Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Has in fact changed his positions and policies to do so? Because that to me is the definition of selling out.Flagg wrote: He's a democrat for the money and exposure. But if you honestly believe he's going to stay a democrat when he goes back to the senate I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
I never said he sold out. I said he's a whore. He eschewed the democrats for decades then joined the party just in time to run a dead-end campaign for money and media exposure. It's pretty much the definition of a political prostitute. And since he has no chance of winning the nomination his continued campaigning is frankly, obnoxious.Crazedwraith wrote:Has in fact changed his positions and policies to do so? Because that to me is the definition of selling out.Flagg wrote: He's a democrat for the money and exposure. But if you honestly believe he's going to stay a democrat when he goes back to the senate I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
Not 'had to sign up to have any chance at all in a two party system'
Insofar as I understand the procedure, Kasich and Cruz are no longer campaigning and are only in this thing dormantly long enough to get enough money to pay down debts. Their delegates are uncommitted. But there is nobody else but Trump going to that convention. I mean, somebody could throw somebody else's name in the ring, or their own, but...wow that would be wild card if that managed to happen AND win.Tribble wrote: I don't know how the process works, but the cynical part of me suspects that Trump could still lose the nomination come convention time. Technically speaking he does not have the majority of pledged delegates, right? And because no one else is running an active campaign against him, there won't be any votes where he can get more delegates, right?
If all the remaining delegates are technically not committed to anyone, come convention time could they choose another person to vote for to prevent Trump from securing the nomination?
I will take the opportunity to (repeatedly) point out Sanders' advocacy for the topics of Anti-Citizen's-United and pro single-payer health-care for everybody 'murrican, without trying to pick a serious fight. No clowning here. All fucking with each other aside, you and I both know this is true. Guy lost, but I personally feel bad about it. Things could've been better.Flagg wrote:Well "WALL STREET BAAAAD!!!" Is his one and only platform so it would totally undermine his entire reason for existing as a democrat for money. He's a prostitute, not a moron.
It's swift boating. That and the fact that unless you see the debates or watch media outlets like the Young Turks where they go into policy details about Bernie's platform, you basically see that single issue from the media which feeds into the narrative.Honestly, its such a laughably obvious lie that I'm not sure why anyone still bothers with it.
Are you arguing that Sanders is in any way, shape, or form espousing beliefs that differ from what a large fraction of the Democratic Party believes?Flagg wrote:He's a democrat for the money and exposure. But if you honestly believe he's going to stay a democrat when he goes back to the senate I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
People in the remaining Republican contests will still vote. The 'suspended' campaigns will still raise money to pay down debt, and they can continue to pay the workers as the various apparatus wind down to the dormant state. The various campaign committees can and probably will be brought back later for other campaigns for office. In the case of Cruz, that would be re-election to the senate, and for Kasich that could be to try and unseat [Ohio's Democrat Senator Sherrod] Brown in 2018). Trump will still need to get the votes in the remaining states (Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota) to win outright at the convention, but with no serious challengers left, winning the remaining 445 delegates is trivial (Trump literally only needs about half of the remaining delegates to get to 1237). At this point, he is still technically running in the primary, but is able to run a general election campaign.Tribble wrote:So what happens to Trump now that the others have suspended their campaigns? Will voting still go on, or is that suspended too? Will Trump now become the nominee, or does he still technically have to get a majority of the delegates to sign on?
It's actually Senator Sherrod Brown, I just put the first bit in brackets as an edit. I can see where that might be confusing.Terralthra wrote:TimothyC, I'm wondering if you might answer a question for me. In your post above, when referring to Senator Sherrod, you used "Democrat" as an adjective. I see this a lot on conversative websites. Is there a particular reason that conservative commentators don't use the proper adjective, "Democratic"? The name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
You didn't change the order, you changed the punctuation. As it was, it was an adjective phrase, and in the edit, it's a noun phrase. You can't say "if I change the sentence so that it's a noun phrase, a noun is totally correct," as evidence that a noun phrase is correct when used as an adjective.TimothyC wrote:It's actually Senator Sherrod Brown, I just put the first bit in brackets as an edit. I can see where that might be confusing.Terralthra wrote:TimothyC, I'm wondering if you might answer a question for me. In your post above, when referring to Senator Sherrod, you used "Democrat" as an adjective. I see this a lot on conversative websites. Is there a particular reason that conservative commentators don't use the proper adjective, "Democratic"? The name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
As for why, it's one of those "It's not wrong" things that are used to distinguish between someone who is a small-d democrat / a system based on democracy, and someone who is a member of the Party of Jackson and Wilson. It's an effort to break an unconscious connection between the political party in the US and the common use of "The US is democratic." It's also why you see the US being called a republic more on the right vs on the left. To give an example of how it's not wrong, if I change the order to "Ohio Democrat, Senator Sherrod Brown."
