|
Post by Moose on Aug 4, 2016 21:06:28 GMT
I gather that some senior Republicans are distancing themselves from the GOP and saying that they will vote for Hilary in an anti Trump protest. Thoughts? How many are actually likely to do it, and what are the long term effects on the party likely to be?
Also, is Trump really likely to get the Christian vote? I know a lot of people on the Christian right who I know will not vote for him.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 4, 2016 22:23:28 GMT
How many of your Christian friends think for themselves and how many just follow the crowd?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 5, 2016 17:20:37 GMT
I'd like to hope that most of them think for themselves, just as my secular friends do
|
|
|
Post by Elis on Aug 6, 2016 23:09:24 GMT
I don't get why Christians would vote for Trump. He seems very un-Christian to me.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 7, 2016 0:32:18 GMT
I don't get it either. I know that a lot will not vote for a Dem candidate because Dems are traditionally pro choice. It seems weird to care more about unborn humans than living humans.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Aug 7, 2016 9:22:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Elis on Aug 7, 2016 9:25:42 GMT
I don't get it either. I know that a lot will not vote for a Dem candidate because Dems are traditionally pro choice. It seems weird to care more about unborn humans than living humans. That is the other thing I find weird: voting or not voting for someone because of one single issue? I don't get that.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 7, 2016 19:46:54 GMT
It tends to be people voting for things like bans on abortion or gay marriage in my experience. Which might be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 8, 2016 16:47:57 GMT
The reason fundamentalist Christians in the US vote for somebody like Trump is that they are politically and culturally stunted and he is a con man.
There is a huge overlap of the chronically under-educated and Christian fundamentalism and it gets expressed in anti-intellectualism at its most delusional.
Insert in to this volatile mix a media intent upon sensationalizing the whole situation to capture and manipulate a naive marketshare. And, who owns the media?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 8, 2016 16:59:57 GMT
As for the GOP fracturing....I certainly hope so. I paid big money for me to get in on this campaign. I'm hoping for kicking, biting, gouging, and punching below the belt. I've been holding out for a mass walkout and urged write-in campaign from the likes of Cruz/Walker. I would expect the mainstream Reptilians to prep somebody like Kaish to step in (but I hear he has demurred in the talks about tRump 'stepping down'). I am hoping it will be a big, big loss...like, really YUGE loss and the media and culture mavens will start throwing the thumb and forefinger 'L' salute every time they mention the tRump name. Then, there will be lots of stubby finger-pointing, name-calling and all-out hissy fits, and three new political parties arise from the ashes of the GOP.
That would suit me just fine.
I didn't expect that the Democrats would be teetering on the edge of a very, very similar chasm. But, hey....That's fine with me, too. It's time to rearrange the deck chairs on the good ship Republic.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 8, 2016 20:11:18 GMT
Anti intellectualism - yes, I saw that sometimes on the Wardrobe. It tended to be more prominent among the evangelical/charismatic brigade - Catholics and Anglicans tended to be better educated and more thoughtful.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Aug 8, 2016 20:13:53 GMT
*buffs fingernails...*
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 8, 2016 21:35:41 GMT
Well, yeah...They get to dance, too.
I didn't know that charismatic types even opened books like that. Wouldn't it be considered to be 'magical' and 'demonic'? (Y'know...High Anglican/cypto-Catholic....quasi-papist.)
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 8, 2016 21:54:26 GMT
First...I think a LOT of the marginal voters are going to just sit this election out. They will be so conflicted that they will just stay home and not cast a vote. I happen to think this is just fine because their votes tend to be badly misguided. I think a lot of very progressive types will also just sit this one out. The Bernieorbust types, y'know.
I personally think that a shipload of supporters of tRump will not vote because they didn't know they had to register, or, if they did register, they forgot what day was election day and got drunk, instead. Of those which make it to the polls on time, I suspect that a significant portion of them will not be able to find their candidate on the ballot before giving up.
This is why, as a normal rule, I do not support 'populist' candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 8, 2016 22:37:30 GMT
I find the Bernieorbust brigade quite irritating. Their morals may be better than those of the Trump supporters but they seem prepared to believe absolutely anything at all about Hilary, no matter how ridiculous. I just blocked someone on facebook who had previously claimed that Hilary paid a million dollars to hackers to post child porn on Bernie's official site. Whatever you might think of Hilary, that is just not credible. What on earth would be in it for her to do that? Risking a jail sentence, losing a million dollars, just to offend a few Bernie supporters who would certainly not change their vote anyway?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 9, 2016 10:51:46 GMT
I've been getting hard porn ads on this forum. Maybe Hillary paid for those too.
