2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Brian Swartz]

There is, at most, one person capable of knowing Trump's motivations to that degree. They aren't a member of this board.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We all know Tuesday is when "stop Trump" has its referendum, mainly in Florida and Ohio. But when you look at the math, it's a process that's designed to be more than difficult for a candidate opposed by the establishment.

The issue this year, I think, is that the GOP primary calendar is designed around an assumption the field whittles to 2 by March 15th, when the winner-take-all states open up. And the winner-take-all states allow the candidate with momentum (your "establishment" candidate) to coast into the convention.

As you've pointed out, a race that still has 4 candidates who can win states (counting Kasich because Ohio) turns this on its head.

Or, as I like to keep pointing out, the process is working perfectly. Mr. Contested Convention continues to be the overall leader and will coast into the Convention.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

If we're going to judge candidates by the tone of their most vocal supporters, trump is only second-worst behind sanders right now IMO. Petty violence is nothing what I'm reading from some of them.

Liks please thanks - not seen anything approaching the racism and violent tone from them myself so kinda intruiged by this

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There is, at most, one person capable of knowing Trump's motivations to that degree. They aren't a member of this board.

Or anyone that has paid attention to anything he has ever done...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Based on Trump's reactions first to El Chapo, then to his reaction to protesters, I have a real hard time putting any faith in his claims of being able to defeat ISIS.

You expecting boots on the ground for protestors? Financial cut off? Drone strikes?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Trump is divisive. Trump gets off on the press he gets from this stuff. Trump is a hollow candidate who is only stroking his ego and does not give a damn about any of his supporters, they are just willing pawns in his ego driven attention whoring fantasy.

His "rallies" sure have a lot in common with rallies that took place in Germany in the 30's. Instead of vilifying Jews he is vilifying Muslims and Mexicans. Same basic plan. Find someone to blame and try to get the ignorant masses to rally behind you. Soon they start lashing out at anyone that speaks up against them.

Not too much different then a cult.

He is a cancer.

Same could be said about gathering up all the guns and controlling the media.

But, I suppose it's all slippery slope scare tactics till it's too late.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If we're going to judge candidates by the tone of their most vocal supporters, trump is only second-worst behind sanders right now IMO. Petty violence is nothing what I'm reading from some of them.

I would agree with this. Sanders supporters hve been much worse from what I've seen. Lots of people calling for murder along with other vitriol toward people.

[Ben E Lou]

Trump on falling for a hoax that a protester was connected to ISIS: "All I know is what's on the internet." @meetthepress

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) March 13, 2016

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I continue to laugh at all these pundits talking about a contested convention changing anything. Even if Trump coasts into the convention with ~1100 or so and the next person behind him is 300-350 behind, the convention has to nominate Trump or risk witnessing a total upheaval of their voting base.

I also find these people way out of line preaching First Amendment rights when it comes to these protesters interfering with Trump's appearances. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. is an excellent example of where the current 'protesters' are failing. If Martin Luther King Jr. were here today, he would preach non-violence. How do you do that? Do you go into a public appearance forum and incite with interrupting the speaker and confrontation? No. MLK would call on people to walk with him in the streets of the cities where Mr. Trump is appearing and he would make HIS march be the one that pulls in all the media and pulls the attention away from Mr. Trump. It totally flips the discussion in a favorable light and doesn't allow Trump to play the sympathy card.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I continue to laugh at all these pundits talking about a contested convention changing anything. Even if Trump coasts into the convention with ~1100 or so and the next person behind him is 300-350 behind, the convention has to nominate Trump or risk witnessing a total upheaval of their voting base.

I also find these people way out of line preaching First Amendment rights when it comes to these protesters interfering with Trump's appearances. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. is an excellent example of where the current 'protesters' are failing. If Martin Luther King Jr. were here today, he would preach non-violence. How do you do that? Do you go into a public appearance forum and incite with interrupting the speaker and confrontation? No. MLK would call on people to walk with him in the streets of the cities where Mr. Trump is appearing and he would make HIS march be the one that pulls in all the media and pulls the attention away from Mr. Trump. It totally flips the discussion in a favorable light and doesn't allow Trump to play the sympathy card.

You actually don't need to protest candidates at all. You can simply vote for somebody else.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You actually don't need to protest candidates at all. You can simply vote for somebody else.

