2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Bah. Things were so much simpler in 2005.

Why doesn't this simulation exist on computers yet???

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What you don't see, though, is parents going to schools and shouting down teachers. And the argument is about the content of what's being taught to children, not whether a teacher can speak at all.

I see it, all the time, it is also in the news, a lot. It seems you are just making a gross generalization to cover a previous gross generalization.

Also:
"Mississippi ranks near the top among U.S. states in terms of teen births and rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and HIV. A 2013 survey of Mississippi high school students by the CDC found that 54 percent had had intercourse at least once and that 39 percent of those sexually active did not use a condom the last time they had sex.

Given these statistics, the passing in 2011 of House Bill 999, which requires sex education to be taught in all Mississippi public schools for the first time ever, may seem like a big win. But sex education advocates see the bill as a mixed victory, since it mandates abstinence-based sex education in all public schools and limits information about safe sex. Districts can opt to teach “abstinence plus” curriculum, which includes information about contraception, but demonstrating proper condom use with an actual condom is forbidden.

Here's just how bad sex education is in Mississippi

Also: Despite Legalizing Gay Marriage These States Forbid Teaching About Gay Sex | Mother Jones (yeah i get mother jones, i just liked the graph used, article is commentary, not reporting )

Educators are restricted to teach something legal and relevant and urgent. That sure sounds like limiting free speech to me. And just like college campuses, just because you find the message icky, if it is legal and relevant, limiting it is myopic.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I see it, all the time, it is also in the news, a lot. It seems you are just making a gross generalization to cover a previous gross generalization.

Also:
"Mississippi ranks near the top among U.S. states in terms of teen births and rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and HIV. A 2013 survey of Mississippi high school students by the CDC found that 54 percent had had intercourse at least once and that 39 percent of those sexually active did not use a condom the last time they had sex.

Given these statistics, the passing in 2011 of House Bill 999, which requires sex education to be taught in all Mississippi public schools for the first time ever, may seem like a big win. But sex education advocates see the bill as a mixed victory, since it mandates abstinence-based sex education in all public schools and limits information about safe sex. Districts can opt to teach “abstinence plus” curriculum, which includes information about contraception, but demonstrating proper condom use with an actual condom is forbidden.

Here's just how bad sex education is in Mississippi

Also: Despite Legalizing Gay Marriage These States Forbid Teaching About Gay Sex | Mother Jones (yeah i get mother jones, i just liked the graph used, article is commentary, not reporting )

Educators are restricted to teach something legal and relevant and urgent. That sure sounds like limiting free speech to me. And just like college campuses, just because you find the message icky, if it is legal and relevant, limiting it is myopic.

They should probably teach things like math and writing in Mississippi too...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Educators are restricted to teach something legal and relevant and urgent. That sure sounds like limiting free speech to me. And just like college campuses, just because you find the message icky, if it is legal and relevant, limiting it is myopic.

It's hard to equate a curriculum-setting process with the "shut it down" mentality on college campuses.

I'm not going to argue against teaching better sex ed in Mississippi.

Shutting down a speech is a First Amendment issue.

Elected school boards controlling curriculum in schools where attendance is compulsory is not a First Amendment issue.

However, the First Amendment does restrict these school boards from making religious instruction compulsory.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Shutting down a speech is a First Amendment issue.

Not unless it is coming from the Government.

[JPhillips]

Too bad American history started this year, otherwise we might remember this:

As Rachel Slajda reported earlier this afternoon, there seems to be a growing incidence of members of Congress being shouted down at town hall events by tea party protestors. Those tactics will likely become much more common. As Think Progress first reported, one tea-party friendly group has disseminated a strategy memo for other anti-reform and anti-government groups, outlining what they consider best-practices for protesters who plan to enter and disrupt town hall events hosted by members of Congress over the August recess--practices that, according to the memo, "could be useful to activists in just about any district where their Congressperson has supported the socialist agenda of the Democrat leadership in Washington."

