The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

I should have stated it this way. You have to take one or the other bottle. You ave no choice in that. You can vote for which bottle to take, or you can let everyone else decide for you.

My friend, they already did.

And you have not addressed the facts that the political elements that saved us from gun control won't be in place for the next administration. Another one I left off, the most important one, 4) the scotus was in our favor. With Trump there is a question mark. He may nominate a pro-2a justice. He may nominate his sister. Hillary WILL nominate an anti-2a justice.

But this belies, IMHO, 2 different issues:
- An overestimation of SCOTUS ability to influence things. It is not a blank slate. I see less risk in another Ginsburg than I do in Donald Trump.
- If 2A nominees to SCOTUS were that important to Republican voters, Trump would not have the nomination. Seriously, was there someone in the race who would be a straight up lock on nominating pro-2A judges? Gun owners are part of the Trump harem, but it is a marriage of convenience for him. Our sister wives that are more closely aligned with his personal wealth are his favorites.

is much less likely that Trump will have an ideologically friendly congress than Hillary.

I'm not worried about ideology. Ideology, the players all know how to deal with. Trump doesn't have a cohesive ideology. He has a cult of personality. That trumps (pardon the pun) ideology more often than not.

I think I have solid reasoning for pragmatically taking my chances with Trump even though admitting such is at least a little embarrassing.

I don't fault you for your assessment. I just can't join it at this point.

At least we'll go out with a bang of America First, and not limp into the arms of global interests.

Yay us. Rambo as POTUS.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm going to take the parental approach here about this new side of you that seems to be devoid of the ability to criticize and scrutinize a candidate for things they say outside of their websites... This, with a cursory look, blind devotion stance you're going with for some reason... which seems to be completely outside of your usual deep-thinking and thorough character.

*ahem*

You know what? Never in a contested primary has the person I supported gone on to win the nomination. I was okay with GWB in 2000, after voting for Keyes. Other than that, I held my nose and voted for Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. I don't remember being admonished about my "blind loyalty" for acting under the principle of "ideology in the primary, party in the general". I am 100% #NeverHillary, and would have remained so, regardless of which "R" I had to vote for in the general.

As for "blind devotion" and "devoid of the ability to criticize and scrutinize a candidate...": I'm using as a starting point the stated platform/policy positions of a candidate, whereas others are using sound bites and out-of-context quotes as the starting point. Which is the more sound and reasoned approach? Which involves more "thorough[ness]" and "deep-thinking"?

I'll be more than happy to criticize, scrutinize, and otherwise consider arguments against Trump's platform/policy positions - if only anyone would present some valid arguments.

Responding to Trump's stated platform on firearms rights by referencing his position two decades ago is not an example of scrutiny or critical thinking. Responding to Trump's stated platform on health care reform by referencing a since-refuted claim that Trump intends to keep the individual mandate is not an example of scrutiny or critical thinking. Responding to Trump's stated platform on tax reform by referencing an idea that Trump articulated two decades ago, but that he has long-since abandoned, is not an example of scrutiny or critical thinking.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

You know what? Never in a contested primary has the person I supported gone on to win the nomination. I was okay with GWB in 2000, after voting for Keyes. Other than that, I held my nose and voted for Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. I don't remember being admonished about my "blind loyalty" for acting under the principle of "ideology in the primary, party in the general". I am 100% #NeverHillary, and would have remained so, regardless of which "R" I had to vote for in the general.

As for "blind devotion" and "devoid of the ability to criticize and scrutinize a candidate...": I'm using as a starting point the stated platform/policy positions of a candidate, whereas others are using sound bites and out-of-context quotes as the starting point. Which is the more sound and reasoned approach? Which involves more "thorough[ness]" and "deep-thinking"?

I'll be more than happy to criticize, scrutinize, and otherwise consider arguments against Trump's platform/policy positions - if only anyone would present some valid arguments.

Responding to Trump's stated platform on firearms rights by referencing his position two decades ago is not an example of scrutiny or critical thinking. Responding to Trump's stated platform on health care reform by referencing a since-refuted claim that Trump intends to keep the individual mandate is not an example of scrutiny or critical thinking. Responding to Trump's stated platform on tax reform by referencing an idea that Trump articulated two decades ago, but that he has long-since abandoned, is not an example of scrutiny or critical thinking.

So after years of getting stuck with the moderates you go and vote for a moderate?

