Jump to content

2016 GOP Candidates for President


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

And he wouldn't be the first self-gay hating, do whom I say, not as whom I do republican, either.

Eh.. I dunno about that. Cruz doesn't really set off the gaydar.

 

I don't know one way or the other if he is. I'm just saying it would not surprise me if Cruz were some sort of self-hating closeted gay or bisexual, or just some sex pervert who likes to masturbate with a cheese grater or something. Given how it seems it is often the case when politicians pick out a particular group or cause to rail against, they almost always end up having a skeleton or two in their closet, Cruz comes off as exactly that kind of scum bag.

 

Oh I definitely think Cruz is creepy and wouldn't be surprised if there was something shady in his past. I'm just saying I don't think he's gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If it's one of these three guys, it's gonna be hilarious when Hillary Clinton, with all her negatives and drip-drip-drip, mops the floor with them.

 

The thing is it IS going to be one of those guys. And I think the term you were actually looking for is that it will be Hillaryous. :p

 

But in actuality, it will be pathetic. The way I see myself is that while I am left leaning on some social issues (but I don't think I am very far out there to the left), I am pretty well centrist on most, and even right leaning on some foreign affairs issues. I am the type of voter that, in theory, the GOP should be able to win over, especially when someone as unpalatable as Hillary is running. Hell, I have even voted republican before. But since at least 2004, the GOP has done nothing but push me further and further away from them, both at the local and at the federal level.

 

Yeah, but the problem is that the things that bother you about the GOP really bother you, whereas you seem a little more likely to give the Dems a pass on a few things.

 

Not saying you're necessarily a big ol' leftie. In fact, much as we bicker, you and I probably have pretty similar political views for the most part (minus some of my fascist beliefs).

 

The big difference being, the GOP would have to spend an extraordinary amount of resources to win you. Money, time, effort, the right candidate, not to mention- they would have to get a little lucky and the Dems would have to run a sub-par candidate. From a strategic standpoint, there's just no reason to put in that time. They can win the base voters by red meat and people like me with much less effort, since I don't give a f-ck about the stuff that bothers you and I hate progressives.

 

Those two combined, plus not getting too destroyed by independents are enough to still win a majority of Congressional districts in the US. President? Maybe, maybe not. But house and governors and senate? Sure!

 

In a way, I'm sorta the mirror image of people like you and pong, i.e. like you for the GOP. Can the Dems win me? Sure. Have I voted Dem before? Yes, several times, and I almost certainly will again. But at the end of the day, it takes a lot of resources and effort to win me (and some luck, such as a sh-tty GOP candidate), plus the right type of Dem candidate (non SJW/identity politics, centrist, not a p-ssy- basically a Bill Maher type, or a Jim Webb, etc.) and why do that when there's other low hanging fruit out there and plenty of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the problem is that the things that bother you about the GOP really bother you, whereas you seem a little more likely to give the Dems a pass on a few things.

 

Not saying you're necessarily a big ol' leftie. In fact, much as we bicker, you and I probably have pretty similar political views for the most part (minus some of my fascist beliefs).

 

The big difference being, the GOP would have to spend an extraordinary amount of resources to win you. Money, time, effort, the right candidate, not to mention- they would have to get a little lucky and the Dems would have to run a sub-par candidate. From a strategic standpoint, there's just no reason to put in that time. They can win the base voters by red meat and people like me with much less effort, since I don't give a f-ck about the stuff that bothers you and I hate progressives.

 

Those two combined, plus not getting too destroyed by independents are enough to still win a majority of Congressional districts in the US. President? Maybe, maybe not. But house and governors and senate? Sure!

 

In a way, I'm sorta the mirror image of people like you and pong, i.e. like you for the GOP. Can the Dems win me? Sure. Have I voted Dem before? Yes, several times, and I almost certainly will again. But at the end of the day, it takes a lot of resources and effort to win me (and some luck, such as a sh-tty GOP candidate), plus the right type of Dem candidate (non SJW/identity politics, centrist, not a p-ssy- basically a Bill Maher type, or a Jim Webb, etc.) and why do that when there's other low hanging fruit out there and plenty of it?

