The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[chipbennett]

I'd say "I'd prefer not to risk it"... but that would imply I want him to win.

I'd say "I'll enjoy watching you all eat crow"... but that would imply I want it to reach that point.

But I seem to be talking to people that would be satisfied with a Trump presidency, so there isn't much of a response that matters. So, I would rather not have to be proven wrong. Just make it a real race between a socialist/commie and a conservative. No one benefits from the head-to-head we're discussing here.

The problem is, there is nothing to like about a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich presidency, either. The former two are frauds, and the latter is a liberal.

I will be a 100% not-Hilary vote, regardless of who is on the ticket. I hold the #NeverTrump crowd in utter contempt.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The problem is, there is nothing to like about a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich presidency, either. The former two are frauds, and the latter is a liberal.

And on that point, we disagree to varying degrees. From what I gather, you have a level of trust in what Trump says. That's fine, that's your call. I don't. I see his campaign making it this far a clear product of leftist media serving him up and preparing him for a GOP party loss. Others, for some reason, buy what he and the media are presenting to them... and I simply don't get why.

 

[chipbennett]

And on that point, we disagree to varying degrees. From what I gather, you have a level of trust in what Trump says. That's fine, that's your call. I don't. I see his campaign making it this far a clear product of leftist media serving him up and preparing him for a GOP party loss. Others, for some reason, buy what he and the media are presenting to them... and I simply don't get why.

I don't have a great deal of trust in what Trump says - on some things, I have more trust than others (for example, I believe him implicitly on his 2A stance; I believe he has changed over time, and is sincere on his 2A policy position). The lack of trust is why I'm not an ardent supporter/promoter of Trump. He'll get my primary vote over the other three, but I'm not out campaigning for him (as I have often done for other candidates whom I have supported).

 

[MisterChester]

Cruz and Rubio's values align far closer to mine than the other candidates. Trump is the odd-man out... and I don't like seeing the other candidates concede their positions and align with the Democrat because they're getting something out of it. They're giving up what's best for the country for personal gain.

I'd consider both Cruz/Rubio/Carson/Bush/Kasich to be GOP, Conservative, Republican... whatever you want to call it. Giving that up to get a cushy job in the administration of the guy currently winning is a sad, defeatist attitude.

Does that mean that every administration has a sad, defeatist attitude? All of them have done it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Does that mean that every administration has a sad, defeatist attitude? All of them have done it.

This election is unique. In my lifetime, there hasn't been a blatant Democrat running as a Republican like this.

Joining your GOP opponents is one thing, but joining a Democrat is another. There isn't a huge difference between Cruz and Rubio. There's a massive difference between Cruz/Trump and Rubio/Trump, or any other GOP candidate/Trump for that matter. One has to completely give up party values to justify joining or endorsing Trump.

They won't be forgotten the next time their seat is up for election, or their radio show contract is up.

 

[jamil]

The problem is, there is nothing to like about a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich presidency, either. The former two are frauds, and the latter is a liberal.

I will be a 100% not-Hilary vote, regardless of who is on the ticket. I hold the #NeverTrump crowd in utter contempt.

Nothing? That sounds a lot like dichotomous thinking. There's not absolutely *nothing* to like about Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich. I have to dig more to find something to like about Rubio or Kasich. But there are things. Maybe you don't want to admit those because he's so damn poopy. I am quite disappointed in Cruz's behavior as well. But I'm pragmatic enough to notice the areas where I agree with him. Cruz is solid on 2a issues and a Cruz scotus appointee is not going to be Trump's sister. So those are at least two things I like about Cruz. But I absolutely hate his behavior. I hate his frequent pontification. I hate his smarmy mannerisms. I hate his opportunistic pandering. And I hate his nose. He looks like he got hit with a shovel. Much like Sarah Palin, his voice is like fingernails on chalkboard.

It is as G says, I look at all the candidates with varying degrees of like or dislike. I'm basically fed up with them all. They all fall far low of my expectations. But with each of the Republicans I can find at least some issue or core principle on which I can agree with them. And that's true with Trump as well.

