So you guys know I tend to abstain from talking about politics, mostly because I tend to keep these views to myself, a question about Rubio though. Cruz can't be trusted, Trump is a joke, Rubio seems like a potentially moderate republican. Is it at all possible Rubio comes from behind and wins the republican nomination? There has to be a large amount of moderate republicans that dislike Cruz and Trump, is it at all possible they start voting? I would think influential republican donors and strategists would realize Trump and Cruz have no chance, so I would think they'd rally behind someone that at least doesn't embarrass them.
ftfy Only about half the voting age population shows up on election day to vote. (Though, I estimate a good 80% will complain about elected officials.) As it has been in the past several elections, when November comes, it is almost assured that I will think the two main candidates are both idiots. But, I'll vote anyway. I thought about not voting once, but then I saw that video of the people of Iraq voting for the first time, where they had to dip their finger in purple ink, and then walk around as "marked." I can at least hold my nose when I pull the lever.* *See, kids, you used to have to walk into a curtained booth, flip switches to make your selection and then pull a lever (it's like a slot machine, weeeeee!) to cast your ballot.
I think it's the opposite. Those people recognize that Trump probably has the best chance of beating Hillary. It doesn't matter to them who is most moderate, or a good person, or has the most conservative conviction. It only matters who can win.
Trump has a wonderful chance. Look at the scoreboard. The real test is if he can take FL, NY, or CA. A lot of the states he took are super conservative strongholds. Any one of the densely populated states, which lean moderate to liberal (sans TX), he probably cinches it. I will put money down* Rubio won't even get his home state of FL. There is contention he might not even win Cuban Miami. Funny enough, a lot of the old Cubans are actually very conservative. Rubio is going to be pumping massive bucks into the remaining states. The GOP establishment generally does not want Trump. Fox this morning has a how-to regarding stopping Trump's momentum. Expect funny business going on at the convention manipulating his delegates. *Not really
Disney Workers Forced to Train Their Foreign Replacements http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...rced-to-train-their-foreign-replacements.html "Perrero then addressed why he is supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential race. “Trump has been the most vocal about this, he’s publicly stated that Disney should hire everybody back that was replaced by the foreign worker, he is the most vocal about it, Cruz has also brought it up as well, so this is an issue that is coming to the presidential level and gaining more and more attention. But Americans are really starting to slowly see what’s happening and starting to fight back on this issue.”
This right here is why I think these primaries are a load of horseshit. A very small group of hayseed dipshits from Iowa and New Hampshire basically get to tell the rest of the country what presidential candidates to vote for. Why they get to do this is a mystery to me.
There doesn't have to be any funny business. Much like the Presidential General 'Election' - voters are generally not voting for a candidate, they are voting for a delegate pledged to a candidate. Those delegates are free to switch at the convention. This has happened many times, and in fact is referred to as a 'brokered convention.' Now, this hasn't happened in a very long time, but there's nothing 'funny' about it, it's permissible. But it is generally viewed as suicidal as any party (Democrats can do it as well) that literally nominates someone over the majority 'vote' is pretty much guaranteeing they will lose the general election. As to Rubio, and all the candidates (pretty much for the last 10 Presidential cycles) coming out of the Republican party all have to support the following (which is why I'm not a Republican anymore): A Strong and Invasive Military A 'Tough' Immigration Policy 'Free Market' Policy (whether the principles are applicable or not) Anti-Abortion (it used to be ok to be for abortion in cases of rape or incest, but that no longer seems to be the case) Cutting 'Entitlements' Cutting Spending in General (except for Military which you have to agree to increase) Cutting Taxes Deregulating everything Regulation of Social Issues Every Republican Presidential Candidate in the past 10 Cycles has to agree with the foregoing principles, or they will not get the nomination. The problem with the above is that they are not truly conservative principles. Conservatism is NOT 'get rid of government' - true conservatives believe in smaller government, managed regulations where necessary, free market where it makes sense and is applicable, and generally non-regulation of so called social issues, such as gay marriage. As to the true meanings of 'liberal' and 'conservative' think of it this way: Liberals generally believe that regulation and legislation is necessary in many cases and will attempt to shape issues with regulation. Conservatives generally believe that regulation and legislation MAY be necessary in certain cases and will let the issues be shaped and step in IF there appears to be a problem with the least invasive regulation possible that fixes the issue. As I said, I tend to be a conservative, but I don't think 'liberals' are evil. At all. It's just a different view on how, when and if government should be involved in a specific issue. Historically, conservatives have been anti war (yes, really!). For instance: WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all entered into by Democratic Presidents. Historically, conservatives have been 'hands off' on social issues (meaning not anti or pro anything, and in the federal system, leaving it to the states to decide - like abortion, gay marriage, religious issues, etc. and if there is a major problem, then and only then, step in and address it with legislation/regulation). Historically, conservatives have been pro business (but with regulation to protect certain industries). In short, a decent example of an actual conservative would be Eisenhower. And Eisenhower got the Interstate Highway Act through Congress, which is a regulation that was necessary because the 'free market' would not solve that issue. On the Democratic side, Bernie is an actual liberal. Clinton is a bit less of a liberal. However, most of the candidates over the past 8 presidential cycles have been masquerading as liberals (much like Republicans masquerading as conservatives) while being very moderate on the entire spectrum. In a sense, Bernie has already won in that he has returned the Democratic party to its liberal roots. None of the three candidates on the Republican side have done anything to return the party to its conservative roots. Even more amazing - many influential Republicans are now going to actively go after Trump. I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime. A party literally going after their presumptive nominee (a nominee that they wanted a pledge to not run as an independent, if you'll recall). This is some crazy shit.