This is so spot on.

 

I have voted for Republicans on the state level several times (caveat: in Oregon, a local-level Portland-area "conservative Republican" is the equivalent of a state-level "liberal Democrat" in South Carolina), but the only time in my life I have ever voted Republican for President was in 2004, and it was less a vote of confidence for Bush (who I was not fond of and vocal about it) than a vote of disgust and confusion cast into a perfect storm:

  • Utter disgust with liberals and progressives in general
  • Dislike of John Kerry
  • Seething hatred of John Edwards (felt so validated when he was forced out of politics)

On top of that, after growing up vanilla green-progressive, I was in a period of "exploring" different ideologies and parties -- had recently passed through a libertarian phase, rejected it, and briefly moved onto the GOP platform. See: Storm, Perfect.

 

So, with all of those factors lined up, I cast a vote for a Republican president, and even then, it was more as a "lesser of two evils" vote than hearty support. So you are right, because the bottom line is this: as much as I dislike Democrats, especially their progressive wing, they don't have to work nearly as hard to get my vote. Republicans -- at least if we are talking Presidential politics -- would have to put a lot more work in, and change their positions and rhetoric in ways that would alienate many of their core supporters. Why on Earth would they do that for me, at least when congress and most of the governors are Republicans? I wish it were not so, but I just ain't that important!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If it's one of these three guys, it's gonna be hilarious when Hillary Clinton, with all her negatives and drip-drip-drip, still manages to mop the floor with them.

 

I'm rather certain Kasich, in a one-on-one match-up, would defeat Clinton easily. He'd easily win Ohio, and is polling well above her in nearby Wisconsin and even Michigan.

 

Cruz might actually be competitive against her in the popular vote (unlikely, but possible), but he's got big electoral college issues I doubt he can overcome.

 

Trump would be blown out by 10 points minimum, lose the electoral college in a landslide, and hand give the Democrats back the House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rather certain Kasich, in a one-on-one match-up, would defeat Clinton easily. He'd easily win Ohio, and is polling well above her in nearby Wisconsin and even Michigan.

Any other year, I'd agree.

 

But while GOP voters are mindless, low-info Hitlerbots with a richly deserved "fall into line" reputation, would it be possible to get over the butt-hurt by November if the guy in distant third gets the nod? I mean sure, not having Trump in the race would reduce Democratic/left-Independent turnout, but how much would it reduce enthusiasm on the GOP/right-independent side of things?

 

Furthermore, even if the powers-that-be get the brokered convention they covet, why would they give it to Kasich? While he is more palatable than Cruz and Trump, he definitely ain't their darling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would it be possible to get over the butt-hurt by November if the guy in distant third gets the nod?

 

If Trump isn't running third party, I believe that they would get in line. Grumbling the whole time perhaps, but yeah. And Kasich is strong enough among the working class and independents that he'd overcome those with hurt feelings.

 

Thing is, I think Trump either wins the nomination or goes third party. So I don't think Republicans have much of a chance.

 

Which makes me question why Democrats don't just throw in with Sanders. They've essentially got a gimme this election to choose whoever they want. Why not go with the guy furthest to the left that would most shift the balance of acceptable opinion the most (and who has absolutely no chance of being indicted between the convention and the election)? Why give it to a candidate so compromised and disliked?

 

 

 

Furthermore, even the powers-that-be get the brokered convention they covet, why would they give it to Kasich? While he is less unpopular than Cruz and Trump, he's definitely not a darling.

 

I don't think he does. Kasich has acted rather oddly all election season. He's always been a fairly conservative guy, but he decided to re-run Huntsman's campaign for reasons that I have trouble following.

 

If the contested convention happens, I think either Trump wins on the first ballot, Cruz wins on the second or third ballot, or somebody not currently in the race wins on the 5th ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

If it's one of these three guys, it's gonna be hilarious when Hillary Clinton, with all her negatives and drip-drip-drip, mops the floor with them.

