Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I just discovered that the SC Republican Primary is on 2/20 and the Democratic Primary is on 2/27: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html Does that mean we can vote in both primaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Cruz would lose that match up badly. You'd have an anti-Wall St candidate verse Goldman Sach's puppet. Seriously, why do you love Cruz so much? He's a snake oil salesman. Actually, I'd argue that Trump is the snake-oil salesman, the man who promises miracle cures for everything. Cruz just promises the same as every other Republican, except more unpleasantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said: Actually, I'd argue that Trump is the snake-oil salesman, the man who promises miracle cures for everything. Cruz just promises the same as every other Republican, except more unpleasantly. There was an interesting opinion expressed by a Republican Representative from Pennsylvania, who essentially said he'd support Trump over Cruz because Cruz is a rigid ideologue and Trump is more "malleable." Gosh, supporting a racist, know-nothing demagogue because you think you can control him better has never backfired on anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said: There was an interesting opinion expressed by a Republican Representative from Pennsylvania, who essentially said he'd support Trump over Cruz because Cruz is a rigid ideologue and Trump is more "malleable." Gosh, supporting a racist, know-nothing demagogue because you think you can control him better has never backfired on anyone. Hey! You can't compare that one racist demagogue to that other racist demagogue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: There was an interesting opinion expressed by a Republican Representative from Pennsylvania, who essentially said he'd support Trump over Cruz because Cruz is a rigid ideologue and Trump is more "malleable." Gosh, supporting a racist, know-nothing demagogue because you think you can control him better has never backfired on anyone. It's amazing to me how reluctant prominent Republicans have been to go after Trump, and I'll admit here and now that I read this election season wrong. Although I still think Trump will not be the nominee, I am significantly less certain than I was three months ago. Ye gods...what a mess the GOP has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OAR, Then let's call a convention and update it. Else we're bound by what exists or all law is meaningless. That's fine by me. And if the Constitution ends of barring Cruz from the Presidency I'll consider it a happy (and hilarious) consequence of a dumb clause. I'll still want it changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: There was an interesting opinion expressed by a Republican Representative from Pennsylvania, who essentially said he'd support Trump over Cruz because Cruz is a rigid ideologue and Trump is more "malleable." Gosh, supporting a racist, know-nothing demagogue because you think you can control him better has never backfired on anyone. The argument that's being made isn't that they think that they can "control" Trump, but that Trump has a better chance of assembling a winning electoral coalition because he is non-ideological over a lot of issues that matter to different sections of the electorate. Some of the polling we've seen on the willingness of certain segments of the Democratic coalition to cross over to potentially vote for Trump seems to bear this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I just discovered that the SC Republican Primary is on 2/20 and the Democratic Primary is on 2/27: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html Does that mean we can vote in both primaries? I just looked this up for you Scot, the answer is no. SC holds a closed primary so you have to pre-register with a specific party. Today happens to be your last day to register as a Democrat, if you want to vote for Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 18 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Actually, I'd argue that Trump is the snake-oil salesman, the man who promises miracle cures for everything. Cruz just promises the same as every other Republican, except more unpleasantly. 14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: There was an interesting opinion expressed by a Republican Representative from Pennsylvania, who essentially said he'd support Trump over Cruz because Cruz is a rigid ideologue and Trump is more "malleable." Gosh, supporting a racist, know-nothing demagogue because you think you can control him better has never backfired on anyone. They're both snake oil salesmen. The difference is one knows he's selling snake oil and the other will rub it on his face to show you how much he believes in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 OAR, SC primaries are open. Apparently you can onlu vote in one even if they are on different days. As to the Constitiution I just get irritated with people saying, or implying, we obey only due fo some religious slavishness. That is not the case. We obey the Constitution because it is the highest US law. If we ignore it because we dislike a provision it makes all law suspect which defeats the purpose of written law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Cruz would lose that match up badly. You'd have an anti-Wall St candidate verse Goldman Sach's puppet. Seriously, why do you love Cruz so much? He's a snake oil salesman. Most likely to do what he says he will (and that which he says I am in general agreement with). Least likely to be co-opted by DC power structure. He proved that in the senate. His affectations may give the impression of snake oil salesman, but it's quite the opposite. He's quite sincere ( Bill Maher would say dangerously sincere). Unlike Trump. Also fond of of his awkward/lawyerly/overprepared/overrehearsed/disciplined approach, a nice contrast from Obama/Rubio TMZ too cool for schoolness or Trump style bufoonery. He approaches politics like an appellate lawyer, constructing an argument piece-by-piece, and it's surprisingly effective. That he is hated by fellow senators is doubly reassuring (powerful people hate him!). To quote Ace: Quote You don't get angry at a guy who was wrong when you were right. That guy, you just laugh at. The hatred comes with a guy who was right