EPTQuestion for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz?
Question for Trump supporters: If Trump doesn't win the nomination, would you rather the president be Hillary or Cruz?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3220
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
Question for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz? Question for Trump supporters: If Trump doesn't win the nomination, would you rather the president be Hillary or Cruz? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Sea Island is very, very fancy. Also aren't those tech execs Democrats? I know Elon donated to Hillary. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 08 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote: for real though why do you think the gop hate her Because she's a Democrat is part of it, but then there's the kicker... ...she's an easy target. She IS corrupt, unethical, and blindly ambitious without any real principles. She's not even technocratic, given her penchant for "I am the smartest, why are these fools failing me, *force-choke*". She's funded by Wall St. and Big Pharma, and everyone on both left and right thinks those guys are bad news. Now, don't get me wrong, I'll vote for her against Trump (or Cruz). I'll be very French and "Votez escroc, pas facho!" (Vote for the crook, not the facist). But I understand that is not really the best campaign slogan ("It could be worse! Much, much worse.") and I'm very worried the scandal gets worse and she loses to some R who would lose to literally any other D candidate. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say their answer is to throw money at the problem and hope he goes away. I mean seriously? These people are so rich and obnoxious they felt the need to fly to a private island solely to discuss this? If I was American this would make me want to vote for Trump, lol. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9771 Posts
On March 08 2016 10:21 killa_robot wrote: I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say their answer is to throw money at the problem and hope he goes away. I mean seriously? These people are so rich and obnoxious they felt the need to fly to a private island solely to discuss this? If I was American this would make me want to vote for Trump, lol. I hope they have a really evil name for the Island. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On March 08 2016 10:14 strongwind wrote: I'm curious.. Question for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz? Question for Trump supporters: If Trump doesn't win the nomination, would you rather the president be Hillary or Cruz? Hillary supporter: I want politicians who think ideologically but act technocratically (Obama does this very well). Cruz manages to think both ideologically and act ideologically, a toxic combination. Trump just makes up stuff to rile up the base. But he has been a life long big city Democrat who happens like wealth and women. I believe that in Office Trump would moderate substantially, but Cruz would make good on all his lunatic promises (see his suicide shitdown). I feel like a lot of Trump's boasts are merely exaggerated salesman techniques. Trump even talks about this kind of exaggerated salesman stuff in his books. The answer is: Prefer Trump, hard. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9771 Posts
Unless the whole 'Trump would be moderate in power' is just a way to self deceive and people really do want that moron in power. I just don't get it. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On March 08 2016 10:28 Jockmcplop wrote: Honestly i've never seen so many people say they would vote for a guy because he wouldn't do what he campaigned on. Unless the whole 'Trump would be moderate in power' is just a way to self deceive and people really do want that moron in power. I just don't get it. What did he campaign on? Trump can't keep his torture answer straight for two days in a row. His Muslim ban changes every time he describes it. His Wall gets bigger each time he describes it, but he still needs congress to sign the check to build it (which will be so preposterous even the Republicans will balk at it). And Trump's various war crime orders are milder in bodycounts than Carpet-Bomb-Cruz or Sand-Glow-Cruz. And on abortion, who is harder line? Do you even have to ask? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The glittering Las Vegas strip is not an obvious model for energy conservation. Yet hidden above the glowing Eiffel Tower, neon resort awnings and a black pyramid that shines a beam of light into space, is one of the largest rooftop solar arrays in the country. Twenty acres of sun-catching glass sit atop the Mandalay Bay convention center, and when new installations are complete, it will become the biggest rooftop solar array in the US. In recent months, three of Nevada’s largest casino companies – MGM Resorts, Wynn, and Las Vegas Sands – have announced plans to buy and produce more renewable energy for their hotels, a move driven both by increasing demand for responsible energy use from the companies that rent their conference halls, and a surplus of cheap power from solar farms in Nevada and California. “It’s no accident that we put the array on top of a conference center. This is good business for us,” said Cindy Ortega, chief sustainability officer at MGM Resorts. “We are looking at leaving the power system, and one of the reasons for that is we can procure more renewable energy on the open market.” But there is a big shadow lurking over a rapid greening of the Las Vegas strip. Regulators will not let casinos simply walk away from the state’s monopoly utility provider, NV Energy. Together, the casinos’ 15 properties account for 7% of NV Energy’s electricity sales, and if that income were lost, the utility says, its remaining customers would have to endure significant rate hikes. As a result, the public utility commission (PUC) of Nevada is demanding resorts pay tens of millions of dollars to leave NV Energy’s services, a December 2015 decision which one casino has appealed. Source | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 08 2016 10:28 Jockmcplop wrote: Honestly i've never seen so many people say they would vote for a guy because he wouldn't do what he campaigned on. Unless the whole 'Trump would be moderate in power' is just a way to self deceive and people really do want that moron in power. I just don't get it. Compared to Cruz he is a moderate. Doesn't mean he isn't an idiot. But I'm more afraid of a brilliant ideologue than I am of an incompetent huckster. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On March 08 2016 10:17 Yoav wrote: Because she's a Democrat is part of it, but then there's the kicker... ...she's an easy target. She IS corrupt, unethical, and blindly ambitious without any real principles. She's not even technocratic, given her penchant for "I am the smartest, why are these fools failing me, *force-choke*". She's funded by Wall St. and Big Pharma, and everyone on both left and right thinks those guys are bad news. Now, don't get me wrong, I'll vote for her against Trump (or Cruz). I'll be very French and "Votez escroc, pas facho!" (Vote for the crook, not the facist). But I understand that is not really the best campaign slogan ("It could be worse! Much, much worse.") and I'm very worried the scandal gets worse and she loses to some R who would lose to literally any other D candidate. Do you know why I think most people find her untrustworthy (and hence why she's an easy target)? She's terrible at lying. Colbert did a whole bit on it, essentially asking her "why is this so hard for you?" when she was confronted with the topic of...you guessed it: lying to the American people. I'm not saying that she's notoriously worse than any other politician, but we all know that being politically correct is like dancing through a mine field. Some people do it more elegantly than others. It really is a skill if you think about it. You basically have two options as a bad liar. 1. Get better at it. Work on your tone and your facial expressions when giving non-answers and half-truths. Politicians learn this skill all the time. 2. Own up to it. Come clean and say that you're a bad liar. Say you won't play the political correctness game (as Trump has done) so you won't have to dance around questions anymore. Use that weakness as a strength. She hasn't done either of those. Is it that big of a deal? Probably not. But it is definitely something that holds her back in my mind. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 08:47 kwizach wrote: That link is not irrelevant at all, since I was pointing out that receiving praise from the GOP should not lead one to automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising. If the GOP says the Earth is not flat, it doesn't mean it actually is. In the context of this discussion, the kind of praise from several Republican officials that I was referring to was about Hillary's competence, her deep knowledge of the issues she tackles, and her integrity. Concluding that she must be the opposite of that because Republicans happened to join Democrats in praising her merits is a knee-jerk, a frankly ridiculous, position. I did not support Romney for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that I disagreed with a lot of his views and policies. I largely agree with Hillary on the issues (even though I am considerably to the left of her), and she has put forward several plans outlying clearly what she hopes to achieve and what she will fight for, and how. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You've painted a caricature of her in your head -- not much more to add. I did not say "automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising." I said pause and take a step back, which means hey, something might be up. For instance the article you just linked, it's obvious why the GOP would want to prop up Bernie--they think he'd be the easier opponent in the general, and that's even stated in that article. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You have to do some insane mental gymnastics to think this. It's funny that when other Hillary supporters back her flip flopping up with, "It's okay for a politician to change their mind. They need to reflect the thinking of their constituents," you disregard it completely. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 08 2016 09:09 kwizach wrote: A nice column about the "Sanders or I don't vote" attitude some people have: Source You are saying falling in line with Hillary though. Here's what W.E.B Dubois had to say about it. He said this even when there was still a politics to speak of. Real politics died with Kennedy. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/298.html "I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no "two evils" exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a "Socialist" Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by "force and violence." Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called "Communist" and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.'s and "Liberals" are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly." | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 11:14 oneofthem wrote: if you have this crazy left wing of the party it'd be stupid not to flip flop Yeah man, gay rights so cray. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 08 2016 07:27 oneofthem wrote: igne i was talking about demographics in the context of the lack of aggregate demand, the idle capacity that isnt working due to insufficient demand. dont see the point of disagreement on that one. as for modi the successful part of india is the one most tied into the global trade network particularly business services. if you are looking at the developing world obviously trade has been the reason for their rise and the increase in standard of living for a couple billion people india is actually a case of intranational trade being shit so they face high factor cost in manufacturing Can you elaborate on what's wrong with the demographics then? On March 08 2016 08:11 oneofthem wrote: how do sandernistas reconcile hillary's demonic presence to the gop with her alleged corruption. are republicans sincere crusaders of integrity? If you mean to GOP voters rather than architects I reconcile it simply: the majority of Republican voters are idiots who vote on unimportant social issues or quixotic economic theories and so don't even realize that Hillary's policies are probably better than their candidate's for the continued accumulation of capital worldwide. As an aside, I like how it's conservatives who always borrow the "there's a spectre haunting X" language. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On March 08 2016 11:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Yeah... A certain campaign is losing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_q6wiW5grU "Wolf, if you say that line again, I'm gonna take those notes and cram 'em right up your Blitzer." I can imagine him running across town screaming, "Stop the presses!" | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
It is very easy for someone who turned 20 in 2010 to complain of people flip flopping on gay rights between 1990 and 2010. But realize gay marriage went from something like 35% support in 1990 to 70% support in 2015. The whole center of the country moved. The center that does the electing in this country. That is progress. Also, what is liberal moves as progress moves. The fringe of gay rights in the 90s was gay marriage, but basic non-jailing rights were the normal argument within liberals at the time. Both Clintons were within the liberal camp at the time. Holding the past to the present's level of progress is a ridiculous standard only the fringe could meet, and they wouldn't meet it for very long. The real question is, were you on the side of progress at the time? | ||
| ||
