TRUMP 2016

[Aimless]

Like...?

While I was v upset by the story of the 85-y-o black Republican grandmother's absurdly difficult struggle to be allowed to keep voting, this time I was mostly thinking of the stories of people who have definitely registered as Democrats having their party affiliation incorrectly listed as "independent", "republican", "libertarian" or "no affiliation" or the like, causing them to be given provisional ballots that won't be counted. I'm sure there are explanations for most of these cases but even when they can be explained it's ridiculous that it can be so ridiculously difficult to participate in the democratic process in a modern Western country.

I'm also a little disgusted by the differences in number of polling places per voter, between different areas. To me it looks like the incredibly long wait times experienced by many voters in less affluent areas can be attributed in large part to the drastic reduction in the number of polling places.

Primaries are run by the political parties (which are private organizations), not the US government.

I may be mistaken, but local govt. seems to be partly responsible for the crappiness of Arizona's primaries at least.

[Aimless]

Also v disgusted by the stories of people being sent entirely incorrect information about when and where to caucus.

[Ominous Gamer]

Primaries use voting equipment, eligibility lists, locations, and staff/volunteers that are approved, selected and supplied by the Supervisor of Elections office operated and coordinated at the county government level and overseen/managed at the state government level.

[Loki]

The parties set and enforce the rules. They also seem to do so on the cheap in some states.

[RandBlade]

Is the Ted Cruz affairs story getting much traction over there? The idea that an American right wing Christian family man has had an affair seems about as shocking as finding out that a bear has shat in the woods.

[Loki]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-s-allies.html 99% chance it's Rubio-planted BS.

[Flixy]

“TRUMP MUST BE PREZ!” began the Enquirer’s endorsement of the mogul, published earlier this month. “INSIDE: VOTE FOR HIS VICE PRESIDENT!” (One of the options is Sen. Cruz, who the publication had previously dubbed, “Boozin’ Ted.”)
In that same issue, the editors call Marco Rubio “NERDY.” The issue, dated March 14, 2016, also features bombshell exposes on the Illuminati taking control of Hollywood to erect a “totalitarian world government,” as well as Dr. Phil’s “REIGN OF TERROR.”

Sounds like a quality paper.

[Steely Glint]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-s-allies.html 99% chance it's Rubio-planted BS.

Why does Rubio give a shit? He dropped out and surely he'd prefer Cruz over Trumpton.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's not a paper, it's a tabloid. It runs material like upticks in cattle-mutilations by aliens and Betty White's secret abortion at age 88.

[Loki]

Why does Rubio give a shit? He dropped out and surely he'd prefer Cruz over Trumpton.

The rumor started over a month ago, and was linked to Rubio's people.

[Steely Glint]

I'm having a hard time comprehending the GOP's response to Trump. It seems to be "ignore him and hope he'll go away".

[Loki]

Not anymore. They're gradually endorsing Cruz.

[RandBlade]

Cruz to me seems to be even worse than Trump though

[Steely Glint]

The GOP, at most, doesn't give a shit about the people who a Cruz presidency would hurt.

[RandBlade]

If the alternative wasn't Trump there is no chance the GOP establishment would rally in favour of Cruz during the primaries.

[Steely Glint]

They wouldn't rally against him either.

Not anymore. They're gradually endorsing Cruz.

Too little, too late.

[Lewkowski]

Cruz to me seems to be even worse than Trump though

Which is a pretty absurd statement. The guy is a classical conservative who tries to follow through on his campaign promises. I'm sure he is a bit more right wing than you would be comfortable with however he isn't a crazy loose cannon who has proposed ridiculous tariffs and exiting NATO.

[Loki]

Cruz is the most deceitful candidate in recent memory. Every sentence is misleading or downright false. He's basically the Tea Party on steroids. Truth has no meaning. Ideological platitudes take precedence over reality. Actually governing is less important than sticking it to the other side. Personal relationships are sacrificed for the sake of grandstanding. If Cruz is ever elected to any executive office, calamity would be right around the door.

Cruz proposed carpet bombing cities and wiping his behind with the first amendment when it comes to the rights of Muslims. His religious advisors include people leading hate groups. Just because he's not deluded like Trump doesn't make him any less dangerous.

[Lewkowski]

Cruz is the most deceitful candidate in recent memory. Every sentence is misleading or downright false. He's basically the Tea Party on steroids. Truth has no meaning. Ideological platitudes take precedence over reality. Actually governing is less important than sticking it to the other side. Personal relationships are sacrificed for the sake of grandstanding. If Cruz is ever elected to any executive office, calamity would be right around the door.

Cruz proposed carpet bombing cities and wiping his behind with the first amendment when it comes to the rights of Muslims. His religious advisors include people leading hate groups. Just because he's not deluded like Trump doesn't make him any less dangerous.

When you say Tea Party on steroids you basically mean Tea Party. Unlike the Republican establishment he doesn't just pay lip service to the desire to SHRINK (not limit the increase but actually SHRINK) government.