 

The thing is it IS going to be one of those guys. And I think the term you were actually looking for is that it will be Hillaryous. :p

 

But in actuality, it will be pathetic. The way I see myself is that while I am left leaning on some social issues (but I don't think I am very far out there to the left), I am pretty well centrist on most, and even right leaning on some foreign affairs issues. I am the type of voter that, in theory, the GOP should be able to win over, especially when someone as unpalatable as Hillary is running. Hell, I have even voted republican before. But since at least 2004, the GOP has done nothing but push me further and further away from them, both at the local and at the federal level.

 

Yeah, but the problem is that the things that bother you about the GOP really bother you, whereas you seem a little more likely to give the Dems a pass on a few things.

 

Not saying you're necessarily a big ol' leftie. In fact, much as we bicker, you and I probably have pretty similar political views for the most part (minus some of my fascist beliefs).

 

The big difference being, the GOP would have to spend an extraordinary amount of resources to win you. Money, time, effort, the right candidate, not to mention- they would have to get a little lucky and the Dems would have to run a sub-par candidate. From a strategic standpoint, there's just no reason to put in that time. They can win the base voters by red meat and people like me with much less effort, since I don't give a f-ck about the stuff that bothers you and I hate progressives.

 

Those two combined, plus not getting too destroyed by independents are enough to still win a majority of Congressional districts in the US. President? Maybe, maybe not. But house and governors and senate? Sure!

 

In a way, I'm sorta the mirror image of people like you and pong, i.e. like you for the GOP. Can the Dems win me? Sure. Have I voted Dem before? Yes, several times, and I almost certainly will again. But at the end of the day, it takes a lot of resources and effort to win me (and some luck, such as a sh-tty GOP candidate), plus the right type of Dem candidate (non SJW/identity politics, centrist, not a p-ssy- basically a Bill Maher type, or a Jim Webb, etc.) and why do that when there's other low hanging fruit out there and plenty of it?

 

Yeah, I agree. I am tougher on the republicans than I am with democrats. But for this reason: if the GOP wants my vote, they have to earn it. I left them for a reason, which is because I felt they have departed from the direction the US should be headed. You know what? I wasn't all that into the social conservatism aspect or the fact that the US economy took a dive, but from the foreign policy aspect (IE overseeing the end of the cold war), I actually thought GHW Bush was a an elder statesman and a pretty decent president, overall. Since 2006, the GOP has been adrift, become more shrill and unhinged in its rhetoric, and has double-downed on being stubborn, being obstructionist, and has not fielded a decent candidate that could be someone I would ever want to vote for. Indeed, GWB was a poor president to be sure. But you know things are bad when over the years you have the likes of GOP politicians like Palin, Romney, Cruz, Santorum, and Trump that have been in the spotlight. By comparison, these jokers make even Dubya look like an elder statesman.

 

Now, realistically, yeah, you are right, the GOP doesn't care about voters like me. They want to go after the low hanging fruit, they don't have to work so hard at getting. I get that. It makes sense. Why go after voters who are closer to the center, because it is not a sure thing you are going to get even a significant minority of them, let alone a majority. And I know that the vast majority of people do not vote based on facts, but rather emotions, anyway, so I get it.

 

But the problem is that the low hanging fruit of the base of the GOP seems to be increasingly more and more out of step with not just the times of the US, but really the rest of the world. Not to mention when you have your Trumps and Cruz's playing on the fears and prejudices of people, that really draws a stark contrast with what the dems do: which is to become more inclusive and more representative of all people (at least in theory). That is what is driving me away further and further from the GOP. We've covered this ground before, but this pursuit of the lower class, lesser educated, mostly rural white block that seem to just lap up everything either Cruz or Trump says regarding immigrants, making it appear the people of white European ancestry are an endangered species, or especially in Cruz's case, Christianity is under attack from all sides, and these politicians' willingness to get down into the sewers and sling the sludge, is just so distasteful and off putting.