I'm floored how many people are just simply not going to vote because they're not crazy about any of the candidates. IMO, if you can't identify with policies, at least pick out a candidate that you feel like you could have a beer with or enjoy an evening hanging out together. Those type of people are far more likely to make good decisions when it office and it beats not voting at all.

[Kodos]

I don't think the guy who is the most fun to drink with is necessarily the best candidate to run the country. Didn't we learn that from George W. Bush?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I continue to laugh at all these pundits talking about a contested convention changing anything. Even if Trump coasts into the convention with ~1100 or so and the next person behind him is 300-350 behind, the convention has to nominate Trump or risk witnessing a total upheaval of their voting base.

I also find these people way out of line preaching First Amendment rights when it comes to these protesters interfering with Trump's appearances. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. is an excellent example of where the current 'protesters' are failing. If Martin Luther King Jr. were here today, he would preach non-violence. How do you do that? Do you go into a public appearance forum and incite with interrupting the speaker and confrontation? No. MLK would call on people to walk with him in the streets of the cities where Mr. Trump is appearing and he would make HIS march be the one that pulls in all the media and pulls the attention away from Mr. Trump. It totally flips the discussion in a favorable light and doesn't allow Trump to play the sympathy card.

You need to go back and study what King meant by non-violent protests. I see nothing in his statements and actions that would preclude demonstrations and sitins inside the events.

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

King was no moderate.

[Dutch]

Whatever MLK was, my interpretation was that he felt there was a better way than violence...hence my personal interpretation that he was a moderate. That, like it or not, America has provided the oppressed enough power to peacefully change. But it was a process and a goal designed not for himself, but for his children or his children's children. It's hard to maintain those long-term goals in the era of instant gratification...and that frustration can sometimes lead to violence. Both are probably very effective, but I was under the impression that MLK wanted whites and blacks to work together through this ultimate challenge. And the civil way was through peaceful culture change. And for the most part I believe he has won the method of change and progress continues...quickly for 1960's expectations...but slowly for 2010's expectations.

[JPhillips]

King actually specifically rejects the idea of waiting for justice until the next generation in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The letter itself is a refutation of the moderates that were condemning King as too radical. I'd agree he wanted races to work together, but only if the end cause was justice. He had no interest in moderating his call for justice so that he would gain more allies.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I continue to laugh at all these pundits talking about a contested convention changing anything. Even if Trump coasts into the convention with ~1100 or so and the next person behind him is 300-350 behind, the convention has to nominate Trump or risk witnessing a total upheaval of their voting base.

Don't underestimate the establishment's ability to sacrifice itself in a self-righteous cloud of ideological nonsense.

All this MLK stuff is weird. These days, he's an honorary Founding Father in terms of how people appropriate his various quotes and actions to support their own views.

Great people (and clearly, MLK rose to greatness, as did many of our Founding Fathers) are both products of their time and products of their character.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

King actually specifically rejects the idea of waiting for justice until the next generation in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The letter itself is a refutation of the moderates that were condemning King as too radical. I'd agree he wanted races to work together, but only if the end cause was justice. He had no interest in moderating his call for justice so that he would gain more allies.

Fair, I'm operating not on facts because I haven't read most of what MLK wrote or said, but perception of what I recall, over the years and decades. I think I've done an okay job.

Edit: Laziness to the extreme, I know.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Saw an interesting stat this morning on Meet the Press. Trump has won every state primary so far where the unemployment rate is greater than 5% and the African-American vote is greater than 8%. I think it said he was 9 for 9 so far.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I also find these people way out of line preaching First Amendment rights when it comes to these protesters interfering with Trump's appearances. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. is an excellent example of where the current 'protesters' are failing. If Martin Luther King Jr. were here today, he would preach non-violence. How do you do that? Do you go into a public appearance forum and incite with interrupting the speaker and confrontation? No. MLK would call on people to walk with him in the streets of the cities where Mr. Trump is appearing and he would make HIS march be the one that pulls in all the media and pulls the attention away from Mr. Trump. It totally flips the discussion in a favorable light and doesn't allow Trump to play the sympathy card.

First, this is a really good website to check for information: http://google.com

Second, you should use said website to look up "civil disobedience"

Third, "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Founding Fathers are both products of their time and products of their character.

The biggest example of this is the Constitution. Which as a living, amendable document has been turned into something inerrant, perfect, and unalterable. It's held along the same breath as the Bible by many, and yet. Your argument is the one I choose to describe it. A product of it's time and place and it should be viewed as such.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The biggest example of this is the Constitution. Which as a living, amendable document has been turned into something inerrant, perfect, and unalterable. It's held along the same breath as the Bible by many, and yet. Your argument is the one I choose to describe it. A product of it's time and place and it should be viewed as such.