when you were wrong. That's when the mind begins searching for every possible character flaw in the object of the hatred, as a psychological defense to one's own ego. He called out his own caucus leader publicly on the senate floor for lying. Nobody does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, Commodore said: Most likely to do what he says he will (and that which he says I am in general agreement with). Least likely to be co-opted by DC power structure. He proved that in the senate. His affectations may give the impression of snake oil salesman, but it's quite the opposite. He's quite sincere ( Bill Maher would say dangerously sincere). Unlike Trump. Also fond of of his awkward/lawyerly/overprepared/overrehearsed/disciplined approach, a nice contrast from Obama/Rubio TMZ too cool for schoolness or Trump style bufoonery. He approaches politics like an appellate lawyer, constructing an argument piece-by-piece, and it's surprisingly effective. Is it the appellate lawyer approach that made him lie about losing health care coverage in order to score fatuous points against the ACA (and thus make himself look like an irresponsible and moronic asshole), and then clumsily walk it back (and thus reinforce the fact that he's a lying asshole)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OAR, SC primaries are open. Apparently you can onlu vote in one even if they are on different days. As to the Costitiution I just get irritated with people saying, or implying, we obey only due fo some religious slavishness. That is not the case. We obey the Constitution because it is the highest US law. If we ignore it because we dislike a provision if makes all law suspect which defeats the purpose of written law. Ok, I read that site wrong. Re: the Constitution. I don't think we obey it only out of religious slavishness, but I also think it's undeniable that it's widely held sacred, and that this contributes to the difficulty in changing it (in addition to the structural impediments to amendment that it contains). The Constitution needs to be knocked off its pedestal, not disobeyed. It's irritating, to me, that we have to obey an asinine electoral and political system. But I accept that we must, for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Could someone who is well educated on Cruz birtherism please take me through it (with reputable analysis)? Read one article in Slate (which has its own biases) that suggested that there really might be something too it, but honestly haven't spent a ton of time analyzing it/reading less editorialized content on the subject. (For the record, couldn't vote for the man in any event, so really want to understand from an intellectual curiosity point of view). Cruz was born on Canadian soil to an United States citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. Going back to the origination of the natural born citizen law it was clearly and explicitly stated in the argumentation for it that citizen status only passed from a male citizen, a female citizen could not pass on her citizen status if she gave birth on foreign soil to a child sired by a non citizen. To me this is where a lot of the hand waving comes from. Liberals want to wave away the sexism of the past and conservatives want to wave away their strict constructionist tendencies because this one is an extraordinarily good argument for why strict constructionist interpretations are often failures of interpretation in a modern context. I actually think liberals are missing a massive opportunity by not highlighting this failure of strict constructionist thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Lord have mercy. Trump and his crew are such a pack of gigantic assholes: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-accuses-trump-campaign-of-threatening-megyn-kelly/ar-BBoKMfD?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=msnHomepage From the article: Quote In a call on Saturday with a Fox News executive, [Corey Lewandowski] stated that Megyn had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again,’ ” the Fox News statement said. lokisnow, Those aren't good facts for such a claim. As I understand it common law held that "natural born" ment "born on US soil" or "born to US citizens". That there are a number of statutes that interpret "natrual born" in this fashion but that are not directly pertinent to the Presdential elections. In all likelihood Cruz would meet the qualification to hold the Presidency just like President Obama does even if the birther spawned theories of him being born in Kenya were true (which they aren't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 CNN has a pretty long article about Trump's supporters and why they will vote for him. It's amazing how far a little bit of honesty and courage will go in an arena completely devoid of them -- even when they are inextricably linked to pompousness, deliberately outrageous behavior, incoherence and outright absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Thanks for all the responses and linkage. V. helpful. Walked away thinking it's an entire mess and probably will have to be resolved by the Court (which will be kind of awesome, given the strict constructionist bent of some of the members, the fact that the court I think is relatively gun-shy about meddling in this sort of thing and the over all ideologies of the members). Separately, the only good thing I can say about Ted Cruz is that I think I'd like his wife if I met her based on her NYT profile. (This is very, very, very faint praise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 51 minutes ago, Altherion said: CNN has a pretty long article about Trump's supporters and why they will vote for him. It's amazing how far a little bit of honesty and courage will go in an arena completely devoid of them -- even when they are inextricably linked to pompousness, deliberately outrageous behavior, incoherence and outright absurdity. Is Trump "honest?" No, I don't think so. Is Trump "brave?" In a narrow context, yes. But bravery in saying despicable things is not worth praising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 TP, I wouldn't call his statements "brave" either. He loses next to nothing personally if there is finally blowback from his "brave" statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Idiocracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.