The memo, authored by Robert MacGuffie, who runs the website rightprinciples.com, suggests that tea partiers should "pack the hall... spread out" to make their numbers seem more significant, and to "rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation...to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early.... to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda...stand up and shout and sit right back down."

MacGuffie is a volunteer for FreedomWorks, the industry funded group that helps organize and support the tea party protests. But he denies that his small group has any direct affiliation with FreedomWorks. "We are recommending with that memo that other grassroots groups that share our view should go to the townhalls of their members and use the strategy that we did," MacGuffie told me, confirming the memo's authenticity. "We are trying to get into that town halls to make them understand that they do not have the unanimous support from people in their communities."

If these tactics catch on, and August recess health care events are characterized by organized agit-prop, it could have a dramatic impact on the tenor of the health care debate, and the media coverage of the events this month. Buckle your seatbelts.

You can also find videos of these tactics used at town hall meetings.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not unless it is coming from the Government.

People have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. So our government can't stop a rally.

Madsen v. Women's Health is a First Amendment case which establishes that the government can issue an injunction to restrict protest.

There's also an implied requirement to protect that right. If the government fails in that duty, there may be liability. We might see this type of case in the future.

It's not established, though. The disgusting behavior of Bull Connor regarding the Freedom Riders in the early '60s was never punished.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

People have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. So our government can't stop a rally.

Of course. And no one is saying they should.

Madsen v. Women's Health is a First Amendment case which establishes that the government can issue an injunction to restrict protest.

There's also an implied requirement to protect that right. If the government fails in that duty, there may be liability. We might see this type of case in the future.

In fact, the court has ruled quite the opposite. The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) protects against Government action. It does not require government action. See Deshaney v. Winnebago.

It's not established, though. The disgusting behavior of Bull Connor regarding the Freedom Riders in the early '60s was never punished.

That's a terrible example for what you're arguing. Bull Connor was a government official and what he did to the Freedom Riders was government action and clear violation of the First Amendment.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They should probably teach things like math and writing in Mississippi too...

Let's not get too ambitious, here.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

People have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. So our government can't stop a rally.

Free speech zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Of course. And no one is saying they should.



In fact, the court has ruled quite the opposite. The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) protects against Government action. It does not require government action. See Deshaney v. Winnebago.



That's a terrible example for what you're arguing. Bull Connor was a government official and what he did to the Freedom Riders was government action and clear violation of the First Amendment.

While Deshaney v Winnebago is a 14th Amendment case, I think you're right that it might come into play here.

I think Bull Connor is a great example. Because he didn't do anything. He didn't necessarily incite anything. What he did was set up a scenario where the KKK knew it had 15 minutes to beat the Freedom Riders. Had Connor stepped in when he and everyone else knew what was going to happen, violence would have been prevented. Yet Connor never faced charges.

In this case, inaction was action. So far, we haven't had a case filed on First Amendment grounds based on the government refusing to step in when the right to assemble peaceably is violated.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

While Deshaney v Winnebago is a 14th Amendment case, I think you're right that it might come into play here.

I think Bull Connor is a great example. Because he didn't do anything. He didn't necessarily incite anything. What he did was set up a scenario where the KKK knew it had 15 minutes to beat the Freedom Riders. Had Connor stepped in when he and everyone else knew what was going to happen, violence would have been prevented. Yet Connor never faced charges.

In this case, inaction was action. So far, we haven't had a case filed on First Amendment grounds based on the government refusing to step in when the right to assemble peaceably is violated.

The 1st Amendment only applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. The reason the 14th Amendment was cited in Deshaney is because a state government was being sued instead of the federal government. Otherwise, it would've been a 5th Amendment case.

I'd say the Bull Connor incident definitely qualifies as state action since he didn't just refuse to act, he created the entire situation that allowed the Freedom Riders to be beaten. The reason he wasn't punished has nothing to do with constitutional law and everything to do with the state and time period he lived in.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

While Deshaney v Winnebago is a 14th Amendment case, I think you're right that it might come into play here.

