Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 11:58am PT
|
It probably is a tie as to who is worse. Trump is more personally unappealing, but not as hard right as Cruz. Cruz is very far out of the mainstream compared to Hillary.
Amazing. The republicans started with 17 presidential candidates, including some pretty decent ones, and the two front runners are two of the three least electable choices (the other being Carson, who was a frontrunner for a very brief moment.).
That party really f*#ked up badly!
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 12:02pm PT
|
I'm not too excited about any of the candidates. If one of them would pick Elizabeth Warren as their VP (wish she was running), I'd vote for them.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 12:24pm PT
|
I agree with your analysis, Norton. We Republicans find ourselves in a real bind because a strong majority of us do not support a Trump nomination, but we have not agreed on an alternative candidate, so Trump has a plurality of votes cast. Judging by my somewhat limited conversation with Trump supporters, they see little difference between the other Republican candidates and those of the Democrats.
I find it particularly significant that most of the Trumpians with whom I've spoken view "politician" as a pejorative term. They support Trump because he's "his own man," "not a politician," "says what he means," "unbeholden to anyone else," etc. They don't seem to hold any particular governing philosphy in common, which should surprise no one, since Trump has not articulated any.
Their scorn of "politics" and "politicians" also leads them to ignore the essentials of political science, viz. no one governs unless he or she gets elected. Moreover, even elected officials cannot enact legislation without obtaining at least a majority of their fellow legislators to support that legislation. The Trumpians' (and, to some extent, the Berners') seeming disinterest in governing in the real world leads me to think that the Trumpians really want to whine, not to win.
All of this means that unless Trump gets the nomination, a very large number of Trumpians won't vote for the Republican nominee. Unless the Berners do the same with the Democrats (much less likely, in my opinion), Trump's presence has guaranteed Hillary's victory.
John
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 02:59pm PT
|
We Republicans find ourselves in a real bind because a strong majority of us do not support a Trump nomination
JE
I guess Trump's win in the NY primary with 60% of the vote was not majority when it comes to Republican math.
And like you said before, Kasich's 25% portion of the vote demonstrate better numbers than Trump's
?????
I guess it's this Republican math that baffles us?
Hopefully JE will keep us posted on how it works.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 03:07pm PT
|
I guess Trump's win in the NY primary with 60% of the vote was not majority when it comes to Republican math.
Craig, Trump's big win there was totally expected as it was his own home state
and as time has gone on his winning margins are getting progressively slimmer in
addition to actually losing some states outright to both Cruz and nice guy Kasich
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 21, 2016 - 06:49am PT
|
John posted I find it particularly significant that most of the Trumpians with whom I've spoken view "politician" as a pejorative term. They support Trump because he's "his own man," "not a politician," "says what he means," "unbeholden to anyone else," etc. They don't seem to hold any particular governing philosphy in common, which should surprise no one, since Trump has not articulated any.
Their scorn of "politics" and "politicians" also leads them to ignore the essentials of political science, viz. no one governs unless he or she gets elected. Moreover, even elected officials cannot enact legislation without obtaining at least a majority of their fellow legislators to support that legislation. The Trumpians' (and, to some extent, the Berners') seeming disinterest in governing in the real world leads me to think that the Trumpians really want to whine, not to win.
All of this means that unless Trump gets the nomination, a very large number of Trumpians won't vote for the Republican nominee. Unless the Berners do the same with the Democrats (much less likely, in my opinion), Trump's presence has guaranteed Hillary's victory.
All true and you can see Sanders supporters falling for similar fallacies. I'm a bit of a broken record with this but I still bristle at Democrats crowing about the fractures in the Republican coalition while ignoring that the significance of this largely ends with the White House.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 21, 2016 - 09:43am PT
|
That's a good article. One assumed that the original point of his candidacy was to pull Clinton to the left and create an organization. It would be great to see him move to building that again instead of directly attacking Clinton.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 11:02am PT
|
I agree with your analysis, Norton. We Republicans find ourselves in a real bind because a strong majority of us do not support a Trump nomination, but we have not agreed on an alternative candidate, so Trump has a plurality of votes cast. Judging by my somewhat limited conversation with Trump supporters, they see little difference between the other Republican candidates and those of the Democrats.
