However, when did I say she's the best for America? o.o
You said that Trump supporters would vote for Hillary to spite the Republicans if Trump were not made candidate at a brokered convention.
I said that if Trump supporters were going to go vote for Hillary Clinton to spite the Republicans for not making Trump the candidate, then they're being childish and the Republican party should be glad to be rid of them.
You responded with,
You vote for what is in your best interest or if you're not a selfish douche you vote for what is best for America fiscally and socially.
Except, if Trump supporters are voting for Hillary, then clearly they are NOT voting for what they think is best for America. They're just being selfish douches.
However, when did I say she's the best for America? o.o
You said that Trump supporters would vote for Hillary to spite the Republicans if Trump were not made candidate at a brokered convention.
I said that if Trump supporters were going to go vote for Hillary Clinton to spite the Republicans for not making Trump the candidate, then they're being childish and the Republican party should be glad to be rid of them.
You responded with,
You vote for what is in your best interest or if you're not a selfish douche you vote for what is best for America fiscally and socially.
Except, if Trump supporters are voting for Hillary, then clearly they are NOT voting for what they think is best for America. They're just being selfish douches.
You have a way with twisting words. You should consider a career in politics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
For completeness, Rubio is -7, Kasich is +0 but with a huge number of "I don't know" answers, and Sanders is +12.
Sounds like the "Most Hated People in America" dream ticket is Trump-Cruz.
Until he starts losing I'll consider this horse *****, respectfully. If you or anyone else think an election that is Trump vs Hillary will not be close I have to honestly ask why? I can write for Trump myself on how to absolutely destroy her. This isn't taking into consideration all the voters he will inevitably recieve once Bernie gets shlonged. And as I've said before, those polls that show Bernie being +12 are voted for by foreigners and people not even able to vote legally due to age heavily. They're complete nonsense. Polls aren't an accurate depiction of reality when it comes to support. I would think Bernie winning Michigan would be a pretty clear cut example of this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
Until he starts losing I'll consider this horse *****, respectfully. If you or anyone else think an election that is Trump vs Hillary will not be close I have to honestly ask why? I can write for Trump myself on how to absolutely destroy her. This isn't taking into consideration all the voters he will inevitably recieve once Bernie gets shlonged. And as I've said before, those polls that show Bernie being +12 are voted for by foreigners and people not even able to vote legally due to age heavily. They're complete nonsense. Polls aren't an accurate depiction of reality when it comes to support. I would think Bernie winning Michigan would be a pretty clear cut example of this.
Favorability ratings are not the same as voting polls. These polls are not asking "Who are you going to vote for?", they're asking "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of this person?". The reason Trump's incredibly terrible favorability ratings have not translated into losses in the primaries is that these are not polls of likely republican primary voters - they're polls of either all registered voters, or of all adults. If you look at the breakdown, you can see that the NBC/WSJ poll in which Trump was -39 (certainly the lowest rating I can ever recall seeing) is marked RV, meaning registered voters.
You suggested that Cruz and Clinton are the "most hated people in America", but it turns out there's one candidate who's even more hated than the two of them - your own. And your attempts at explaining that fact away betray a complete lack of understanding of what favorability ratings are and how polling works.
Fiscally she's much better than Sanders. She's taking after Bill in the Blue-Dog Democrat camp on quite a few of her stances. Too bad she's a liar and a felon and even liberals so far left to consider Bernie hate her. Republicans hate her.
Well, if a candidate being a liar means you shouldn't vote for them, that's awkward for your favourite, who has the highest Politifact Pants-on-Fire rating of the candidates by a huge margin.
But yes, fiscally, Clinton seems reasonable. The Republicans all have ridiculous debt-expanding tax cuts for the wealthy, while Sanders goes a little too far in the opposite direction for my liking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
No, that worked. That was very well said and and I never thought of it that way. Consider my view changed.
Sometimes I feel like I ramble a bit too much and don't get my point across, so I'm glad I managed with this one. Thanks.
If you are getting fined 135k you are not being allowed to express moral opposition.
Once again, I ask: should religious people be allowed to express moral opposition to interracial marriages and refuse to serve them? Both are based on actions: two people of the same gender getting married compared to two people of different races getting married. They could have found someone of their own race, y'know.
No interracial marriages are not the same thing at all. You discriminating based solely on someone looks. Even if they share the same religion, beliefs, and social mores. You are trying to say a carrot is a potato.
If you are getting fined 135k you are not being allowed to express moral opposition.
You can EXPRESS anything you want. But that's not what they were fined for. If you offer a service to the public, you have to offer it to everyone.
Except they didn't offer it to the public. They offered it to christians. They didn't advertise wedding cakes for everyone. Also boycotts are under the first amendment so you have freedom of speech as long as you approve of gay weddings. Incredible double standard.
Moving on to the debate tonight it was a snooze fest in a good way. I like trumps idea to increase tariffs on china if they keep dumping products on us and using currency manipulation. If they are not playing fair it is time to take our lunch money back. This was the debate with the most substance from everyone on the Republican side.
You are not married under my religious beliefs so I don't recognize the marriage.