 

If Trump had instead of being anti Muslim and anti Latin immigrant, and being sensationalist like a reality TV candidate, and instead just focused on how the debt is being run up, and gave more specific examples of how his business and management skills could strengthen the economy and offered a positive message, I might have been more in favor of him. I do feel that after 8 years of Obama getting his various domestic agendas passed through Congress, we do need a business person to come in and offer leadership on how to pay for it all, without going into debt, or even finding ways to cut or make said programs more efficient. Had Trump run that way, who knows, maybe I would have considered him. Because he isn't the crazy ultra religious, type Cruz seems to be. But instead, Trump took the low ground.

 

That is why I judge the GOP more harshly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me ask you this Chalup. Why does the GOP have to earn your vote, but the Dems don't? I've wondered this about pong as well- I do think he's generally an independent thinker, and yet.. when he gets in the voting booth, that lever is pulled for the Dems more often than not. Almost like an instinct. I think pong even started a thread commenting on this at one point.

 

Maybe it just has to do with proclivities based upon other innate feelings that we often don't self reflect upon. Because, like I mentioned, I'm sorta the opposite of you, just for the Democrats. Perhaps it has to do with your second to last paragraph, your mini-rant about what's bothering you with the GOP right now. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you.. but.. it just doesn't bother me all that much. Sh-t like that simply doesn't make my blood boil. Maybe because I'm privileged or rich or whatever, who knows. Or maybe because progressives have so poisoned the well for me, that I just can't even start reading criticism like that without getting annoyed.

 

I will say we agree on one thing though- HW Bush was the sh-t. Best president since at least Nixon, and maybe even longer. And certainly the most qualified. If we could put him in suspended animation and just run him every year, I'd be happy.

 

One comment though:

When you say "But the problem is that the low hanging fruit of the base of the GOP seems to be increasingly more and more out of step with not just the times of the US, but really the rest of the world."

 

Dude that's just not really the case. I don't know why people say this all the time! I actually live in Europe, and dude, this place is not like some utopian SJW love fest socialist panacea. A little perspective, please. I don't know if you realize this, but right-wing populism is a huge thing in Europe right now. It's probably the most popular movement currently, gaining a lot of support across the spectrum. You see it in stuff like the 'brexit,' and as a reaction to the migrant crisis, and so on. Sh-t that Trump is talking about actually has already been done here (google the Hungarian border barrier). People here are significantly more right-wing than in the US on issues like immigration. Not only that, but sh-t has been crazy here since Paris and Brussels. Man these parties are at their highest level of support since before WW2. As I said to pong in the other thread:

 

 

 


in Europe, right-wing populism is at its highest level of support since WW2. See, e.g., UKIP, the National Front, Swedish Democrats, Alternative for Deutschland, Austria Freedom Party, Golden Dawn, Danish People's Party, and I could go on.

It's arguably the fastest growing movement in Europe. Here in Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party is actually the largest party right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me ask you this Chalup. Why does the GOP have to earn your vote, but the Dems don't? I've wondered this about pong as well- I do think he's generally an independent thinker, and yet.. when he gets in the voting booth, that lever is pulled for the Dems more often than not. Almost like an instinct. I think pong even started a thread commenting on this at one point.

I can't speak for Pong or Chalup, but I am kinda-sorta in the same ballpark as they are, so I'll toss out my two cents here: the democratic party and its supporters have, in relatively recent history, been less "autistic" than the GOP. I don't mean autistic in the sense of the actual neurological disorder. I mean autistic in its more internet slang meaning, in that it's marked by an aggressive introversion, lack of self awareness and, above all, lack of empathy and inability to empathize with and connect with other people outside their "fandom", so to speak. It's like nothing is real to them except whatever ideological angle they're coming at things from. They become towards their ideology, party or movement the way a geeky, obsessive fan is towards their chosen franchise.

 

Between the time of the decline of organized labor and the old left and the rise of the SJWs, there was just a lot less of this in the democratic party. The dems learned a lesson back in 1968 that the GOP is only now in the beginning stages of understanding: it's important to rein in your crazies. Especially once they start getting into "LARP" (live action role playing) types of behaviors: dressing in tricorn hats at tea party rallies and so on. Sober minded electorates are kind of put off by this type of thing, at least instinctively if not intellectually, even if they might otherwise be receptive to some of the practical and implementable legislative proposals.