I used to think floating voters were the worst kind but I have completely changed my view. They are the most valuable because they swing from one side to another depending on the candidates, party promises or the economy. Loyal party members who always vote for their own party do not reflect changing conditions.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 9, 2016 14:37:53 GMT
I've been getting hard porn ads on this forum. Maybe Hillary paid for those too. I used to think floating voters were the worst kind but I have completely changed my view. They are the most valuable because they swing from one side to another depending on the candidates, party promises or the economy. Loyal party members who always vote for their own party do not reflect changing conditions. We call them 'swing' voters, but, yeah...I agree. I used to be a fairly loyal Democrat, even became a 'District Leader' (a minor party functionary at the state legislator level) until I was offended by the rampant arrogance of party leaders and walked out. I've been an 'unaffiliated' voter, a 'non-partisan' voter, for about ten years now. I recommend it highly. I assess political proposals on their merit, not who, or which party, supports or opposes it. This generally places me in the position of criticizing both parties, the proposal, and the candidates associated with it. I still swing far to the left, though.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 9, 2016 21:50:16 GMT
I see Trump's latest gaffe is the apparent suggestion that gun supporters should assassinate Clinton. His supporters are, of course, back tracking and saying that that isn't what he meant. I can see how it can be read both ways but I suspect that he did mean assassination but knew that it could not be proved.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2016 0:07:27 GMT
You can see both ways? What's the other way?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 10, 2016 0:18:56 GMT
I've been getting hard porn ads on this forum. Maybe Hillary paid for those too. Really? I thought we were supposed to blame Obama.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2016 0:22:59 GMT
Oh, sorry
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 10, 2016 1:10:40 GMT
Steve - the other way is that supporters of the second amendment might not vote for her. But as as far as I know she has no plan to take their guns away en masse then no, I don't think he meant it that way
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2016 10:34:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 10, 2016 11:51:19 GMT
Steve - the other way is that supporters of the second amendment might not vote for her. But as as far as I know she has no plan to take their guns away en masse then no, I don't think he meant it that way But as per Right Wing usual, the claim is that Hillary will take away 2nd Amendment rights and come for everyone's guns, just like Obama was going to *sigh*. But I do think his words could very easily be read in a very sinister way, certainly by nutjobs (and he's not short of those), as 'Second Amendment people' means people with guns: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. "But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." I think he just says the first thing that comes into his head; no filter. I think the time has come for him to be removed by saner members of his party.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 10, 2016 13:17:18 GMT
O, great....a CIA & Goldman Sachs candidate who has never held public office. Now the kleptonomic plutocrats have a purchased candidate from each party running for president. He's a complete and total unknown...a cypher. (It just shows you how far down in the ranks of possible candidates they had to look to find a sucker to take the hit of a huge stinking loss.)
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2016 13:23:29 GMT
He's no more than an irritant, too late for the ballot paper in 26 states. So not only has he not held public office, he can't even manage to enter in time. I think he's only interested in providing Utah with a decent Republican candidate.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 10, 2016 13:43:21 GMT
He's no more than an irritant, too late for the ballot paper in 26 states. So not only has he not held public office, he can't even manage to enter in time. I think he's only interested in providing Utah with a decent Republican candidate. Oh, I don't consider a Goldman-Sachs tainted Mormon to be 'decent', but then, the 'Republican' tag already tipped me off as to the dodge. I'm fine with it because he will draw a few disgruntled Reptilian voters from the clutches of tRump and have no effect whatsoever on Democratic leaning types. What it does do for McMullin, who is 'only' 40, is to set him up in Utah for some kind of political run in two to four years, when he will then have some 'name familiarity' due to his being drafted now. A write-in campaign is entirely possible. They are never effective, but will offer an option that a lot of Reptilian voters my clutch at in their 'straw poll' of an election. We are assuming that this is part of the Reptilian electorate which is actually capable of writing. Literacy and critical thinking are not long suits in the Reptilian crowd, particularly among stRumpets. My question is whether the NRA is going to run a candidate, or not. And the Bundys....are we going to get a Bundy candidate intent upon auctioning off the public lands? "How much are we bid on this big forkin' hole in the ground called 'Grand Canyon'?" And, the anti-abortion candidate...who is that? Will they declare 'open season' on hunting physicians again? I think it is time to multiply the number of Reptilian candidates running for president. Give every Reptilian a fistful of options!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2016 17:48:06 GMT
I'm fine with it because he will draw a few disgruntled Reptilian voters from the clutches of tRump and have no effect whatsoever on Democratic leaning types. At the moment, Trump is threatening to turn a red state blue (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/utah-mormon-voters-anti-donald-trump-republican-caucuses). If McMullin has a very successful campaign, he might succeed in beating both Hillary and Trump, thereby thwarting Hillary's success in Utah. Although I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 10, 2016 18:48:06 GMT
If someone were to take a pop at Hilary, would Trump be held responsible?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 10, 2016 20:58:11 GMT
At the moment, Trump is threatening to turn a red state blue (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/utah-mormon-voters-anti-donald-trump-republican-caucuses). If McMullin has a very successful campaign, he might succeed in beating both Hillary and Trump, thereby thwarting Hillary's success in Utah. LOL...Wow. That is one really outside possibility. But, I must admit, the Morons are a tight group of group thinkers and if anybody could do it with a state, it would be them. But you need to keep in mind that but for the northeast corner of the state, where Salt Lake City and Provo are, the state is frippin' empty. It's a huge desert, much of it the salt flats of the Great Salt Lake. Utah has 6 electoral votes, meaning it has four Congressional Representative districts along with its two US Senators. It is a 'small state'...Bigger than Alaska (which has 3 electoral votes) or Vermont (which has 3 electoral votes), but still small. Even if McMullin could manage to convince enough of the Moron former CIA FIRE-toadies to counter the gentile Democrats in the state, such a stunning coup would net him 6 electoral votes of the necessary 270 (of 538). *yawn*
|
|