2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Your side is losing this fight, BTW, and there's very little chance you're ever going to get close to the days of Ronald Reagan again.

And you wonder why the nuclear option seems quite reasonable?

The mistakes of the past have indeed opened the door to the loss of the fight but that's no reason to go down quietly. I'd rather see every inch razed and sowed with salt than leave it to breed more vermin.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

a president who thinks executive orders are a legitimate form of governance.

Curious as to the intention of this claim.

It is a popular talking point, but the numbers do not support it. Obama has signed the fewest executive orders per year, of any president, since Grover Cleveland.

I imagine a claim could be made that the stakes or gravity of his Executive Orders are somehow more unilateral (or some such), but that would seem awfully difficult to measure.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

there's very little chance you're ever going to get close to the days of Ronald Reagan again.

That amnesty loving, terrorist dealing, communist appeasing, tax raiser?

The problem isn't that Reagan isn't coming back, the problem is Reagan wouldn't be pure enough for today's far-right.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Curious as to the intention of this claim.

It is a popular talking point, but the numbers do not support it. Obama has signed the fewest executive orders per year, of any president, since Grover Cleveland.

I imagine a claim could be made that the stakes or gravity of his Executive Orders are somehow more unilateral (or some such), but that would seem awfully difficult to measure.

It is difficult to measure. Radically changing our country's immigration policy and energy policy and his own health insurance policies among other things... these seem a little more like a dictator than someone sworn to uphold the laws of our nation.

Certainly, the numbers alone don't tell the complete story. Most executive orders are fairly benign.

[QuikSand]

Anyone else smelling the end of Ben Carson starting here with this Popeye's story (and the othe stuff about gun victims)?

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Anyone else smelling the end of Ben Carson starting here with this Popeye's story (and the othe stuff about gun victims)?

He doesn't sound any more crazy than the other Republican candidates.. I suspect he will get a decent amount of support from the powers that be within the party if only for the reason that Republicans probably want to have a "person of color" in the running to try and tip some of the black vote in their favor. I really feel like that is the main reason he is even in the running to begin with.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Anyone else smelling the end of Ben Carson starting here with this Popeye's story (and the othe stuff about gun victims)?

I think that he still has basis for support due to the "libtards hate him" card but I never really understood the appeal. I'd trust his expertise in medicine but I don't understand how that qualifies him for the presidency.

Also, at the risk of bringing in religion, isn't the 7th Day Adventist Church viewed as a substantial fork from mainstream Christianity? Maybe I listened to too much Bob Larson growing up, I dunno.

[Dutch]

Do libtards hate Ben Carson?

[JPhillips]

Carson is fluent in wingnut in a way that none of the other candidates are. Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, etc. can all say the right things, but Carson understands the words. He's the only candidate that could give an hour long talk on Saul Alinsky, ACORN, political correctness, the War on Christians, and how Hillary Clinton will take our guns and give them to the Islamist caliphate.

He, like Trump, has a hard limit on his support, but I don't think much is going to dampen his support right now, even his crazy, "shoot the other guy" story.

[QuikSand]

I generally agree with the framing of Carson's support - but I think a candidacy like his tends to be a house of cards. There's an appeal to a certain stripe of voter, but it's pretty thin. He's different, he's likable, he's straight-shooting, he tells-it-like-it-is, and so forth -- those things are all really superficial.

I think a candidate like that is way more vulnerable to the very first sign of weakness than most are. And I think this will be his. Not his arguably silly comments about how victims during an active shooter incident are blameworthy for not being aggressive enough - I don't think that's the thing by itself. I think it's the appearance, which is likely going to smolder in the next couple of days, that he either made up or embellished the Popeye's story about his own run-in with a gunman.

Even if the substance of the story is trivial, this type of candidate cannot afford to look like he's being dishonest at all. Once he does, he and his poll numbers could pop like a balloon. I'm not saying I'm certain it will happen, but I think the ingredients are right there for this to be "the weird thing" that made early October his overall peak.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do libtards hate Ben Carson?

