462 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

Do you think caucus is an archaic concept in this day and age? Why do some states have advanced and simple, user-friendly voting systems in place and why some states are in older system? Is there no central neutral body? like Election commission or something? 

If all your state cares about is voter participation, then a primary does that. More people will come to a polling place, wait in line for a time, cast a vote, and leave. Nevada currently has a caucus, and you can treat it the same way if you want. You can come, wait, get a ballot, mark your choice, and leave. You don't have to stay, but a caucus is like a mini convention, a gathering of your neighborhood, except there is no one there from that offensive opposing party. Donald Trump was the overwhelming favorite, so there was not much to argue about. The caucus system tends to bring out the more informed, and keep away the less informed... so I like it. My wife and I treat all election days like Holidays... we take the day off and have fun.

[onbekende]

Now am I wrong in assuming the following (brought on by the general news being aired here): Cruz is an anti-establishment fellow who wishes to work from the inside out to rework the GOP while Trump is actually working from the outside in to build an entire new GOP.

 

It just seems like, that Cruz is more a "non-affilated" candidate from within the Republican party while Trump is the obvious outsider trying to squirm in. Hence I would note that Cruz's supporters are more affilated with being a Republican then Trump are. But I guess thats obvious by now no?

[Lysistrata]

Now am I wrong in assuming the following (brought on by the general news being aired here): Cruz is an anti-establishment fellow who wishes to work from the inside out to rework the GOP while Trump is actually working from the outside in to build an entire new GOP.

 

It just seems like, that Cruz is more a "non-affilated" candidate from within the Republican party while Trump is the obvious outsider trying to squirm in. Hence I would note that Cruz's supporters are more affilated with being a Republican then Trump are. But I guess thats obvious by now no?

Ted Cruz is a staunch Conservative, and advocates a strict, and focused, interpretation of the Constitution. Donald Trump is a Populist, an unabashed Capitalist, and is in favor of anything that works. Both are Republicans... it's a political party, but Trump is actually trying to force the GOP to be more inclusive and not so rigid with social issues. That of course, is my opinion.

 

I will support either of these men over any Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, or Democrat.

[onbekende]

sure sure, but I just think that the 1 true anti-establishment guy is Trump actually, just cause he wants his own establishment.

 

Cruz on the other hand seems more inclined to have "a new wind",or perhaps "a past wind" however you interpret it, cast in the GOP.

 

Basically they are both sorta catering to the same crowd (ignoring their individual social stances) but just one from within and one from outside. Both are fishing in republican waters true, but you got republicans and you got republicans.

[ccabal86]

For this reason, I believe Trump has a better chance of winning the presidency than Ted Cruz. Despite his bufoon attitude, his actual policies would be more palatable to the independent voters.

[onbekende]

You mean the individual voter further to the right then the Tea Party? Do those excist?

 

The middle ground independants vote for him for 1 stance and 1 stance only: "new to politics"

[ccabal86]

I'll reference the BBC article again, Trump is not an extremist in most areas compared to some of the other candidates. Admittedly, it's often hard to gauge his real position on things, as he often says one thing and the exact opposite as well.

[Lysistrata]

You mean the individual voter further to the right then the Tea Party? Do those excist?

 

The middle ground independants vote for him for 1 stance and 1 stance only: "new to politics"

If you believe that Bernie Sanders is a mainstream moderate, I can then understand why you would believe the Tea Party to be extreme right... but in both cases, you would be off the mark. As a participant and supporter of the Tea Party since it began in early 2009, I can tell you everything there is to know about why, how, where it was a success, and where we failed.

 

The goal of the Tea Party was to sustain our Constitution through the era of Barack Obama, and to minimize his effect on our country. There is nothing extreme right about that. Maintaining the role of our limited government, and the exploding national debt, is what it's all about. It's still alive and well...

[onbekende]

I'll reference the BBC article again, Trump is not an extremist in most areas compared to some of the other candidates. Admittedly, it's often hard to gauge his real position on things, as he often says one thing and the exact opposite as well.

Sadly policy and speech are getting a larger dissonance then ever, offcouse first and foremost Trump is a pragmatist. He could start a catering business

 

 

You mean the individual voter further to the right then the Tea Party? Do those excist?

 

The middle ground independants vote for him for 1 stance and 1 stance only: "new to politics"

If you believe that Bernie Sanders is a mainstream moderate, I can then understand why you would believe the Tea Party to be extreme right... but in both cases, you would be off the mark. As a participant and supporter of the Tea Party since it began in early 2009, I can tell you everything there is to know about why, how, where it was a success, and where we failed.

 

The goal of the Tea Party was to sustain our Constitution through the era of Barack Obama, and to minimize his effect on our country. There is nothing extreme right about that. Maintaining the role of our limited government, and the exploding national debt, is what it's all about. It's still alive and well...

 

Bernie Sanders is left to far left depending on which socio-economic position you are rating, I could even call him radical left from an US standpoint.