 

Online and public backlash against the SJWs is far, far more recent than the backlash against the religious right, even though it ultimately comes from the same place: a distrust of sweeping and reductionistic social narratives and the LARPy, internal status seeking behaviors that attend activism on behalf of such causes, and the authoritarian politics this tends to lead to. I anticipate that with people with politics similar to myself but are younger than me, they may well be drawn to the GOP rather than the dems because their culture war battles will have been with SJWs rather than fundamentalists.

 

The contrast between conservative attorney Jack Thompson and feminist YouTubber Anita Sarkeesian comes to mind here - both criticized violent and sexist content in video games, and both galvanized a substantial backlash that played a role in politicizing geeky fandoms against moralistic politics. Thompson's claims were old hat even in their day - I actually remember the anti Dungeons and Dragons Satanic panic of the 1980s. Sarkeesian's claims, like those of SJWs in general, did not and indeed could not get much circulation outside the critical theory department until the advent of social media. Thus, disdain for the social justice warriors - a term that supposedly only came out of the whole "gamergate" backlash against Sarkeesian - is thus scarcely a few years old, while I remember going to hear Jello Biafra speak out against the religious right back in the days when I was just a young whipper-snapper, and had to walk uphill 10 miles both ways to get to school each day, as it were. Extrapolating from this, the perception that the progressives rather than the conservatives are the natural homes of the crazies has a fair bit of catching up to do.

 

in Europe, right-wing populism is at its highest level of support since WW2. See, e.g., UKIP, the National Front, Swedish Democrats, Alternative for Deutschland, Austria Freedom Party, Golden Dawn, Danish People's Party, and I could go on.

 

It's arguably the fastest growing movement in Europe. Here in Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party is actually the largest party right now.

This is a growing thing in North America too - the "Alternative Right" they call it. Speaking of LARPiness and autism. Left and right alike seem to be "Europeanizing" on our side of the pond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

 

Well let me ask you this Chalup. Why does the GOP have to earn your vote, but the Dems don't?

 

 

 

I have touched on this topic somewhat in the past (in the form of my problems with the GOP), though maybe not as directly as "how would the GOP get my vote," but here are some of the things that just really annoy me about the GOP. Also, it should be noted that I am currently an independent, and have been for about 16 years, now. Before that, I had changed from republican, to democrat, to libertarian, then indy.


 

Republicans as Christian Warriors

First and foremost, the GOP has essentially appointed itself as the Christian Party. Now I know that is largely to get the evangelical vote and money, and most GOP politicians aren't necessarily ultra conservative, but I can't abide this attitude that a lot of republicans feel like they have to "defend" Christian beliefs, and take a stance that Christianity is somehow an endangered species. I have no problem with people practicing Christianity, and I am not one of these crazies that want to abolish "In God We Trust" from every court room or dollar bill, or prevent people from putting up Christmas decorations. I used to go to church as a kid, and to say Christianity doesn't still influence my word view, would be a lie. I have no problem even with politicians saying "this is the stance I take, because of my religion," so long as they live and let live and don't try to change other people's beliefs by legislation, by shaming them, or what not. But once republicans start enacting various laws, influence foreign policy decisions, or ordinances that favor or supposedly "defend" Christianity, then it becomes a problem for me. I have personally found that a lot of Christian Warriors are some of the most judgmental people I have ever come across, and I just can't get behind a political party that supports these type of people, even if it is just to get their vote or money. The GOP admittedly is headed in the right direction as far as trying to get away from evangelicals, but the very fact that Cruz is a solid #2, and survived the primary this long, shows the GOP has a long way to go before I can support that party.