I think the aggressive left has discounted him nearly fully until very recently as being an inconceivable candidate. He says things that rile the left, often on purpose I think, but I think the opposing party (in any election) reserves its most serious hate for the people whom they actually fear.

I think back to Pat Buchanan, some years ago, who said some arguably pretty awful and hateful things as he was clawing in primary contests. The general response from the Dems wasn't to attack Buchanan himself... it was to attack the Republican party for putting up with those ideas.

I think Carson fits that stripe, too. If we get to Iowa and he's looking like he's really one of the handful of people who could win the nomination, then I suspect you'd start to see more deep left people who actually hate him and his politics. For now, he's just another one of the members of the big clown car.

[QuikSand]

..with one additional note that Carson has the Lindbergh effect, too. He's the only guy in this whole thing who has a personal story, fully aside from politics, that 100% of people all across the political spectrum would respect and admire. That definitely makes him harder to simply hate.

[JPhillips]

Carson got lucky with the Speaker story. I'm not sure how much his hold-up story is going to penetrate.

[stevew]

I feel like that Popeye's story will quickly become impeachable if it even happened

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Frankly, it's the thought that politics should be a bloodsport that's left us with a uncompromising set of extremists in Washington (on both sides) and a president who thinks executive orders are a legitimate form of governance. Your side is losing this fight, BTW, and there's very little chance you're ever going to get close to the days of Ronald Reagan again.

Ironically, I think you just shit on your own thread, there.

The above paragraph, and ones like it, are probably better placed in the catchall Obama thread, if sharpening the focus of this thread is what you're after.

But I'm pretty sure you have me on ignore, so whatever.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do libtards hate Ben Carson?

Since I know I resemble that epithet in your eyes, I'll respond.

I think most of us got over the "black intellectuals should really be Democrats" with Clarence Thomas. That doesn't mean there isn't a section of the GOP that wants to wave him in our faces and say "see, we got one of yours!"

More seriously, though, I agree with QuikSand's analysis, although:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think Carson fits that stripe, too. If we get to Iowa and he's looking like he's really one of the handful of people who could win the nomination, then I suspect you'd start to see more deep left people who actually hate him and his politics. For now, he's just another one of the members of the big clown car.

I'm not going to hate him and his politics until he wins an election and actually does some of the stuff he's talked about.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by stevew

I feel like that Popeye's story will quickly become impeachable if it even happened

You don't say?

I especially like this part:

So what happened when Carson allegedly faced just such a threat? He directed the gunman’s attention to an employee of the fast food restaurant.

“I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,’” Carson said.

Real American Hero, this guy.

[Grover]

Carson should certainly tone down the "Hitler in America potential" rhetoric.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is Jeb actually done? That would be shocking if he can't rally support but he really looks to be a 2nd or 3rd choice for much of the electorate right now.

I assume Carson is getting all of the fundie support right now?

Someone is going to be the establishment fallback candidate in the McCain/Romney mold that will eventually rise to the top and grab all the money, and I still assume that will eventually be Bush.

Carson is the next candidate to implode. It has nothing to do with his politics (that's a separate topic), but rather everything to do with his ridiculously low level of charisma and complete inability to communicate. He may be the worst TV interview outside Palin.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's a political topic, the divisions that exist within the party itself are going to be hard pressed not to play out here. They are both relevant to and reflective of an enormous part of the race under discussion.

The phrase "lighten up Francis" comes to mind to be completely honest.

Politics is a contact sport- perhaps even a bloodsport - if you don't have the stomach for it then you'd probably be better served by avoiding it.

That's largely what's wrong with the current political wave. Not that long ago, Democrats and Republicans in Washington were actually friends. Yes, they argued policy. It wasn't a blood sport, it was the NFL. It was a bunch of people who fought for their side, but at the end of the day they drank together, smoked cigars and bonded over their mutual love of power and money.

