US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3507

On April 01 2016 02:21 ZasZ. wrote:


I am liberal-leaning and at this point I would definitely be more comfortable with Cruz than Trump. This has changed only recently for me, because Trump seems relatively moderate on many social issues while Cruz seems extremely focused on social conservatism. It's his focus that scares me; while I view Trump as a blindfolded kid with a pinata bat I view Cruz as a man with a hammer, taking aim at social policies I consider important.

I've changed my mind because it has become clear to me that the damage little Trump can do with his pinata bat is far more significant than I originally hoped. At least Cruz has principles that he sticks to...I can fathom what a successful Cruz presidency would look to him. With Trump, that's a blank slate and I don't want to see what it would look like. There are too many variables and almost all of them hinge on Trump's mood on any given day or whether or not he feels slighted by whichever political power.

On April 01 2016 02:14 Kipsate wrote:
Brokered convention would lead to all sorts of problems within the Republican Party

highly doubt they would go for that.

Kasich is also terrible btw, the GOP doesn't like any of the current canidates.

On April 01 2016 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:

Sigh....
Yes Republicans would vote Kasich over Hillary.
No, picking Kasich at a brokered convention will not help the Republicans in the slightest since all of Cruz/Trump supporters will walk away from the party and make them still utterly unable to win.
Even with Kasich they will most likely not win the independent vote.

There is no 'win' scenario here. Either Trump is the candidate or a significant part of the voters walk away after having been utterly betrayed by the 'establishment'.

On April 01 2016 02:26 Toadesstern wrote:

I feel like they could get away with giving Cruz the nomination if he picks up some more but Kasich... if he stays on this level relevant to Trump/Cruz and they give him the nomination or someone else completly unrelated like Paul Ryan or such all hell will break lose.
Trump has basicly been telling his followers to to go wild if he's not going to get the nomination

On April 01 2016 02:30 Kipsate wrote:
They'd walk away, GOP won't survive their primary canidate (with a significant margin) losing the nomination. It would also piss off the independent voters i'd imagine.

Also I am not sure if Hillary losing to Kasich would be a real possibility, as the angle of attack also opens up for the Democrats about Republican democratic illegitimacy(I know its the party that choses in the end but thats not how it will be percieved).

Additionally, we need a philosophical shift in the Democratic Party, a new willingness to support programs that create pathways for nongovernmental and philanthropic innovation and investment to help solve the problems of society. We should embrace approaches, such as social impact bonds, that combine private-sector capital and expertise with public-interest goals to produce better government services. Such changes will require Democrats to leave our ideological comfort zone and move away from the idea that government, and government alone, is the answer to our problems.

But instead of being used to voice an agenda that can bring the country together, the party microphone has been hijacked by people more interested in scoring points than in solving problems. They propose expanding Social Security rather than prioritizing serious efforts to preserve the program — even though it will be unable to provide full benefits as soon as 2032, the Congressional Budget Office has made clear. The only way a large-scale expansion could work is by allocating new revenue away from needed investments in the next generation or by shifting the financial burden to workers or our children.

Likewise, as if the global economy will wait for us, protectionists demonize President Obama’s unfinished ­Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. A fair trade deal is a crucial step in bolstering the U.S. manufacturing renaissance, boosting U.S. exports and growing our economy. If done right — something much more likely to happen if the negotiations are directed by this sitting Democratic president — the agreement could create middle-class jobs and allow the United States to set the rules in Asia. Unfortunately, Democratic recalcitrance is increasing the chance that the deal could be done instead by a Republican president.

Lastly, some in our party continue to engage in time-consuming rhetoric attacking banks that has little chance of producing more financial reform and distracts from far more consequential areas of economic risk, such as climate change, chronic underinvestment in the next generation and our broken immigration and housing finance systems.

On April 01 2016 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:

Sigh....
Yes Republicans would vote Kasich over Hillary.
No, picking Kasich at a brokered convention will not help the Republicans in the slightest since all of Cruz/Trump supporters will walk away from the party and make them still utterly unable to win.
Even with Kasich they will most likely not win the independent vote.

There is no 'win' scenario here. Either Trump is the candidate or a significant part of the voters walk away after having been utterly betrayed by the 'establishment'.

On April 01 2016 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:

Cruz, the man who shut down the government in a fight he could never win, with utterly no plan on how to handle it.

Sorry but at this point I trust Trump more, and that is not saying a lot.

On April 01 2016 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol. why would she be illegitimate?

On April 01 2016 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


She may not have the majority of pledged delegates by the convention. In which case, the superdelegates aren't any more democratic than Republican delegates changing their choice.

Clinton will by definition have a majority of them, unless Sanders wins an improbable proportion of them going forward.

On April 01 2016 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which would be the precondition of the previous statement...

But as there will likely be similar problems as AZ in CA, NY, PA, (they are already being reported) and beyond, there won't be a Republican party to blame, it will be blatant voter suppression by the Democratic party. Which will beg the question of why, which will be much easier to answer for some than others.

I doubt anyone would take a bet saying that the longest lines in NY will be less than 3 hours, even with more than enough time to do something to prevent long lines. How people will paint that as anything other than voter suppression by the Democratic party I simply don't know.

On April 01 2016 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
But as there will likely be similar problems as AZ in CA, NY, PA, (they are already being reported) and beyond, there won't be a Republican party to blame, it will be blatant voter suppression by the Democratic party. Which will beg the question of why, which will be much easier to answer for some than others.

On April 01 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:


A significant portion of the democratic party only cares about winning and sees no chance for someone who defends socialism. Defending socialism can not win over the 50+ vote and that's where the train stops. I would love to have Sanders as president and I've donated to his campaign because I appreciate the fact that he has body slammed the national conversation as to what it means to be a democrat. It needed to happen, but it does need to stop at one point. At all costs, Bernie can not be the nominee. I love him having a voice, even if it is blatantly ignorant as is the case with GMOs and nuclear energy. Both parties needed to get body slammed this year and I'm glad it happened. If the democrats can manage to pull it all back in, I think we'll be great.