 

Abortion

Personally, I don't like abortion, and I think one should use it only as a last resort, but I also recognize it is legal, and not my place to say someone should or shouldn't have one. This largely goes hand in hand with the Christian Warriors of the GOP, and this often is a topic that is inserted in every run for every office, and detracts from more important, and relevant issues. I know for some people this is the single issue that dominates their life, but abortion seems to be a Litmus test for everything the GOP has to say, to do, or people it supports. For me personally, this does not resonate because the topic of abortion is not a priority in my life. Plus, the shrillness of the rhetoric is just a turn off. In fact, in my state, the Governor Doug Ducey (or Douchey, as I call him) just signed legislation stating that all State of AZ employees are now BARRED from using their own money from their own paychecks to donate to abortion clinics, through payroll deductions, which DOES affect me directly. This is exactly what I mean. Not that I would have any inkling to necessarily donate to Planned Parenthood, but who is the GOP to tell me I can't do a payroll deduction to donate to whomever I want.? I didn't see any law banning donations to churches, and this seems unconstitutional to me. And in the end, if a state employee wants to donate to Planned Parenthood, they will anyway, it's just a hassle to have to now take another step. So this feel good law is pointless, and just an example of imposing a specific world view on the rest of society. It's this kind of poor prioritization of the GOP that turns my stomach and until this stops, I can't support the GOP.

 

Immigration

Now I totally agree that the borders on both sides and both North and South borders should be enforced. This is not just to keep the criminal element out, but there is a national security reason as well. Also, I understand that immigration needs to be limited and moderated so that we know who is coming into our country. I am all for it. But I think that the way the GOP approaches this topic is they use scare tactics to gain support from rural whites, and exploit their fears and prejudices. How did the GOP go from the Party of NAFTA, to the "Close all border everywhere, and round up da Mexicans" Party? To hear some politicians talk, it is as if we have to stop this invasion of our culture, or it will be changed. This sounds a lot more about white people being worried they won't be a majority any longer, and may lose political clout, than an actual national security threat. This is nothing less than covert racism in my eyes. And until this rhetoric is dropped, I can't support the GOP, or republican politicians.

 

Anti Gay

Here is another topic that is constantly brought up by republicans: gay people. First off, I am not someone who is gay or bisexual, and I don't even really have any close friends who are, so I really don't have much of a vested interest on this topic beyond the fact I find the GOP wrong on so many levels where it concerns gays. If it has anything to do with gays, the republicans are automatically against it. Just like immigration, republicans act like if there is such a thing as gay marriage or the things that go along with it (IE medical insurance for gay partners, inheritance, adoption, etc), gays in the military, supporting bakeries or restaurants that refuse to cater to gays, etc, that if they don't oppose gays, they will either lose votes, or the very nation will crumble just because some random kid in SFOhas two mommies. This is a losing issue for them (indeed, some of this is already lost, like gays in the military, banning gay marriage), and rhetoric this election cycle has been toned down with regards to gay people, for the most part, but the undercurrent is still there. Basically, opposing a whole group of law-abiding people, simply because you don't like what they do in their personal lives that has no effect on your personal life, is small minded, disgusting to me, and something I can't support.

 

Guns

I am a gun owner. Guns are fun to shoot. Guns are necessary for people to protect themselves when they live in areas where the police cannot or cannot do it effectively. But I also recognize that there should be limits. Limits on caliber. Limits on rate of fire. Limits on who can get a gun in the first place (IE the insane). But through all this, the topic of guns do not rule my life. They are not a litmus test for me to vote for or against anyone. So, when the GOP candidates or politicians hammer this topic day in and out, and rhetoric that sounds like "First step, they make you register your AR15, the next step is Obama (or whomever the democratic President is) will send SWAT out to take it away from you" really gets old. It has been around as long as I can remember. This type of rhetoric turns me off, even more so than the equally batsh*t crazy leftists who want all guns everywhere to be outlawed and destroyed, because with the anti-gun activists that is a certainty it won't happen, at least in my lifetime, given the hundreds of millions of guns that are legally (never mind illegally owned) in the US. That all said, I am tired of seeing the topic of guns, being at the forefront of every political debate or litmus test of who the republicans will support or oppose.

