2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

and yet as of current returns, 83% of ballots cast in the Republican primary went for one of those two, so...

I'd be interested in seeing how many registered republicans instead voted for Hillary.

As a "normal republican", I have no interest in voting for Cruz, Trump or Sanders. So, in Arizona, I switched to Dem and voted for Hillary. I'm thinking this is a more normal occurrence - esp in open primaries.

[Dutch]

I won't vote for a Democrat, I'd rather just abstain from voting with the current class of clowns we have left.

[Arles]

I am terrified of Sanders and what he would do me taxwise (and with some of his anti-business policies). So, I'd rather ensure that Hillary is the democratic option. At that point - whether it's Trump/Hillary or Cruz/Hillary - it wouldn't really impact me much. I'd still choose Hillary, but it's not as dire as if Sanders were an option. So, voting Hillary was more playing defense against Sanders.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'd be interested in seeing how many registered republicans instead voted for Hillary.

As a "normal republican", I have no interest in voting for Cruz, Trump or Sanders. So, in Arizona, I switched to Dem and voted for Hillary. I'm thinking this is a more normal occurrence - esp in open primaries.

What's interesting is I think something may have changed along the way somewhere, because I've spent the last nearly eight years under the impression that primaries here weren't truly open - I remember, for example, having to specifically request a Republican ballot for the primaries in...2010, I think? When I was looking to vote against then-Candidate Walker.

This year, you just bubbled the party you wanted to vote for, and then the candidate, and that seems different to me. I don't remember having to do that in the 2014 primaries or the 2012 primaries.

So, I mean, my FIRST reaction to your comment was "they can't actually do that!" and then I remembered that, well, this year they COULD have.

My co-workers lean to the right, but it's interesting - the women are like "yes I would vote for Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for Donald Trump," and then men are like "aw fuck no I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump but if it's Clinton/Trump I'll just sit it out."

Originally Posted by Dutch

I won't vote for a Democrat, I'd rather just abstain from voting with the current class of clowns we have left.

I have family who have expressed the "I don't vote the party, I vote the person" sentiment who haven't voted for a non-Republican in at least 30 years who agree with you, without being honest enough to come right out and say the first six words of your thought.

I am going to be fascinated to see what happens if Trump gets the nomination. Do Republicans have a "well fuck it he's a fascist but at least he's not Hillary Clinton" epiphany and vote for him despite the "I'd rather stay home" rhetoric coming from a non-trivial number of them? Do they do what Democrats did in 2010 and just not bother to show up?

The Supreme Court has already okayed mid-cycle redistricting when the Republicans have done it in a couple of cases; if Republicans really do stay home and Democrats get out and vote, I would be fascinated to see if Democrats try to redraw the lines so that they have a prayer of holding those gains heading into the 2020 Census.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

This year, you just bubbled the party you wanted to vote for, and then the candidate, and that seems different to me.

I'm probably just confused here but I read that as saying you basically had one (physical ... or digital, whatever) ballot and then you chose a party and then the option to select a candidate in the chosen party appeared/was allowed.

Am I reading that right?

(Asking 'cause I've never seen that sort of layout in a primary before, different state & all, just never conceived of such a thing)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

I am terrified of Sanders and what he would do me taxwise (and with some of his anti-business policies).

No need to be terrified. Sanders wouldn't do anything to you taxwise, because there is zero chance of his plan passing. What's terrifying to me is he doesn't seem to realize that.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The Supreme Court has already okayed mid-cycle redistricting when the Republicans have done it in a couple of cases; if Republicans really do stay home and Democrats get out and vote, I would be fascinated to see if Democrats try to redraw the lines so that they have a prayer of holding those gains heading into the 2020 Census.

The Democrats having the power to redistrict might get the Republicans to agree to non-partisan redistricting. See, e.g., http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

(Of course, because all politics is short-sighted, as soon as they have that power, the Dems will assume that they will have it forever and work to keep redistricting partisan).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No need to be terrified. Sanders wouldn't do anything to you taxwise, because there is zero chance of his plan passing. What's terrifying to me is he doesn't seem to realize that.

The New York Post (and, yes, the Post is partisan) ran an interview with Sanders that shows he's pretty much another version of Trump when it comes to command of the issues. The similarities in their approach to issues are remarkable.

