2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

To establish "most of the time".....wouldn't you need more data than one vote he made?

 

I mean, that's just the easiest hole I can poke in your argument, there are plenty of others.

 

The guys 69 years old, he is a life long Democrat.  His stances on a lot of important issues are still consistent with the Democrat party.  If I was a democrat and wanted to ruin the Republican nomination process for my friend Hillary Clinton I would do exactly what Trump is doing.  It's not a major conspiracy.  If he's actually a Republican he would be capable of explaining his Obama vote and what changed.

 

It's the Clinton playbook.  Fail in 2008 try to cheat in 2016.  When's Twinsfest hopefully these lies will be exposed by then and we can focus on baseball.

[stringer bell]

OK. I found a source that Trump endorsed John McCain in 2008. I found nothing that says that Trump voted for Obama. A year later Trump was at the forefront of the "birther" nonsense. As for the Clinton friendship, Trump has consistently called Hillary Clinton "the worst Secretary of State in history" or words to that effect.

 

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/trump-endorses-mccain/

[stringer bell]

To a larger point, in 2008 a lot of Republicans deserted their party and voted for Obama. It isn't against the law and at the time a Republican administration had led the country into the worst recession since the 1930s depression. I suspect a lot more Republicans than the hundreds that came out publicly voted for Obama.

 

I started out in the opposite camp that year, liking McCain's maverick persona and respecting his service as a Naval officer and POW. The veering to the right to garner the nomination and the naming of Sarah Palin ended my interest in the Republican.

 

Back to "the Donald". He is clearly an opportunist who says whatever he thinks will sway voters in his party to vote for him. I've listened to a half dozen interviews and he has no depth, no core. Everything he does will be "huge", "the biggest", "the best", based on ????? I can't see him standing up to a debate on issues with a competent Democrat and I can't see him appealing to the entire electorate.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The guys 69 years old, he is a life long Democrat.  His stances on a lot of important issues are still consistent with the Democrat party.  If I was a democrat and wanted to ruin the Republican nomination process for my friend Hillary Clinton I would do exactly what Trump is doing.  It's not a major conspiracy.  If he's actually a Republican he would be capable of explaining his Obama vote and what changed.

 

It's the Clinton playbook.  Fail in 2008 try to cheat in 2016.  When's Twinsfest hopefully these lies will be exposed by then and we can focus on baseball.

 

He's not a lifelong Democrat, he seems to be a life-long independent who flips back and forth between the parties.  Or gives money to whomever will take it and give him influence.  

 

You have no basis for saying he is a Democrat "most of the time", except for one vote.  Given that he's 69, as you point out, he's probably voted a lot.  Meaning one vote is not likely to constitute "most of the time".  I would hope you can understand this, but given the depths of delusion you have on this subject I'm a bit worried I have to lay it out more thoroughly.  

 

As Stringer points out, all the facts say your opinion is bunk.  You should either get a new opinion or accept that yours is completely fantasy.  You don't like Trump.  Good for you, that's a good thing.  Just get off the damn ledge.  Trump as a Republican is a symptom of what is cancerous about today's conservatism.  That 30-40% of conservatives will line up behind him because of platitudes and anti-muslim talk should be a wake up call.

[nicksaviking]

 

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif    http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/images/smilies/shakeshead.gif

 

I'm speechless........again.

 

Americans can be stupid, but they're just not that stupid. I'm not at all concerned with what the polls say because I'm pretty certain that when polled on who they would rather have in the White House, Clinton or Trump, most conservatives are still going to say Trump, and perhaps the many anti-Trump conservatives posting here could help us out. They just aren't going to be able to bring themselves to tie their name to the Democrat.

 

But I think largely these folks will not end up going out to vote, or if they do, they'll write in a different name. When the anti-Trump conservatives (which is a large portion of the party) are ultimately asked at the voting booth "Who will you vote for, Clinton or Trump," the final answer will be neither.

