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.
On April 28 2016 02:40 amazingxkcd wrote: Trump's foreign policy speech was pure and utter bliss.
Explain.
I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
There's literally so much wrong with it that it will take a paper to explain it all. Suffice to say that his core two points, That we need to have better relationships with our allies and also the fact that they have to treat us better "or else", is contradictory.
On top of that, How do people continue to take Serious b******* arguments like "I will do it to the best trust me."
You clearly have not watched the speech and are only parroting buzzwords, he gave a clear set of goals and explained how to get to the finish line. Pay attention, it regards your grievances:
"After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism."
Nowhere in his speech does he make threats to American satellite states, rather calls for more active participation in solving common problems. He doesn't have anyone write his speeches and he doesn't use a teleprompter like Obama. I think if he becomes president history will remember this speech by its defining sentence:
”We will no longer surrender out country or its people to the false song of globalism”
This is a monumental shift in American foreign policy and you should be paying attention instead of listening to Reddit tier quasi-political commentators.
Typical Trump supporter making up facts as they see fit. I suffered through that entire garbage speech and never in my life had gone to Reddit. Will address the problems with his speech and your post in more detail when I get home.
So you didn't watch his speech? (Or am I the only person that would wait to get home before watching a 45min speech?)
edit: Looking forward to your post. Interested to see how you will spin it
On April 28 2016 03:36 Introvert wrote: Cruz should have waited until after IN. Before looks too desperate (because it is). Before CA makes more sense, given Fiorina's connection to the state. I don't see how this helps on IN, and if he loses IN it's over anyway.
He already lost his identity when he pulled this Kasich disaster. He could not possibly be framing himself as "politician who is trying various things to somehow win" any more than he currently is.
And let's not forget the loser effect. We are going to see the same thing we saw in CT with Bernie. People just fucking sad about the whole thing and losing hope. It takes a lot more...courage(?) to vote for someone when they are a huuuuuge underdog. Seeing Trump hit multiple 60%'s in states in the week before IN is just...damning, IMO.
Cruz tries calling in Kasich --> gets sub-20% votes in 5 states --> tries calling Fiorina --> hopes for better? There is just such a massive loss in perceived strength by doing that. People want to rally behind someone strong. These recent stunts eliminated any perceived strength Cruz may have once had.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Honestly, this is just weird to read. Things keep going so wildly differently from what you predict. I really think you need to step back for a moment and look at the situation. It's like you are actually viewing different numbers next to each state. How many delegates do you think Bernie and Clinton each have right now?
Thr situation is perilous, but you are framing what happened with Kasich incorrectly.
I do think the biggest danger for Cruz is discouragement of supporters. I suppose that might be one of the reasons for this announcement today. Fiorina has been an effective surrogate, esp in places like WI.
I read it as an "all-in" on the abortion issue. Fiorina lied and lied and lied about the Planned Parenthood videos, even after confronted with the truth. Her commitment to the cause was never rattled by the facts. That kind of post-truth thinking may help in Indiana. Not sure Cali Republicans are ready to swallow that though.
Ca gop voters already got tricked once by a celeb gov. But there was a recent news story about surging registration, much of which is prob for Trump (on gop side) this is what concerns me now. Ca repubs are not Texas ones, true. But they aren't NY ones either. At least they weren't.
It should be clear to everyone by now that GOP voters aren't flocking to Trump for ideological reasons. They're doing it for pragmatic reasons. They see Trump as a champion on a few issues that they see as being critical to the country (mainly illegal immigration), and really don't give half of a shit about anything else.
On April 28 2016 04:30 On_Slaught wrote: I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
From the perspective of him just trying to get as many votes as possible and not that he would necessarily do or be like what he says he would, there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting he is the opposite of incompetent.
The on going myth that this is all part of Trump's master plan and not him being grossly incompetent. I love this one because it just assumes anyone beyond his 35% of Republicans who vote in primaries will fall for it.
On April 28 2016 04:30 On_Slaught wrote: I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
From the perspective of him just trying to get as many votes as possible and not that he would necessarily do or be like what he says he would, there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting he is the opposite of incompetent.
The on going myth that this is all part of Trump's master plan and not him being grossly incompetent. I love this one because it just assumes anyone beyond his 35% of Republicans who vote in primaries will fall for it.
Right, someone running for office just trying to get as many votes as possible, not that they would necessarily do what they say they would.. That never happens. What was I thinking?
How would you explain his success in this election so far?
