Presidential Race 2016

[Lihu]

14 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Even if Trump loses in a landslide, we've emboldened every hateful idiot who has been rightfully excluded from public discourse to feel entitled to be taken seriously.

I hope you guys are proud of yourselves.

 

Not particularly proud of myself for predicting this victory roughly 3 months ago, but it was reasonable that it would happen. A landslide defeat is not likely to happen.

[Dave2512]

4 hours ago, Braivo said:

These types of polls are meaningless. In 5 months many things will have changed. A good chunk of the GOP hated Romney and McCain, yet they grit their teeth and voted for them anyway. The same will be true of Trump, and he will get crossover votes from the dems because of his liberal social stance. 

Good ol' negative partisanship is always in play, republicans will vote for Trump because it's a vote against Clinton. But I think he will have trouble earning some democrats vote because of what he's said. Which could be interesting considering he is left of Hillary on some things.

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Good ol' negative partisanship is always in play, republicans will vote for Trump because it's a vote against Clinton. But I think he will have trouble earning some democrats vote because of what he's said. Which could be interesting considering he is left of Hillary on some things.

He's from the city, so his views will definitely be more socially "liberal" than Clinton's.

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

He's from the city, so his views will definitely be more socially "liberal" than Clinton's.

The only person left of Hillary is Bernie.  Trump is more socially left than many republicans prefer but that's one of the reasons I preferred him over Cruz.  

[Chilli Dipper]

The idea that Donald Trump is going to oversee a massive turnover of Democratic voters because of ambivalent stances on social issues is a complete fantasy. There's a better chance that social conservatives stay home because of his lack of conviction for pro-life and anti-gay marriage policies.

[Gunther]

On Sunday, May 01, 2016 at 4:10 PM, saevel25 said:

 

2 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The idea that Donald Trump is going to oversee a massive turnover of Democratic voters because of ambivalent stances on social issues is a complete fantasy. There's a better chance that social conservatives stay home because of his lack of conviction for pro-life and anti-gay marriage policies.

Sorry @saevel25, previous post remained from the last time I posted here.

It might surprise you to know that social issues like abortion and gay marriage are very low on most conservatives' priority list.  I recognize the left uses them with reckless abandon to wedge republicans but truthfully, none of us really care about them as much as we do the true issues that plague this country.  

I couldn't care less if Trump has a D after his name, if he's going to focus on the issues he's championed since last June, I'm voting for him.  If it turns out he doesn't, well, I've been duped again and I'll survive.

No one is saying there will be a "massive" shift from Dem to GOP, but it will be significant enough for him to win the presidency.

[saevel25]

18 minutes ago, Gunther said:

It might surprise you to know that social issues like abortion and gay marriage are very low on most conservatives' priority list.

The religious right always drives the candidates to pander to the Christian Conservative social issues each primary. 60-70% of Republicans are Pro-Life and do not support gay marriage Not sure of the percentage of them that make that a hard line issue.

I think that is why many Republicans have shifted towards being Independent. In 2005 the country was split at 33%. Since then those who identify as Independent has grown 10%. Those who identify as Republican have dropped 8%.

I do think that the social conservative issues has driven a lot of former Republicans away from the party.

 

[Braivo]

40 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Sorry @saevel25, previous post remained from the last time I posted here.

It might surprise you to know that social issues like abortion and gay marriage are very low on most conservatives' priority list.  I recognize the left uses them with reckless abandon to wedge republicans but truthfully, none of us really care about them as much as we do the true issues that plague this country.  

I couldn't care less if Trump has a D after his name, if he's going to focus on the issues he's championed since last June, I'm voting for him.  If it turns out he doesn't, well, I've been duped again and I'll survive.

No one is saying there will be a "massive" shift from Dem to GOP, but it will be significant enough for him to win the presidency.

Right on. Social issues are mostly a distraction. Abortion laws will never change, gay marriage is here to stay, and people will always have guns in this country. Just hot air going back and forth on those things. 

The fact that Trump is not the typical conservative who will turn off liberal voters with needless pro-life and anti-gay marriage propaganda will be enough to win moderate dems to his side, especially those who have watched their working class jobs evaporate through 8 years of Obama, with Hillary promising more of the same policies. 

[Gunther]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The religious right always drives the candidates to pander to the Christian Conservative social issues each primary. 60-70% of Republicans are Pro-Life and do not support gay marriage Not sure of the percentage of them that make that a hard line issue.

I think that is why many Republicans have shifted towards being Independent. In 2005 the country was split at 33%. Since then those who identify as Independent has grown 10%. Those who identify as Republican have dropped 8%.

I do think that the social conservative issues has driven a lot of former Republicans away from the party.

 

Not sure I agree.  I've distanced from the R party because of the establishment, not the religious right, and I haven't been religious, well, ever.  Even so, they haven't offended me as much as the RINOs have.  You may be partially right but I think most of the migration is away from "moderates".

[Dave2512]

Yeah this has probably been the least religious primary season I can think of in my time. If anything it made Cruz and Rubio look out of touch. Even Carson backed off the gas on that one.

[rehmwa]

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I do think that the social conservative issues has driven a lot of former Republicans away from the party.

 

ABSOLUTELY - social conservatives are no better than lefty social activists.  Both want government to force us to think and act how they see fit.  I'm a big fan of social "mind my own business since it likely won't hurt me " philosophies

the Reps evangelical nutbag wing has finally killed them - RIP

 

It might be another few terms - but hopefully we eventually end up with a candidate that's:

1 - Fiscally - thrifty

2 - Socially - NOT nosy

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

ABSOLUTELY - social conservatives are no better than lefty social activists.  Both want government to force us to think and act how they see fit.  I'm a big fan of social "mind my own business since it likely won't hurt me " philosophies

the Reps evangelical nutbag wing has finally killed them - RIP

Well said, I completely agree.  