Which is proof that marriage is not a religious institution. No matter whether the couple was married by a Catholic priest, Baptist minister, or secular officiator, you're not the one whose opinion matters on whether the union is recognized or not. The state is.
The state recognizes the union, which comes packaged with a host of rights and provisions throughout the government (such as the tax code). The only part of marriage that is religious -- if and only if the couple desires it to be religious -- is the actual ceremony (and potentially rededication ceremonies if the couple desires any of those, and for some religious people there is also a religious aspect to the divorce process). Everything else about marriage (where "everything" is actually quite a lot of stuff) is secular.
Also boycotts are under the first amendment so you have freedom of speech as long as you approve of gay weddings. Incredible double standard.
Boycotts are not covered by the first amendment. They are covered by common law, and in the case of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, the Export Administration Regulations. (US citizens are not allowed to participate in or materially support a boycott that some other government started.) Additionally, boycotts can be limited by Refusal to deal laws and Anti-discrimination laws.
You are not married under my religious beliefs so I don't recognize the marriage.
Which is proof that marriage is not a religious institution. No matter whether the couple was married by a Catholic priest, Baptist minister, or secular officiator, you're not the one whose opinion matters on whether the union is recognized or not. The state is.
The state recognizes the union, which comes packaged with a host of rights and provisions throughout the government (such as the tax code). The only part of marriage that is religious -- if and only if the couple desires it to be religious -- is the actual ceremony (and potentially rededication ceremonies if the couple desires any of those, and for some religious people there is also a religious aspect to the divorce process). Everything else about marriage (where "everything" is actually quite a lot of stuff) is secular.
Also boycotts are under the first amendment so you have freedom of speech as long as you approve of gay weddings. Incredible double standard.
Boycotts are not covered by the first amendment. They are covered by common law, and in the case of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, the Export Administration Regulations. (US citizens are not allowed to participate in or materially support a boycott that some other government started.) Additionally, boycotts can be limited by Refusal to deal laws and Anti-discrimination laws.
Well homosexuals can be practicing members of a most christian churches. Homosexuals that have sex can't be. You are also making it sound like only what the state says matters. These people were not burning down their house. They were refusing to provide service for religious reasons. Freedom of religion is also in the first amendment. Going on to anti-discrimination laws they should be removed. Studies have shown time and time again they lead to more discrimnation for the protected class and more anger and poorer performance from the none protected class. Also by their nature boycotts are speech. You are sending a message. I am not sure why just because the government does something I have to agree with it wholesale. Maybe you are statist.
Which is proof that marriage is not a religious institution. No matter whether the couple was married by a Catholic priest, Baptist minister, or secular officiator, you're not the one whose opinion matters on whether the union is recognized or not. The state is.
The state recognizes the union, which comes packaged with a host of rights and provisions throughout the government (such as the tax code). The only part of marriage that is religious -- if and only if the couple desires it to be religious -- is the actual ceremony (and potentially rededication ceremonies if the couple desires any of those, and for some religious people there is also a religious aspect to the divorce process). Everything else about marriage (where "everything" is actually quite a lot of stuff) is secular.
Well homosexuals can be practicing members of a most christian churches. Homosexuals that have sex can't be. You are also making it sound like only what the state says matters. These people were not burning down their house. They were refusing to provide service for religious reasons. Freedom of religion is also in the first amendment. Going on to anti-discrimination laws they should be removed. Studies have shown time and time again they lead to more discrimnation for the protected class and more anger and poorer performance from the none protected class. Also by their nature boycotts are speech. You are sending a message. I am not sure why just because the government does something I have to agree with it wholesale. Maybe you are statist.
I have created a new thread to discuss this topic separately so we do not interfere with the Trump discussion.
These same people will vote for him in the general election if it's him vs Hillary/Bernie.
Not all of them. I haven't been around a lot over the past year or so (which is why i resigned my mod-status), but the old time posters here who know me know that I'm not exactly "left-leaning". I'm pretty solidly in the conservative camp, and I've never voted outside the Republican Party (I'm 33 currently, so it's not an insignificant number of votes).
I've also gone on record here, and it has not changed, that I will not vote for trump. To put it simply, there are no circumstances that could cause me to vote for him. At this point, I'm looking into the various third parties since it looks like Trump is all but inevitable. But, I don't think I'm alone in these views.
Sure, most of the 60-70% of people will get in line behind Trump if he gets the nomination, but I'd wager that *at least* 10% won't.
The point is, a Trump nomination will lose a chunk of solid Republican voters, even if the party establishment backs him.
These same people will vote for him in the general election if it's him vs Hillary/Bernie. I dislike Cruz but I'd still vote for him over anyone in the DNC. It's not even about conservatism at this point. The left is even more crazy than the right this election imo. 64k Democrats in PA alone switched to Republican to vote for Trump. It's pretty apparent something is going on. I don't buy into the whole 'racist rednecks only vote Trump" bull***** when you have people like me growing up in the ghetto, dating a black woman and working in the food industry not #feelingthebern or whatever. Be it blatant idol worship (I admit I love Donald Trump and that has a lot to do with why I'm voting for him) or just the rejection of Democrats and what can be precieved as an abject failure over the last 8 years to help conservatives at all instead of harming them or not. This election is very weird. I didn't ever expect to run into as many african americans and hispanics as I did at the Trump rally in Columbus, Ohio a few weeks ago. And to hear all the dissenting opinions. Kids in Bernie shirts with MAGA hats on. I was literally shocked. Real great time.