I think you wildly over estimate how much reach populist rhetoric like that has beyond Trump’s hardcore base. Trump has pandered to consistent base of anti-GOP-establishment and the rest of the GOP's 7-35 member field has been weak as fuck. He never rose about 35%, but the rest of the GOP field couldn't get much more than that.
On April 28 2016 03:36 Introvert wrote: Cruz should have waited until after IN. Before looks too desperate (because it is). Before CA makes more sense, given Fiorina's connection to the state. I don't see how this helps on IN, and if he loses IN it's over anyway.
He already lost his identity when he pulled this Kasich disaster. He could not possibly be framing himself as "politician who is trying various things to somehow win" any more than he currently is.
And let's not forget the loser effect. We are going to see the same thing we saw in CT with Bernie. People just fucking sad about the whole thing and losing hope. It takes a lot more...courage(?) to vote for someone when they are a huuuuuge underdog. Seeing Trump hit multiple 60%'s in states in the week before IN is just...damning, IMO.
Cruz tries calling in Kasich --> gets sub-20% votes in 5 states --> tries calling Fiorina --> hopes for better? There is just such a massive loss in perceived strength by doing that. People want to rally behind someone strong. These recent stunts eliminated any perceived strength Cruz may have once had.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Honestly, this is just weird to read. Things keep going so wildly differently from what you predict. I really think you need to step back for a moment and look at the situation. It's like you are actually viewing different numbers next to each state. How many delegates do you think Bernie and Clinton each have right now?
Thr situation is perilous, but you are framing what happened with Kasich incorrectly.
I do think the biggest danger for Cruz is discouragement of supporters. I suppose that might be one of the reasons for this announcement today. Fiorina has been an effective surrogate, esp in places like WI.
I read it as an "all-in" on the abortion issue. Fiorina lied and lied and lied about the Planned Parenthood videos, even after confronted with the truth. Her commitment to the cause was never rattled by the facts. That kind of post-truth thinking may help in Indiana. Not sure Cali Republicans are ready to swallow that though.
Ca gop voters already got tricked once by a celeb gov. But there was a recent news story about surging registration, much of which is prob for Trump (on gop side) this is what concerns me now. Ca repubs are not Texas ones, true. But they aren't NY ones either. At least they weren't.
It should be clear to everyone by now that GOP voters aren't flocking to Trump for ideological reasons. They're doing it for pragmatic reasons. They see Trump as a champion on a few issues that they see as being critical to the country (mainly illegal immigration), and really don't give half of a shit about anything else.
It's painfully obvious, but experienced gop voters should have seen at least something like this before. Prob why Cruz was doing well in poll up until recently.
The proportion of Americans who say a religious day of rest is personally important to them has dropped to 50%, reflecting growing secularism over recent decades, according to a new poll.
A similar question asked in a 1978 survey showed 74% of respondents saying the Sabbath had personal religious significance.
The new poll also showed a big fall in those saying they attended weekly religious services, from 55% in 1978 to 27% now. Jews were least likely to attend services and Mormons were most likely.
The survey was carried out by YouGov on behalf of the Deseret News, a “family-oriented” news site based in Salt Lake City. It questioned 1,691 Americans across religious, racial, gender and age groups.
The poll found that more than six in 10 Americans agreed that it was important for society to have a day of the week set aside for spiritual rest. YouGov adjusted the day depending on the respondent’s religious affiliation: Sunday for Christians, Saturday for Jews and Friday for Muslims.
Young Americans – the so-called millennial generation – are the least likely to consider the Sabbath to have religious or spiritual meaning: 41% of those born in the run-up to the millennium said it was personally significant, compared to 58% of those born before 1945.
Helps explain why social conservatism is a dead idea. This is a big reason I think Trump is a blessing in disguise for the GOP. No matter how you look at it, the current model is toast. They need a new brand. Trump is at least a different brand.
How is religiosity "Social Conservatism?"
I had assumed social conservatism is => wanting a deregulation of social norms. In other words, keeping government out of the private/social space. Examples would be enforced separation of church and state but also no Civil Rights laws.
You aren't describing a functional coalition. There is no group of people who want principled social conservatism (see the election of Barry Goldwater). But there is a dwindling population of evangelical Christians who would vote their Values into Law that punishes others (see success of Bush2, but failure of Cruz). Values Voters have no limited government principles and seek unlimited enforcement of their interpretation of their own religion on other people. The Values Voters have nothing to do with limited government, principled social conservatism.
I guess the issue is that the term conservative is being used as pejorative and not a descriptor.