 

By that notion, you can be further to the right on some socio-economic issues then the Tea Party, it all just depends on where you draw the line of left/right (as some positions tend to wrap around). The "extreme" part comes from the same way I would classify Cruz as "extreme" on religion, as in they follow the letter of the scripture and fill in their interpretation of it (which is mostly the interpretation used at the start of the USA indeed).

 

I will add that I don't feel akward by sticking the title "extreme" on rather fast, if only to denote people with rather strict ideology interpretations. You could consider using "stringent" where I used "extreme" in some cases.

[Icewolf]

You mean the individual voter further to the right then the Tea Party? Do those excist?

The middle ground independants vote for him for 1 stance and 1 stance only: "new to politics"

If you believe that Bernie Sanders is a mainstream moderate, I can then understand why you would believe the Tea Party to be extreme right... but in both cases, you would be off the mark. As a participant and supporter of the Tea Party since it began in early 2009, I can tell you everything there is to know about why, how, where it was a success, and where we failed.

The goal of the Tea Party was to sustain our Constitution through the era of Barack Obama, and to minimize his effect on our country. There is nothing extreme right about that. Maintaining the role of our limited government, and the exploding national debt, is what it's all about. It's still alive and well...

So why are you not doing everything to stop Trump, a man who by his own statements regards the constitution as an inconvenience?

In particular the desire to restrict freedom of speech by "closing down bits of the Internet" and advocating loudly for torture. He also stated that people would do what he told them even if his instructions where outside the authority of a President under the constitution.

[Lysistrata]

So why are you not doing everything to stop Trump, a man who by his own statements regards the constitution as an inconvenience? In particular the desire to restrict freedom of speech by "closing down bits of the Internet" and advocating loudly for torture. He also stated that people would do what he told them even if his instructions where outside the authority of a President under the constitution.

I will do everything I can to help him get elected... he's running as a Republican. Saying is not doing.

 

Barack Obama on the other hand, never said while campaigning, he would by Executive Order, grant amnesty and legal residence to over 5 million illegal aliens... but he did it. It's now in the process of being declared an illegal act. Obama at every turn has attempted to bypass Congress, act like a monarch, and by his own "actions" regards the Constitution as an inconvenience.

 

Hillary Clinton, while campaigning, has said she will "take" profits from private business, and "claw back" bonus' and tax breaks... like it's her money. There is nothing more unconstitutional, than theft. She talks about "equal pay", like women have to make as much money as men... is it not discrimination to restrict a man's income because he's a man? She talks about reproductive rights of women... what about reproductive rights of men? Their child is aborted too... do they not have a say? No, their reproductive rights are in the same ash can as rape and incest.

 

The U.S. Constitution was created to protect American citizens from their government. It does not grant Congress and Presidents the power to create laws that benefit a specific race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, income range, or age group. The Constitution is blind, and only recognizes people that belong here, and people that don't.

 

I don't care what happens to terrorists. If it could save one American life, I would smash every limb with a sledgehammer myself. Give me a choice to either be taxed to death or waterboarded... I'll take the waterboarding... because I know it won't hurt me.

[Icewolf]

How can taxation be considered more against the constitution that undermining the 1st amendment, or protection against cruel and inhumane treatment? 

 

I find it quite contradictory to in one breath insist that the constitution is sacred, and then happily cheer on a person whose campaign pledges are to undermine not only the basis of the US constitution, but some fairly basic human rights principles at the same time. Either the constitution is sacred or it isn't. There isn't a halfway house in which "these actions which break it are fine, these actions which break it are not."

 

As for torture, apart from the fact it is morally wrong, it does not work. The actions in Guantanamo bay have not only endangered the lives of American citizens, but of any citizen of a country associated with America. 

[Imran Ehsan]

I actually want Trump to win. It will be an interesting phase in US history for sure. Hillary, Cruz and Rubio..I feel will be the same old, same old. Sanders is an outsider as well but he wont win the Democratic Nomination.

 

Probably wont be good news for most of the US allies (europeans and the corrupt arab monarchs) and countries that have a big stake in the US market (china, mexico, japan) but will not hugely affect others. US foreign policy is shit anyway, at least this guy can bring something new to the table (good or bad).

[Shahenshah]

If he's really a deal-maker, it's a win win in foreign policy too. I'd prefer a deal-maker over warmonger(aka unilateral arm-twisting (aka bombing and overthrowing govts)). And perhaps, perhaps, with no special interests backing him up (arms lobby, oil lobby, certain foreign lobbies), he might actually be objective towards the voters interest, not the lobby interests. Is'nt it better for the world if USA invests 1 trillion dollar on its own citizens rather than creating rubble, then moving rubble from point A to point B and as collateral, creating chaos & refugees somewhere far away. 

[Lysistrata]

How can taxation be considered more against the constitution that undermining the 1st amendment, or protection against cruel and inhumane treatment? 

 

I find it quite contradictory to in one breath insist that the constitution is sacred, and then happily cheer on a person whose campaign pledges are to undermine not only the basis of the US constitution, but some fairly basic human rights principles at the same time. Either the constitution is sacred or it isn't. There isn't a halfway house in which "these actions which break it are fine, these actions which break it are not."