So you don't believe that racist people prefer Trump? You admit there is nearly nothing positive about him and you still want this man for President? Obama has not been able to achieve all of his goals over the last eight years but it is pretty silly to say that it has been an abject failure.
See all the Berniebots saying they'd 'write' Bernie's name on the balot even though it's all done electronically now as an example. You vote for what is in your best interest or if you're not a selfish douche you vote for what is best for America fiscally and socially. A moderate Republican is rare, I know, it's scary. And he's a big meanie and says mean things. But, that being said, when you consider his opposition the only person who doesn't look as bad or worse than him is Bernie. And I can give you a literal novel about why he is a disaster. Don't even get me started on Hillary.
Please realize we don't dislike Trump because he is a big meanie or whatever, we dislike Trump because he has no political experience a questionable business record, attributes of bigotry, completely inconsistent with most of his policies, two publicity stunt policies that will never work, and he is a big meanie. If he were just a big meanie and had reasonable other attributes then I would not be deterred from voting for him.
Fiscally she's much better than Sanders. She's taking after Bill in the Blue-Dog Democrat camp on quite a few of her stances. Too bad she's a liar and a felon and even liberals so far left to consider Bernie hate her. Republicans hate her. She and Ted Cruz should share a ticket and campaign as "The Most Hated People in America" at this point. They're extremely low energy. However, when did I say she's the best for America? o.o
You have done quite a lot of Hillary and Bernie bashing in this thread. Hillary I can understand even though your main argument seems to be the email scandal which is nothing compared to Trump's crimes. I get the impression that you do not actually know much about Bernie, considering you said he has little experience and is fiscally irresponsible considering the fact that Trump is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility I have trouble buying your argument without something beyond "Sander is bad."
Please feel free to share: what are your actual objections to Sanders?
He is not twisting your words, consider reading what you post before posting and carefully consider if it representative of the message you are trying to convey.
Until he starts losing I'll consider this horse *****, respectfully. If you or anyone else think an election that is Trump vs Hillary will not be close I have to honestly ask why? I can write for Trump myself on how to absolutely destroy her. This isn't taking into consideration all the voters he will inevitably recieve once Bernie gets shlonged. And as I've said before, those polls that show Bernie being +12 are voted for by foreigners and people not even able to vote legally due to age heavily. They're complete nonsense. Polls aren't an accurate depiction of reality when it comes to support. I would think Bernie winning Michigan would be a pretty clear cut example of this.
Unfortunately this is not the kind of forum where it is okay to just flippantly dismiss citations that other people give. If it were then no ones citations would mean anything. You either need to accept what someone else's citation is doing for their argument or provide a counter proof of your own. Especially when some of your citations are Meme pictures and comedic youtube videos. I mean come on this is the debate section of mtgsalvation.com not the GOP debate stage
If the establishment wants ANYONE to beat Trump at this stage, Rubio needs to drop out before Florida, and maybe get Cruz or Kasich that boost they have been looking for.
Kasich might as well be out as well. I don't see people who supported Rubio flocking to Kasich myself.
If the establishment wants ANYONE to beat Trump at this stage, Rubio needs to drop out before Florida, and maybe get Cruz or Kasich that boost they have been looking for.
Kasich might as well be out as well. I don't see people who supported Rubio flocking to Kasich myself.
I am watching the debate right now and Rubio and Kasich are actually looking like decent candidates. Tuesday will be very important to both of them and I am interested to see what happens in their states. I am not ready to resign the race to Trump vs Cruz which has been the worst case scenario from the start.
I really like Rubio's line on Pc "I' not interested in being politically correct, I'm interested in being correct" well said
If the establishment wants ANYONE to beat Trump at this stage, Rubio needs to drop out before Florida, and maybe get Cruz or Kasich that boost they have been looking for.
Kasich might as well be out as well. I don't see people who supported Rubio flocking to Kasich myself.
I am watching the debate right now and Rubio and Kasich are actually looking like decent candidates. Tuesday will be very important to both of them and I am interested to see what happens in their states. I am not ready to resign the race to Trump vs Cruz which has been the worst case scenario from the start.
I really like Rubio's line on Pc "I' not interested in being politically correct, I'm interested in being correct" well said
I admit I don't fully understand what happens in a brokered convention. There is no path to victory for Rubio if he loses Florida which every poll is showing he will. Kasich even less so. His best showing (Michigan) he didn't even win, he got second. Don't get me wrong, if I felt more inclined to the right, Kasich is my guy. He isn't too crazy on some of the issues, he seems relatively calm which is a bigger boon than it should be, and aside from Trump, is the most likely candidate to work beyond the lines.
From the sake of the right, Kasich has no way to win. He is basically the Romney of 2016 in all the tragic (not bad) ways. He doesn't appeal far enough to the right, and while I have no doubt he would probably get the moderate vote (might lose independents to Sanders), the right would not come out to support him. Hell, if by some luck of the draw Trump or Cruz decided to drop, none of that base would see Kasich as their go to guy.