I'm still holding out hope that one day we will see a consensus president who can win fans on the other side of the aisle. The current political map is largely due to Reagan winning over southern Democrats who really were Republicans anyway. With the current schism in the GOP, it seems ripe for a Democratic candidate who can peel away suburban Republicans who really aren't Republicans.

But none of them are in this election cycle, thus far.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Grover

Carson should certainly tone down the "Hitler in America potential" rhetoric.

And if this isn't the end of the Carson ride, it's certainly the jumping of the shark. No one in history has ever successfully doubled down on something stupid they said or did by playing the Hitler card. There's no where to go after that.

I'm largely with Quik on Carson. He does have wider support because there are people who would like the idea of a non-politician or outsider with a compelling history. But eventually, just like Trump or Perot or any other outsider, their lack of understanding the process and how politics and PR works causes them to lose their luster.

[Zinto]

Donald Trump returns to host #SNL November 7 with musical guest @Sia! pic.twitter.com/kreVe6iSpD

— Saturday Night Live (@nbcsnl) October 13, 2015

In news about people using an election to become famous again.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Zinto

In news about people using an election to become famous again.

I think you posted this in the wrong primary thread. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think you posted this in the wrong primary thread. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

Uh, you don't think Trump is doing this for fame? Maybe Hillary is, too..I don't know, I really don't care. But to say Trump isn't an attention whore is being cognitively dissonant at best.

[albionmoonlight]

Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz! | FiveThirtyEight

I'm still pretty convinced it will be Rubio. But this makes some pretty good points in favor of Cruz.

Because I cannot get my head around the two frontrunners (Trump/Carson), I have a sense of this race as still wide open.

(I also still think that Republicans don't much like Jeb, and that Jeb don't much care.)

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz! | FiveThirtyEight

I'm still pretty convinced it will be Rubio. But this makes some pretty good points in favor of Cruz.

Because I cannot get my head around the two frontrunners (Trump/Carson), I have a sense of this race as still wide open.

(I also still think that Republicans don't much like Jeb, and that Jeb don't much care.)

I would vote for Trump before I would vote for Cruz, and I hate Trump. Cruz is too disliked by his own party and represents the side of the party that took out Boehner. He lead the charge to shutdown the govt, and is one inflammatory comment away from causing any minority to absolutely be disgusted with him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

represents the side of the party that took out Boehner. He lead the charge to shutdown the govt ...

Now stop that.

You're going to make me take another look at voting for the guy, you make him sound like exactly what I'm looking for.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now stop that.

You're going to make me take another look at voting for the guy, you make him sound like exactly what I'm looking for.

My apologies Jon-forget we are not all liberals here

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz! | FiveThirtyEight

I'm still pretty convinced it will be Rubio.

I'm almost willing to lay money on Rubio right now. I think he's in the right position. I just don't think Trump is in it to win it, and Carson will never carry the bulk of the party.

[wustin]

If the GOP does not nominate Trump, they're shooting themselves in the foot because they risk Trump running as an independent and taking away some centrists and conservative voters. Trump is the only person who has a shot against Hillary.

[JPhillips]

I don't think Trump is interested in the long haul, nor necessarily actually being president. I'd be shocked if he's still in the race in any way after March, and he'll probably bail earlier than that.

[Dutch]

I think the Dems want nothing more than for Trump to stick it out. I think the Dems are scared to death of Rubio.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Since I know I resemble that epithet in your eyes, I'll respond.

Hey, maybe I meant libertarians. Seriously though, I dont use that phrase, just grabbed it from earlier in the thread. So no need to defend yourself, I think of nobody as a "libtard", mostly because it looks like somebody making fun of handicapped people, which I would never condone. I should have cited my source.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think that he still has basis for support due to the "libtards hate him" card but I never really understood the appeal. I'd trust his expertise in medicine but I don't understand how that qualifies him for the presidency.