 

General Rhetoric of Fear mongering, political obstruction, and negativity

So I understand the concept of politics in that you have to draw a clear distinction between yourself, and whomever you are running against. However, including the topics above, as well as anything I have not listed, it seems to me that republican politicians, pundits, and even the GOP itself, loves to promote rhetoric that there is a "threat" just somewhere around the corner, lurking in the shadows. Or that somehow America is a failing state, and that somehow the US will collapse if a republican isn't elected to save us all from ourselves. This has gone since before 9/11, but has been especially bad in the last 15 years. Since at least 2006, the GOP has basically opposed or attempted to block anything that comes from the democratic party, less because of a good reason, and more simply because said idea was a democrat idea, whether or not it makes sense. This is not inspiring to me, and smacks of a political party that is slow to change and is devoid of solutions and lacks vision. So, they offer what they can: fear. I just can't get behind a partly like that.

 

 

So the Non-TL;DR version is this. The GOP has elected to be, and remains to be, the party of opposition. Republicans typically oppose abortion, immigration, gays, any legislation that limits gun access in any way (even the most modest restrictions), or what they perceive as anything that threatens white dominance and political hegemony or Christian values in the US, and use fear tactics and speech to gain their support. At least when it comes to social issues, republicans don't offer anything new, and in fact advocate the restoration of the old (in many cases, a return to the bad old days). Until these topics and tactics I listed above find their way to the trash bin, I find it hard to accept the republican party, or support their candidates. If they did, I would be more prone to support the GOP, but these topics are something that the GOP seems to cling tighter to, so in the foreseeable future, they won't be getting my support.

 

One last thought:

This is not to say that the democrats automatically have my vote, either! With Hillary all but formally nominated, pickings are slim. This election cycle is bar none, the worst presidential election cycle I will have participated in. For a good decade now, I have taken to mechanical voting: basically voting against incumbents where I see them, voting no to all propositions, and voting no to all judges. If neither option is something I like, I vote 3rd party.

 

I feel that when it comes to voting, no one out there actually supports someone like me. Maybe that just means I am in the minority with regard to political ideology, and I have to just like it or lump it, but each election it gets harder and harder for me to even bother to show up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Megyn Kelly talks Trump fanboy death threats in this clickbait...

 

 

Megyn Kelly: There have been threats against my life since Trump questioning

 

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly said in an interview broadcast Sunday that there have been threats against her life since her hard-lined questioning of GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

"It's how he gins up anger among so many. So it manifests in my life in several ways," Kelly said during an interview with Charlie Rose on "CBS Sunday Morning." "It's not that I'm worried someone's actually going to come shoot me down. But I do worry someone's going to try to hurt me in the presence of my children."

 

 

While some Trump fans have committed acts of violence and think this is their time to take Americuh back from the lib'rals, darkies and homos...Kelly is milking this Trump issue until the tit no longer gives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LK- that was an interesting post, and that was a way of looking at things that I've never thought of before. One comment:

Between the time of the decline of organized labor and the old left and the rise of the SJWs, there was just a lot less of this in the democratic party. The dems learned a lesson back in 1968 that the GOP is only now in the beginning stages of understanding: it's important to rein in your crazies.


Sure, it's easy to say this, but I'm not exactly sure how this would practically look.

I hear this sorta thing all the time, with a lot of hand-wringing, "oh if the GOP would just do something about their crazies!!" Well what, pray tell, is that something?

 

Keep in mind, that this "reining in" on the Dem side wasn't something that just happened one day. You point out 1968, but the Dems went on to lose landslides in 1972, in 1980, in 1984, and in 1988. So what, it took 4 elections of the GOP winning 400+ electoral votes before the DLC finally had enough sway to start influencing the party?

 

I'm sorry man, but the GOP just isn't there yet. Yes, they decisively lost the last couple elections, but they weren't 400+ landslides and we're talking about a party that still holds a majority in the senate, house, and state governors. Put a few more swing states in play and the GOP is right back in it with the presidential election too. If the wilderness the GOP has to wander through is akin to the Dems soul-searching in the 70s-80s, well I fear you're gonna be waiting a lot longer.