As far as Rubio is concerned, raising the retirement age to 70 is not something I find to inspire confidence in people, in addition to his other problems of just being too far right for mine and most people's tastes (and before anyone asks, I identify as more moderately, but for better or worse, consistently find myself leaning more left by the candidates I am forced to swallow)
I admit I don't fully understand what happens in a brokered convention. There is no path to victory for Rubio if he loses Florida which every poll is showing he will. Kasich even less so. His best showing (Michigan) he didn't even win, he got second. Don't get me wrong, if I felt more inclined to the right, Kasich is my guy. He isn't too crazy on some of the issues, he seems relatively calm which is a bigger boon than it should be, and aside from Trump, is the most likely candidate to work beyond the lines.
From the sake of the right, Kasich has no way to win. He is basically the Romney of 2016 in all the tragic (not bad) ways. He doesn't appeal far enough to the right, and while I have no doubt he would probably get the moderate vote (might lose independents to Sanders), the right would not come out to support him. Hell, if by some luck of the draw Trump or Cruz decided to drop, none of that base would see Kasich as their go to guy.
As far as Rubio is concerned, raising the retirement age to 70 is not something I find to inspire confidence in people, in addition to his other problems of just being too far right for mine and most people's tastes (and before anyone asks, I identify as more moderately, but for better or worse, consistently find myself leaning more left by the candidates I am forced to swallow)
Yeah, unfortunately neither of them have anything close a shot at taking the nomination. Its too bad to because they both performed well in this debate. Its a real shame that when the field was so wide Trump was able to steal all the spotlight and a lot of candidates never got any stage time to even run the race. And now that the field is thin we are left with two people who could have been decent players in the game and two people who are complete disasters. At this point Trump just has too much momentum and people are unwilling to change their mind once they have made a decision.
Also Carson just endorsed Trump. I can only imagine the rewards that Trump has promised Christie and Carson for joining him on the Dark Side.
To be fair to Carson, he feels he pretty much got shunted by the establishment and CNN with the focus on Cruz and Trump, with what remaining support went to Rubio. I believe the posters who were talking about this before was correct: Rubio is the all-in for Party.
From the sake of the right, Kasich has no way to win. He is basically the Romney of 2016 in all the tragic (not bad) ways. He doesn't appeal far enough to the right, and while I have no doubt he would probably get the moderate vote (might lose independents to Sanders), the right would not come out to support him. Hell, if by some luck of the draw Trump or Cruz decided to drop, none of that base would see Kasich as their go to guy.
Kasich is not playing to win, he's doing something else. He has a shot at Ohio, he does well with moderates, is seen as responsible and mature. The fact that he has not gotten involved in any of the fighting and is constantly boasting about how fiscally responsible he is, makes me think he's just angling for a spot in the administration of whomever ends up winning. Possibly the VP spot, or if not that at least a secretary position.
Rubio will drop out within the week and it will be Trump vs Cruz the rest of the way. Kasich might hang around just to see if he can do well in any other more liberal states.
You have a way with twisting words. You should consider a career in politics.
How did I twist your words?
You specifically stated:
You vote for what is in your best interest or if you're not a selfish douche you vote for what is best for America fiscally and socially.
Those are your exact words.
So you are drawing a contrast between those who vote for what is in their best interest and those who are voting for what is in America's best interest, and saying a person in the first group would be a "selfish douche."
So people who vote for their own interests instead of what is best for America are selfish douches. This is what you are saying.
With this in mind, let's go back to a statement you made earlier:
There's no quicker way to get tens of millions of Americans to vote Democrat or not vote in protest than to screw the front runner out of the primary.
You are talking about Trump supporters voting Democrat if Trump is not voted the candidate in a brokered convention.
Now, you are saying these tens of millions of people are voting Democrat, not because it would be best for America, but because they wish to do injury to the Republican party for not voting Trump as candidate.
Thus, you are saying that these people are voting for their own interests as opposed to what would be best for America, and therefore these people are selfish douches.
Now, you seem to think this is twisting your words. Please explain to me where I twisted your words. Because I don't think I did. I think what I have concluded proceeds logically from what you said.
I admit I don't fully understand what happens in a brokered convention.
As I understand it, there is a first round of voting in which the delegates are bound to vote for a particular candidate based on the way their state primary went. If no one gets a majority of delegates (1,237 delegates) on the first round of voting, there is a second round of voting in which the delegates become free to vote for whomever they want. This is what they mean by a "brokered convention."
There is no path to victory for Rubio if he loses Florida which every poll is showing he will. Kasich even less so.
Well, technically there is if it goes into a brokered convention and Rubio or Kasich can convince 1,237 delegates to vote Rubio or Kasich.
Of course, this raises the questions of whether or not Trump can be boxed out of 1,237 if he wins both Florida and Ohio, and also if the candidates have any sort of viable chance at winning if they can't even win on their home turf.
To be fair to Carson, he feels he pretty much got shunted by the establishment and CNN with the focus on Cruz and Trump, with what remaining support went to Rubio. I believe the posters who were talking about this before was correct: Rubio is the all-in for Party.