I find it particularly significant that most of the Trumpians with whom I've spoken view "politician" as a pejorative term. They support Trump because he's "his own man," "not a politician," "says what he means," "unbeholden to anyone else," etc. They don't seem to hold any particular governing philosphy in common, which should surprise no one, since Trump has not articulated any.
Their scorn of "politics" and "politicians" also leads them to ignore the essentials of political science, viz. no one governs unless he or she gets elected. Moreover, even elected officials cannot enact legislation without obtaining at least a majority of their fellow legislators to support that legislation. The Trumpians' (and, to some extent, the Berners') seeming disinterest in governing in the real world leads me to think that the Trumpians really want to whine, not to win.
All of this means that unless Trump gets the nomination, a very large number of Trumpians won't vote for the Republican nominee. Unless the Berners do the same with the Democrats (much less likely, in my opinion), Trump's presence has guaranteed Hillary's victory.
John
John... maybe it's because we are sick and tired of "politics as usual"...
meaning, all politicians do is talk back and forth, then they proceed to get nothing of substance accomplished.
The people demand that something get done about the complete mess that the "illegal immigration" has caused our Nation and our state, California.
For two decades, at least, both parties have given lip service to this issue and other pressing matters, while finding the time and energy to increase taxes, dream up a Hi-speed train money hole, and hassle us over how many bullets fit into the magazine, etc.
The Republican genius party leaders who know so much have given us two total losers for the past two elections.... this time they wanted JEB! so bad cause its HIS turn. Problem with that... he is a 9% at best....
Now the party geniuses, who know it all, want to discredit Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz as being "not worthy" and scam up some way to keep ether one of those dudes from being the nominee.
When and if that happens, it will indeed toss the election to Hillary because I will, and I think i'm not alone, pull the leaver for Hillary!!!
I do hope that when that happens the current Republican Party "leaders" will loose support and then maybe something will change.
I think a good start would be to go and have the Evangelical Wing form their own party and they can keep to a biblical stance and fight for what they believe.
The rest of us who simply wish for our Government to be fiscally prudent and freedom loving can form up a party of people who are moderate .... and that includes many Democrats.
end o rant....
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 11:56am PT
|
Thanks for the response, guyman. I see many reasons why nothing substantial gets done until after the fact, and then it's usually "too much too late." One big reason, to me, is the inability of current members of congress, and representatives in particular, to enter into any meaningful compromise. In California, as in so many other states, the districts have become so one-sided that only the most extreme of either party can get the nomination, except for a few districts in a few suburban areas, and places like the Central Valley, where centrists still prevail.
The press doesn't help, either, since their political reporting would be better used to cover, say, the Iditarod; they only report standings in the race, not how their ideas relate to governance. Then again, given the general level of economic illiteracy in modern journalism, maybe I should be grateful.
In any case, my gripes about Cruz and Trump differ. Trump's campaign thus far has been nothing but platitudes. Yes, a country that cannot control its borders loses its sovereignty. Just how, exactly can Trump execute his proposals? He's going to make Mexico pay for a fence? He may as well say the tooth fairy will provide the funds. More importantly, his neo-isolationism and protectionism is the last thing this economy needs. Economoics is not a zero-sum game, at least not to knowledgeable Republicans. That philosphy has more to do with Bernie's world view. Even Hillary's economic and foreign policy - for all its flaws - would better serve the country than Trump's.
My gripe with Cruz is that he's simply the Republicans' verson of Obama, but without Obama's personal appeal. He has yet to demonstrate the ability to work with enough legislators to get necessary legislation enacted. Unlike Obama (or Hillary or even Bernie), when Cruz's opposition fails to compromise, the press will blame Cruz, and we will not only lose an opportunity to govern constructively, but we'll hand the Democrats a bigger victory because so few people view Cruz favorably.