[Gunther]

11 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

ABSOLUTELY - social conservatives are no better than lefty social activists.  Both want government to force us to think and act how they see fit.  I'm a big fan of social "mind my own business since it likely won't hurt me " philosophies

the Reps evangelical nutbag wing has finally killed them - RIP

 

It might be another few terms - but hopefully we eventually end up with a candidate that's:

1 - Fiscally - thrifty

2 - Socially - NOT nosy

This was sorta my point.  The vast majority of conservatives feel this way.  I don't know any, in fact, that want government intervention on any social issues.  Rather, we take the stance of let the people decide via states rights,  and the ballot box.  We've been mischaracterized by the left media for too many years.  They find a freak or 2 and paint all of us with the same broad brush.  

[rehmwa]

6 minutes ago, Gunther said:

This was sorta my point.  The vast majority of conservatives feel this way.  I don't know any, in fact, that want government intervention on any social issues.

I'm finding more and more people (whether they call themselves conservative or liberal) actually feel this way.  And then they mis-characterize the 'other' side as disagreeing.  The winning party is usually the one to fake out their 'subjects' into thinking 'they' are for freedom.  But what they really are is pro-freedom for just those topics they think they can win elections on - the rest, no way, the people are too stupid to be trusted (with family choices, with guns, with picking lightbulbs or cars, with what they are allowed to purchase on Sundays, etc etc etc ad nauseum).  I think, that deep down anyone that's really politically active is just a bully.

That's why it's sometimes better to ignore the label and just talk to people.

[pumaAttack]

55 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

ABSOLUTELY - social conservatives are no better than lefty social activists.  Both want government to force us to think and act how they see fit.  I'm a big fan of social "mind my own business since it likely won't hurt me " philosophies

 

That's great and all for you personally.  But you have to look at other people's perspectives who do get genuinely hurt with some social policies. 

Your approach is one of entitlement and "Works for me."

You probably don't have to deal with the social problems that a large minority of Americans do. The struggles of the LGBT community are just now coming into light and yet socially conservative groups will do anything to make them feel worse.  

The government is not telling you how to think or act, it is simply guaranteeing the same freedoms you enjoy to all of our citizens.  

Edited May 4, 2016 by pumaAttack

[rehmwa]

25 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

That's great and all for you personally.  But you have to look at other people's perspectives who do get genuinely hurt with some social policies. 

Your approach is one of entitlement and "Works for me."

You probably don't have to deal with the social problems that a large minority of Americans do. The struggles of the LGBT community are just now coming into light and yet socially conservative groups will do anything to make them feel worse.  

The government is not telling you how to think or act, it is simply guaranteeing the same freedoms you enjoy to all of our citizens.  

I don't think you understand the point - you are confusing freedom with status quo and that's so wrong I can't hardly begin:  minding your own business fits and contradicts various positions of both parties (the interference of these advocacy groups on both sides have elements that are anti-freedom.  If you think only one side is guilty, or only one side is good, then you would be the symptom.  They pick and choose which elements they market to the public and play on people's wish to hump each other on various issue) - look at this list and tell me how it, in its entirety, fits some single caricature of a party member of either side.

It's not your business who marries who

It's not your business who sleeps with who, or in what position

it's not your business what a woman decides about the fetus she is responsible for

it's not your business if someone chooses to own a gun

it's not your business if someone drives a car with really good or really bad gas mileage

it's not your business what kind of light bulb I want to buy

it's not your business if someone wants to buy a six pack on Sunday

it's not your business what kind of health policy you choose

for all of these, people should do what they choose, and NOT force it on others, or force others to pay for it, etc etc etc

 

I think you have to be able to decide on policy that protects people to have equal self determination vs those that go overboard and are intrusive.  It's not a hard criteria on most any issue.

 

 

[pumaAttack]

8 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I don't think you understand the point - you are confusing freedom with status quo and that's so wrong I can't hardly begin:  minding your own business fits and contradicts various positions of both parties (the interference of these advocacy groups on both sides have elements that are anti-freedom.  If you think only one side is guilty, or only one side is good, then you would be the symptom.  They pick and choose which elements they market to the public and play on people's wish to hump each other on various issue)

It's not your business who marries who

It's not your business who sleeps with who, or in what position,

it's not your business what a woman decides about the fetus she is responsible for

it's not your business if someone chooses to own a gun

it's not your business if someone drives a car with really good or really bad gas mileage

it's not your business what kind of light bulb I want to buy

it's not your business if someone wants to buy a six pack on Sunday

it's not your business what kind of health policy you choose

for all of these, people should do what they choose, and NOT force it on others, or force others to pay for it, etc etc etc

 

I think you have to be able to decide on policy that protects people to have equal self determination vs those that go overboard and are intrusive.  It's not a hard criteria on most any issue.

 

 

 

It SHOULD be your business if a fellow citizen is discriminated upon because of their race/gender/orientation/religion/whatever.

The bathroom laws are your status quo where citizens are discriminated upon because some people "feel" threatened.  The Government has a duty to protect the individual freedoms of everyone and sometimes that requires action because the status quo is not good enough.  

 

"it's not your business if someone drives a car with really good or really bad gas mileage"

Yes, that is my business.  We have one planet and should be doing everything to be stewards of the land, not greedy selfish drivers who have no consideration for other people and the environment. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by pumaAttack

[14ledo81]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

The bathroom laws are your status quo where citizens are discriminated upon because some people "feel" threatened.  The Government has a duty to protect the individual freedoms of everyone and sometimes that requires action because the status quo is not good enough.  

Who gets to decide "whose" threatened is correct?