Republican Debates

[4588686]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015‎ ‎12‎:‎46‎:‎10‎, Ark said:

I think Trump has a very good chance of winning the nomination. Many experts predict he doesn't have long term sustainability as we draw nearer to the Republican primary but a "fading out" has been predicted for months and it hasn't happened. I think as we near the primary his support will only grow as he connects strongly with the base and many Americans where as the establishment is totally disconnected. #trump2016

Yeah. A lot of people like me thought he'd get crushed. I had way too much faith in the Republican Party.

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, Hasan said:

Yeah. A lot of people like me thought he'd get crushed. I had way too much faith in the Republican Party.

I think the Republican Party is baffled an what to do about Trump as well.   His populist appeal has baffled the political machines so far (both Dems and Reps), because politicians operate outside of populist will.   The negativity of both created a disdain for politicians, except for "your" politician.   The discourse is rarely common sense, but a trade of hyperbole and emotional thinking.  Dems don't want to kill babies any more than Reps want to kill immigrants.   The constant extremism of each other's position precludes any reasonable compromise, such as a secure border WITH a wide gate.    You risk US jobs when you bash US companies.   Outsourcing jobs also help other nation's economies to employ their citizens there, and avoid them risking their lives hiding in a train car. 

 

[little2add]

trump's appeal may very well be his independence from the old-school republican party.  the die will be cast or the two idiots will be determined  for the final showdown,  after todays super tuesday votes are tallied

clinton is a shoe-in

Edited March 1, 2016 by little2add

[4588686]

57 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I think the Republican Party is baffled an what to do about Trump as well.   His populist appeal has baffled the political machines so far (both Dems and Reps), because politicians operate outside of populist will.   The negativity of both created a disdain for politicians, except for "your" politician.   The discourse is rarely common sense, but a trade of hyperbole and emotional thinking.  Dems don't want to kill babies any more than Reps want to kill immigrants.   The constant extremism of each other's position precludes any reasonable compromise, such as a secure border WITH a wide gate.    You risk US jobs when you bash US companies.   Outsourcing jobs also help other nation's economies to employ their citizens there, and avoid them risking their lives hiding in a train car. 

 

The Democratic Party was able to bury Sanders though. It's weird because in a lot of ways I thought the Republican Party was approaching an apex of power. The control 35 states, both houses of congress, the USSC until recently. They have (or had) a decent shot of winning the Presidency. But it also seems like they're imploding on a national level.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the way Rush Limbaugh and other elements of talk radio/fox have fostered total distrust of the Republican Party establishment. But idk. This isn't a good sign for the Republican Party. Trump should not be doing this well.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, Hasan said:

The Democratic Party was able to bury Sanders though. It's weird because in a lot of ways I thought the Republican Party was approaching an apex of power. The control 35 states, both houses of congress, the USSC until recently. They have (or had) a decent shot of winning the Presidency. But it also seems like they're imploding on a national level.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the way Rush Limbaugh and other elements of talk radio/fox have fostered total distrust of the Republican Party establishment. But idk. This isn't a good sign for the Republican Party. Trump should not be doing this well.

  

I don't think the Rep have a grip on any semblance of broad populist power.   They're the most diversely fractured party.  They did nothing after the mid term sweep,  and simultaneously include a very established political machine and rabid anti government Tea Party'ers.   Trump is outside of being controlled by Rep Party    Trump is using them because he isn't beholden to their power at this point.   Ticking the R Party off too is part of his populist appeal at this point   

   I think both parties have managed to alienate themselves from the readable minded general population by constantly vilifying each other.  This campaign has devolved into out insulting each other.  Hillary, Donald, Bernie, Rubio, nor Ted are village idiots, evil personified, pathological liars, or anti-US Agents.   But they're the only ones willing to play the political game of superficially appealing to the whims of polarized voters who elect the leader of a huge economic, military, and cultural world power.  

I think the election will be Clinton vs Trump and the political establishment will support Clinton and the populist anti-gov will support Trump.    The winner will be who gets the most people riled or disgusted enough to vote "against" the other one. Non voters don't matter, as always. 

[little2add]

Sanders is a stooge, he was selected by the powers at be to make Clinton look centrist by comparison 

sanders was or is a serious contender.  

[PhuturePriest]

Aaaaaaannnnnd

the nation is doomed. 

[4588686]

On 2/29/2016, 11:35:49, veritasluxmea said:

It kind of looks like it will come down to Trump and Hilary. 