That was because of Carson. He was the front-runner at one point. He has no one to blame but himself for being totally ignored.
fair points. Your examples are extreme and certainly not the norm. I think Trump takes it too far in the opposite direction however. There needs to be an appropriate middle ground between hurling insults and taking everyday conversation points as insults.
What are you thoughts?
The thing to keep in mind is that every action will result in an equal and opposite reaction. The left has been really pushing the envelope too far with some of their insane social policies that have manifested in colleges. The harder they push, the more the right will fight back and become more reactionary. We're seeing this in Europe as well as in the US with the rise of Trump.
Ultimately it comes down to getting rid of echo chambers. The main reason why colleges tend to be so insanely left wing is because there is virtually no dissent to speak out against the circlejerk. This causes the politics to become increasingly polarized and more radical to the point where anyone that isn't a raving-mad leftist is shunned like the devil. I know on this forum that Crashing00 is a university professor and he said that he would easily be fired if his colleagues found out he wasn't a SJW.
Though I shouldn't put all of the blame on colleges. They are a huge problem when it comes to circlejerking, but the internet is also responsible for why politics have become so polarized in the last 10-15 years. In today's day and age it is insanely easy to cut off conversation from someone by simply blocking them on Facebook or Twitter. Not only that, but the anonymous nature of the internet allows people to say extremely radical things that most people wouldn't say to another person directly in real life. The selective nature of the internet encourages people to consume the type of media that best suits their interests, which in turn causes politics to become more polarized as people shut themselves off from things they don't like.
As I understand it, there is a first round of voting in which the delegates are bound to vote for a particular candidate based on the way their state primary went. If no one gets a majority of delegates (1,237 delegates) on the first round of voting, there is a second round of voting in which the delegates become free to vote for whomever they want. This is what they mean by a "brokered convention."
I knew what triggered it, but how beholden are delegates to their candidate? For instance, in some universe, could Trump decide to just all in-Cruz and convince his delegates for the next round to vote Cruz, or would his delegates more likely than not just go any way each individual person wants?
If it's the latter, that might explain why Rubio is still in it. Even if he gets crushed in the general.
That was because of Carson. He was the front-runner at one point. He has no one to blame but himself for being totally ignored.
Even if I agreed with you 110%, Carson sure doesn't feel that way. I am not saying I like or agree with what he did, but in my mind's eye, I could see why he might feel shunned by his own party and want to stick it to them by backing up Trump. And we can't pretend that the media might choose to not encourage or report on particular candidates.
The thing to keep in mind is that every action will result in an equal and opposite reaction. The left has been really pushing the envelope too far with some of their insane social policies that have manifested in colleges. The harder they push, the more the right will fight back and become more reactionary. We're seeing this in Europe as well as in the US with the rise of Trump.
Ultimately it comes down to getting rid of echo chambers. The main reason why colleges tend to be so insanely left wing is because there is virtually no dissent to speak out against the circlejerk. This causes the politics to become increasingly polarized and more radical to the point where anyone that isn't a raving-mad leftist is shunned like the devil. I know on this forum that Crashing00 is a university professor and he said that he would easily be fired if his colleagues found out he wasn't a SJW.
Though I shouldn't put all of the blame on colleges. They are a huge problem when it comes to circlejerking, but the internet is also responsible for why politics have become so polarized in the last 10-15 years. In today's day and age it is insanely easy to cut off conversation from someone by simply blocking them on Facebook or Twitter. Not only that, but the anonymous nature of the internet allows people to say extremely radical things that most people wouldn't say to another person directly in real life. The selective nature of the internet encourages people to consume the type of media that best suits their interests, which in turn causes politics to become more polarized as people shut themselves off from things they don't like.
I fully understand your concern. But the extreme examples you posted are not from politicians they are from individuals or small organizations. These extreme, examples in my opinion, hurt the cause as a whole because they make people who are fighting for equality seem ridiculous.
I advocate a middle ground where serious issues can be discussed with equal weight given to both sides. That said many of these social issues primarily race gender and LGBT equality are still issues with a long path to full resolution.
Personally, save a few extreme cases involving blatant racism (bucktooth chinese/redfaced indian with feathered headdress) cultural appropriation is complete nonsense. So long as it is done respectfully most cultures are just glad to be venerated at all, let alone celebrated.
Ultimately it comes down to getting rid of echo chambers. The main reason why colleges tend to be so insanely left wing is because there is virtually no dissent to speak out against the circlejerk. This causes the politics to become increasingly polarized and more radical to the point where anyone that isn't a raving-mad leftist is shunned like the devil. I know on this forum that Crashing00 is a university professor and he said that he would easily be fired if his colleagues found out he wasn't a SJW.
He said that, yes. But my impression is that he's roughly as unbiased as you are on the matter of SJWs. Who are at the same time a tiny minority of extreme Tumblr users and the shadowy Illuminati controlling all colleges and left-wing politics.
