Jump to content

2016 GOP Candidates for President


Recommended Posts

My question is, how is Leave It to Beaver an insult?

Because it was a horrible facade. People just pretended to be be happy back then. Women were repressed and men drank too much.

 

Thank god we all grew up. So much better now, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not even sure i want to know what is going on here     im proud of not knowing what is on here     makes me more authentic     did i just give away that i know what i going on in here

There's always the rent is too damn high party.

I would find it hilarious considering all the Birthers out there railing on about Obama's birth certificate if Cruz was able to secure a nomination.

Anyways, switching back on topic for a moment, some opinions on the GOP nomination so far, as I haven't gotten into it since pg 1, and have been absent from Nightly for a little while.

 

I think Trump is honestly the most fascinating thing to happen in politics in a long time. His entry to the race has created an element of unpredictability- I honestly am not sure how this is going to end up, and this is the first time I've said this since 2000. In every other election since then, I have correctly predicted both the nominees and the eventual winner. But I have no idea how this is going to unfold.

 

The thing that makes it unpredictable is Trump has the remarkable ability to bounce back from practically anything and everything that happens to him. I was certain that the McCain comments would hurt him, but no, his poll numbers actually went up. I thought the Fox News spat would hurt him, but no, Ailes came back to him, tail tucked between his legs, and people actually ended up turning on Megyn Kelly. So I guess the question is what would actually make his numbers go down, and I don't think anything will except for people getting bored with him (something that Trump himself admitted would probably be the only thing to end his campaign, in some interview, can't remember which one).

 

Upon some further reflection following these events, it's not hard to explain why his numbers are stable. Trump has decades of experience being in the spotlight and on TV. He knows everyone in media and how to work them. He's a known quantity- people sorta expected him to be a dick, so there's no souring of people's expectations. And perhaps most importantly, he's tapping into a very real desire for a populist that I've been talking about for years. It hadn't happened yet, since we haven't had a true populist come out that knows which issues to target, as well as how to work crowds and the media- but the opportunity has been there for a while now. On top of that, there is a very real angry streak in people that Trump speaks to. These people aren't necessarily even conservative (see, e.g. the signs of people at Tea Party rallies for government to keep their hands off of medicare), and their positions can be inconsistent. A good question is where that anger comes from- I think lack of real wage growth is a likely culprit. On top of that, of course, is Trump's willingness to be as un-PC as possible, something that I've also been predicting someone would tap into for a while now. Although it can be easy to think the SJW internet pitchfork mobs have "won," the truth is likely that most people are getting sort of tired of their sh-t, and a backlash has been brewing for some time now. To capitalize on that, however, you need a charismatic guy who is independently wealthy and not tied to any other special interests or groups.

 

Trump meets all those concerns and requirements, so it's not surprising that he's been able to pull a steady chunk of support. The question is, how long will it last? And that's where this gets unpredictable. I simply have no idea how long it will take for people to grow bored of Trump (if they ever do). If he picks off one (or both) of NH and IA, then this could be a very long primary season for the GOP. Eventually, the establishment will try and pull all the favors they can to get everyone behind one candidate. Will that work? The last time the GOP had to do something like that was 1964, and even then, it failed and Goldwater got the nomination. The problem is that the non-Trump segments of the party are equally divided- you have Tea Partiers behind Cruz, you have the bible thumpers divided between Huckabee and Carson, you have the fiscal hawks behind Walker (though Walker's support seems to be falling rapidly), you have libertarians mainly behind Paul (though Paul has not been able to strike the same chord that his father did), and you have the establishment and moderates split between Bush, Kasich, and Rubio.

 

At the end of the day, the establishment would try and push Bush, but there is little love for him in the bible thumper and Tea Party block. Rubio might end up the compromise candidate in that case, or even Kasich, but I'm not sure how that would work out if it's late in the game and Trump has already won several primaries (the rest being split between one or more candidates). Maybe what would happen in that case is a brokered convention, which for a political junkie like me, would be pretty much the greatest thing in the world. We haven't really been close to one since the Democrats in 1968, so one can hope.

What is it with you and the rambling? People like Trump because they hate politicians. That's it.

 

You strike me as a pretty smart gal. Why do you care so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish but it is almost as racist as his misogyny against women and just as costly.

 

What? It's almost as... racist as its.. sexist? :confused:

 

Can you really compare these two? So, like you're saying there's two scales, side by side, and you've compared them, and the immigration policy.. say scores like a 8 on the racist scale, which I guess is about equal to an 8 on the misogyny scale?

 

Eh. It is Trump and his wildly politically incorrect ways. The two are divergent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My question is, how is Leave It to Beaver an insult?

Because it was a horrible facade. People just pretended to be be happy back then. Women were repressed and men drank too much.