 

As for torture, apart from the fact it is morally wrong, it does not work. The actions in Guantanamo bay have not only endangered the lives of American citizens, but of any citizen of a country associated with America. 

Hi Ice... I'll quick address this before I try to make sense out of what happened last night.

 

There is nothing more Constitutional than the power of Congress to tax. I am not against taxation at all. What I am against is being taxed for issues, programs, and laws that are unconstitutional. We gave the Federal Government the power to tax us for what the Constitution allows them to do, but we didn't give the Federal Government the power to tax us for things we never gave them the power to do. There is a difference between proper taxation, and improper taxation. We have a ton of improper taxation.

 

The way I see it, Guantanamo is not big enough, and far too comfortable. Be careful my friend... your sympathy for terrorists might be misunderstood as support for their actions. When I ask the U.S. Military to go to war, put their lives on the line for me, and expect them to win... I will not be telling them how to do that from my cushy position of relative safety. I want them to eliminate the enemy, stay alive, and come home. Your problem is, you still believe what we do will make them hate us, you are blind to the fact that they already do.

[Icewolf]

Forget about the democrats for a moment. 

 

You said you are a strong believer in the constitution, and were a part of the Tea Party movement because of their belief in the constitution. Donald Trump is a man who has declared that he does not accept the rule of law, does not stand by the principle of Freedom of Speech, and regards the entire thing as an inconvenience. Can you explain for me how you reconcile those two positions, support for the constitution and support for Donald Trump over the other Republican candidates?

 

As for the torture thing, it does not yield useful information or intelligence. However it is a recruiting tool.

 

Don't think for a moment that I am blind to the danger of terrorism. One of my colleagues lost a friend in the Paris attacks. 2 days after the Paris attacks I went to Brussels, pointing out to my boss it was 300 miles away. Turns out the terrorists were hiding in Brussels, and I only just got out of the city before the lockdown began. However, I also know that most muslims are like me and you. The overwhelming majority in fact. Even in the territories held by Islamic state, the majority are like you.

 

The people that hate the west are a small group. They are surrounded however by less hardcore people who in the absence of the Islamic state group would not do anything to commit harm. These people probably don't approve of a lot of the actions of IS. However in the comparison between IS and the US backed forces that previously held their territory (or Assad backed forces) a bit of brutality isn't that bad. After all, the Iraqi and Syrian army committed abuses. And as did the US army, as they took people away and tortured them for years.

 

If those propoganda tools (the abuse by Assad's forces, the torture by American forces) hadn't existed, then that soft core group would see a much bigger contrast between Islamic State and the west. And therefore would be far less likely to tolerate their presence.

 

Please don't read this as sympathy for terrorists. I don't have any. I don't want them to win. However, I honestly do not see how handing them a brilliant propoganda tool that yields no useful intelligence  helps us achieve that aim. I also dislike them because of their cruelty and the acts they carry out. However, I really do not see the point in doing those very same acts in order to stop them. If the terrorists are morally wrong, then we are also morally wrong if we replicate their actions. 

[ccabal86]

I believe terrorists are a special group who should not be judged with traditional concepts of morality in mind. Why we, as a society, should show them the courtesy of moral treatment when they want nothing more to destroy and end us? As such, I believe individuals confirmed as terrorists should be beyond normal moral and legal considerations.

 

That said, experience has shown that torture is objectively ineffective.

Edited by ccabal86, 09 March 2016 - 06:12 PM.

[onbekende]

icewolf, the US constitution only applies to americans, silly goose

 

you should rather be worried about how large that group called "americans" will be after 4y of Trump >_>

[Lysistrata]

You said you are a strong believer in the constitution, and were a part of the Tea Party movement because of their belief in the constitution. Donald Trump is a man who has declared that he does not accept the rule of law, does not stand by the principle of Freedom of Speech, and regards the entire thing as an inconvenience. Can you explain for me how you reconcile those two positions, support for the constitution and support for Donald Trump over the other Republican candidates?

Sorry for the delay gang, my wife twisted my arm and forced me into the jacuzzi.

 

I don't know why you have a hard time understanding this Ice. I keep repeating myself, and for some reason, you just refuse to accept it as reality. So here it is again... I will support the Republican that is winning. Donald Trump is winning, and he will continue to keep winning. There is nothing that will stop him. If something happens... like maybe he is exposed as being a straw man for Hillary Clinton... I have thought about that scenario... or they have him killed... I have thought about that scenario too... I will then support the next Republican that is winning. Beating the Democrats like a dirty rug is all I care about in this election.

 

Terrorists are something I care less about than Democrats. I don't care where they put them (not here of course), or what they do to them... just as long as they are not able to hurt anyone else... ever. Every moment that I do not have to think about a terrorist, is one more moment I have to think about something that is worth my time. If it were up to me, I would have them executed after I had drained every last piece of information from their maggot brains... and I would not give a shit how anyone felt about it.

[onbekende]

The lack of thought about Democrat's standpoint and just attacking the title and the person frontrunning it sounds awfully similar to what the other side is doing. You people really don't need a mirror, you folks need a interpreter

 

Guess the lack is the same about my weeks-old question not getting any answer, meh.