Though I shouldn't put all of the blame on colleges. They are a huge problem when it comes to circlejerking, but the internet is also responsible for why politics have become so polarized in the last 10-15 years. In today's day and age it is insanely easy to cut off conversation from someone by simply blocking them on Facebook or Twitter. Not only that, but the anonymous nature of the internet allows people to say extremely radical things that most people wouldn't say to another person directly in real life. The selective nature of the internet encourages people to consume the type of media that best suits their interests, which in turn causes politics to become more polarized as people shut themselves off from things they don't like.
People can cut off conversation in meatspace as well. I agree with you about anonymity making people more willing to say extreme things, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I knew what triggered it, but how beholden are delegates to their candidate?
Not at all.
For example, the Florida delegates are required to vote in the first vote of the convention however the Florida primary vote went. However, in the second vote, they can vote for anybody.
Like, anybody. There was a thing on Fox News just now about a petition to get delegates to vote for Paul Ryan in the brokered convention. Ryan himself told them to stop, but such a thing would be within the rules.
For instance, in some universe, could Trump decide to just all in-Cruz and convince his delegates for the next round to vote Cruz, or would his delegates more likely than not just go any way each individual person wants?
No, that's just it. They're not his delegates. In the second round, any delegate can vote however he or she chooses to vote.
Now, Trump can try to convince the delegates who voted for him to vote for Cruz in the brokered convention, sure. And Cruz is definitely going to try to convince the delegates who voted for Trump to vote for Cruz. But they aren't obligated to. They can vote for anyone they choose.
Even if I agreed with you 110%, Carson sure doesn't feel that way.
Well Carson was not a viable candidate and made it very clear he wasn't. He had his time in the spotlight, and quickly faded from it. We can talk about unfair media bias or whatever, but none of that would change the fact that Carson just plain wasn't qualified to be president.
I said that if Trump supporters were going to go vote for Hillary Clinton to spite the Republicans for not making Trump the candidate, then they're being childish and the Republican party should be glad to be rid of them.
You responded with,
Except, if Trump supporters are voting for Hillary, then clearly they are NOT voting for what they think is best for America. They're just being selfish douches.
Clinton's favorability rating is -12. Cruz is -19. Those are pretty bad.
You know the one candidate that's worse than both of them? Donald Trump. -29.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ted-cruz-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
For completeness, Rubio is -7, Kasich is +0 but with a huge number of "I don't know" answers, and Sanders is +12.
Sounds like the "Most Hated People in America" dream ticket is Trump-Cruz.
You have a way with twisting words. You should consider a career in politics.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Until he starts losing I'll consider this horse *****, respectfully. If you or anyone else think an election that is Trump vs Hillary will not be close I have to honestly ask why? I can write for Trump myself on how to absolutely destroy her. This isn't taking into consideration all the voters he will inevitably recieve once Bernie gets shlonged. And as I've said before, those polls that show Bernie being +12 are voted for by foreigners and people not even able to vote legally due to age heavily. They're complete nonsense. Polls aren't an accurate depiction of reality when it comes to support. I would think Bernie winning Michigan would be a pretty clear cut example of this.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Favorability ratings are not the same as voting polls. These polls are not asking "Who are you going to vote for?", they're asking "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of this person?". The reason Trump's incredibly terrible favorability ratings have not translated into losses in the primaries is that these are not polls of likely republican primary voters - they're polls of either all registered voters, or of all adults. If you look at the breakdown, you can see that the NBC/WSJ poll in which Trump was -39 (certainly the lowest rating I can ever recall seeing) is marked RV, meaning registered voters.
You suggested that Cruz and Clinton are the "most hated people in America", but it turns out there's one candidate who's even more hated than the two of them - your own. And your attempts at explaining that fact away betray a complete lack of understanding of what favorability ratings are and how polling works.
But yes, fiscally, Clinton seems reasonable. The Republicans all have ridiculous debt-expanding tax cuts for the wealthy, while Sanders goes a little too far in the opposite direction for my liking.
No interracial marriages are not the same thing at all. You discriminating based solely on someone looks. Even if they share the same religion, beliefs, and social mores. You are trying to say a carrot is a potato.
Except they didn't offer it to the public. They offered it to christians. They didn't advertise wedding cakes for everyone. Also boycotts are under the first amendment so you have freedom of speech as long as you approve of gay weddings. Incredible double standard.
Moving on to the debate tonight it was a snooze fest in a good way. I like trumps idea to increase tariffs on china if they keep dumping products on us and using currency manipulation. If they are not playing fair it is time to take our lunch money back. This was the debate with the most substance from everyone on the Republican side.
The state recognizes the union, which comes packaged with a host of rights and provisions throughout the government (such as the tax code). The only part of marriage that is religious -- if and only if the couple desires it to be religious -- is the actual ceremony (and potentially rededication ceremonies if the couple desires any of those, and for some religious people there is also a religious aspect to the divorce process). Everything else about marriage (where "everything" is actually quite a lot of stuff) is secular.
Are Christians not members of the public, now? Can gay people not be Christian? How absurd.