Also, at the risk of bringing in religion, isn't the 7th Day Adventist Church viewed as a substantial fork from mainstream Christianity? Maybe I listened to too much Bob Larson growing up, I dunno.

There it is.

[Abe Sargent]

As someone who was in seminary with some 7th days, has some that work for me, and is a card carrying Evangelic Baptist, here's sort of my view of 7th Day within the framework of religious classifications and such,

7th Day Adventists have so many differences in some basic practices, that I don't classify them as Protestant. They take the Old Testament laws as still applying for food, worship, holy days, and more. That's not really the Protestant way of doing things, and I don;t see them as having a lot in common with Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists or Presbyterians.

However, they are certainly Christian. They are fully in the circle. I'd put them in their own category much like Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. That's my attempt at a neutral classification.

From a personal matter, I think they get a lot more things right than Catholics do, from a Biblical perspective. They have a higher authority to the Bible than leadership's or traditional views.

So because of that, they really slide alongside Protestants well against Catholic/Orthodox churches. I see more parallels between 7ths and my Evangelical upbringings than I do with us and Catholics. I don't think it would be an issue politically.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by wustin

If the GOP does not nominate Trump, they're shooting themselves in the foot because they risk Trump running as an independent and taking away some centrists and conservative voters. Trump is the only person who has a shot against Hillary.

Well, right conclusion, wrong rationale.

The longer Trump stays in the race, the harder it'll become for the GOP to disassociate themselves from him come the convention and the run-in to the general. If he's still getting delegates through Super Tuesday, for instance, but then eventually drops out, how do you keep him from a speaking part at the convention? Even a prime-time speaking part at the convention?

If you let him speak for the GOP, you run a big risk of alienating lots of voters and spurring Democratic GOTV. If you don't, you run the risk of his fans staying home or, worse, him actually running as an independent, which pretty much gives it to Clinton.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think the Dems want nothing more than for Trump to stick it out. I think the Dems are scared to death of Rubio.

We'll see. He's got to gain some traction, first. Then he has to get over the fact that he looks, and talks, really young. And then get over the fact that much of the GOP base doesn't want to vote for him because he's hispanic.

The only GOP candidate who scares me right now is Bush. He's got the money, he's not going to do anything stupid, and he could absolutely win, especially if Democrats stay apathetic.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hey, maybe I meant libertarians. Seriously though, I dont use that phrase, just grabbed it from earlier in the thread. So no need to defend yourself, I think of nobody as a "libtard", mostly because it looks like somebody making fun of handicapped people, which I would never condone. I should have cited my source.

No worries. Note I used the smiley. I was giving you a hard time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - AP-GfK Poll: Republicans want principles, not compromise

One or two interesting things in this I think, none moreso perhaps than how it highlights the challenge of winning the nomination versus winning a general election.

Among Republicans in the poll, 62 percent say they would prefer a new speaker who will stick with conservative principles even if doing so leads to a government shutdown. Just 37 percent prefer someone who will compromise with President Barack Obama and Democrats to pass a budget.

Later in the article they differentiate between "conservative" R's and "moderate" R's, so I'm pretty sure that 2:1 margin that wants a Speaker to stick to principles is the general R population. The problem a lot of R voters have is that the actual members of Congress aren't as steadfast.

Here's why the inevitable conflicts are winnable on Capitol Hill IF the right representatives are sent

Among all those questioned, more say they would prefer that leaders from their party in Congress compromise to pass legislation rather than stick with their principles, 60 percent to 37 percent. Also, 63 percent say they want the next speaker to be someone who will compromise to pass a budget.

The left will crack, given (or forced into) the opportunity to do so. The tricky part is making sure there are enough hammers in D.C. to pound them on their own anvil.

edit to add: I'll add a caveat that I included on my social media but not in the original post here. That the GOP -- or whatever party ends up ultimately representing conservatives -- has to supply those hammers. The results here are an encouraging sign that a split would not be some incredible disaster for conservatives, they clearly make up the majority of aligned voters in the existing party. What emerges from a hypothetical split could turn out to be more effective if freed of influences that do not align with the majority of membership.