 

And let us presume that the GOP was at that point, I'm still not sure what they're exactly supposed to do. Keep in mind that the decline of the old Left had probably more to do with the transformation of the US economy in the 80s than it had to do with the Dems string of losses. The Left's old crazies gradually lost influence, but it sure as sh-t wasn't because of the DLC, who didn't even exist until 1985, and even if it had earlier, keep in mind also that the Dems still relied on the South at that point to some degree, and they hadn't flipped California and all the New England states yet.

 

I guess what I'm saying is- the crazies are there LK. It's not like there is some man behind the curtain controlling the GOP and all he has to do one day is snap his fingers, and just like that, all the crazies will be gone and somewhere there'll be this magical cache of voters that are just itching to vote GOP if they run a moderate. That's not how it works man. If a moderate runs in certain districts (i.e. most of the South), they'll get a primary challenge from a Tea Party type. And there ain't sh-t that the national leadership can do about that. All they can do is cultivate promising talent on the national level. Sometimes it works, and other times you get a Rubio. But that's really all you can do, and honestly, that probably matters a lot more than this other stuff. You get the right type of personality that's suitable for TV and exhibits strength without being scary, and bam- the GOP is right back to being competitive in suburban Columbus and Orlando, which is where the election is fought and lost. Not in San Francisco. That this hypothetical candidate hasn't emerged has a lot less to do with party leadership and more to do with chance, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chalup

 

You said something interesting on guns, when you said: "the topic of guns do not rule my life. They are not a litmus test for me to vote for or against anyone. So, when the GOP candidates or politicians hammer this topic day in and out, and rhetoric that sounds like "First step, they make you register your AR15, the next step is Obama (or whomever the democratic President is) will send SWAT out to take it away from you" really gets old."

 

Take that sentence and just swap out guns, and replace it with abortion, or gay marriage, or immigration, or whatever. That's how I feel. Maybe that will help explain why someone like myself can vote GOP.

 

Some people have litmus tests on those issues, but I don't. And it's funny you mention the rhetoric, because I see the same thing with pet issues of the Left- all sorts of ridiculous rhetoric, almost always leading to some reference to Hitler. You talk about how hammering a certain a topic gets old.. well, perhaps you can understand there is a flip side with the other issues as well. It's gotten to the point where if I see a post on FB or a blog or whatever from someone I know that's a liberal, on some type of social issue I mentioned, I just immediately scroll past the comment because I already know what it's going to say and that it's also gonna annoy the sh-t out of me. And this is despite the fact that I may (often) agree with such person's stance on the issue.

 

I was thinking about how this discussion started, and that you said that theoretically the GOP could win you over. I dunno.. I guess maybe in a perfect storm, but based upon your hangups with the GOP, it's tough for me to envision a candidate that you would support (at least that currently exists). I said earlier that the GOP would have to spend an extraordinary amount of resources to win you.. money, time, effort, the right candidate, etc., but the more I think about it, even in that case, I'd put it at like a 30% chance at best. The way things stand, it seems like your worldview (and what bothers you and what doesn't) is pretty neatly aligned with the Dems. Sure they may not be your perfect party and they may occasionally run candidates that piss you off (see, for example, Hillary), but I wouldn't say you don't have a party that represents your interests either. It exists and it's called the Democrats. Might as well embrace it... not sure why the current party system is causing you so much dismay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take that sentence and just swap out guns, and replace it with abortion, or gay marriage, or immigration, or whatever. That's how I feel. Maybe that will help explain why someone like myself can vote GOP.

Haha, so true. The other day, I actually heard somebody -- a very smart somebody, believe it or not -- talk about recent issues with transgender/gender neutral bathrooms, leading him to the "logical" conclusion of the entire "out" LGBTQ community being in internment camps within a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've already posted this, but my Rubio loving friend is so distraught over this. She says she'd seriously have to consider voting for Clinton if Creeper Cruz wins the nomination and it looks like a close race.

 

Fortunately, I think the one thing Trump has been right/honest about is that Cruz is just a puppet/trojan horse.

 

*shudder*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.