Boycotts are not covered by the first amendment. They are covered by common law, and in the case of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, the Export Administration Regulations. (US citizens are not allowed to participate in or materially support a boycott that some other government started.) Additionally, boycotts can be limited by Refusal to deal laws and Anti-discrimination laws.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Well homosexuals can be practicing members of a most christian churches. Homosexuals that have sex can't be. You are also making it sound like only what the state says matters. These people were not burning down their house. They were refusing to provide service for religious reasons. Freedom of religion is also in the first amendment. Going on to anti-discrimination laws they should be removed. Studies have shown time and time again they lead to more discrimnation for the protected class and more anger and poorer performance from the none protected class. Also by their nature boycotts are speech. You are sending a message. I am not sure why just because the government does something I have to agree with it wholesale. Maybe you are statist.
I have created a new thread to discuss this topic separately so we do not interfere with the Trump discussion.
Not all of them. I haven't been around a lot over the past year or so (which is why i resigned my mod-status), but the old time posters here who know me know that I'm not exactly "left-leaning". I'm pretty solidly in the conservative camp, and I've never voted outside the Republican Party (I'm 33 currently, so it's not an insignificant number of votes).
I've also gone on record here, and it has not changed, that I will not vote for trump. To put it simply, there are no circumstances that could cause me to vote for him. At this point, I'm looking into the various third parties since it looks like Trump is all but inevitable. But, I don't think I'm alone in these views.
Sure, most of the 60-70% of people will get in line behind Trump if he gets the nomination, but I'd wager that *at least* 10% won't.
The point is, a Trump nomination will lose a chunk of solid Republican voters, even if the party establishment backs him.
So you don't believe that racist people prefer Trump? You admit there is nearly nothing positive about him and you still want this man for President? Obama has not been able to achieve all of his goals over the last eight years but it is pretty silly to say that it has been an abject failure.
Please realize we don't dislike Trump because he is a big meanie or whatever, we dislike Trump because he has no political experience a questionable business record, attributes of bigotry, completely inconsistent with most of his policies, two publicity stunt policies that will never work, and he is a big meanie. If he were just a big meanie and had reasonable other attributes then I would not be deterred from voting for him.
You have done quite a lot of Hillary and Bernie bashing in this thread. Hillary I can understand even though your main argument seems to be the email scandal which is nothing compared to Trump's crimes. I get the impression that you do not actually know much about Bernie, considering you said he has little experience and is fiscally irresponsible considering the fact that Trump is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility I have trouble buying your argument without something beyond "Sander is bad."
Please feel free to share: what are your actual objections to Sanders?
He is not twisting your words, consider reading what you post before posting and carefully consider if it representative of the message you are trying to convey.
Unfortunately this is not the kind of forum where it is okay to just flippantly dismiss citations that other people give. If it were then no ones citations would mean anything. You either need to accept what someone else's citation is doing for their argument or provide a counter proof of your own. Especially when some of your citations are Meme pictures and comedic youtube videos. I mean come on this is the debate section of mtgsalvation.com not the GOP debate stage
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
If the establishment wants ANYONE to beat Trump at this stage, Rubio needs to drop out before Florida, and maybe get Cruz or Kasich that boost they have been looking for.
Kasich might as well be out as well. I don't see people who supported Rubio flocking to Kasich myself.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I am watching the debate right now and Rubio and Kasich are actually looking like decent candidates. Tuesday will be very important to both of them and I am interested to see what happens in their states. I am not ready to resign the race to Trump vs Cruz which has been the worst case scenario from the start.
I really like Rubio's line on Pc "I' not interested in being politically correct, I'm interested in being correct" well said
I admit I don't fully understand what happens in a brokered convention. There is no path to victory for Rubio if he loses Florida which every poll is showing he will. Kasich even less so. His best showing (Michigan) he didn't even win, he got second. Don't get me wrong, if I felt more inclined to the right, Kasich is my guy. He isn't too crazy on some of the issues, he seems relatively calm which is a bigger boon than it should be, and aside from Trump, is the most likely candidate to work beyond the lines.
From the sake of the right, Kasich has no way to win. He is basically the Romney of 2016 in all the tragic (not bad) ways. He doesn't appeal far enough to the right, and while I have no doubt he would probably get the moderate vote (might lose independents to Sanders), the right would not come out to support him. Hell, if by some luck of the draw Trump or Cruz decided to drop, none of that base would see Kasich as their go to guy.
As far as Rubio is concerned, raising the retirement age to 70 is not something I find to inspire confidence in people, in addition to his other problems of just being too far right for mine and most people's tastes (and before anyone asks, I identify as more moderately, but for better or worse, consistently find myself leaning more left by the candidates I am forced to swallow)
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Yeah, unfortunately neither of them have anything close a shot at taking the nomination. Its too bad to because they both performed well in this debate. Its a real shame that when the field was so wide Trump was able to steal all the spotlight and a lot of candidates never got any stage time to even run the race. And now that the field is thin we are left with two people who could have been decent players in the game and two people who are complete disasters. At this point Trump just has too much momentum and people are unwilling to change their mind once they have made a decision.
Also Carson just endorsed Trump. I can only imagine the rewards that Trump has promised Christie and Carson for joining him on the Dark Side.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Kasich is not playing to win, he's doing something else. He has a shot at Ohio, he does well with moderates, is seen as responsible and mature. The fact that he has not gotten involved in any of the fighting and is constantly boasting about how fiscally responsible he is, makes me think he's just angling for a spot in the administration of whomever ends up winning. Possibly the VP spot, or if not that at least a secretary position.