I'm not on the #NeverTrump bandwagon. I think those guys are dichotomous thinkers too. I've resolved to the probability that Trump will face Clinton in the general election. I'm pretty sure Trump will get trounced unless the Bernie voters stay home. And in that contest I have resolved that I'd vote for Trump. But the more Trump behaves like a divisive playground bully the harder it is to imagine I could vote for him. I mean, what are you willing to let him get away with before you just say no? Can he really do anything? I'm a pretty pragmatic guy. But there's a hard limit to that pragmatism and he is coming close to finding it.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not on the #NeverTrump bandwagon. I think those guys are dichotomous thinkers too.

At the risk of challenging stereotypes, I consider myself a #nevertrump voter for purposes of the primary, yet not a dichotomous thinker. (There are 10 kinds of people in this world....)

I just think Trump would be a singularly bad candidate for the GOP or any party.

Totally not the point you were making, but I had to come up with something to disagree with you on. Its been awhile. Feeling nostalgic.

 

[jamil]

This election is unique. In my lifetime, there hasn't been a blatant Democrat running as a Republican like this.

Joining your GOP opponents is one thing, but joining a Democrat is another. There isn't a huge difference between Cruz and Rubio. There's a massive difference between Cruz/Trump and Rubio/Trump, or any other GOP candidate/Trump for that matter. One has to completely give up party values to justify joining or endorsing Trump.

They won't be forgotten the next time their seat is up for election, or their radio show contract is up.

That's dichotomous thinking too. I think Trump's positions aren't really all that ideologically based. I think his positions are based on a mixture of feelings and pragmatism. I can't call him a Democrat or Republican. As far as his positions on many things, yeah, some are Democrat. And some are Republican. But who the **** cares? I agree with the candidates who advocate for small government/limited government power, RKBA, individual liberty/responsibility, fiscal responsibility, real racial equality (not the faux sjw kind), limited international involvement. And I favor candidates who advocate for not-Hillary Clinton. It's almost impossible to find a candidate that shares all those values. I usually have to hold my nose a little on some issues.

Maybe I can hold my nose with Trump--not that he has conservative values but he is likely to be at least stronger on the 2A than Hillary. Like I said though, Trump's behavior is making it more and more difficult.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That's dichotomous thinking too. I think Trump's positions aren't really all that ideologically based. I think his positions are based on a mixture of feelings and pragmatism. I can't call him a Democrat or Republican. As far as his positions on many things, yeah, some are Democrat. And some are Republican. But who the **** cares? I agree with the candidates who advocate for small government/limited government power, RKBA, individual liberty/responsibility, fiscal responsibility, real racial equality (not the faux sjw kind), limited international involvement.

Again, highlights a difference between you and I, and that's fine. I see him for what he's always been. I don't accept the idea that he "evolved" on all these things. I see him as the anti-gun democrat, with nearly 90% democrat values. Not the new values that sprung up in the past year or so.

Even his recent fascist attacks on free speech are enough to show he's not for free speech... which is tied very closely to 2A.

I, for one, will not buy it.

 

[jamil]

At the risk of challenging stereotypes, I consider myself a #nevertrump voter for purposes of the primary, yet not a dichotomous thinker. (There are 10 kinds of people in this world....)

I just think Trump would be a singularly bad candidate for the GOP or any party.

Totally not the point you were making, but I had to come up with something to disagree with you on. Its been awhile. Feeling nostalgic.

I guess I can understand that. If you're a Republican it's fair to want a candidate that has the most in common with the party platform. I usually vote Republican but I'm an ala carte issues voter. If a democrat hit more of my likes I'd vote for the democrat.

Okay, I'll say something you can disagree with. I almost wouldn't mind if the Republican Party exploded and that somehow caused America to want to change our voting system to something more representative. This system that allows a third of a party to nominate a candidate two thirds of the party doesn't want is a horrible system.

 

[chipbennett]

Again, highlights a difference between you and I, and that's fine. I see him for what he's always been. I don't accept the idea that he "evolved" on all these things. I see him as the anti-gun democrat, with nearly 90% democrat values. Not the new values that sprung up in the past year or so.

Even his recent fascist attacks on free speech are enough to show he's not for free speech... which is tied very closely to 2A.

I, for one, will not buy it.

Citation, please?

 

[T.Lex]

Okay, I'll say something you can disagree with.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I almost wouldn't mind if the Republican Party exploded...