But written with procedures to keep it modern and relevant that we have flat out ignored.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The biggest example of this is the Constitution. Which as a living, amendable document has been turned into something inerrant, perfect, and unalterable. It's held along the same breath as the Bible by many, and yet. Your argument is the one I choose to describe it. A product of it's time and place and it should be viewed as such.

Anything specific, other than the Second Amendment?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You actually don't need to protest candidates at all. You can simply vote for somebody else.

Yeah but that doesn't get you props from your Facebook friends and attention they crave to fuel their narcissism. Whenever I've walked by a protest half the people are busy taking photos of themselves and their friends. It's embarrassing.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Anything specific, other than the Second Amendment?

For entirely too many people, the Second Amendment IS the Constitution.

How many pro-gun folks do you also hear say "If they haven't done anything wrong, they should have nothing to hide" with a complete lack of irony? Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by rowech

But written with procedures to keep it modern and relevant that we have flat out ignored.

This exactly! It often surprises people that I think for example that the second Amendment needs, at the very least, revision since it's now anachronistic. The problem is that whole rule of law thing.

The issue isn't that the Constitution is above changing. The issue is overriding it's meaning without going through the process of actually changing it. That's what's destroying the foundation of our civilization.

[flere-imsaho]

Trump's finished campaigning in Florida so as to stump up to the last minute in Ohio, where his race is tight with Kasich.

Let that sink in, Mr. Rubio.

[ISiddiqui]

I do think Dr. King was way more radical than people give him credit for (actually "Selma", the film, does a great job in showing some of it - he was for non-violence, but actively sought out locations where violence would be used against his peaceful protest. So basically, causing trouble), but I also think that it is deeply troubling that people go into a closed political rally simply for the goal of disrupting it, and get happy when they cancel rallies. Protest outside, that's fine, but don't try to go inside and screw up your opponent's rally. It violates the spirit of free speech in our campaigns (though I'm not saying that Trump is a paragon of that - just people shouldn't debate themselves to that level).

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I continue to laugh at all these pundits talking about a contested convention changing anything. Even if Trump coasts into the convention with ~1100 or so and the next person behind him is 300-350 behind, the convention has to nominate Trump or risk witnessing a total upheaval of their voting base.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

Now, by way of full disclosure, I am vehemently anti-Trump, especially after having had first-hand dealings with the man. I am a Cruz supporter.

But recall that if 35% of GOP primary voters are voting Trump, that means 65% of GOP voters are effectively in the anti-Trump camp. Furthermore, when you consider that Trump is only getting his 35-45% support numbers in states with open primaries where independents and lazy Republican leaners and Democrats can vote ... that means even less than 35% of the GOP base is pro-Trump. As evidenced by states with closed caucuses and primaries, where Trump predictably fares significantly worse. See, I don't think Trump represents the base of the GOP. Just the opposite.

So if at the convention, the GOP chooses someone other than Trump, the majority of the GOP base will actually support the move. But if the convention chooses Trump, it will be nominating the populist guy the base rejects.

This all comes down again, I think, to the big gamble: Can the GOP still beat a weakened Dem (both Hillary and Bernie are flawed, and after 8 years of an unpopular Dem incumbent, any Dem would be weak here) if its base shows up en masse? Or does the GOP have to resort to a populist like Trump to win, even if that means spitting in the base's eye?

From the beginning, Cruz has been betting on the first possibility. My concern, as one who leans Republican, is that I don't like the odds of the second working. When 65% of the GOP base is against your nominee, I don't like the odds of the mushy middle showing up, making up the difference, and propelling you to victory. Can a party win by ditching its base? It didn't work with McCain or Romney, and I don't see it working with Trump.

[flere-imsaho]

If the 2nd convention vote (unbound) is something like 30% Trump, 50% Cruz and 20% Rubio, then the GOP's in real big trouble.

If it's something like 30% Trump, 70% Cruz, then there still are problems, but it's not as bad, especially if Trump comes to the convention with a very small delegate lead.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

How many pro-gun folks do you also hear say "If they haven't done anything wrong, they should have nothing to hide" with a complete lack of irony? Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?

The same irony exists with the segment of the other side that values a strong Fourth Amendment but resent the degree to which people value the Second.

