US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

[Kalbear]

45 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 I'm not so sure. Seems to me that Cruz has made a career out of honking off GOP bigwigs, and as long as his constituents are OK with him (I don't know) he has little to fear from President Trump. Other than what we all have to fear from President Trump.

That's the thing - if Trump wins, Trump shows everyone that the GOP bigwigs do not matter in the least. And instead we'll get effectively a new party, with new ideals and new goals - and those goals are in opposition to Cruz. At that point the party would have changed so significantly that Cruz would not only be an outsider to the GOP elites, he'd be an outsider to most of the forces that are rank and file. And Trump would almost assuredly destroy him, or attempt to destroy him, politically - just like he tries to do against anyone who makes fun of him. 

Cruz is hopeful that Trump is going to lose and show both the bigwigs and the status quo that Trump's way was flashy but not effective, and that he is in a better position to be the anti-Trump - like McCain was positioned to be the anti-Bush. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

It is a good thing, and if that quality was existing in a palatable human being it would be enough to support him. It's a testament to Trumps despicableness that I'm unable to overlook his flaws and vote for him anyway. This system is broken, it's not the system we're supposed to have and it needs wholesale change, it just can't come in the form of Trump, there's too much negative for me to overlook.

Are you implying you prefer politics as usual?

Palatable, eh?  Just want to say im delighted to see such support for the Americans for Apophagia Party among today's yutes.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

That's the thing - if Trump wins, Trump shows everyone that the GOP bigwigs do not matter in the least. And instead we'll get effectively a new party, with new ideals and new goals - and those goals are in opposition to Cruz. At that point the party would have changed so significantly that Cruz would not only be an outsider to the GOP elites, he'd be an outsider to most of the forces that are rank and file. And Trump would almost assuredly destroy him, or attempt to destroy him, politically - just like he tries to do against anyone who makes fun of him. 

Cruz is hopeful that Trump is going to lose and show both the bigwigs and the status quo that Trump's way was flashy but not effective, and that he is in a better position to be the anti-Trump - like McCain was positioned to be the anti-Bush. 

Hmm...I certainly agree that a Trump victory would disempower Republican elites, although to be honest I find a Clinton victory more interesting vis a vis Paul Ryan. He may harbor hopes for 2020, but if he's speaker with Democratic president (and maybe a Democratic Senate) I think the Freedom Caucus is going to ruin him. Ryan never shoulda taken up the speaker's gavel, and it's one mistake he'll live to regret. In a way, it's better for Ryan's long-term plans if Democrats take the House, because he can spend the next two years uselessly opposing Clinton and the Dems, which is what conservatives really seem to want. 

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Triskan said:

I'm ashamed by my staggering ignorance.  So Clinton would literally be ceding the seat to the GOP even in a landslide win if she'd taken Warren out of it?

For a bit. Also Warren has higher aspirations. She's not going to hot shot herself to Clinton's ticket IMO .

She's a massively popular first term Senator who had MAJOR buzz well before she ever ran. She's loved in the state. Had a meteoric rise in the Democratic Party and is a power player in the Senate. 

She's going to drop that to marry herself to someone her supporters aren't all that fond of who if she wins will be one of the least popular elected President's in history, for a position that traditionally is a bit of a do nothing career killer? It's for someone who either wanys to run right away after or thinks they aren't capable of doing better. And not for nothing, Warren's appeal after 4 years of being Hillary's sidekick won't be as good as if she continued on with what she's been doing. 

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

For a bit. Also Warren has higher aspirations. She's not going to hot shot herself to Clinton's ticket IMO .

She's a massively popular first term Senator who had MAJOR buzz well before she ever ran. She's loved in the state. Had a meteoric rise in the Democratic Party and is a power player in the Senate. 

She's going to drop that to marry herself to someone her supporters aren't all that fond of who if she wins will be one of the least popular elected President's in history, for a position that traditionally is a bit of a do nothing career killer? It's for someone who either wanys to run right away after or thinks they aren't capable of doing better. And not for nothing, Warren's appeal after 4 years of being Hillary's sidekick won't be as good as if she continued on with what she's been doing. 

How do you know she has "higher aspirations"?

If Clinton wins and is re-elected, Warren will actually be a few months older than Sanders is now in 2024. Are we really in for a long run of people who want to be President when they are in their 80s? That doesn't seem particularly good for the country to me. 

[MerenthaClone]

4 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Dude, seriously, reading comprehension... I'm sure there's a class for it. Again, I think they are afraid of him. And I think they're right to be. Any moral indignation they feign is just a convenient vehicle to keep Trump out of the country club.

So are you just ignoring my post where it seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't actually want any of the responsibilities of being President or...?