There is a traditional, conservative Catholic adult I know who made an interesting case on facebook. He argued in that event, it would be better to vote for Hilary. It was something like this- Trump is ruining the prolife and pro-liberty aspect of the GOP. Being led by this guy would be the end of the GOP party. It would turn them into, well, what Trump is, a racist liberal.  If Hilary wins, it wouldn't damage the GOP as much. There would be a chance of recovery and promoting the values of the party later on. It's a good point, and one that makes me seriously consider voting for her in that case. She and Trump are basically the same policy and value-wise. 

He's not a liberal. He's just a good old fashioned Republican Racist Nationalist. Just like Pat Buchanan. 

5 hours ago, little2add said:

Sanders is a stooge, he was selected by the powers at be to make Clinton look centrist by comparison 

sanders was or is a serious contender.  

That's obviously wrong. He's made Clinton tact to the left. The party would want her to be able to position herself as a moderate and remain there for the general.

[Basilisa Marie]

21 hours ago, little2add said:

Sanders is a stooge, he was selected by the powers at be to make Clinton look centrist by comparison 

sanders was or is a serious contender.  

The idea that Sanders is wanted or was selected by anyone high ranking in the democratic party is laughable. He's done a lot to ruin things for Hilary's all-but-assured coronation as Obama part III. She desperately wants to go down in history as the first female president, and Sanders has been surprising a lot of the establishment with his grassroots campaign. Sanders is the Independent from Vermont who has been spouting the same things for decades. Young adults adore him like they adored Obama, and people probably thought they'd all get on Hilary's bandwagon. 

It should be Cruz or Rubio for the nomination, but Trump is blowing everything up. He's appealing to the basest instincts of the lowest common denominator of the party, and the party's going to end up with Trump if they can't figure out which of the other options they want to unite behind. 

[veritasluxmea]

On 2/29/2016, 8:51:42, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think that justifies voting for Clinton, but certainly you can refrain from voting for Trump on such grounds.

I think Trump is so bad it justifies voting for Hilary. Assuming he gets the GOP vote, I'm seriously considering voting for her this November. Voting third party or not voting is basically voting for him. Voting is picking the lesser of two evils, and I think she's the lesser of two evils here. She is in no way the moral option, though. 

Ben Carson is also dropping out but not really dropping out: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html 

“I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results,” the Wednesday statement said. “However, this grassroots movement on behalf of ‘We the People’ will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations.”

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said:

I think Trump is so bad it justifies voting for Hilary. Assuming he gets the GOP vote, I'm seriously considering voting for her this November. Voting third party or not voting is basically voting for him. Voting is picking the lesser of two evils, and I think she's the lesser of two evils here. She is in no way the moral option, though. 

Ben Carson is also dropping out but not really dropping out: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html 

“I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results,” the Wednesday statement said. “However, this grassroots movement on behalf of ‘We the People’ will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations.”

Voting for Hillary Clinton would be actively supporting a moral evil. Like I said, I think a Trump nomination is more than enough reason to refuse to vote, but that does not change how radically unacceptable Hillary Clinton is. I do not think in this situation it makes much sense to talk about a lesser evil. Both are unacceptable, and our public actions should reflect that.

[PhuturePriest]

32 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said:

I think Trump is so bad it justifies voting for Hilary. Assuming he gets the GOP vote, I'm seriously considering voting for her this November. Voting third party or not voting is basically voting for him. Voting is picking the lesser of two evils, and I think she's the lesser of two evils here. She is in no way the moral option, though.

I completely disagree with you. A vote for the person you vote for is a vote for the person you vote for.

This rhetoric of having to vote for one of the main parties is the reason we only have two parties. Vote for something, not against something. I am going to vote for someone I genuinely would like to be president. How likely that person is to become president is irrelevant and not the way the electoral process is supposed to work.

[veritasluxmea]

Doing nothing is also actively supporting evil. I think the best case you could make is to vote third party- but in a two party system that's also supporting Trump/Hilary in a passive way. 

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, veritasluxmea said:

Doing nothing is also actively supporting evil. I think the best case you could make is to vote third party- but in a two party system that's also supporting Trump/Hilary in a passive way. 

How is not voting actively supporting evil?

[Nihil Obstat]

13 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said:

Doing nothing is also actively supporting evil.

Philosophically speaking, that is an absurd thing to say.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Nihil Obstat