In my head:
Conservative: Wants as little government influence as possible to emphasize citizen rights Liberal: Wants government oversight to amend perceived/proven issues
Example: Fiscal conservatives wants less taxes while social liberals wants anti-discrimination laws
Democratic Platforms and Republican Platforms then amend these terms.
But I guess you're saying that's inaccurate?
I am more of a cynic. I think the "more government" and "less government" influence stuff is rubbish. The different parties and the different social groups want varying amounts of government in all different kinds of arenas, usually to their own benefits.
On the conservative side, any notion of the Republicans being a party of "limited government" dies when Trump wins the nomination. He openly calls for Muslim registries and mass deportations. And Cruz/Fiorina have adopted a post-truth crusade against reproductive choice. Maybe you could say Ron Paul was for limited government, but really he was just for those with capital making decisions for those without it.
On the liberal side, I think the theory of government intervention in the Obama/Hillary vein is that the government should intervene to restrict stronger parties and thereby allow weaker parties some degree of choice. Yes the government is intervening in saying cake shops need to sell to gays, but the gays have rights to shop in public as well. Yes the government is reducing your freedom to not buy health insurance, but this allows for the sick to have access at all to the health insurance system.
I just don't think that conservative = republican for the same reason that liberal =/= democrat. What makes things liberal and what makes things conservative is how they resolve to solve perceived problems.
So, who do you guys think Hillary will pick as her running mate?
Several names are being discussed -- see analyses here, here and here. I personally do not think she'll be going with Julian Castro, even though he's currently a favorite on betting markets. He's not experienced enough yet, and I just don't see him delivering much to the ticket. He's Hispanic, but he doesn't speak Spanish well. I'm absolutely certain Sanders won't be picked -- not only would this open the ticket to countless lines of attack from the GOP based on Sanders' image, it would also allow Republicans to endlessly replay clips of Sanders attacking Clinton -- something they're already planning on doing, but which will have even more of an impact if Sanders is on the ticket. He wouldn't bring much anyway, since most of his supporters are already ready to support her, many more will follow suit, and the few most radical #BernieorBust supporters would probably not vote for her even if he was her VP. There's no way she's picking him.
Right now, my top three are Tom Perez, Tim Kaine and Sherrod Brown, with Tom Perez currently being my first guess. All have strengths and weaknesses. Kaine and Brown are both senators, and I don't know if Hillary is willing to risk sacrificing their seats when Democrats have an opportunity to re-take the senate. Perez has not held an elected office above a seat in a suburban county council. At the same time, he's been fantastic as labor secretary, he's a policy wonk who's likely to do more than hold his own in the VP debate, labor unions love him, he's charismatic, he's a Hispanic who's fluent in Spanish... He isn't tied to a swing state, though, contrary to Brown who's representing Ohio and Kaine who's representing Virginia. What do you guys think? Here's a poll, mostly using the popular picks from the betting website I linked to above:
Poll: Who will be Hillary's VP pick?
Elizabeth Warren (4)
29%
Julian Castro (3)
21%
Tom Perez (2)
14%
Sherrod Brown (1)
7%
Cory Booker (1)
7%
Bernie Sanders (1)
7%
Mark Warner (1)
7%
Al Franken (1)
7%
Tim Kaine (0)
0%
Deval Patrick (0)
0%
Gary Locke (0)
0%
Someone else (explain in comments) (0)
0%
14 total votes
Your vote: Who will be Hillary's VP pick?
(Vote): Julian Castro (Vote): Tim Kaine (Vote): Tom Perez (Vote): Sherrod Brown (Vote): Elizabeth Warren (Vote): Cory Booker (Vote): Bernie Sanders (Vote): Mark Warner (Vote): Deval Patrick (Vote): Al Franken (Vote): Gary Locke (Vote): Someone else (explain in comments)
So, who do you guys think Hillary will pick as her running mate?
Several names are being discussed -- see analyses here, here and here. I personally do not think she'll be going with Julian Castro, even though he's currently a favorite on betting markets. He's not experienced enough yet, and I just don't see him delivering much to the ticket. He's Hispanic, but he doesn't speak Spanish well. I'm absolutely certain Sanders won't be picked -- not only would this open the ticket to countless lines of attack from the GOP based on Sanders' image, it would also allow Republicans to endlessly replay clips of Sanders attacking Clinton -- something they're already planning on doing, but which will have even more of an impact if Sanders is on the ticket. He wouldn't bring much anyway, since most of his supporters are already ready to support her, many more will follow suit, and the few most radical #BernieorBust supporters would probably not vote for her even if he was her VP. There's no way she's picking him.