 

[T.Lex]

I'll be more than happy to criticize, scrutinize, and otherwise consider arguments against Trump's platform/policy positions - if only anyone would present some valid arguments.

If only he would present actual policies.

 

[JettaKnight]

The hard right got their wish when Mourdock beat Lugar.

Just how well did that work in the general election?



Ultra conservatives don't win general elections, but they do influence the party's platform. That's reason enough to vote for them in the primary. After that, stop whining about how they lost - they did their job, now it's time for the chosen nominee to win the general election.



Bernie can't win, but he's staying in because he knows an ultra liberal in the election can influence the party and steer their ship left.

 

[chipbennett]

So after years of getting stuck with the moderates you go and vote for a moderate?

My choice was Scott Walker. I didn't have that option yesterday. Choosing from among Cruz, Kasich, and Trump, I chose Trump. There was no "true conservative" in that bunch. Cruz is a charlatan.

 

[T.Lex]

My choice was Scott Walker. I didn't have that option yesterday. Choosing from among Cruz, Kasich, and Trump, I chose Trump. There was no "true conservative" in that bunch. Cruz is a charlatan.

Rand Paul was available.

 

[chipbennett]

Rand Paul was available.

Well, there were lots of names on the ballot, but only 3 of them had active campaigns as of yesterday...

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Well the voters have pushed a lot of would be Republican voters out. The Trump voters have no one to blame but themselves when Hillary wins.

 

[chipbennett]

Well the voters have pushed a lot of would be Republican voters out. The Trump voters have no one to blame but themselves when Hillary wins.

Your admonition is illogical. The Trump voters are the ones actually voting to oppose Hillary Clinton. It is the people who vote for Hillary Clinton, or who fail to vote against her and thereby facilitate her, that will be to blame should she be elected.

I voted for Not-Obama. I was not to blame for Obama. I will be voting for Not-Hillary. Don't you dare try to blame me for Hillary.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Don't you dare try to blame me for Hillary.

While I disagree with the entire "not for us, you're against us" as far as Hillary/Trump goes... I think people can make an argument that choosing Trump (who consistently polled poorly against Clinton) could be a choice of people that were knowingly assisting Clinton.

It's an argument that's just about as strong as "if you don't vote Trump, you're to blame for Clinton winning".

You have to acknowledge the former before you can bring up the latter. Can't get mad at people not voting for Trump when he was one of the worst choices against Hillary.

 

[Landon]

Well the voters have pushed a lot of would be Republican voters out. The Trump voters have no one to blame but themselves when Hillary wins.

It sounds like you no longer belong to the current Republican party. The voters didn't push anyone out, if you leave its on your own accord. I'm not saying your wrong to do so if the Republican party no longer fits for you, but apparently it fits for the plurality of the Republican voters that Trump is their nominee.

Its a free country and the primise of a democracy is you get to vote for who you wish. I'm not hear to tell anyone who they should vote for and don't expect anyone to tell me who I should vote for, we all get to make that chose for ourselves.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Where is that enumerated in Trump's proposals?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

I see: enforce existing laws, deal with mental health system, end gun/magazine bans (whoops: that includes the meat of the 1994 AWB), fix-not-expand the BGC system, national right-to-carry, and allow military members to carry on bases/in recruitment centers.



Where is that enumerated in Trump's proposals?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

I see: Repeal ObamaCare completely, open up insurance sales across state lines, fully tax-deductible insurance premiums, expanded HSAs, transparency in service pricing, Medicaid block-grants to States, and in increase in imported drugs. Nothing about "TrumpCare".



Where is that enumerated in Trump's proposals?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

I see: simplified tax code, with fewer brackets and lower taxes for each bracket, lower/fixed corporate tax rate, eliminating the death tax, SMB tax relief, phasing out loopholes for the super-rich (such as carried interest), a one-time deemed repatriation of corporate overseas cash at 10% (to encourage domestic investment), eliminating other corporate loopholes.



Continuing to make this statement, devoid of context, knowing that what it implies is contrary to what Trump has said, is intellectually dishonest. Trump has clearly stated that he opposes abortion, and opposes funding of PP for abortion, but that he supports PP for their non-abortion services. Now, Trump very well may be wrong in that position and naive regarding separation of abortion and non-abortion-related funding for PP, but it is patently untrue to imply that Trump supports abortion by stating that he "supports Planned Parenthood."