Rubio will drop out within the week and it will be Trump vs Cruz the rest of the way. Kasich might hang around just to see if he can do well in any other more liberal states.
You specifically stated:
Those are your exact words.
So you are drawing a contrast between those who vote for what is in their best interest and those who are voting for what is in America's best interest, and saying a person in the first group would be a "selfish douche."
So people who vote for their own interests instead of what is best for America are selfish douches. This is what you are saying.
With this in mind, let's go back to a statement you made earlier:
You are talking about Trump supporters voting Democrat if Trump is not voted the candidate in a brokered convention.
Now, you are saying these tens of millions of people are voting Democrat, not because it would be best for America, but because they wish to do injury to the Republican party for not voting Trump as candidate.
Thus, you are saying that these people are voting for their own interests as opposed to what would be best for America, and therefore these people are selfish douches.
Now, you seem to think this is twisting your words. Please explain to me where I twisted your words. Because I don't think I did. I think what I have concluded proceeds logically from what you said.
As I understand it, there is a first round of voting in which the delegates are bound to vote for a particular candidate based on the way their state primary went. If no one gets a majority of delegates (1,237 delegates) on the first round of voting, there is a second round of voting in which the delegates become free to vote for whomever they want. This is what they mean by a "brokered convention."
Well, technically there is if it goes into a brokered convention and Rubio or Kasich can convince 1,237 delegates to vote Rubio or Kasich.
Of course, this raises the questions of whether or not Trump can be boxed out of 1,237 if he wins both Florida and Ohio, and also if the candidates have any sort of viable chance at winning if they can't even win on their home turf.
That was because of Carson. He was the front-runner at one point. He has no one to blame but himself for being totally ignored.
The thing to keep in mind is that every action will result in an equal and opposite reaction. The left has been really pushing the envelope too far with some of their insane social policies that have manifested in colleges. The harder they push, the more the right will fight back and become more reactionary. We're seeing this in Europe as well as in the US with the rise of Trump.
Ultimately it comes down to getting rid of echo chambers. The main reason why colleges tend to be so insanely left wing is because there is virtually no dissent to speak out against the circlejerk. This causes the politics to become increasingly polarized and more radical to the point where anyone that isn't a raving-mad leftist is shunned like the devil. I know on this forum that Crashing00 is a university professor and he said that he would easily be fired if his colleagues found out he wasn't a SJW.
Though I shouldn't put all of the blame on colleges. They are a huge problem when it comes to circlejerking, but the internet is also responsible for why politics have become so polarized in the last 10-15 years. In today's day and age it is insanely easy to cut off conversation from someone by simply blocking them on Facebook or Twitter. Not only that, but the anonymous nature of the internet allows people to say extremely radical things that most people wouldn't say to another person directly in real life. The selective nature of the internet encourages people to consume the type of media that best suits their interests, which in turn causes politics to become more polarized as people shut themselves off from things they don't like.
I knew what triggered it, but how beholden are delegates to their candidate? For instance, in some universe, could Trump decide to just all in-Cruz and convince his delegates for the next round to vote Cruz, or would his delegates more likely than not just go any way each individual person wants?
If it's the latter, that might explain why Rubio is still in it. Even if he gets crushed in the general.
Even if I agreed with you 110%, Carson sure doesn't feel that way. I am not saying I like or agree with what he did, but in my mind's eye, I could see why he might feel shunned by his own party and want to stick it to them by backing up Trump. And we can't pretend that the media might choose to not encourage or report on particular candidates.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I fully understand your concern. But the extreme examples you posted are not from politicians they are from individuals or small organizations. These extreme, examples in my opinion, hurt the cause as a whole because they make people who are fighting for equality seem ridiculous.
I advocate a middle ground where serious issues can be discussed with equal weight given to both sides. That said many of these social issues primarily race gender and LGBT equality are still issues with a long path to full resolution.
Personally, save a few extreme cases involving blatant racism (bucktooth chinese/redfaced indian with feathered headdress) cultural appropriation is complete nonsense. So long as it is done respectfully most cultures are just glad to be venerated at all, let alone celebrated.
People can cut off conversation in meatspace as well. I agree with you about anonymity making people more willing to say extreme things, though.
For example, the Florida delegates are required to vote in the first vote of the convention however the Florida primary vote went. However, in the second vote, they can vote for anybody.
Like, anybody. There was a thing on Fox News just now about a petition to get delegates to vote for Paul Ryan in the brokered convention. Ryan himself told them to stop, but such a thing would be within the rules.
No, that's just it. They're not his delegates. In the second round, any delegate can vote however he or she chooses to vote.
Now, Trump can try to convince the delegates who voted for him to vote for Cruz in the brokered convention, sure. And Cruz is definitely going to try to convince the delegates who voted for Trump to vote for Cruz. But they aren't obligated to. They can vote for anyone they choose.
Well Carson was not a viable candidate and made it very clear he wasn't. He had his time in the spotlight, and quickly faded from it. We can talk about unfair media bias or whatever, but none of that would change the fact that Carson just plain wasn't qualified to be president.