the world over the nuclear brink against the soviets. In that way Robinson's own fears of Goldwater's extreme and unyielding views echoed those of many Americans.

FWIW, I didn't cite that article because of the single Nazi reference that you find so inappropriate, but rather because that year's convention was in its way a harbinger of today's mood among those Republicans who in their own way are fighting to defend racist and bigoted attitudes and are tossing around irresponsible militarist threatening language, all of which is worrying the mainstream majority of the American populace.  It's unfortunate that both leading Republican candidates share that sort of following, though from different slivers of their Party's voters.  If either one of them becomes the GOP nominee, which seems overwhelmingly likely now, I would hope they beat Goldwater's record for the lowest percentage of the popular vote received in any general election between two candidates.
Title: Re: Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 09:53:08 AM
Quote
"Our biggest concern was that he was inciting aggressive action against the Soviet Union, with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would have been far worse for all of humanity than the holocaust of WWII. "

What does that have to do with the writer feeling like a *Jew* in Nazi Germant?
Directly? The comparison is loose. The way he played to white supremacism and racial bias along with it (The origination of the Southern Strategy, which Trump has pulled fully into the open by not covering up his appeals to it)? That's what makes the parallel. It's not the militarism alone, it's harnessing the prejudice and sense of cultural and economic superiority of white people against blacks and other racial minorities that the Goldwater and every other Republican campaign afterwards has employed along with ti that was and is a clear variation on the same theme.

But if course he was easy enough to ignore instead of taking seriously at the time, never mind now. Trump is starting to bring some people out of denial about it, but he still manages to command huge audience of people conditioned over a couple generations to respond to supremacism, and the GOP is powerless to stop him because he's doing it so openly that their subtle cues come across as the underhanded manipulation that they always have been.