The Independent wrote:Donald Trump has reversed his stance on two key economic principles - saying he now supports a higher national minimum wage and would raise taxes on the rich rather than lowering them.
Providing fresh evidence he is making up his policy priorities as he goes along, the Republican presidential candidate contradicted previous statements during an interview with NBC.
“I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour,” he said, adding that he would support “an increase of some magnitude” in minimum wage levels, even if he’d rather leave the decision to individual states.
Mr Trump’s policy meanderings will further discomfit those in his party who are still struggling to decide what to do now that the last two remaining rivals in the race for the nomination, Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich, have raised the white flag and dropped out.
Senator John McCain, the nominee in 2008, surprised many by apparently surrendering to the prospect of a Trump run for the White House, saying he “could be a capable leader”.
In a debate late last year Mr Trump said he considered the existing minimum wage “too high”. But on Sunday he explained he had reconsidered those words after traveling the country since then. “I’ve seen what’s going on,” he contended, although it is hard to find an example of when he has varied his routine of appearing at giant rallies actually to speak with voters face to face.
He similarly rowed back on his own tax plan, issued earlier this year, which envisioned further cuts for the wealthiest Americans, in line with the “trickle-down” orthodoxy of many Republicans. He suggested that that the plan, which many economists had criticised as a recipe for a new explosion in the budget deficit, was merely a “floor” for negotiating with Congress.
“When it comes time to negotiate, I feel less concerned with the rich than I do with the middle class,” Mr Trump averred. He said he wanted a simplified tax system, with fewer income-level brackets determining rates, as well as lower taxes for corporations. “For the wealthy I think frankly it is going to go up and, you know what, it really should go up,” he said.
If by his waverings Mr Trump is making it harder for his sceptics to pin him down that will be fine by him. Especially exasperated is the deep-conservative wing of the party which has long contended he is not really one of them on issues ranging from foreign policy, abortion and gay rights; his new pronouncements on tax and wages will only reinforce their suspicions.
An effort was launched last week by William Kristol, the commentator and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, to find someone to make an independent bid to derail Mr Trump, which has included private talks with the 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney. But with a Monday deadline to be on the ballot in Texas, a vital state, time is fast running out on the project.
Senator McCain admitted in an interview with CNN that his affection for the New York billionaire may be limited. Last year Mr Trump famously questioned the heroism of Mr McCain who was captured and tortured in Vietnam, suggesting he preferred soldiers who don’t get captured. The remarks joined the not slim canon of Trumpisms considered beyond the pale by many.
“I have never seen a personalisation of a campaign like this one, where people's integrity and character are questioned,” he said. “It bothers me a lot. You can violently almost disagree with someone on an issue, but to attack their character and integrity - those wounds take a long time to heal.”
However, the Senator, who faces a tough Senate re-election battle in his home state of Arizona this year, said he felt obliged to take notice of the support Mr Trump won through this spring’s primaries. “You have to listen to the people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” Mr McCain opined. “I think it would be foolish to ignore them.”
As Mr Trump prepares for peace talks in Washington on Thursday with House speaker Paul Ryan, who has said he is as yet unable to endorse him, one of his more high-profile backers on the trail, former vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, said the spat showed how clueless the current party leadership is about what voters want.
“Paul Ryan and his ilk, their problem is they have become so disconnected from the people they were elected to represent,” Ms Palin, who run as Mr McCain’s running mate, said on CNN. “Their problem is they feel so threatened at this point that their power, their prestige, their purse will be adversely affected by this change that is coming with Trump.”
So you aren't in this voting thing for the platform or politics? Young people...The Romulan Republic wrote:Donald could literally adopt the entire Bernie Sanders economic platform and ask Bernie to be his VP and I'd merrily vote for Clinton over him.
Purple wrote:So you aren't in this voting thing for the platform or politics? Young people...The Romulan Republic wrote:Donald could literally adopt the entire Bernie Sanders economic platform and ask Bernie to be his VP and I'd merrily vote for Clinton over him.