 

Meanwhile Democratic leaning voters are going to be more compelled than ever to turn out to the polls, plenty staunchly in support of Clinton, but more than anything just to keep the sideshow from winning.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Americans can be stupid, but they're just not that stupid. I'm not at all concerned with what the polls say because I'm pretty certain that when polled on who they would rather have in the White House, Clinton or Trump, most conservatives are still going to say Trump, and perhaps the many anti-Trump conservatives posting here could help us out. They just aren't going to be able to bring themselves to tie their name to the Democrat.

 

But I think largely these folks will not end up going out to vote, or if they do, they'll write in a different name. When the anti-Trump conservatives (which is a large portion of the party) are ultimately asked at the voting booth "Who will you vote for, Clinton or Trump," the final answer will be neither.

 

Meanwhile Democratic leaning voters are going to be more compelled than ever to turn out to the polls, plenty staunchly in support of Clinton, but more than anything just to keep the sideshow from winning.

And let's not forget that presidential elections are not won with a partisan vote. The "big, quiet middle" will skew bright blue if You-know-who manages to win the nomination (which he probably won't, making all of this moot).

[Mike Sixel]

I still believe is it Rubio or Cruz vs Clinton. Ugh. What a choice.....

[drjim]

 

I still believe is it Rubio or Cruz vs Clinton. Ugh. What a choice.....

 

Could be worse.

 

I'm not sure how a significantly "better" candidate can emerge from this process. I would actually argue Clinton is one of the two best qualified people in this country to be president right now, along with Romney. And Rubio and Cruz are quite similar to Obama c. 2008, with Cruz probably being even more experienced.

[Mike Sixel]

Just because the process produces this kind of outcome doesn't mean I have to like it. Clinton certainly has the experiences you'd want, but I have trust issues with her.

 

You know, this would all be different if McCain chooses a non-psycho as his running mate, imo. Well, that and the House wasn't filled with her ilk. 

 

I miss the days of Bob Dole and others, who wanted to, you know, work TOGETHER, to make the world a better place. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Could be worse.

 

I'm not sure how a significantly "better" candidate can emerge from this process. I would actually argue Clinton is one of the two best qualified people in this country to be president right now, along with Romney. And Rubio and Cruz are quite similar to Obama c. 2008, with Cruz probably being even more experienced.

 

Romney would instantly have my vote if he was in this.

[Willihammer]

Party switches happen all the time, it is allowed. Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Norm Coleman all were democrats before they were Republicans. And Clinton used to be a Republican (campaigned for Nixon). Not to mention she voted for the Patriot Act, Iraq invasion, etc. she is hardly the most liberal Democrat to be associated with.

 

Trump is less conservative than Cruz but the sad truth is that flip flopping on abortion and gay marriage made him a de facto Republican. Today those two issues as much as anything are what define "conservatism," not spending cuts, free trade, personal liberty, tax cuts, etc.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Americans can be stupid, but they're just not that stupid. I'm not at all concerned with what the polls say because I'm pretty certain that when polled on who they would rather have in the White House, Clinton or Trump, most conservatives are still going to say Trump, and perhaps the many anti-Trump conservatives posting here could help us out. They just aren't going to be able to bring themselves to tie their name to the Democrat.

 

But I think largely these folks will not end up going out to vote, or if they do, they'll write in a different name. When the anti-Trump conservatives (which is a large portion of the party) are ultimately asked at the voting booth "Who will you vote for, Clinton or Trump," the final answer will be neither.

 

Meanwhile Democratic leaning voters are going to be more compelled than ever to turn out to the polls, plenty staunchly in support of Clinton, but more than anything just to keep the sideshow from winning.

 

Just because the process produces this kind of outcome doesn't mean I have to like it. Clinton certainly has the experiences you'd want, but I have trust issues with her.

 

You know, this would all be different if McCain chooses a non-psycho as his running mate, imo. Well, that and the House wasn't filled with her ilk. 