I think both Sanders and Trump, should either defy the odds and become president, will quickly find themselves with a congress that won't even listen to them. Like Carter or Obama, only even worse.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think both Sanders and Trump, should either defy the odds and become president, will quickly find themselves with a congress that won't even listen to them.

Even with my hatred of Sanders defying description, I'd say that such a scenario with either would most likely lead to a major overhaul in Congress. I mean we're already talking about the least popular institution in the country, it isn't a stretch to think that an elected president who faced singificant obstruction within his own party would be able to swing a number of seats two years later.

[vex]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

and then men are like "aw fuck no I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump but if it's Clinton/Trump I'll just sit it out."

This is exactly how I feel.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What's interesting is I think something may have changed along the way somewhere, because I've spent the last nearly eight years under the impression that primaries here weren't truly open - I remember, for example, having to specifically request a Republican ballot for the primaries in...2010, I think? When I was looking to vote against then-Candidate Walker.

I don't remember ever having to request a Republican or Democrat ballot here. But then I don't remember voting in a primary before 2008. But I'm pretty sure the way it is done now has been SOP for eight years anyway.

[Logan]

I don't lean right but there's no way in hell I'd sit out a Clinton/Trump election just due to the 0.00000000000001% chance enough people do the same and we end up with him.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I won't vote for a Democrat, I'd rather just abstain from voting with the current class of clowns we have left.

If you're looking for a protest candidate who is conservative, this guy is literally "a friend of a friend."

Mike Smith for President - 2016 Presidential Candidate

[Dutch]

I'll consider it and the beauty is that I'll get to see his defense in action prior to Election Day...so I'll know if he's legit or not. If the Bucs defense is ranked in the top 10, I'll do it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm probably just confused here but I read that as saying you basically had one (physical ... or digital, whatever) ballot and then you chose a party and then the option to select a candidate in the chosen party appeared/was allowed.

Am I reading that right?

(Asking 'cause I've never seen that sort of layout in a primary before, different state & all, just never conceived of such a thing)

Yep. Bubble the party, bubble the candidate. If you chose the GOP bubble, can't vote for a Democratic nominee. Vice versa.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Democrats having the power to redistrict might get the Republicans to agree to non-partisan redistricting. See, e.g., http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

(Of course, because all politics is short-sighted, as soon as they have that power, the Dems will assume that they will have it forever and work to keep redistricting partisan).

I think "non-partisan" runs into trouble because incumbents can't game the system. Not because of any idea about a permanent majority.

Originally Posted by lungs

I don't remember ever having to request a Republican or Democrat ballot here. But then I don't remember voting in a primary before 2008. But I'm pretty sure the way it is done now has been SOP for eight years anyway.

I would swear that when I voted in the midterm primary in 2010, I was asked which party I wished to vote for. I doubt different districts have different ballots, so who knows. Maybe I'm mistaken.

[albionmoonlight]

John Kasich wants to make the day after the Super Bowl a national holiday | FOX Sports

I'm #TeamKasich

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

John Kasich wants to make the day after the Super Bowl a national holiday | FOX Sports

I'm #TeamKasich

The man just earned my vote.

[Easy Mac]

So I see Hastert has pleaded guilty to molesting boys. His lawyers say he shouldn't serve jail time for his tax fraud because he's old.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So I see Hastert has pleaded guilty to molesting boys. His lawyers say he shouldn't serve jail time for his tax fraud because he's old.

well he can die in jail then.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So I see Hastert has pleaded guilty to molesting boys. His lawyers say he shouldn't serve jail time for his tax fraud because he's old.

Hard to believe a serial pedophile was Speaker of the House.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So I see Hastert has pleaded guilty to molesting boys. His lawyers say he shouldn't serve jail time for his tax fraud because he's old.

I'm lost. Was there another accusation??? I thought they couldn't bring charges for molestation.

[JPhillips]

The charges are related to tax fraud. The molestation charges are past the statute of limitations. He'll likely get well under a year or no jail time at all.

[Brian Swartz]

Surprised there's nothing on here yet about Trump's promise to eliminate the dangerous DEP(Department of Environmental). I liked Colbert's segment on it more than his usual.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm lost. Was there another accusation??? I thought they couldn't bring charges for molestation.

Apparently he was using the money from his tax fraud to pay off one of victims of the molestation so the defense found it necessary to point that out.

[Ben E Lou]

Got it. I just saw "pleaded guilty to molesting boys" there and thought that meant he'd pleaded guilty to molesting boys, and the last I'd heard that would have been impossible.