I'm voting based on "I don't want to help legitimize xenophobia, bigotry, authoritarianism, and violence in American politics".Purple wrote:So you aren't in this voting thing for the platform or politics? Young people...The Romulan Republic wrote:Donald could literally adopt the entire Bernie Sanders economic platform and ask Bernie to be his VP and I'd merrily vote for Clinton over him.
I just honestly don't think Trump actually intends to do the things he says. He is basically feeding the masses what they want to hear just like every other politician ever. What really matters in elections is economic policy and foreign policy. Everything else is just window dressing.The Romulan Republic wrote:I'm voting based on "I don't want to help legitimize xenophobia, bigotry, authoritarianism, and violence in American politics".Purple wrote:So you aren't in this voting thing for the platform or politics? Young people...The Romulan Republic wrote:Donald could literally adopt the entire Bernie Sanders economic platform and ask Bernie to be his VP and I'd merrily vote for Clinton over him.
I am very much voting on the issues. I just feel those particularly issues outweigh any others.
Edit: And like Crossroads Inc. basically said, I'd not trust Donald to follow through these new promises anyway.
To be fair. What Trump is doing is not much different than many other politicians. Other politicians are just savvy enough to use dog whistles and codewords to pander to the bigoted.The Romulan Republic wrote:Even if we make the most generous assumptions about him and assume that he means not a word that he says, the mere fact that he is out their playing to and encouraging xenophobia, bigotry, and violence to gain power is highly dangerous and morally bankrupt. He is encouraging, emboldening, and legitimizing some very dangerous ideas, and his victory would only do so to a greater extent (unless maybe he did a total 180 consistently for the next six months, which I'm fairly confident he won't).
At best, you can basically say "He's not really an authoritarian bigot, he's just willing to lie constantly and advance the causes of authoritarianism and bigotry in order to gain power". Which isn't much of a defence.
Edit: And again, I want to emphasize that this is a candidate who's so offensive that the best case scenario is that he's basically lying through his teeth every time he opens his mouth.
We'll see. Really CNN put it right a week or so ago when they said he was the only candidate whose platform is irrelevant because his voters don't support him for the platform but for his personality. And that I think is right. We'll have to see how he adjusts his platform come elections. This might be interesting to watch.The Romulan Republic wrote:Even if we make the most generous assumptions about him and assume that he means not a word that he says, the mere fact that he is out their playing to and encouraging xenophobia, bigotry, and violence to gain power is highly dangerous and morally bankrupt. He is encouraging, emboldening, and legitimizing some very dangerous ideas, and his victory would only do so to a greater extent (unless maybe he did a total 180 consistently for the next six months, which I'm fairly confident he won't).
Bigot I can see but why authoritarian? Did I miss him saying he will abolish democracy or something? I mean, I do admit not to have followed him too closely. So I might well have.At best, you can basically say "He's not really an authoritarian bigot, he's just willing to lie constantly and advance the causes of authoritarianism and bigotry in order to gain power". Which isn't much of a defence.
That's not a best case. That's the default case for any and all political figures at all time.Edit: And again, I want to emphasize that this is a candidate who's so offensive that the best case scenario is that he's basically lying through his teeth every time he opens his mouth.
Yeah, but I think that the persona they're largely gravitating towards is "Outspoken bigot/bully who's not afraid to "tell it like it is" (as they see it) about how the evil women and liberals and minorities are threatening us." He's an asshole bigot who appeals to other asshole bigots because they see a kindred spirit who can get away with voicing the things they were afraid to say.Purple wrote:We'll see. Really CNN put it right a week or so ago when they said he was the only candidate whose platform is irrelevant because his voters don't support him for the platform but for his personality. And that I think is right. We'll have to see how he adjusts his platform come elections. This might be interesting to watch.
Proposing to bar people from the country on the basis of religion, proposing mass deportation of all illegal immigrants, encouraging violence against his political opponents, proposing changing the law to make it easier to sue the press, and proposing to bring back more torture techniques are all Drumpf positions and all, in my opinion, authoritarian positions.Bigot I can see but why authoritarian? Did I miss him saying he will abolish democracy or something? I mean, I do admit not to have followed him too closely. So I might well have.
I find this an overly simplistic stereotype that normalizes and encourages acceptance of political dishonesty and corruption.That's not a best case. That's the default case for any and all political figures at all time.