I think Bull Connor is a great example. Because he didn't do anything. He didn't necessarily incite anything. What he did was set up a scenario where the KKK knew it had 15 minutes to beat the Freedom Riders. Had Connor stepped in when he and everyone else knew what was going to happen, violence would have been prevented. Yet Connor never faced charges.

In this case, inaction was action. So far, we haven't had a case filed on First Amendment grounds based on the government refusing to step in when the right to assemble peaceably is violated.

Are you arguing that the federal government should send FBI agents to Trump rallies to disperse and arrest protestors on federal charges otherwise it's a violation of Trump's first amendment rights?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you arguing that the federal government should send FBI agents to Trump rallies to disperse and arrest protestors on federal charges otherwise it's a violation of Trump's first amendment rights?

I'm saying that there's a potential First Amendment case if protestors organize to shut down a peaceable assembly.

I'm not making any specific case for specific government resources.

[molson]

There's crimes like harassment, battery, or trespassing that could apply if someone shuts down someone else's event. But if you shut down an event without doing any of those things - maybe just by putting social pressure on the organizers, or by offering a competing event that the venue prefers, that's speech in it's own right, fair and square.

I do think some public schools are treading towards deep water these days. I saw something today about a student in Maine being bullied because he was wearing a hat which supported Trump, and the school's solution was to tell him he should keep the hat at home (with no similar policy relating to support of other candidates). The school disputed it, and alleged they only "advised" the student not to wear the hat, but I could see a school crossing the line with that or "safe spaces."

I went to a very liberal public law school which had a very hostile environment towards students with dissenting opinions. The one student in my class who had open conservative views had his mailbox vandalized and was constantly called out on the school email list. That's not a constitutional problem because the abuse came from other students, but the way a public school responds could be. I don't know if he ever complained to administrators, but the law school experience and seeing all that definitely made me more conservative for a while. But also probably more sympathetic for anyone who was singled out for abuse, no matter the reason.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

An interesting line of thinking regarding Colorado and the Trump campaign is this whole idea that Trump "will employ the best people." If Team Trump claims it will outmaneuver/outnegotiate Iran, Mexico, Putin, and NATO (to name a few,) I'd like to see them first demonstrate the basic ability to figure out how GOP delegates in Colorado are awarded. If Trump had independent thinkers as his supporters, more than anything else, this debacle *SHOULD* cause them to have a moment of pause, as it cuts to the heart of one of the major claims by his supporters as to why they think he's the best man for the job.

The level of incompetence in the Trump camp is astounding. Take for instance the Washington state debacle. Preparing for the up-coming primary, the campaign sent out emails to their supporters encouraging them to get people registered to vote. The problem was they sent the email to Washington DC supporters, encouraging them to make sure to register by April 5th (the email was sent April 8th). If this was the Apprentice, they'd all be fired.

Add that to the fact his kids didn't register in time to vote in New York, and how he didn't even try in Colorado (he actually fired the head of his organization there 3 days before the conventions). It looks like his whole campaign is completely disorganized. And he is going to run the country?

[Kodos]

...and make America grate again.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm saying that there's a potential First Amendment case if protestors organize to shut down a peaceable assembly.

I'm not making any specific case for specific government resources.

I don't understand how this case would work. Trump would sue protestors? Trump would sue the federal government? Even if he found someone to sue, what would be his argument?

[Dutch]

Sending out e-mails with old dates is actually a crisis most Americans face today. It's out of control.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The level of incompetence in the Trump camp is astounding. Take for instance the Washington state debacle. Preparing for the up-coming primary, the campaign sent out emails to their supporters encouraging them to get people registered to vote. The problem was they sent the email to Washington DC supporters, encouraging them to make sure to register by April 5th (the email was sent April 8th). If this was the Apprentice, they'd all be fired.

Add that to the fact his kids didn't register in time to vote in New York, and how he didn't even try in Colorado (he actually fired the head of his organization there 3 days before the conventions). It looks like his whole campaign is completely disorganized. And he is going to run the country?

not having his kids registered to vote still kind of boggles my mind-what did they not vote at all the previous recent years? I would have thought that was high up on the priority list when he decided to run for President-make sure there was nothing that was going to embarrass/humiliate him or his campaign.