[miked]

What are these conservative principles you speak of? When they had full control they spent tons, went to war with everyone, and let corporations run wild. The only thing they have been principled on is their lack of belief in science and medicine.

[Coffee Warlord]

Nowadays 'conservative principles' means pretty much 'whatever the Democrats don't like today'. And vice versa for liberal principles.

Except when it comes to spending. Moneymoneymoneymoneymoney.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by miked

What are these conservative principles you speak of? When they had full control they spent tons, went to war with everyone, and let corporations run wild. The only thing they have been principled on is their lack of belief in science and medicine.

the true answer to that question may be scary to many.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

What are these conservative principles you speak of? When they had full control they spent tons, went to war with everyone, and let corporations run wild. The only thing they have been principled on is their lack of belief in science and medicine.

War is temporary. What spending policies are the Dems proposing that arent?

[miked]

Define temporary. These wars have financially ruined a generation. There are still troops there and we are still fighting 10+ years later with no end. Wars are rarely temporary.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

War is temporary. What spending policies are the Dems proposing that arent?

For very long-term views of "temporary," maybe. When the declared "war" is on a concept rather than a nation, that kind of conflict doesn't have a sunset. If you declare war on Germany and Japan, the terminus is evident: when their governments surrender, the war is over. "Global War on Terror" is a literal moving goalpost: oh we've degraded the taliban time to move on to al-qaeda okay we've degraded them too whoops there's isis okay now we've degraded them but oh while our back was turned the taliban got uppity again and...

A war like that ends when either we can literally no longer afford the costs, in blood and treasure, of fighting an endless conflict, or when somebody gets elected who says "enough" and pulls the troops out.

Then, once you get past THAT, even above and beyond the actual "bomb the brown people" spending, the costs of war don't end when the combat mission does.

It continues after the veterans come home, both in the form of predicted veteran expenses (the GI bill, other benefits intended to re-integrate veterans into society) and unpredictable (medical costs).

War? Temporary? I think the only "temporary" war the United States has fought in the last fifty years was the first Gulf War. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf II-née-GWoT...all of those have been long, drawn-out conflicts. The first was a proxy war against Communism, the second was a proxy war in defense of an ally's colonial interests and the third was the first war in probably 500 years prosecuted against a concept rather than against a specific nation-state actor.

As to the Democrats' spending proposals...one needn't agree with them or even agree that said proposals will WORK to recognize that their aim is to improve productivity and quality of life for Americans. LBJ's War on Poverty may or may not have been doomed to failure, but the goal was about making America better, not about trying to force other groups to be better for American interests.

The Democratic push for universal health care from FDR onward had, at its core, the recognition of a concept similar to herd immunity with vaccinations: if people are able to take advantage of health care, they tend to live healthier lives. People who live healthier lives are more productive - which benefits the country - and less likely to be a burden on the state or on their families - which also benefits the country. They are less likely to be a drain on the health care system by overloading emergency rooms to get critical (or even less-than-critical) health care because that's the only way they can get that access.

Whatever your feelings 20 years ago on "Hillarycare" or today on the ACA, the point remains: that spending was intended to address what Democrats perceived as a critical need here at home.

What domestic issues are Republicans committed to spending on? It ain't science, unless they can militarize space. It sure as shit ain't health care, unless they get to repeal ACA and then replace it with something that is fundamentally exactly the same thing BUT A BLACK DUMBOCRAT DIDN'T SIGN IT SO IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BETTER or whatever. It's not schools, unless it's taking money away from those liberal public schools so we can give it to loosely regulated religious and charter schools, instead, because they teach things we LIKE.

It's not the environment. God gave man dominion over the beasts, the bird and the land, so that means nothing bad will ever happen why would you even worry about the environment?