The most important rights are the ones you personally value, other ones are expendable. That makes sense at human level, but it doesn't lend itself well to compromise or negotiations that start with the premise that one side's values are objectively wrong or less important.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Liks please thanks - not seen anything approaching the racism and violent tone from them myself so kinda intruiged by this

The big one is the expansion of the executive power. The far left of Sanders' supporters are fed-up and don't want Sanders to play by the rules - they want him to enact policy and legislation from the executive branch by any means necessary. They don't want him to "cave" like Obama, even if it means defaulting on government debt. I see a lot of this on my facebook wall and on reddit. Some won't deny it when you ask them if that's what they want. I assume it's not the majority voice but I'd compare it to the fringe Trump supporters.

Another specific one I saw is taking note of which publications are endorsing Clinton so there can be some retribution during Sanders' presidency, I'm not sure exactly what.

There's also a growing racist element as well within that fringe group. A lot of stuff about how black people are too dumb to vote in the own self-interest, and how educated and underemployed white people need to step up and get to the polls and save us all. I wonder how they can reconcile Sanders' support for policy that would benefit the poor with their hatred of rural poor conservatives, minorities, the un-educated, and anyone else they deem beneath them. Eventually you learn that with these people, the loudest one, their motivation isn't helping anyone, it's just about being right and being superior.

Now that I think about it, maybe those people aren't as bad or as scary and the full-on Nazi sympathizers and overt racists on the Trump side. But the extreme on the Sanders side scares me more because I see more of a chance of it taking off as an acceptable idea.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

Now that I think about it, maybe those people aren't as bad or as scary and the full-on Nazi sympathizers and overt racists on the Trump side.

Oh, phew! You're actually capable of expressing a thought that isn't some variation of "Both extremes are equally bad but I'm a perfectly neutral observer who's exactly in the middle."

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

Oh, phew! You're actually capable of expressing a thought that isn't some variation of "Both extremes are equally bad but I'm a perfectly neutral observer who's exactly in the middle."

I'm not in the middle and I'm not just an observer. I do have strong opinions about how positive changes actually occur in government, and I really hate the kind of mindsets that make things worse for everybody and which lead to Trumps and Sanders, and that can spill over into my message board posts and shooting-the-shit about this stuff.

But what I really want to know is - are you going to send me another creepy PM telling me to fuck off? I'm not sure why I make you so angry, but I hope you work it out.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not in the middle and I'm not just an observer. I do have strong opinions about how positive changes actually occur in government, and I really hate the kind of mindsets that make things worse for everybody and which lead to Trumps and Sanders, and that can spill over into my message board posts and shooting-the-shit about this stuff.

But what I really want to know is - are you going to send me another creepy PM telling me to fuck off? I'm not sure why I make you so angry, but I hope you work it out.

Oh, you get those too? Thought he just stalked me with creepy assed PM's...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not in the middle and I'm not just an observer. I do have strong opinions about how positive changes actually occur in government, and I really hate the kind of mindsets that make things worse for everybody and which lead to Trumps and Sanders, and that can spill over into my message board posts and shooting-the-shit about this stuff.

But what I really want to know is - are you going to send me another creepy PM telling me to fuck off? I'm not sure why I make you so angry, but I hope you work it out.

The way you post I kind of have to agree with nol

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The way you post I kind of have to agree with nol

Everybody has their own perspective that alters the way they view things. I've worked in one of the 5 most liberal state governments and one of the 5 most conservative. And I've lived in one of the most liberal regions in the country and one of the most conservative. Enough time to develop pet peeves about some of the ways both sides can approach things that just really suck. And I can accept that can make some of my posts annoying - (as long as you don't send me creepy hate-PMs or are otherwise a dick, which you're not.)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

...(as long as you don't send me creepy hate-PMs or are otherwise a dick, which you're not.)

I think you're the first one to say this

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

I am a Cruz supporter.

But recall that if 35% of GOP primary voters are voting Trump, that means 65% of GOP voters are effectively in the anti-Trump camp. ...

And it means that even more than that are effectively in the anti-Cruz camp. Hell, it means more than that are effectively in the anti-insert-candidate-here camp.

This all comes down again, I think, to the big gamble: Can the GOP still beat a weakened Dem (both Hillary and Bernie are flawed, and after 8 years of an unpopular Dem incumbent, any Dem would be weak here) if its base shows up en masse? Or does the GOP have to resort to a populist like Trump to win, even if that means spitting in the base's eye?