It's interesting. My father was born fifty years before me, and it seems like everything that happened to him happened to me fifty years later, except for WWII. What WWI was to his generation, Viet Nam was to ours. When, in 1964, it seemed certain that Johnson would win, my father, at the time the only Republican in our family, hoped that Johnson would pick a good man as his running mate. Even though my father's ideology differed greatly from Hubert Humphrey's, he thought Humphrey was a good man (in contrast to what he thought of Johnson), and was relieved when Johnson chose him as VP. I fear that I find myself in a similar position; I hope Hillary chooses a good person as her running mate.
After all, if obstruction of justice can bring down a president, the choice of running mate may be of vital importance in this election!
;>)
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 01:56pm PT
|
I do hope that when that happens the current Republican Party "leaders" will loose support and then maybe something will change.
guyman, regarding the Republican party "changing", I know a lot of Republicans who read the study that the RNC commissioned after losing so badly to Obama in 2012, that study was really good in that it detailed the reasons why large blocks of the electorate choose to vote Democrat rather than Republican.
Prominent it that study were warnings to Republican politicians to be much more careful and to tone down what they say when campaigning, such as to not talk about women's reproductive parts being immune from rape (Todd Akin Senate loss), and to avoid questions about their non support for a minimum wage, on and on really good suggestions such as not talking about "rounding up illegals" or "self deportation", etc
Another suggestions was to campaign being "for" something rather than being constantly "against" whatever the Democrats are for.
however, the study seems to have fallen on death ears and as a result the Republicans are facing another very significant loss in November, no doubt another study will be commissioned to examine the reasons for the upcoming loss......
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 02:09pm PT
|
JE... thank you for your response.
Can't wait to vote, California just might play a large role this time.
EDIT: Norton... thanks for your response as well. I don't know why they just don't keep to a simple msg of: Lets not spend more $$$$$ than we must. Its hard to tell stupid.."don't be stupid".
I wish we could just toss out the entire religious component of the party and keep the ones who believe in Freedom (freedom is a lot like porn, hard to define but I know it when I see it)
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 03:23pm PT
|
Hey John
Most of these primaries have been closed primaries
Hence, only Republicans are voting for Trump
Democrats and Independents can't even vote for Trump if they wanted to
another speculative theory down the tubes
Norton, 60% is s slim margin?? WTF??
a slim margin would be 34% out of the three
Trump has crapped on the entire field.
and who is 2nd in line, Lying Ted, the most hated politician alive today.
Guyman
The whole GOP idea of freedom is just another lie that they use to get dupes to vote for them. Like abortion, they spout about it to get votes, but just muddy the waters on issue as a whole
The truth is the GOP has taken your freedoms away, or kept them from you as they progress with the times, while the Dems fight to keep them alive.
So yes, you know when you see it, but no, you don't know where it comes from.
let us know about these freedoms that you say come from voting GOP?
but if your idea of freedom is to be able to be a bigoted, racist a-hole, xenophobe, homophobe, selfish bastard; then the GOP is for you.
Take freedoms away from others just for spite, right? F-em.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 03:31pm PT
|
Norton, 60% is s slim margin?? WTF??
don't know what you are talking about, I never said it was a slim margin
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 03:34pm PT
|
and as time has gone on his winning margins are getting progressively slimmer in
addition to actually losing some states outright to both Cruz and nice guy Kasich
Norton
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 03:36pm PT
|
?
Craig, saying his margins are "getting" slimmer is not the same as saying 60% is a slim margin, ok?
now do you want to drop this or continue on trying to catch me on something? This is pointless
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 04:20pm PT
|
Take er easy there big boy
It just didn't make sense to me then
sorry
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 04:41pm PT
|
The stupid atheist hypocrite politards have been 0wned by their own candidate.
Bwaahahahaha
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2016 - 04:54pm PT
|
^
I wonder how many candidates who profess to believe the Bible is the word of God read this part:
Exodus 22:21, “You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.”
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!