 

I miss the days of Bob Dole and others, who wanted to, you know, work TOGETHER, to make the world a better place. 

 

I agree McCain and Dole were a different kind of Republican, but it's odd during the "work together" days we saw middle of the road policy and now we see a lot of very liberal policy.  Maybe more then one party was working together back then.  Clinton sure seemed to have a willingness to work with Republicans, but now if Ted Cruz asked for what Newt Giengrich and Clinton agreed to he'd be called an obstructionist extremist.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I still believe is it Rubio or Cruz vs Clinton. Ugh. What a choice.....

 

I don't know if Bernie can do it but don't count on Clinton just yet.  At this point in the last 4 open races the leader fell short, and Clintons lead in 08 was just about this big.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Party switches happen all the time, it is allowed. Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Norm Coleman all were democrats before they were Republicans. And Clinton used to be a Republican (campaigned for Nixon). Not to mention she voted for the Patriot Act, Iraq invasion, etc. she is hardly the most liberal Democrat to be associated with.

Trump is less conservative than Cruz but the sad truth is that flip flopping on abortion and gay marriage made him a de facto Republican. Today those two issues as much as anything are what define "conservatism," not spending cuts, free trade, personal liberty, tax cuts, etc.

 

What came first him flipping on those issues making him a Republican, or his decision to run as a Republican forcing him to flip on those issues.  He sure doesn't talk about this issues much even when asked.  You know what I think. 

[drjim]

 

I agree McCain and Dole were a different kind of Republican, but it's odd during the "work together" days we saw middle of the road policy and now we see a lot of very liberal policy.  Maybe more then one party was working together back then.  Clinton sure seemed to have a willingness to work with Republicans, but now if Ted Cruz asked for what Newt Giengrich and Clinton agreed to he'd be called an obstructionist extremist.

 

Always a great point. "Working together" usually means the other side doing what I want.

[drjim]

 

I don't know if Bernie can do it but don't count on Clinton just yet.  At this point in the last 4 open races the leader fell short, and Clintons lead in 08 was just about this big.

 

He can't, and the way he is running his campaign suggests he knows as much.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree McCain and Dole were a different kind of Republican, but it's odd during the "work together" days we saw middle of the road policy and now we see a lot of very liberal policy.  Maybe more then one party was working together back then.  Clinton sure seemed to have a willingness to work with Republicans, but now if Ted Cruz asked for what Newt Giengrich and Clinton agreed to he'd be called an obstructionist extremist.

Perhaps there is less willingness because of how far right the right has moved. Hard not to see that truth when you consider the stances of Kasich.

 

I think that move has forced the left to dig into their trenches and here we are...a totally intractable government.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

He voted for Obama, so I guess it is a fact he seems to be a Democrat most of the time.

 

When you seem to think you an only vote for one of two people and your choices are Obama and Romney, I think a lot of people would vote Obama (oh wait, they did).  If I had that gun pointed to my head, I might have, but since I didn't, I voted for Gary Johnson.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Perhaps there is less willingness because of how far right the right has moved. Hard not to see that truth when you consider the stances of Kasich.

I think that move has forced the left to dig into their trenches and here we are...a totally intractable government.

 

How far right have Republicans moved since 1994?  You tell me.  A little odd that Republicans get picked apart for not "working together" but the idea that Democrats aren't is applauded.  For the record I don't care if Democrats work with Republicans or not, if they win elections they can do what they want.

[Mike Sixel]

Sorry, which person said Democrats shouldn't work with Republicans to make the world a better place, and compromise sometimes to do so?

[drjim]

 

Sorry, which person said Democrats shouldn't work with Republicans to make the world a better place, and compromise sometimes to do so?

 

Does seem it is kind of assumed in the context of all the other posts.

[PseudoSABR]

Study: Republicans are embarrassed to admit how much they like Donald Trump

[biggentleben]

 

Does seem it is kind of assumed in the context of all the other posts.