That's a very different read on "the base" than I get. While it may be split between Cruz & Trump, it's decidedly not the lightweight philosophy of Rubio & the remaining pseudocons.

Until the weekend there might have been a chance for either of the two to get a relatively united base. I'm afraid that Cruz' remarks attempting to blame Trump for the actions of the vermin in the streets probably tore that. I've said for months that there were really only two legitimate candidates that had a chance to earn my vote in November, but his remarks reduced that to one.

Keep in mind, ontheissues shows Cruz as a slightly better match than Trump for me on issues, I've just never been able to get past the nagging sense that Cruz lacked the judgement to picking his target consistently & adequately. This weekend managed to validate that concern, and he pretty much ended any chance of me voting for him for any office above dogcatcher.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh man, Trump's got Ohio now! Pete Rose just endorsed him!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Oh, you get those too? Thought he just stalked me with creepy assed PM's...

I like nol's activity around here. It's like a throwback to the FOFC of old, back when 99% of us didn't get along the vast majority of the time.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And it means that even more than that are effectively in the anti-Cruz camp. Hell, it means more than that are effectively in the anti-insert-candidate-here camp.

No, I don't think so. If all but Trump and "x" were to drop out, I think x would get the lion's share of the others' votes. I'm saying the anti-Trump sentiment is much stronger with the rest of the GOP than the anti-Cruz, anti-Rubio, anti-Kasich, etc.

Now, I'm not dreamy-eyed about Cruz's chances. I believe the establishment hates him even more than Trump and would squash him at all costs at convention.

But I don't think the anti-Cruz sentiment among the rest of the base is as strong as the anti-Trump. And the anti-Rubio isn't anywhere near as strong as the anti-Trump.

In other words, Trump is so divisive, I'm not sure he can get much above his 35%. I would argue over 50% of the GOP is so unfavorable toward Trump, he may struggle to get their support, even if all the others dropped out.

The others, however, could potentially pull together a coalition of GOP voters to be a significant bloc for the general - Cruz stronger among evangelicals and conservatives, Kasich strongest among the establishment, and Rubio with inroads into all camps, albeit lukewarm.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The big one is the expansion of the executive power. The far left of Sanders' supporters are fed-up and don't want Sanders to play by the rules - they want him to enact policy and legislation from the executive branch by any means necessary. They don't want him to "cave" like Obama, even if it means defaulting on government debt. I see a lot of this on my facebook wall and on reddit. Some won't deny it when you ask them if that's what they want. I assume it's not the majority voice but I'd compare it to the fringe Trump supporters.

But the extreme on the Sanders side scares me more because I see more of a chance of it taking off as an acceptable idea.

It's already an acceptable idea.

Shut down the Administration through investigation
Cloak your Administration in secrecy. Also.
Override science, popular sentiment and two bipartisan bills to reinforce your personal religious beliefs.
Place your own appointees inside regulatory agencies to lessen their independence and hew to your own doctrine.
Shut down the Administration through obstruction.
Shut the Government Down. Again.
Default on Government Debt.

But you're right. We should be worried about some berniebros convincing President Sanders to sign some executive orders to advance his policies. That would be a whole new level of horror visited upon Americans.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

The same irony exists with the segment of the other side that values a strong Fourth Amendment but resent the degree to which people value the Second.

The most important rights are the ones you personally value, other ones are expendable. That makes sense at human level, but it doesn't lend itself well to compromise or negotiations that start with the premise that one side's values are objectively wrong or less important.

Sure. But that doesn't negate what I just said: that for a large part of the electorate, the Second Amendment IS the Constitution. You could throw away everything but that and I'm reasonably sure they'd be unconcerned. Other than the First Amendment, I don't know if there's any other part of that document that gets waved so fervently.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Logan

I like nol's activity around here. It's like a throwback to the FOFC of old, back when 99% of us didn't get along the vast majority of the time.

I don't mind the back and forth banter one bit with nol or anybody.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The big one is the expansion of the executive power. The far left of Sanders' supporters are fed-up and don't want Sanders to play by the rules - they want him to enact policy and legislation from the executive branch by any means necessary. They don't want him to "cave" like Obama, even if it means defaulting on government debt. I see a lot of this on my facebook wall and on reddit. Some won't deny it when you ask them if that's what they want. I assume it's not the majority voice but I'd compare it to the fringe Trump supporters.