I am really glad Minnesota picked Rubio over Trump last night but (prefaced by history and info like VI's) still feel like picking a Republican candidate today is just choosing between the lesser evils.
I remember the day that I stopped being a republican. My fiance (now wife) was going to become my domestic partner for insurance reasons. The employer contributions were taxed as if they were gift taxes. I did some research and found out they would not tax us like this if we were married. I did a little more research and found out that it was essentially a way to tax gays for being gay. I felt discriminated against. Later on that year I somehow friends with a gaggle of lesbians via sports teams we played on. I then learned about the issues facing them because of anti-gay legislation. It was that day that I decided to not give a shit about taxes, and government control. I actually met someone affected significantly by the "conservative laws". I could never vote for someone that favored punishing their life style. When did it become a requirement to legislate based on religious views if you were a republican?
Agreed - I never understood that. Its deliberate disenfranchisement of law abiding citizens who pay taxes because it makes someone uncomfortable. Its insanity.
I think you may be connecting dots that aren't as simple as what you're saying. There are plenty of atheist republicans, who when siding with conservative politics, wouldn't claim religion as a part of that support. And, there are others that would view the situation you described as rewarding married couples rather than punishing gays. There are additional tax breaks for blind people, but I don't think that's punishment to the sighted.
Gay people could not get married in most of the country until June 26, 2015. If you were not married, you had to be in a domestic partnership to receive benefits. It was the only way in the state of Ohio for gay people to get benefits from their partners insurance. How many straight people do you think were using these domestic partner benefits? Keep in mind getting married got you a shit ton of things that domestic partnership did not get you.
I used to live in a neighborhood where there was a very strong Democrat majority and I felt zero qualms over voting for the 3rd-party candidates while there. Not so much anymore, now I may feel like my vote matters. True but for each of those Republicans, you know there's even more out there that are just flat out anti-gay for the sake of bigotry or fear or whatever bullshit they want to use in justifying their discrimination. I stopped attending church in the Twin Cities and supporting my Archdiocese after they became just another big 'ol anti-gay legislation lobbyist group in Minnesota a couple of years ago. Yes the awful child abuse cases and internal culture of self-preservation and cover-ups are other big reasons, but their unabashed bigotry was another. I'm not supporting the Republican party like I used to because of that too.
This. If religion was taken out of the republican party (and the impact it has on stuff like abortion, gay rights, etc.) I would be a die hard republican. I am very, very conservative in my beliefs as far as government goes. However I am about as socially liberal as it gets as well. I'm an atheist but don't really give two shits what people believe so long as it doesn't impact the way they treat others. I'm a huge proponent of separation of church and state. The biggest issue for me with politics, actually. I'm straight, but a huge (and vocal) proponent of LGBT rights. So I'm torn between two extremes, basically. As far as where my vote will go, your guess is as good as mine
Thats kind of what New England Republicans/Rockefeller Republicans are in a nutshell. Socially moderate, fiscally conservative. Theyre almost unrecognizable when you compare them to Republicans from Utah or something, it might as well be a different party completely. Massachusetts has a Republican governor and there are very few similarities between him and someone like Rick Perry.
This is basically what the only difference in the two parties is. Republican and Democratic legislatures have become essentially the same thing separated only by LGBT rights and women's health issues. No matter who in the fuck gets elected you will still have fun things like a strong military, wars, 2nd amendment and taxes.
Speaking as someone who lives in Texas and owns an infamous "assault" rifle (the AR platform is a fantastic hog rifle), I can tell you from firsthand experience that Obama missed his calling in life and should have been a gun salesman. I completely support tighter gun control and more restrictions on it, but come on, there's no way in fuck all that anyone is going to literally "come take our guns away." Under the most strict policies, you'll just have to wait a bit longer than the 30 minutes I currently wait at Academy to leave with my shiny new deadly weapon. Although I'm curious why you say tax policies are the same? They are the complete opposite in the GOP vs. Democrats. Unless you mean it still has to pass through the legislature anyway.
I have been a tax payer for the last 16 years, and nothing has been done that hurt me or helped me in any way shape or form (the first 6 of those years I was a poor high school/college student). They talk a big game but no one will ever do anything that actually has an effect on me, or you, or anyone not in the upper echelon. I would love to pay less taxes, but in the end that is because I am a greedy fuck, and want to make more money. It has nothing to do with philosophies of how that money is being spent.
This isn't directed at you or the voters of Minnesota but I cannot comprehend who would vote for this guy? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-report-marco-rubios-gay-scandal-surfaces/ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=128495 This is a guy who is an ardent anti-gay marriage politician, he is also fervently pro-war on drugs, including marijuana. Look at those links, look at his past. This is a man who is clearly gay or bi-sexual and a former drug user. I personally don't care about either, if you use drugs that's your choice you aren't hurting anyone but yourself potentially. If you are gay or bisexual, good for you, doesn't matter to me or change how I think of you. If you are gay and/or bi-sexual and you don't want to talk about it, that's cool too. What's not cool is denying who you are and lying to hundreds of millions of people in a desperate attempt to grab power. That's not cool at all.