 

[Rory Snow]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

4 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

It is a good thing, and if that quality was existing in a palatable human being it would be enough to support him. It's a testament to Trumps despicableness that I'm unable to overlook his flaws and vote for him anyway. This system is broken, it's not the system we're supposed to have and it needs wholesale change, it just can't come in the form of Trump, there's too much negative for me to overlook.

Are you implying you prefer politics as usual?

It's not a good thing if what it leads to is racism, political opponents being told they should be shot, violence, constant lying, foreign policy disasters, etc. I get the idea of changing the status quo but there should be some understanding of what the change will be and whether change is worth it for the sake of change or if the change can lead to something infinitely worse. In this case, it'd lead to something significantly worse and that should worry everyone. When the KKK, in 2016, actively supports a candidate, you know something is wrong. This has nothing to do with Hillary but everything to do with what Trump says, does and represents.

And even if we ignore everything that Trump represents, lets not forget the bullshit that is within the Republican platform and how far backwards it'll take social gains.

Did you only read the bold words? I thought it was clear I said the negative with Trump is just too much to overlook.

But to imply that it's not a good thing to scare the political establishment, to make them uncomfortable and at least stem the tide of the abuse... sorry but that's 100% wrong.

[Rory Snow]

5 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

So are you just ignoring my post where it seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't actually want any of the responsibilities of being President or...?

Not purposely.. this thread is lengthy, what did I miss?

[DanteGabriel]

RNC revokes credentials of Illinois delegate who tweeted racial slurs under the handle "whitepride." I hate Illinois Nazis.

Quote

The Republican National Convention welcome party was thrown Sunday at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. Gayne wrote, over a photo of law enforcement officials on the roof on the iconic building on the Lake Erie shore:

“Our brave snipers just waiting for some “N—- to try something. Love them.”

She used an abbreviation for the racial slur.

Schneider, the state party chairman, said in a statement,  “I condemn in the strongest terms the racist comments and threats of violence made by Ms. Gayne, a member of our delegation to the Republican National Convention. Ms. Gayne brought the statements to the attention of Illinois Republican Party staff after being contacted by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times,” Schneider said in statement.

“Let me be unequivocally clear — racism and threats of violence have absolutely no place in the Illinois Republican Party or in a civil and inclusive society.

“The Illinois Republican Party believes that inciting violence against anyone attending the RNC places state delegations, demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights, and law enforcement personnel needlessly in harm’s way. Therefore, I have consulted with the Executive Committee of the Illinois Republican Party and have revoked Ms. Gayne’s credentials as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.”

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sweet-gop-revokes-delegate-credentials-racist-fb-post/

The Trumpublicans are shocked, shocked, to discover that there is racism going on in this party! Apparently this peach of a numbfuck has been known to post under that handle since May, but they only acted against her when the Chicago Tribune wrote an article about her tweet.

[MerenthaClone]

24 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Not purposely.. this thread is lengthy, what did I miss?

23 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

This is especially hilarious in light of the following:  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=2

 

 

We literally have (alleged) statements that Trump, in fact, just wants to have the title of President and will delegate the responsibilities to his VP, and yet Rory Snow here is saying the exact opposite is true.  The mind boggles.  Look, Hillary as FLOTUS went out of her way to champion healthcare reform.  It failed.  She then went on to serve as Senator and then SoS of a candidate who handily defeated her in what was "supposed" to be her election.  To say that she just wants to be President for the purpose of being President without wanting to improve anything is to completely miss her long career of trying to do just that.  

 

 

 

[Rory Snow]

5 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I would ask why you think both candidates.are despicable, or equally so.

Let me give a overly simple real life hypothetical to explain how I view the candidates.

Let's say you're a homeowner, you wander into your basement and notice a pipe leaking. Now, you're not a plumber but it doesn't take a plumber to know a pipe shouldn't have water squirting out of the side. So you Google local plumbers and find and ad, "Clinton Plumbing Inc, fixing pipes the same way forever.. translators available" So you call, Hillary shows up and tells you (after to consulting with 3 advisors and 2 subcommittees) that she sees no problem, small leaks are completely normal, just keep pumping more water into it and forget about it, these things are best ignored. Then she charges you $100 for the visit, $75 travel, $50 miscellaneous costs and a mysterious $20 mandatory donation to the First Wives Club Restoration Fund.

Of course the pipe is still leaking, you're Game of Thrones chess set is in danger of being ruined, so you call the next ad.. TRUMP PLUMBING!! We'll make your plumbing great again!! Then The Donald shows up. Credit where credit is due, he at least identifies that there is in fact a leak unfortunately he only has one tool, a cartoonishly obnoxious hammer. Knowing full well despite your limited plumbing experience that a hammer, cartoonish or otherwise is no tool for fixing pipes, you tell him thanks but no thanks. He throws a fit and on the way out of the house kicks your dog and pinches your daughters ass.