Still with you. Indeed, I hope it explodes from the inside out, in a way. That Republicans figure out the Party isn't really about the same things we're about.

and that somehow caused America to want to change our voting system to something more representative. This system that allows a third of a party to nominate a candidate two thirds of the party doesn't want is a horrible system.

Ok, I do disagree with you about this, sorta. The system isn't the problem. The people are the problem. I'd extend that beyond the primary voters to the general election voters, too.

 

[danimal]

I'll take the guy who actually talks about it regardless if he knows what it is or cares, over someone who has never said anything about it.

One has potential, the other has none.

So the only thing that's important is what is said on the campaign trail, not actual actions or words spoken beforehand? I sincerely hope that is not true, I have a hard time believing you are that gullible. I agree from the standpoint that something Donald said at age 7 isn't something I would critique him on, nor would I any other candidate. But his historical pattern in the past decade or 2 greatly concerns me, and his sudden change of heart all of the sudden now that he is running for prez doesn't pass my BS-o-meter. I just can't find any words/actions reassuring about his position on the 2A prior to this election season, which is why I'm asking what has you excited about his new position. Everyone knows the '68 is a much worse infringement than '34, why wouldn't he go after that?

 

[jamil]

Ok, I do disagree with you about this, sorta. The system isn't the problem. The people are the problem. I'd extend that beyond the primary voters to the general election voters, too.

The people are the people. They like what they like. They're predisposed to what they're predisposed to. We have a system where candidates who should not be electable end up as the only choices. I'm tired of the hobson's choice. I want a real choice. Trump was not my 2nd or 3rd choice. He was way down on that list. He only moved up the list because others dropped out. And soon he'll be #1 on the list because Hillary will be the only other choice. That's a ****ed up system right there. At least it's not as ****ed up as the British system, but this has gotta go. People say in a representative democracy you get the government you deserve. Well I don't deserve Trump or Hillary. But I'm gonna be stuck with one of them. And according to all the favorability ratings, neither one is who America wants.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Citation, please?

I've shared stories here about his threats to sue candidates and media for writing critical articles on him. Mobile right now, but I can regather those, and other 1A-unfriendly behaviors shortly.

 

[chipbennett]

I've shared stories here about his threats to sue candidates and media for writing critical articles on him. Mobile right now, but I can regather those, and other 1A-unfriendly behaviors shortly.

One, that's a mischaracterization of what he actually said/what his position is. Two, even if true, how is filing a civil lawsuit an example of fascism?

 

[danimal]

I've shared stories here about his threats to sue candidates and media for writing critical articles on him. Mobile right now, but I can regather those, and other 1A-unfriendly behaviors shortly.

The one about opening up the libel laws and hit-pieces rings a bell, but it's not possible Donald ever said those words, is it? You can't possibly have video of it, it must be special effects / photoshop / audio cuts all edited. Don't trust GPIA7R's posts, they're all lies!

 

[danimal]

One, that's a mischaracterization of what he actually said/what his position is. Two, even if true, how is filing a civil lawsuit an example of fascism?

Silencing political opposition through lawsuits (or threats thereof) isn't fascism? What is it then, I'm not so well versed on all the nuances of the -isms.

 

[chipbennett]

Silencing political opposition through lawsuits (or threats thereof) isn't fascism? What is it then, I'm not so well versed on all the nuances of the -isms.

You are conflating libel (not a lawful exercise of rights) with political opposition (a lawful exercise of rights). And lawsuits do not silence the speech in either case, because speech cannot be subjected to prior restraint.

Fascist tactics of silencing political speech would include... oh, just a random example: using unlawful force and threats of violence to prevent someone from conducting a lawful political assembly.

EDIT:

The one about opening up the libel laws and hit-pieces rings a bell, but it's not possible Donald ever said those words, is it? You can't possibly have video of it, it must be special effects / photoshop / audio cuts all edited. Don't trust GPIA7R's posts, they're all lies!

Yes, please cite and quote Trump's actual words, demonstrating that he is in favor of silencing political opposition.

 

[jamil]

I'll take the guy who actually talks about it regardless if he knows what it is or cares, over someone who has never said anything about it.

One has potential, the other has none.

I'd prefer the guy who actually has a record of doing some things he's talked about rather than the guy who has just talked about it. One has done it. The other only has potential.