I haven't heard of any anti-1st amendment statements. Has he proposed banning Muslims? And you'll need to provide more detail on what you define 'hate group.' Simply stating you don't think two dudes should marry does not make a hate group. And while I'm not in favor of groups obsessing over gay marriage it is really a toothless problem considering recent court rulings. I'm far more interested in confronting our jihadist enemies and reducing government control of our pocketbooks.

[Steely Glint]

Cruz is the most deceitful candidate in recent memory. Every sentence is misleading or downright false. He's basically the Tea Party on steroids. Truth has no meaning. Ideological platitudes take precedence over reality. Actually governing is less important than sticking it to the other side. Personal relationships are sacrificed for the sake of grandstanding. If Cruz is ever elected to any executive office, calamity would be right around the door.

Cruz proposed carpet bombing cities and wiping his behind with the first amendment when it comes to the rights of Muslims. His religious advisors include people leading hate groups. Just because he's not deluded like Trump doesn't make him any less dangerous.

A classic conservative, like Lewk said.

[Loki]

When you say Tea Party on steroids you basically mean Tea Party. Unlike the Republican establishment he doesn't just pay lip service to the desire to SHRINK (not limit the increase but actually SHRINK) government.

I haven't heard of any anti-1st amendment statements. Has he proposed banning Muslims? And you'll need to provide more detail on what you define 'hate group.' Simply stating you don't think two dudes should marry does not make a hate group. And while I'm not in favor of groups obsessing over gay marriage it is really a toothless problem considering recent court rulings. I'm far more interested in confronting our jihadist enemies and reducing government control of our pocketbooks.

If your goal is to talk about shrinking government, sure. If it's to actually pass legislation doing so, you have to know how to pass legislation...you know, with compromise and by building relationships with other lawmakers.

He wants to patrol Muslim neighborhoods. He wants a religious test for entering the country. He wants religious freedom...for non-Muslims.

[Steely Glint]

The Onion had this figured out 4 years ago.

[LittleFuzzy]

Which is a pretty absurd statement. The guy is a classical conservative who tries to follow through on his campaign promises. I'm sure he is a bit more right wing than you would be comfortable with however he isn't a crazy loose cannon who has proposed ridiculous tariffs and exiting NATO.

He IS a crazy loose cannon because he doesn't believe in engaging in real politics (i.e. negotiation and compromise) even within his own caucus, and he screws his political allies for attempted personal gain.

[Loki]

You're better at this American history thing than I am: have we had someone quite this extremist running on either party's ticket since the modern primary system was created (let's limit the sample to people who had a chance of winning the primaries)?

I don't really consider Trump to be an extremist. Extremism implies coherence. Trump isn't coherent.

[Lewkowski]

If your goal is to talk about shrinking government, sure. If it's to actually pass legislation doing so, you have to know how to pass legislation...you know, with compromise and by building relationships with other lawmakers.

He wants to patrol Muslim neighborhoods. He wants a religious test for entering the country. He wants religious freedom...for non-Muslims.

I'm not familiar with his religious test for entering the country. Patrolling Muslim neighborhoods is not a bad thing. In fact I would welcome police patrols in my own neighborhood because they make communities safer. In the war on terror we need to get rid of political correctness. Almost all suicide bombers self identify as Muslim. We shouldn't *punish* people on the basis of religion but we should make intelligent law enforcement/anti-terror decisions based on the known characteristics of the terrorists.

[Loki]

Treating people differently on the basis of their religion violates the first amendment. I don't recall am exception for religions you don't like. Muslim isn't the sole defining characteristic of terrorists last I checked.

[LittleFuzzy]

You're better at this American history thing than I am: have we had someone quite this extremist running on either party's ticket since the modern primary system was created (let's limit the sample to people who had a chance of winning the primaries)?

That's a metric that would take a whole lot of digging and weighing to answer. I would say the answer is probably yes then. Cruz isn't a "classic conservative" like Lewk says but many/most of his views are probably not so extreme as to be unmatched by other viable candidates in the past and many candidates have a few outlier topics which make them sound a little insane. I can't think of a viable who was as inflexible and prone to screwing his own side as Cruz though.

[Loki]

As you say, it's not so much the ideology that makes him stand out; it's the inflexibility. This is segregationist level of refusing to work through the federal system.

[Steely Glint]

I'll be interested to see how the GOP reacts in 2020, assuming that (gods forbid) neither Cruz nor Trump ends up in the White House, and whether the 2016 experience was traumatic enough for the party for them to make an effort to halt the rightward/populist stampede and shape up into a sensible right of center party, or if the experience of a Clinton presidency so enrages them that the front runner in 2020 is just a severed pigs head on a stick or something.

[Lewkowski]

Treating people differently on the basis of their religion violates the first amendment. I don't recall am exception for religions you don't like. Muslim isn't the sole defining characteristic of terrorists last I checked.

Under your logic Affirmative Action would be outlawed... its not. Only crazy liberals and criminals think more police patrols are a bad thing. Law abiding citizens welcome them.

Also under your logic if you are looking for a black suspect for a crime (based on eye witness testimony) you'd scream that the 14th amendment is being violated when the police are on the lookout for black males.