Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?

[scifibum]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[scifibum]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

You are right.  I'm sure Duke supports Trump because of some totally benign reason.  Like his dietary preferences maybe.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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 ...

[D.W.]

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...

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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/

 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. 

 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. 

 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.

[DonaldD]

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...

[AI Wessex]

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.

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Seriati]

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).

[Fenring]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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

[Seriati]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[AI Wessex]

Besides being clever, might it also be the right thing to do in his estimation?

[Seriati]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.  Looks like Scalia, Alito and Thomas have a 90%+ agreement ratio.  On the other side, GInsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan have a similar ratio.

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?

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?

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?

[JoshuaD]

I didn't read the whole exchange here, but..

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.

[AI Wessex]

The operative phrase was "show me", not just say they exist.  Seriati has already done that.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[D.W.]

You looked at our ballot yet AI?  Lots of ghosts of candidates past listed on that thing. 

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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?

[D.W.]

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?

[Pete at Home]

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?

[Pete at Home]

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

[DonaldD]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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?

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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*.

[Pete at Home]

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!

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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!

[AI Wessex]

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?

[D.W.]

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.