So who do you hire?

[Mexal]

Trump's speech tonight. As you'd expect, the word "fact" is very loosely tied to reality.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Of course the pipe is still leaking, you're Game of Thrones chess set is in danger of being ruined, so you call the next ad.. TRUMP PLUMBING!! We'll make your plumbing great again!! Then The Donald shows up. Credit where credit is due, he at least identifies that there is in fact a leak unfortunately he only has one tool, a cartoonishly obnoxious hammer. Knowing full well despite your limited plumbing experience that a hammer, cartoonish or otherwise is no tool for fixing pipes, you tell him thanks but no thanks. He throws a fit and on the way out of the house kicks your dog and pinches your daughters ass.

So who do you hire?

 You left out the part where he sues you.

[Rory Snow]

15 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

We literally have (alleged) statements that Trump, in fact, just wants to have the title of President and will delegate the responsibilities to his VP, and yet Rory Snow here is saying the exact opposite is true.

Alleged statements?

Please supply a quote where I said the opposite or even anything at all, I don't recall addressing Trump quote rumors it in any way.

EDIT.. sorry I missed the Hillary part. Basically, in a nutshell, I don't think Hillary has the ability to identify problems, much less fix them. She is so entrenched in the political machine, I see her doing little more than throwing good money after bad into problems that do little more than take huge steps sideways. Essentially, my issue with her is a complete and total lack of faith in her and the system.. which is redundant I know. 

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Let me give a overly simple real life hypothetical to explain how I view the candidates.

Let's say you're a homeowner, you wander into your basement and notice a pipe leaking. Now, you're not a plumber but it doesn't take a plumber to know a pipe shouldn't have water squirting out of the side. So you Google local plumbers and find and ad, "Clinton Plumbing Inc, fixing pipes the same way forever.. translators available" So you call, Hillary shows up and tells you (after to consulting with 3 advisors and 2 subcommittees) that she sees no problem, small leaks are completely normal, just keep pumping more water into it and forget about it, these things are best ignored. Then she charges you $100 for the visit, $75 travel, $50 miscellaneous costs and a mysterious $20 mandatory donation to the First Wives Club Restoration Fund.

Of course the pipe is still leaking, you're Game of Thrones chess set is in danger of being ruined, so you call the next ad.. TRUMP PLUMBING!! We'll make your plumbing great again!! Then The Donald shows up. Credit where credit is due, he at least identifies that there is in fact a leak unfortunately he only has one tool, a cartoonishly obnoxious hammer. Knowing full well despite your limited plumbing experience that a hammer, cartoonish or otherwise is no tool for fixing pipes, you tell him thanks but no thanks. He throws a fit and on the way out of the house kicks your dog and pinches your daughters ass.

So who do you hire?

Maybe you could actually answer the question posed instead of resorting to stupid bullshit plumber analogies that reveal more about your ignorance and neuroses than they do about the candidates involved.

[Freshwater Spartan]

Rory Snow=Joe the plumber?

[Rory Snow]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Maybe you could actually answer the question posed instead of resorting to stupid bullshit plumber analogies that reveal more about your ignorance and neuroses than they do about the candidates involved.

So I should go issue by issue why I think both candidates suck, only to here all the Libs tell me why Hillary's promises aren't really just promises and unlike every other politician she'll actually do what she says? Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't know if it's been discussed here or not, but can Trump unilaterally pull out of NAFTA without needing to go to the Congress first? I've been listening to a few podcasts today and the subject has been brought up in each of them without any definitive answer. 

There are rules set out in the treaty, iirc.  It's been a few years since I read it, but I think a party that wants to withdraw has to give notice to the other two parties, one year, I think.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Triskan said:

ETA:  Priebus just said "we are the party of the open door." 

 I don't even want to find out what's going to come out of that door. 

[Kalbear]

47 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Let me give a overly simple real life hypothetical to explain how I view the candidates.

 

No. That isn't a factual thing at all. This is some bizarre allegory about plumbing. That's not what I asked. 

I gave you a laundry list of things Trump did this week alone that were hugely problematic. The least of which was saying publicly that he would consider not supporting a NATO ally if they were attacked. How do you consider anything that Clinton is done equivalent to making it more likely that NATO and the European allies might get put into a war?

To put it in another perspective, you have no faith that Clinton will do anything she promises. Got it. I don't understand why given that she has a pretty good record of actually getting things done, but okay. How is this morally or even pragmatically equivalent to someone whose ideas are categorically horrible and in some cases run the risk of starting world war 3?