Right now, my top three are Tom Perez, Tim Kaine and Sherrod Brown, with Tom Perez currently being my first guess. All have strengths and weaknesses. Kaine and Brown are both senators, and I don't know if Hillary is willing to risk sacrificing their seats when Democrats have an opportunity to re-take the senate. Perez has not held an elected office above a seat in a suburban county council. At the same time, he's been fantastic as labor secretary, he's a policy wonk who's likely to do more than hold his own in the VP debate, labor unions love him, he's charismatic, he's a Hispanic who's fluent in Spanish... He isn't tied to a swing state, though, contrary to Brown who's representing Ohio and Kaine who's representing Virginia. What do you guys think? Here's a poll, mostly using the popular picks from the betting website I linked to above:
Poll: Who will be Hillary's VP pick?
Elizabeth Warren (4)
29%
Julian Castro (3)
21%
Tom Perez (2)
14%
Sherrod Brown (1)
7%
Cory Booker (1)
7%
Bernie Sanders (1)
7%
Mark Warner (1)
7%
Al Franken (1)
7%
Tim Kaine (0)
0%
Deval Patrick (0)
0%
Gary Locke (0)
0%
Someone else (explain in comments) (0)
0%
14 total votes
Your vote: Who will be Hillary's VP pick?
(Vote): Julian Castro (Vote): Tim Kaine (Vote): Tom Perez (Vote): Sherrod Brown (Vote): Elizabeth Warren (Vote): Cory Booker (Vote): Bernie Sanders (Vote): Mark Warner (Vote): Deval Patrick (Vote): Al Franken (Vote): Gary Locke (Vote): Someone else (explain in comments)
Forgive my complete nonsense, but...
Brian Sandoval. I know he's a republican. But he's such a good one and is arguably nothing like the current republican party. I mean, by what current definition is he a republican?
I dunno, maybe I'm just totally fucking nuts. But Brian Sandoval will be in the white house eventually. Whether it is VP, or president, he will be there. Democrats will lose an election with Sandoval as the R nominee.
I don't like the idea of filling an administration with elected swing state moderates. The Obama administration sucked a lot of good people out of their sitting offices and it hurt down ticket races in 2010. I think Hillary won't make that mistake.
RE: Brian Sandoval -- after Trump wins the nomination, the Republican party won't be the same and will never nominate Sandoval for higher office. The only two delegate winning candidates are Nativist/White Nationalist Trump and Faithbased/True Conservative Cruz. Neither of the coalitions between Trump or Cruz would vote for Sandoval. And good thing too, Sandoval is a real threat at the national level.
On April 28 2016 07:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Neither of the coalitions between Trump or Cruz would vote for Sandoval. And good thing too, Sandoval is a real threat at the national level.
I suppose this is all assuming the GOP hits normal at some point down the line or Trump ends up making the GOP an isolationist version of democrats.
People should take a few seconds to skim Sandoval's wiki page:
On April 28 2016 07:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Neither of the coalitions between Trump or Cruz would vote for Sandoval. And good thing too, Sandoval is a real threat at the national level.
I suppose this is all assuming the GOP hits normal at some point down the line or Trump ends up making the GOP an isolationist version of democrats.
People should take a few seconds to skim Sandoval's wiki page:
It's terrifying. How in the world do you win against that. And he's just handsome as fuck.
#TINFOILHAT
Sandoval was not chosen for the supreme court because he is the mic drop play democrats have planned for the VP pick.
He doesn't seem too bad, I'd have to see his positions before making a decision. Although...
A subsequent poll of likely Republican primary voters in New Hampshire found that 56% of all likely Republican primary voters in a key swing state would not vote for Governor Sandoval for Vice President in 2016 upon learning that he failed to protect solar energy in Nevada.
If republicans in NH are annoyed about this, democrats might not like it at all.
On April 28 2016 07:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Neither of the coalitions between Trump or Cruz would vote for Sandoval. And good thing too, Sandoval is a real threat at the national level.
I suppose this is all assuming the GOP hits normal at some point down the line or Trump ends up making the GOP an isolationist version of democrats.
People should take a few seconds to skim Sandoval's wiki page:
It's terrifying. How in the world do you win against that. And he's just handsome as fuck.
#TINFOILHAT
Sandoval was not chosen for the supreme court because he is the mic drop play democrats have planned for the VP pick.
The assumption you are making requires something that does not exist. The problem is that if you find the republican party too crazy you leave it and become independent thus pushing the party further right and instead of having it right itself it just pushes itself further and further right while more and more people leave it and repeat the cycle.
EPT