[Ben E Lou]

They're registered to vote, but not registered Republicans, no?

[albionmoonlight]

I think that Trump is now < 50% to win the nomination.

And he would be pretty much a lock had he put competent people in charge of the details of delegate wrangling. He would not have had to dirty his hands with it. He could have just hired a couple of good guys and put them in charge of making sure that votes translated into delegates who would be loyal to Trump after the first ballot.

Kind of amazing that he didn't do that.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Kind of amazing that he didn't do that.

I'm personally leaning towards the rumors that he doesn't actually want to be the nominee and is angling for saying 'he could have been president' if he'd wanted to rather than having to do the job ..

(basically he's on a hiding to nothing in the election imho if he is nominated and that would harm his image)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At some level, I really hope that the GOP does something stupid and puts another candidate on the ballot other than Trump. There will be a lot of people who will have their eyes opened as to how ridiculous this process is AND we won't have a bunch of the establishment saying "See, here's what happens when we don't nominate a TRUE conservative!". Instead, we'll watch Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich get their butt kicked in the general election and people will become even more annoyed by what happened.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

They're registered to vote, but not registered Republicans, no?

But why then weren't they registered Republicans all along? were they voting Democratic before their dad started running for President?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

But why then weren't they registered Republicans all along? were they voting Democratic before their dad started running for President?

I'd have to look it up but I think they were unaffiliated.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, here it is...

Donald Trump's Kids Eric and Ivanka Miss Deadline to Vote in NY GOP Primary - ABC News

"They were unaware of the rules and they didn't register in time," Trump said this morning on “Fox and Friends.” "So Eric and Ivanka, I guess, won't be voting."

The deadline for registered voters to change party enrollment was Oct. 9, 2015, more than six months ago. The deadline to register as a new voter was March 25.

"They feel very, very guilty. They feel very guilty" Trump said this morning. "But it's fine. I understand that."

Records from the New York State Board of Elections show that Eric, 32, and Ivanka Trump, 34, are registered voters who are “not enrolled in a party.”

Donald Trump Jr., 38, as well as Donald and Melania Trump, are registered Republicans, the records show. Because New York has a closed primary, only registered members may participate in a party’s primary.

Trump's younger daughter, Tiffany, 22, is a registered Republican in Philadelphia.

[Thomkal]

thank you for that Ben. did Trump know he was running in October?

[Marc Vaughan]

Why is it a big deal if his kids did vote or whom they voted for ... its a democracy, its their choice surely?

I'd love my kids regardless of the soccer team they support so their political affiliations really don't matter to me ... I think its great they're growing up and are confident enough to make their own way in life and I don't expect them to always follow my shadow etc.

[Ben E Lou]

Sure, but in fairness, the existence of an October deadline to change affiliations for an April primary could easily catch one by surprise--especially when a new registrant has until a little less than a month before the primary.

[Logan]

Am I the only one who never considered Trump a Republican before all of this? And, well, probably after this as well?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Logan

Am I the only one who never considered Trump a Republican before all of this? And, well, probably after this as well?

No.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Logan

Am I the only one who never considered Trump a Republican before all of this? And, well, probably after this as well?

not at all

[vex]

Originally Posted by Logan

Am I the only one who never considered Trump a Republican before all of this? And, well, probably after this as well?

No, but 70 yo men change their lifelong political beliefs quite often..

[digamma]

They didn't call him Zig Zag Zell for nothin'.

[Logan]

Ted Cruz thinks people don't have a right to "stimulate their genitals." I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.

— Craig Mazin (@clmazin) April 13, 2016

[molson]

Trump was a mainstream TV icon around 2004, and proclaimed many liberal views. This was right around when the Republicans were really into talking about the danger posed by "Liberal Hollywood elites", and I think Trump was one of those liberals. Then he started to get weird when his TV star faded a bit. That culminated in that awkward, cheaply filmed Obama Birther rant.