[Solecismic]

Colorado is one of the three states (Wyoming and North Dakota are the others) where there is no primary or caucus vote. Colorado has 37 delegates, Wyoming 29 and North Dakota 28.

Colorado has been holding its congressional district conventions this week, and the state convention today. It looks like a clean sweep of the 37 for Cruz.

I won't bother updating the math stuff, because I was already counting these as un-gettable for Trump. He still needs 61.0% of the remaining delegates to reach 1,237, and that's probably all that matters as far as the voters can control. Either he reaches 1,237 and probably gets the nomination, or he doesn't and Cruz probably gets it.

[mauchow]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politi...ich/index.html

This is the kind of stuff that I'm oblivious to and I'm sure 99% of Americans are when it comes to primaries/elections.

On the surface for instance, Bernie won Wyoming today, but they split the delegates evenly. Okay, it makes sense when you read into it, but the average person sees 10 point victory for Bernie not a tie in delegates.

Interestingly, Bernie has won the 2 states that have predicted the democratic nomination at a high %. Kansas and Wyoming.

Anyway, back to the article, like, wtf... I never knew shit like this even happened.

[SirFozzie]

Trump’s Convention Strategy: “The Fix Is In� - The New Yorker

Tump's advisor suggests releasing a list of delegates with details on their room information, so people can "reason" with them about who to support.

"“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said."

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Trump’s Convention Strategy: “The Fix Is In� - The New Yorker

Tump's advisor suggests releasing a list of delegates with details on their room information, so people can "reason" with them about who to support.

"“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said."

This is different from 1930's Germany how? This psychopath and his moronic supporters are everything that is wrong with the country.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

This is different from 1930's Germany how? This psychopath and his moronic supporters are everything that is wrong with the country.

You can read about 1930s Germany and see many differences. The whole Hitler thing is actually closer to the left and proposed restrictions on speech than it is Trump.

Not to say that Trump is an angel, or that what he's doing is a good idea or that I would vote for him.

You've called his supporters names in about 20 or 30 one-line posts now. I think you've made your point.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

This is different from 1930's Germany how? This psychopath and his moronic supporters are everything that is wrong with the country.

It's scary the number of people who openly talk about disgust of Hispanics and Muslims without even caring who hears them. You get some idiot in there like Trump and how long before it's also the gays and blacks? The scariest part of people's recollections of Nazi Germany is that it's always thought of as being about the Jews and not also about political opponents and union members and homosexuals. Trumps supporters do talk a lot of the same crazy rhetoric... "Restoring our country".

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You can read about 1930s Germany and see many differences. The whole Hitler thing is actually closer to the left and proposed restrictions on speech than it is Trump.

Not to say that Trump is an angel, or that what he's doing is a good idea or that I would vote for him.

You've called his supporters names in about 20 or 30 one-line posts now. I think you've made your point.

I've never heard Hitler accused of being politically left in modern terms of what left means. He was the polar opposite.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by panerd

I've never heard Hitler accused of being politically left in modern terms of what left means. He was the polar opposite.

I see it more as a circle, where anyone who wants to control speech and thought can get there from either side. Right now, the modern left movement seems very close to that part of the circle. Hitler was certainly a populist, as are Trump and Sanders. I can see Trump moving in that direction, especially when he expresses anger at the press. But I think he has a long way to go before he reaches the thought-crime sensibilities of the left.

In terms of Hitler, the Nazi party was also known as the National Socialist German Workers Party. But he hated the idea of communism and many of his writings were clearly influenced by Catholic symbolism. In short, it's complicated.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Right now, the modern left movement seems very close to that part of the circle.

The "modern left" seems "close to Hitler" in terms of how it wants to restrict speech. Care to provide some evidence of this? Or are you just that butt-hurt over people disproving your shitty arguments?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

This is different from 1930's Germany how? This psychopath and his moronic supporters are everything that is wrong with the country.

Actually, that's you.

You've become the FOFC poster child for how we got in the mess we're in, and why we need to take corrective action with all due haste and by any means necessary.

Any time my conviction wavers or my motivation wanes, all I have to do is enjoy one of your little pearls of wisdom and I'm reminded that the stakes are too high.

[Kodos]

I'm guessing much of the board feels the same way about your posts, sir.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by panerd

I've never heard Hitler accused of being politically left in modern terms of what left means. He was the polar opposite.

