-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:38:04 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 522943 times)
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #550 on: February 26, 2016, 05:41:13 AM »

I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #551 on: February 26, 2016, 05:50:33 AM »

Time to breakout those Ventura t-shirts?
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #552 on: February 26, 2016, 06:04:17 AM »

Time to breakout those Ventura t-shirts?
Heh.

Sometimes I feel like I ought to remind people that Minnesota has produced plenty of really good elected officials, too. Just a few wacko-birds (to use a Sen. McCain term for Sen. Cruz and his filthy ilk) get all the attention.

Though I'll say this for Gov. Ventura: he wasn't partisan, and he was a precursor of sorts to the liberty movement we see mostly on the right, but in some ways on the left as well. Too bad he also felt he was above media scrutiny, maintained his entertainment career throughout his term, and was prone to conspiracy theories. But his libertarian leanings actually seem more commonplace these days.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
The Cincinnati Kid
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 802



View Profile
« Reply #553 on: February 26, 2016, 07:35:31 AM »

Yikes. I'm watching a bit of the Republican debate. Apparently this "religious freedom" issue, a euphemism for the right to discriminate against gays, is an accepted mainstream thing among Republicans. Gross.


Kasich did not take that position.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #554 on: February 26, 2016, 07:50:06 AM »

Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #555 on: February 26, 2016, 08:11:51 AM »

Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
I agree. He seemed kind of human.
I knew the "religious freedom" as a right to refuse service (even government services) to gays was a thing. I just thought it was super-fringe. I didn't know it had gotten to majority-of-republican-presidential-candidate level. I avoid TV and the news I read hasn't told me that. I think the whole Sarah Palin thing taught me to not read the day-to-day details of campaigns because I spent the fall of 2008 in a dizzy nightmare state. I better not start paying attention or I'll lose it. It's amazing that people don't see how cartoony they are. They are like a lefties' satire of what a rightie would be in a dystopian horror. Like, most of the candidates are now Sarah Palin level.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #556 on: February 26, 2016, 08:16:44 AM »

I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)
Minnesota is so confusing. The source of some of the greatest classic liberals and some of the most off-the-wall conservatives.
And, lol, my brother lives in the 6th! I spend every Thanksgiving there!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 08:18:42 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #557 on: February 26, 2016, 08:24:35 AM »

Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
I agree. He seemed kind of human.
I knew the "religious freedom" as a right to refuse service (even government services) to gays was a thing. I just thought it was super-fringe. I didn't know it had gotten to majority-of-republican-presidential-candidate level. I avoid TV and the news I read hasn't told me that. I think the whole Sarah Palin thing taught me to not read the day-to-day details of campaigns because I spent the fall of 2008 in a dizzy nightmare state. I better not start paying attention or I'll lose it. It's amazing that people don't see how cartoony they are. They are like a lefties' satire of what a rightie would be in a dystopian horror. Like, most of the candidates are now Sarah Palin level.

It's actually shocking how radical the GOP has been in the past decade or so. Certainly by the 2008 campaign, it seemed that the anti-Bush backlash was leading to "true conservatives" having a stronger voice. The Tea Party was in full swing by '10. By '12, we had Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc., all on the ticket. And so on. It has moved so quickly that while we were saying Reagan-Bush Republicans wouldn't be welcome in the 2008 race (and that Clinton and Obama resembled those positions better than many Republicans), we've again gotten to the point where it seems yesterday's radicals are today's establishment. I mean, Paul Ryan, he of the Ayn Randian fantasy, is being criticized in the "Freedom" (lol) caucus. We're already hearing from non-lunatics of the good ol' days when Gingrich and Clinton could work together. Gingrich. One of the founders of the made-for-TV rhetoric and villainization of the opposition.

Yet the modern Republican continues to lionize those predecessors who would be without question demonized by the party in reality.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #558 on: February 26, 2016, 09:18:28 AM »

Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
I agree. He seemed kind of human.
I knew the "religious freedom" as a right to refuse service (even government services) to gays was a thing. I just thought it was super-fringe. I didn't know it had gotten to majority-of-republican-presidential-candidate level. I avoid TV and the news I read hasn't told me that. I think the whole Sarah Palin thing taught me to not read the day-to-day details of campaigns because I spent the fall of 2008 in a dizzy nightmare state. I better not start paying attention or I'll lose it. It's amazing that people don't see how cartoony they are. They are like a lefties' satire of what a rightie would be in a dystopian horror. Like, most of the candidates are now Sarah Palin level.


It's actually shocking how radical the GOP has been in the past decade or so. Certainly by the 2008 campaign, it seemed that the anti-Bush backlash was leading to "true conservatives" having a stronger voice. The Tea Party was in full swing by '10. By '12, we had Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc., all on the ticket. And so on. It has moved so quickly that while we were saying Reagan-Bush Republicans wouldn't be welcome in the 2008 race (and that Clinton and Obama resembled those positions better than many Republicans), we've again gotten to the point where it seems yesterday's radicals are today's establishment. I mean, Paul Ryan, he of the Ayn Randian fantasy, is being criticized in the "Freedom" (lol) caucus. We're already hearing from non-lunatics of the good ol' days when Gingrich and Clinton could work together. Gingrich. One of the founders of the made-for-TV rhetoric and villainization of the opposition.