I will also note that you do not find anything related to abortion (or other purely social issues) enumerated in Trump's platform:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

That's because Trump is focused primarily on the financial dire straits in which our country finds itself. I am 100% okay with that, and absolutely what I want in the Federal Executive.

Social issues do not belong at the federal level to begin with.

I listened to what he said, not only what he wrote--and likely that all was written by an advisor and he probably doesn't even know what it says.

 

[JettaKnight]

Your admonition is illogical. The Trump voters are the ones actually voting to oppose Hillary Clinton. It is the people who vote for Hillary Clinton, or who fail to vote against her and thereby facilitate her, that will be to blame should she be elected.

I voted for Not-Obama. I was not to blame for Obama. I will be voting for Not-Hillary. Don't you dare try to blame me for Hillary.

I can see both sides - I blame Mourdock voters for Evan Bayh being in DC today. However, #NeverTrump folks that don't buck up and move forward are going to be blame if Hillary wins.


Of course, CountryBoy, maybe you're fine with Hillary being our first female president. She'll push the entirely wrong agenda, but at least she knows something about public policy.

Trump - at least the late night shows will have tons of fodder to work with.

 

[chipbennett]

While I disagree with the entire "not for us, you're against us" as far as Hillary/Trump goes... I think people can make an argument that choosing Trump (who consistently polled poorly against Clinton) could be a choice of people that were knowingly assisting Clinton.

It's an argument that's just about as strong as "if you don't vote Trump, you're to blame for Clinton winning".

You have to acknowledge the former before you can bring up the latter. Can't get mad at people not voting for Trump when he was one of the worst choices against Hillary.

Presidential elections are binary. As much as it would be to the benefit of the electorate for third parties to be viable alternatives, the reality is that they are not viable. So, every presidential election comes down to Candidate A vs Candidate B.

Thus, I blamed people who failed to vote against Obama for his election in 2008 and his re-election in 2012. I empathized with people who were discouraged/disillusioned by McCain and Romney - but I overcame my own discouragement and disillusionment, and voted. Likewise, the same principle will hold in 2016 - only the stakes are much higher

I am trying not to make this election a question of personal intelligence or character (such as has been directed at the almost 11 million people who have voted for Trump in the primaries); but it is very difficult to understand the perspective of those who fail to grasp the enormity of the danger in allowing Hillary Clinton to be elected President. Donald Trump may prove to be a poor President, but he wants to improve our country. Hillary Clinton wants to destroy our liberties and remake our country into a socialist dystopia. In that regard, Obama was the Junior Varsity team. Hillary is the Professional.

 

[AA&E]

Be careful what you wish. If Trump has the power to accomplish what you think the country needs, you then have to ask yourself if has the self-discipline to do it, let alone the morality. The structure established at our founding was done so by tens, maybe hundreds of people, who compromised with each other and diluted the authority of any one person in government.

Trump's personality is not any of that.

I know it is easy to be confused given the nature in which the current president conducts himself, but maybe you are confused on the role of the president and the limitations of his power?

 

[nate77]

Well the voters have pushed a lot of would be Republican voters out. The Trump voters have no one to blame but themselves when Hillary wins.

Trump will destroy Clinton, here's an example.
News from The Associated Press

 

[AA&E]

Ok.

So when it pops, we'll thank God that we have someone with absolutely no experience in the job of POTUS. But, he has plenty of experience being an authoritarian boss.

Yay us.

LOL, this argument is so ridiculous. NOBODY EVER elected had experience in the job of POTUS unless it was the incumbent running for re-election.

 

[T.Lex]

I know it is easy to be confused given the nature in which the current president conducts himself, but maybe you are confused on the role of the president and the limitations of his power?

No. I am not.

Obama is not a populist. Never was. Obama has/had a cult of personality, but it pales in comparison to Trump's.

Neither the electorate nor the elected have ever seen a president like Trump in America.

I'll walk that back a bit. Minnesota. Minnesota has the closest parallel I can think of - Jesse Ventura.

 

[T.Lex]

LOL, this argument is so ridiculous. NOBODY EVER elected had experience in the job of POTUS unless it was the incumbent running for re-election.

I'll raise your LOL with actual history: Grover Cleveland.

Even so, you have to go back a long way to find a major-party nominee without any experience running for office at all.