Well, you have now!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm guessing much of the board feels the same way about your posts, sir.

I suspect, in all honesty, that my {shrug} about that is going to be roughly equal to his {shrug} over mine.

If they do, gosh, it just makes it more obvious what a percentage of FOFC posters fall into the "problem" category ... which isn't exactly a newsflash. The left-leaning tendencies amongst the vocal posters here are rather obvious.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

This is different from 1930's Germany how?

EagleFan has a point here: Stone's call to release to Trump supporters the names and even room numbers of delegates is, like Trump's statement that if the Republican Convention chooses anyone but Trump, "there will be riots," a thinly veiled threat of violence against political opponents. (In Trump's case, it is not even thinly veiled.) Its purpose is to intimidate through the threat of violence. I think we can all agree that German fascists in the 1930s also used threats of violence to intimidate their political opponents.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The "modern left" seems "close to Hitler" in terms of how it wants to restrict speech. Care to provide some evidence of this? Or are you just that butt-hurt over people disproving your shitty arguments?

Maybe Jim is referring to things like this presidential candidate vowing to restrict speech if they're elected.

[NobodyHere]

This thread is fun

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This thread is fun

This is just like Hitler.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The "modern left" seems "close to Hitler" in terms of how it wants to restrict speech. Care to provide some evidence of this? Or are you just that butt-hurt over people disproving your shitty arguments?

I agree with you on this topic as a whole and not Jim but the far left is abandoning issues that used to be the core of their values with a lot of the college stuff going on. I am admittedly closer to this since I went to Mizzou but safe spaces and trying to run out any non-PC opinion seems to be about as anti first amendment as you can get. Hardly Nazi Germany but quite sad nonetheless.

[Kodos]

Yeah, there is a real problem with college age students and micro aggressions and all that crap. Kids need to learn that it's okay for people to disagree with you.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

I agree with you on this topic as a whole and not Jim but the far left is abandoning issues that used to be the core of their values with a lot of the college stuff going on. I am admittedly closer to this since I went to Mizzou but safe spaces and trying to run out any non-PC opinion seems to be about as anti first amendment as you can get. Hardly Nazi Germany but quite sad nonetheless.

Agreed.

And the Nazi Germany comparison is ridiculous. Threatening violence is far more Nazi like, but even then, c'mon!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But I think he has a long way to go before he reaches the thought-crime sensibilities of the left.

I would say the ban on Muslims is a thought-crime- regardless of what they say, in their heads they hate America, etc.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The "modern left" seems "close to Hitler" in terms of how it wants to restrict speech. Care to provide some evidence of this? Or are you just that butt-hurt over people disproving your shitty arguments?

or perhaps the UltraViolet women's group (previously partnering with MoveOn.org and CREDO SuperPac to speak again Komen) would count as they created a petition to have a publically-traded company stop selling crap from Trump? Amazon customers tell Jeff Bezos to 'dump Trump' - Apr. 11, 2016

As much as anything from/about Trump is abhorrent to me, one simply cannot call for restricting expression of speech or rights of assembly/association (if not unlawful) as this women's group is doing.

[digamma]

I'm really lost on that example, Bucc. Isn't that an example of the free market at work? Customers suggesting that a company alter its business practices? The company can do as it wishes and must make a business decision based on customers it might lose from either decision. What am I missing on this one?

I think the comparison to Hitler is really poor. The argument that certain tactics in promoting or over promoting tolerance may have a chilling effect on certain groups or individuals who for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, don't share the same views may have some validity. And though I'm not sure anyone will argue that some don't go too far in "shouting down" those that don't share their viewpoint, it's a far cry from Nazi Germany.

It's worth keeping in mind that the individuals and opinions being championed by the "shouters down" are those that have been silenced, whether intentionally or unintentionally, for generations--and ironically those that were quite literally silenced by the Nazis.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Any time my conviction wavers or my motivation wanes, all I have to do is enjoy one of your little pearls of wisdom and I'm reminded that the stakes are too high.

And I'm reminded that it's not a fight you're going to win, Jon. Maybe that's a bit of why you're so angry at folks, you think the stakes are too high, and know that history probably will not be kind to your views...

[JPhillips]

If you want to talk about the problems with living in bubbles and demanding everyone think the same, I'm all for it, but to ignore the speech attacks from the right on entertainers, teachers, journalists, etc. and limit the discussion to left=Hitler is ridiculous.