 

Thank god we all grew up. So much better now, right?

Never forget forget the billions of racial minorities and homosexuals who were murdered by Republicans between 1945-65.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pong, everyone knows that homosexuals didn't even exist until 1972, when liberal TV producers made and released That Certain Summer on ABC. That's why we have to go back to at least the 1950s, because the 1960s had too much heterosexual sex and way too many drugs and hippies. At least in the '50s, husbands and wives didn't scandalously share a bed, and no one had bowel movements (therefore no anus to stimulate), because the toilet bowl hadn't been invented. Only the toilet tank existed in 1957. So pre-1957 is the ideal, real, America that we should aspire to recreate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow pav, I didn't realize you're just now discovering that one of the unattractive features of democracy is that the parties sometimes have to pander to the lowest common denominator in their bases, in order to trick them in to voting for the party.

 

So I guess this means you'll be coming around to my preferred form of government, enlightened fascism, eh pav?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good ****ing lord. I thought it was ****ing obvious. Yahweh is the name of the ****ing Judeo-Christian god. A god that is as fictional as Zeus, Ra, or Quetzalcoatl. It's one god among many other gods. If Yahweh is real, why not Thor or Athena? Why capitalize the word? I'm not going to follow the taboos of illiterate shepherds from 4000 years ago.

 

As for not putting it the platform document, well, fuck, I guess I'm just supposed to ignore candidates' claims that "God" is guiding them or speaking to them or just in general being their "shepherd". Even if they don't say it outright, the odds are that they're godbotherers. Most Americans are. If they're not really worshipping some God or other, but say they are, then they're lying. That's not helpful either.

 

And of course I'm on your side for scientifically guided fascism, Carrie. Why would you doubt that? This whole democracy thing isn't that great.

 

fuck it. I'm not posting my best, but if I posted only my best thoughts, I'd be a month late to all the hot topics on the board. Maybe I should try that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the Democrats have god worshippers among them too. But then this isn't the Democratic nominee thread, is it? All the polls and data I've seen so far, limited as they are, point toward another Dem victory next fall. The Reps have to find a candidate that can win.

 

Trump isn't going to get the RNC nomination. At least the odds of getting it are very low, low enough to ignore. But he'll run as an independent. How many Republican voters will he pull away from the official party candidate? Enough to hurt the chances of winning the swing states?

 

Evidence-based decision making in government is all I want. Starting to seem like too much to expect. If I'm spraying bullshit all over the forum, by all means, call me on it. I can learn from my mistakes. If I was too timid to make a few mistakes I'd never learn anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good ****ing lord. I thought it was ****ing obvious. Yahweh is the name of the ****ing Judeo-Christian god. A god that is as fictional as Zeus, Ra, or Quetzalcoatl. It's one god among many other gods. If Yahweh is real, why not Thor or Athena? Why capitalize the word? I'm not going to follow the taboos of illiterate shepherds from 4000 years ago.

 

As for not putting it the platform document, well, ****, I guess I'm just supposed to ignore candidates' claims that "God" is guiding them or speaking to them or just in general being their "shepherd". Even if they don't say it outright, the odds are that they're godbotherers. Most Americans are. If they're not really worshipping some God or other, but say they are, then they're lying. That's not helpful either.

 

And of course I'm on your side for scientifically guided fascism, Carrie. Why would you doubt that? This whole democracy thing isn't that great.

 

**** it. I'm not posting my best, but if I posted only my best thoughts, I'd be a month late to all the hot topics on the board. Maybe I should try that.

Yes I know what Yahweh is pav.

 

So you didn't ever actually read the platform. Why did you make claims about what was in it then, in quotes?

 

You really gotta tighten this up pav. JV effort all around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not leaving. I'll still monitor the board. I just need to think and analyze more before I post here. If I write something, I want it to represent my best efforts. I've not done that recently. I need more data on the GOP candidates, and a chance to really ponder the GOP platform document. My first reading wasn't thorough enough, I think. I don't suppose they'll write a 2016 version. The one posted at GOP.com is the 2012 version. I suppose it wouldn't be much different, but some updates on the latest issues would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not leaving. I'll still monitor the board. I just need to think and analyze more before I post here. If I write something, I want it to represent my best efforts. I've not done that recently. I need more data on the GOP candidates, and a chance to really ponder the GOP platform document. My first reading wasn't thorough enough, I think. I don't suppose they'll write a 2016 version. The one posted at GOP.com is the 2012 version. I suppose it wouldn't be much different, but some updates on the latest issues would be welcome.

FFS. You are taking a Star Wars message board discussing politics a bit too seriously. You know, The American Journal of Political Science isn't scouting this place for their latest edop piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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