It's not civil rights, combating increased police militarization, or increasing access to the ballot box so that people from all walks of life can elect a government that represents them. Racism ended with MLK Jr., you know.

It's not high speed mass transit, because god forbid the population centers get an easing of congestion when the 2/3 of the country that makes up about 1/4 the population would never use such a thing.

It's not alternative energy, because drill, baby, drill. God makes the oil appear so why worry about running out? Or why keep our oil reserves as a, you know, reserve against the countries who rely on oil for their revenue running out of that resource? What good would electric cars, solar power, increased use of nuclear power, or anything else that ain't a fossil fuel do?

So, no, Dutch. I think before you get to drag Democratic spending priorities into the discussion of what Republicans stand for, you need to do a better job of articulating what exactly it is Republicans stand for. Democratic spending is very much irrelevant until you can address what it is Republicans spend like drunken sailors for, and why.

[Abe Sargent]

We've clearly deviated so far away from the original intention of this thread that I'm going to click this thread anymore.

Per original post:

I thought we could use items dedicated to the primary issues. Candidacies, polls, issues, attitudes.

As always, let's try to keep these items pleasant.

Bolded my own.

[cuervo72]

50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph : Planet Money : NPR

I would assume "safety net" and "everything else."

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Dutch

War is temporary. What spending policies are the Dems proposing that arent?

We've been at war since 1917.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

We've clearly deviated so far away from the original intention of this thread that I'm going to click this thread anymore.

Aside from where it went, I'm not sure that there is ANY more relevant issue in
the primary -- or at least relevant to the outcome of the primary -- than what's indicated by those poll results.

The party is at war with itself. Or perhaps moreso the voting members of the party are at war with the entrenched leadership. There is a glaring disconnect between those two groups desires & behaviors. That conflict seems to be weighing on the primary, weighing on events in Congress, and appears more likely than ever to weigh on the results of the general election.

Not sure how much more relevant something could be.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit to add: The results here are an encouraging sign that a split would not be some incredible disaster for conservatives, they clearly make up the majority of aligned voters in the existing party. What emerges from a hypothetical split could turn out to be more effective if freed of influences that do not align with the majority of membership.

What you're going to end up with in the Republican party is a fracture that drives the remainder of the group out. While maybe not aligning with the majority of membership, they clearly posses the balance between the parties. If that group leaves to the left, or to some larger center group the far right will may be happy with the group they have, but that group will be a much smaller and less significant group when it comes to overall representative power. Is that really a positive result?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What you're going to end up with in the Republican party is a fracture that drives the remainder of the group out. While maybe not aligning with the majority of membership, they clearly posses the balance between the parties. If that group leaves to the left, or to some larger center group the far right will may be happy with the group they have, but that group will be a much smaller and less significant group when it comes to overall representative power. Is that really a positive result?

Bending to the center-left wing of the party has done nothing to obtain the WH (this is the primary thread after all, so that has to be a focal point I think).
Better to be beaten with someone who will at least TRY to accomplish something worthwhile than with someone who is a ready & willing collaborator.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

We've clearly deviated so far away from the original intention of this thread that I'm going to click this thread anymore.

Per original post:





Bolded my own.

I would imagine these things we are discussing are primary issues. The idea that it is now perfectly fine for a minority of people to completely shut everything down to get their way almost seems the cruz of the issues with guys like Cruz running. Are these the type of folks we want in the white house?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bending to the center-left wing of the party has done nothing to obtain the WH (this is the primary thread after all, so that has to be a focal point I think).
Better to be beaten with someone who will at least TRY to accomplish something worthwhile than with someone who is a ready & willing collaborator.

So you'd rather run someone out there who will stand by his convictions, refuse to cooperate until things go his way and say that's how it's going be, rather than run someone out who would be willing to play ball? I guess that's what I'm taking away from that. Because while that might make that section of the party really happy, it's really not going to go anywhere with the majority of Americans and he'd be guaranteed to lose the general.