My best guess is that he leans liberal but doesn't really care that much. He's happy to be a liberal if it helped him be a TV star, he's happy to be a conservative if it gets him closer to the presidency.

[Warhammer]

But Trump is not worthless, we can believe everything he says, he is an outsider!

[Solecismic]

It's the Donald's world, and we should just be thankful to be part of it. In his mind, he's a Republican, therefore we should be thankful to grace him with our votes.

I'm not sure what a Republican is. All I know is that out of the 22 candidates who declared for the two major parties, I didn't feel inspired to vote for any of them. Still don't.

But Cruz probably bothers me more than Trump does. Because Cruz knows what he's doing and I have an idea of what he'll try to accomplish as president. Trump is a wild card, eponymously enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

At some level, I really hope that the GOP does something stupid and puts another candidate on the ballot other than Trump.

In some respects I kind of almost agree with you.

It may be suicide to nominate Trump. It's guaranteed suicide if they don't.

And, after watching this cycle play out, honestly the death of the GOP as currently constructed might not be a bad thing at all.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In some respects I kind of almost agree with you.

It may be suicide to nominate Trump. It's guaranteed suicide if they don't.

Definitely agree with this. It will be worse for them if they deny Trump the nomination when he goes into the convention as the leader.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In some respects I kind of almost agree with you.

It may be suicide to nominate Trump. It's guaranteed suicide if they don't.

And, after watching this cycle play out, honestly the death of the GOP as currently constructed might not be a bad thing at all.

The polls say otherwise. Cruz and Kasich perform much better in the general than Trump does.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The polls say otherwise. Cruz and Kasich perform much better in the general than Trump does.

What, crossover Ds voting for Kasich in that scenario? Cause I can't fathom how any conservative (which the GOP alleges to have) could vote for that worthless SOB.

Cruz? I can at least understand it from a candidacy standpoint ... but it's still disappointing that so few are holding him responsible for his inane comments about the "protesters" & Trump. I thought more of GOP voters than that (prior to this cycle anyway), that should have ended his campaign full stop.

But if you think performing better equates to anything other than the usual outcome when roughly a quarter to a third of the supposed base stays home, well I just don't know what to say about that.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The polls say otherwise. Cruz and Kasich perform much better in the general than Trump does.

There's not a lot of polling yet. So far, Cruz is only marginally ahead of Trump, and he has areas of the country where he's incredibly unpopular.

What happens with Kasich? You have someone who will likely be 1-for-56 in primaries and caucuses. You have someone who hasn't been attacked much, so the negatives will rise. You have someone who isn't strong in the debates and has that weird facial tic that puts people off.

In the general, he'd get hit relentlessly on his record in Ohio - there's a scandal with the company that does many charter schools in Ohio that will make him look awful. Who knows what else. Governors have a hard time these days. Hard-core Republicans won't like his medicaid expansion. It's a tough sell.

That said, it's probably their only chance in November. Certainly it's the only chance for my vote, not that it matters (though I'll likely be an Ohio resident by then).

[digamma]

In other words, polls regarding potential match ups are worth about as much as the Vice Presidency.

[Ben E Lou]

Speaking of the Vice Presidency, I missed this one...

Trump's Vice President: Rubio, Kasich Are Possible Picks

[Dutch]

Well, watched a quick family meeting with the Cruz's on CNN. The family seems very likable.

[Dutch]

Cruz/Rubio might get me fired up again...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, watched a quick family meeting with the Cruz's on CNN. The family seems very likable.

Wasn't that exactly the point about little Rhoda Penmark? The family's a little too perfect.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Wasn't that exactly the point about little Rhoda Penmark? The family's a little too perfect.

I'm not tracking any of their kids killing anybody. So it might be safe that they are just nice kids.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not tracking any of their kids killing anybody. So it might be safe that they are just nice kids.

Oh, you're probably right. But if one of the girls is playing Clare de Lune on the piano in their next commercial, don't say I didn't warn you.