Yet the modern Republican continues to lionize those predecessors who would be without question demonized by the party in reality.
omg. Gingrich. An early eye opener for me on the integrity of public political speakers was seeing him in probably 1994 on some CNN talk/debate show. Hillary Clinton, an early children's rights advocate while in law school (at that time, children's rights meant that there should be some legal limits to how brutally a parent can physically punish a child, there should be better structures for managing orphans and children removed from abusive homes, etc. All commonplace thoughts now), wrote a paper in which there was one phrase in which she said that the rights parents had over their children were akin to the rights that slaveholders had over their slaves (which was factually true). Gingrich, a trained historian, was on TV saying "Hillary Rodham Clinton (he always pronounced the Rodham because her use of her own name was shocking) compared the family to slavery."
But yes, even he seems reasonable compared to what I saw last night.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 09:30:39 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #559 on: February 26, 2016, 09:26:09 AM »

Re the "Rodham" part, that's a common GOP tactic. See: Barack Hussein Obama. (I seem to recall a certain largely absent-these-days member spending a lot of keystrokes on that.) "Ooooh, sh*t, Bobby Jo, he's got a [/i]Muzzlum[/i] name, he's uh tur'rist!" It's great to point out these "gotchas" which are no such thing to anyone but their own fringe/base. Of course, riling the base is the point.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #560 on: February 26, 2016, 12:05:17 PM »

I did not see this coming: Christie backs Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Not that I thought he was particularly fond of Sen. Rubio (to say the least) or Sen. Cruz, but wow. I know he says otherwise in the linked story, but seriously, was he promised the Attorney General position in a Trump administration or what? Funny how nicey-nice they play. "Spectacular governor?" I think a review of some of Mr. Trump's earlier statements would contradict his current assessment of Gov. Christie.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #561 on: February 26, 2016, 12:10:55 PM »

I did not see this coming: Christie backs Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Not that I thought he was particularly fond of Sen. Rubio (to say the least) or Sen. Cruz, but wow. I know he says otherwise in the linked story, but seriously, was he promised the Attorney General position in a Trump administration or what? Funny how nicey-nice they play. "Spectacular governor?" I think a review of some of Mr. Trump's earlier statements would contradict his current assessment of Gov. Christie.
Exactly what I was thinking.  Cabinet posts are nice upwardly-moving political stepping stones.   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #562 on: February 26, 2016, 12:16:36 PM »

I did not see this coming: Christie backs Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Not that I thought he was particularly fond of Sen. Rubio (to say the least) or Sen. Cruz, but wow. I know he says otherwise in the linked story, but seriously, was he promised the Attorney General position in a Trump administration or what? Funny how nicey-nice they play. "Spectacular governor?" I think a review of some of Mr. Trump's earlier statements would contradict his current assessment of Gov. Christie.
Trump's a deal-maker. The way people often, and sometimes I think erroneously, assume things happen in politics is probably actually the way Trump operates.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #563 on: February 26, 2016, 12:36:28 PM »

It did occur to me after my 1st post, Christie probably shares something personality-wise with Trump. In fact he was out-Christied by the "straight talk" (i.e. When the going gets tough, just say mean things as if you're in some kind of playground fight) of Trump. So maybe there's an affinity between trash talking assholes.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #564 on: February 26, 2016, 12:42:18 PM »

It did occur to me after my 1st post, Christie probably shares something personality-wise with Trump. In fact he was out-Christied by the "straight talk" (i.e. When the going gets tough, just say mean things as if you're in some kind of playground fight) of Trump. So maybe there's an affinity between trash talking assholes.
Grin most likely.
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #565 on: February 28, 2016, 10:27:16 AM »

Hey....anybody know what happened to Bean Bag and his hateful ideals? Did he get banned?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #566 on: February 28, 2016, 10:45:18 AM »

Looks like he has been online as recently as just under two weeks ago, just hasn't posted in a few months. Not sure why.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Alex
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660



View Profile
« Reply #567 on: February 29, 2016, 01:59:36 AM »

I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)

You guys also gave us Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, so its not all bad.
Logged

"I thought Brian was a perfect gentleman, apart from buttering his head and trying to put it between two slices of bread"  -Tom Petty, after eating with Brian.

https://givemesomeboots1.blogspot.com/
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #568 on: March 06, 2016, 06:22:54 AM »

With the GOP race most likely down to Trump and Cruz in essence, if not in technical reality yet, I have a question / thought exercise. I'm not asking about who favors whom, what would be better for the parties, etc., just kind of a thought exercise / prediction.