 

I guess I never, ever assumed that. The issue brought up multiple times by multiple posters is that there are no good candidates this year for the simple reason that each is so far into his/her party's line right now. How each will pander to the middle during the general election is what will be intriguing and decide the presidency, but it's also why nothing ever truly gets done in Washington anymore. In politics, we've all taken our ball and gone home. The issue that I have is when I've heard of issues discussed and attempted compromise, the compromise rebuttal from the right has typically been incredibly nonsensical, and I don't mean used car salesman nonsensical, more like grandma's got dementia and called an orange a squirrel nonsensical.

 

Neither side is blameless certainly, but finger pointing doesn't get anywhere. When someone says that there's an issue with a lack of compromise, rather than saying "well, so do you!", instead say, "really, then how can we fix it together?" That's the change that's happened in my lifetime in Washington. Politics have always been a self-serving venture for the money-hungry that choose to line their pockets with political position, but at least there was an expectation that something would get done in session. Now, it seems there is pride taken in forcing a stalemate with "the other side".

[TheLeviathan]

 

How far right have Republicans moved since 1994?  You tell me.  A little odd that Republicans get picked apart for not "working together" but the idea that Democrats aren't is applauded.  For the record I don't care if Democrats work with Republicans or not, if they win elections they can do what they want.

 

Pretty damn far right.  

 

Both sides cheerlead their own for not working together.  That's one of the things Republicans seem to like about Gomer and hate about McConnell....right?  

[glunn]

Moderator note -- please stop using derogatory nicknames, such as "Gomer" and Voldemort.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

. Politics have always been a self-serving venture for the money-hungry that choose to line their pockets with political position, but at least there was an expectation that something would get done in session. Now, it seems there is pride taken in forcing a stalemate with "the other side".

 

I think the problem I have is that when something has gotten done, I personally would have rather had a stalemate. I cannot point to any legislation over the last several decades where I thought it was much needed and a good idea. When things get done, the people get screwed and the only ones benefiting are those folks lining their pockets.

 

I'm not saying that we need to root for stalemates, but there's so much broken in American politics right now that a stalemate is more often than not, the best possible outcome. If you want to fix politics, you need to get the machine out of it. You can start with real term limits, lobbying restrictions, and real campaign finance reform, but no one will touch any of that because it takes power away from those who have bought it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Moderator note -- please stop using derogatory nicknames, such as "Gomer" and Voldemort.

 

thank you. We might not like some of these people, but they are running for POTUS.

[drjim]

My response to this is fix it how and to what end?

 

Part of the problem, in addition to the systemic issues that are constantly mentioned, are that the problems our country faces right now are really hard to fix and there are not easy solutions and there are multiple thoughts on how to address them. This doesn't lead to the easiest of working conditions or fertile ground for working together.

 

Congress, after huffing and puffing, does eventually make small deals to keep things running. But they big movements happen pretty rarely, perhaps for the better.

[Mike Sixel]

The problem is that nearly every small movement is in the same direction right now......less help for the needy, more subsidies for the wealthy (see the most recent spending package). We can't increase funding to help veterans, but we can supply more tax cuts and direct money to businesses that Congressmen invest in......and it happens year after year. I stand by my earlier posts, there will be violence and a near revolution in our children's lifetime.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 but at least there was an expectation that something would get done in session. Now, it seems there is pride taken in forcing a stalemate with "the other side".

 

While there are times when something actually does need to be done, those situations tend to be met with swift action from both sides even if they have to work through some disagreement.  Not only don't I want most of what Democrats want to get done, I don't want much of what the Republican get stuff down crowd wants.  I'd like certain things done, but if Democrats want to stop it for whatever reason I'm fine with that.  If John McCain and Mitch McConnell Thad Cochran and Lindsey Graham want to stop it I'm not nearly as fine with it, but thats why they invented primaries.