My experience with Sanders supporters is a bit different. I do get some of the (let it default, let the healthcare bill die so we can get single payer, etc), but most of the ones I run into are simply clueless about politics. They'll shout $15 min wage and free tuition, but if you asked them how he's going to get it done, they'd shrug their shoulders. One of them did think an executive order could be used to raise the minimum wage.

There's also a growing racist element as well within that fringe group. A lot of stuff about how black people are too dumb to vote in the own self-interest, and how educated and underemployed white people need to step up and get to the polls and save us all. I wonder how they can reconcile Sanders' support for policy that would benefit the poor with their hatred of rural poor conservatives, minorities, the un-educated, and anyone else they deem beneath them. Eventually you learn that with these people, the loudest one, their motivation isn't helping anyone, it's just about being right and being superior.

I do agree with you here, because I am seeing the same thing. I noted earlier that several white liberals on my Facebook feed posted a meme showing MLK with a made up quote where he attacks black people for voting for Hillary over Bernie. That's just so hideously offensive, it's difficult for me to comprehend how anyone could think posting it was a good idea.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But you're right. We should be worried about some berniebros convincing President Sanders to sign some executive orders to advance his policies. That would be a whole new level of horror visited upon Americans.

I didn't say I opposed the concept of executive orders, or claim that no president has ever used them. I said the thing that scares me the most about the fringe left Sanders supporters is their desire to see Sanders push those limits and go further than other presidents have attempted to go.

I don't think that fringe left will "convince" Sanders to do anything, but I think that mindset is more ripe to take off in America than whatever Trump is selling to the far right. (but both could take off). There is this segment of people in their early 20s with big debt and no job prospects who seem a lot more angry and desperate that that age group was in the recent past. Maybe they just have a bigger voice now.

I think Sanders is much more likely to be ineffective than dangerous as a president, but I still don't really know his willingness to compromise and work within the system. I think there's a lot of rhetoric surrounding his campaign that sees Obama as some kind of failure and a sell-out because he "caved". I don't want a president that refuses to "cave" and who see their principles as so unchallengable and inherently correct that they cannot be compromised. I don't know if that's Sanders or not, but that's seems to be a big part of his campaign and what fuels the passion of his loudest supporters. I'd rather have 8 more years of Obama, but maybe with someone a little more seasoned who can be more effective right off the bat.

[flere-imsaho]

My point, molson, is that "that mindset" has already taken off in America, and the GOP uses it every day.

[molson]

Ya, Trump is also touching into a segment of the population that wants a conservative president to push the limits of the executive power, in different kinds of old-fashion right-wing ways - use of the military, strong-arming and bullying enemies. And yes, we've seen that from the right before. But I'm not sure we've seen the equivalent from the left since the Vietnam era.

[larrymcg421]

What scares me the most about Trump, and really most of the Republican candidates, is they type into type of leadership that people (incorrectly, I feel) see as great, but is really problematic.

There are two times in the past year where Obama has been faced with a situation and his responses to both are what elevates him from good to great in my mind. Those two situations are the ebola crisis and the syrian refugee situation. Instead of going off the rails with nonsense (OMG TRAVEL BOYCOTT NOW, PUT NURSES IN TENTS, BLOCK EVERYONE WHO WENT ANYWHERE NEAR EBOLA or OMG SYRIANS ARE COMING TO KILL US JUST LIKE THEY DID IN FRANCE, SEND THEM AWAY NOW!!!!!!!), he took the smart, compassionate road in each situation. What really scares me is that kind of leadership is what people love. They eat it up. There's a reason why Halsey is a more revered WW2 admiral than Spruance, when the latter was far more effective. If a Republican was in charge during either of those situations, they would've taken the wrong approach in both situations and sadly the public probably would've lauded them for it. And that response would guide future politicians on how to handle similar situations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

But I don't think the anti-Cruz sentiment among the rest of the base is as strong as the anti-Trump. And the anti-Rubio isn't anywhere near as strong as the anti-Trump.

Yeah, we definitely disagree about who "the base" is.

Rubio would have a tough time finding many people I see in the base to piss on him if he caught fire. Might as well vote for a random (D) as that worthless sack of shit.

The others, however, could potentially pull together a coalition of GOP voters to be a significant bloc for the general - Cruz stronger among evangelicals and conservatives, Kasich strongest among the establishment, and Rubio with inroads into all camps, albeit lukewarm.

Again, disagree thoroughly. The time for running lukewarm candidates is over. That's the one thing this cycle has proven beyond any doubt, the votes won't be there for a lightweight.