I think most (and can say with certainty many) people agree that the GOP has become increasingly conservative over the past few decades, and certainly increasingly uncompromising in at least the past eight years. Yet the past couple GOP presidential losses, there has been a loud retort from Republicans that the problem was their candidates (McCain and Romney) not being conservative enough.

On to 2016, and please forgive the presuppositions of a GOP loss. They're just here for purposes of the thought exercise. For those Republicans being pushed aside or left behind by the rightward march, would Trump loss actually reshape the party in any meaningful way? Or wouldn't that just give the (actual) conservatives another opportunity to make that same claim: that they nominated a non-conservative and that was the problem. (Trump isn't so much conservative as an opportunist/populist asshole, after all.) Whereas if Cruz were to win the nomination and lose the race, it would be hard to argue he wasn't conservative enough.

EDIT: Part of what brought on the question, by the way, was listening to David Axelrod's "Axe Files" podcast, where he had Sen. Graham as a guest the other day. Graham basically concedes the election if Trump were to win the nomination, but says it would be a great opportunity to rethink the party. I'm skeptical because, as I said, Trump isn't a "wow, the ship has been off track, we've been wrong, we need to rethink," so much as just an anomaly. A Trump nomination might be a culmination of negativity in tone and heated rhetoric, but not really a good example otherwise.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 06:25:58 AM by the captain » Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #569 on: March 06, 2016, 06:27:23 AM »

I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)

You guys also gave us Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, so its not all bad.

Oh, I know. We've had many other very decent politicians in both parties over the years. But we've had a few too many lunatics for my taste. At least Trump came in third in our caucus on Super Tuesday. There's one sign of aversion to nutjobs.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #570 on: March 06, 2016, 07:46:58 PM »

With the GOP race most likely down to Trump and Cruz in essence, if not in technical reality yet, I have a question / thought exercise. I'm not asking about who favors whom, what would be better for the parties, etc., just kind of a thought exercise / prediction.

I think most (and can say with certainty many) people agree that the GOP has become increasingly conservative over the past few decades, and certainly increasingly uncompromising in at least the past eight years. Yet the past couple GOP presidential losses, there has been a loud retort from Republicans that the problem was their candidates (McCain and Romney) not being conservative enough.

On to 2016, and please forgive the presuppositions of a GOP loss. They're just here for purposes of the thought exercise. For those Republicans being pushed aside or left behind by the rightward march, would Trump loss actually reshape the party in any meaningful way? Or wouldn't that just give the (actual) conservatives another opportunity to make that same claim: that they nominated a non-conservative and that was the problem. (Trump isn't so much conservative as an opportunist/populist asshole, after all.) Whereas if Cruz were to win the nomination and lose the race, it would be hard to argue he wasn't conservative enough.

EDIT: Part of what brought on the question, by the way, was listening to David Axelrod's "Axe Files" podcast, where he had Sen. Graham as a guest the other day. Graham basically concedes the election if Trump were to win the nomination, but says it would be a great opportunity to rethink the party. I'm skeptical because, as I said, Trump isn't a "wow, the ship has been off track, we've been wrong, we need to rethink," so much as just an anomaly. A Trump nomination might be a culmination of negativity in tone and heated rhetoric, but not really a good example otherwise.
My guess would be that if Trump wins, the Republican Party will actually have a pretty interesting and unpredictable shake up. If he loses, they will, as they did with their last two losses, focus on not letting the President be successful, even where they philosophically agree, and Not change much. The extremity has a lot of power and it won't lose it until they win and their supporters turn on them.
Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #571 on: March 06, 2016, 07:56:33 PM »

Really happy that my man Bernie's been doing well again, with wins in Kansas, Nebraska and now Maine!
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #572 on: March 07, 2016, 10:27:51 AM »

Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #573 on: March 07, 2016, 12:00:40 PM »

Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Ah, I think we have a miscommunication. In both of my scenarios I was assuming Trump wins the nomination but in one case loses the general, in the other wins the general.  So I'm only predicting significant party change if he wins the whole burrito. If he wins the nomination but loses the general, I agree that not much will happen, party-wise.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #574 on: March 07, 2016, 03:32:38 PM »

Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Ah, I think we have a miscommunication. In both of my scenarios I was assuming Trump wins the nomination but in one case loses the general, in the other wins the general.  So I'm only predicting significant party change if he wins the whole burrito. If he wins the nomination but loses the general, I agree that not much will happen, party-wise.

Ah, yes, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but any scenario I was presenting presupposed a Clinton win over the Republican nominee, assuming that nominee were Cruz or Trump (and I do think Clinton--while also presupposing she isn't charged with anything--would beat either of them pretty handily). So my scenarios were strictly along those lines, and the party's reaction to Trump losing the general versus to Cruz losing the general. The former, I think leads to nothing new (except maybe changing the rules to become nominee). Whereas if Cruz loses, I wonder if the party actually does splinter, as the "we didn't nominate a true conservative" line would be pretty much tested and failed.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.391 seconds with 22 queries.