vote for a republican candidate for president part 2

the other night I got a little accosted by a drunk old man who assumed I was a foreigner. maybe in a universe where trump isn't running that still happened, but it did make me wonder.

For the nomination? Starting with the premise that I'm confident both would lose a general, Trump--I dislike Cruz that much. But I think there's a better chance Trump would win a general--uncharted territory, harder to gauge--so that gives pause. In terms of actually being in office, Trump. I suspect he only believes half the stuff he says, if that, and I'd rather have a con man in there than a zealot. Plus I dislike Cruz that much.

Cruz cos I want the dreams of the delusional dashed

I do hate Cruz tho

basically anybody who gets nominated is gonna be a shitbag tho

in either party

ahh forgot to unplug the batsignal *sigh*

batshitsignal

yes i recall those emails unearthed from hrc's private server that outline her secret plans to stop all muslim immigration and build a wall to keep mexico out. all candidates are indeed created equal

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/2/2e/Hillary_joker.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080719181832

yeah but she takes too long in the bathroom

tsk tsk

oo0h SEXIST SEXIST EVERYTHING'S SEXIST

basically anybody who gets nominated is gonna be a shitbag tho

― Neanderthal, Sunday, 6 March 2016 15:10 (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in either party

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 6 March 2016 15:16 (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ahh forgot to unplug the batsignal *sigh*

― Neanderthal, Sunday, 6 March 2016 15:19 (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Mayne cmon the post didn't deserve any better.

mayne?

Trump is uniquely volatile and unpredictable. His campaign, so far, has looked to me like an insane joke and to white suprematists like their best hope for "taking back" the country. He might be an existential threat to the Republic, or he might just be an ineffective buffoon who, at worst, would be an embarrassment.

Cruz has a very clear agenda, and the knowledge and political skill to further it. It's a bad agenda, involving rolling back women's rights, gay rights, health care, our progressive tax code (so much as it can be called progressive), and more. There is no doubt that a President Cruz would do harm to the nation. Furthermore, in terms of his personal character, it seems like people generally see him as sneaky, self-righteous, and unkind. However, unlike Trump, he seems to have some level of respect for the nation and the office of the president. His social conservativism is rooted in intolerance, but not hatred; he's opposed to gay rights, but he's never talked about barring gays from the country like Trump has with Muslims. I think these distinctions are important.

Cruz.

sophie's choice right here

(xpost) I agree with a lot of your characterization of Trump, but seeing as he was seemingly left of center for most of his adult life and just happened to have done a 180 during the window of a presidential run, and add to that that he doesn't seem to care a great deal about getting along with Ryan or congress, is there any reason to believe he'd do (or even could do) any of the stuff he presently blathers on about? Trump would be an embarrassment for sure--Cruz would superficially act more presidential--I'm just less convinced he'd effect actual change to the degree that Cruz would.

This is reminiscent of such popular time-killers as "Which would you rather do: French kiss a corpse or drink a quart of bulldog drool?"

I'd pick trump over cruz, because again, I don't think he believes half of what he says and he'd meet with so much opposition from both parties while in office that he'd be ineffectual. cruz, on the other hand, believes everything he says and it is all bad.

Aimed at Neanderthal morbs

I'd pick trump over cruz, because again, I don't think he believes half of what he says and he'd meet with so much opposition from both parties while in office that he'd be ineffectual. cruz, on the other hand, believes everything he says and it is all bad.

Doesn't matter what he believes or not, what matters is what he owes the people who helped put him in office. I doubt he'll pull through on all of his bullshit, but he's going to have to throw a few bones to the dogs. The worst of Trump existed before he started winning in the primaries, so regardless of what he even does, those elements are going to be empowered with his election.

You'd take more beatings of black people, gay people, muslims, and immigrants over an insane messianic creep? I can see the challenge here. "Dear fellow ILXors of the minority persuasion, I'll take you guys getting beaten over a religious nut job. How's that sound to you?" I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I don't think "voting for Trump" is a decent or ethical option no matter what.

I'm willing to bet that a Cruz Presidency would be worse for all of those groups than a Trump Presidency. Cruz's rhetoric and beliefs are every bit as vile, and Trump's ego may preclude him from worrying all that much about "the people who helped put him in office."

Yeah, but Ted Cruz doesn't have the same appeal as Trump, so I don't think he'd be worse, that's just one of those memes that have popped up. I live in the Northeast and Ted Cruz's presence just doesn't exist here, and probably never will. Trump is all over the place, though. Cruz may be worse if you're in Texas, I guess, but that's not saying much.

Cruz talks about "carpet bombing" ISIS territory while Trump advocates "going after the families [of terrorists]." Effectively the same thing, but I'm not sure what it means for our country to give up on euphemism. Like, dude is advocating a totally unapologetic, unambiguous empire. (Make mexico pay for the wall, take ISIS's oil, see the world as our adversary and win.) I'm not ready for this brave new world.

Leftists have been complaining about neo-colonialism and the asymmetrical benefits of globalism forever. All this stuff has been true, but I think our administrations have been restrained by the fact that official policy dictates they respect the sovereignity of foreign nations, international law, etc. We've let our governments get away with a lot but have always insisted on the mask, ans our leaders have insisted on it too. Taking it away would be a major change in how the US operates in the world imo. Not sure the consequences are even estimable.

Trump advocates "going after the families [of terrorists]."

Not to get all Morbs, but isn't Obama already doing this?

hopeful for trump/cruz ticket

Trump

I look at this from the perspective of which candidate would present better opportunities for democrats. Trump is the high risk, high payoff candidate, and Cruz is the opposite. Trump has a small chance of actually winning in the general election, thus the high risk, but he has a much better chance of causing irreparable damage to the republican brand and their chokehold on congress. Cruz, otoh, has zero chance of winning in the general, but will have more of a unified republican party supporting him, which means less chaos and damage to them.

His social conservativism is rooted in intolerance, but not hatred; he's opposed to gay rights, but he's never talked about barring gays from the country like Trump has with Muslims. I think these distinctions are important.

fwiw, Cruz voted to suspend all visas issued to nationals of pretty much every Muslim-majority country in the world and was one of only ten senators to do so.

I think that's different than barring "Muslims," not in effect but in principle.

Trump advocates "going after the families [of terrorists]."

Not to get all Morbs, but isn't Obama already doing this?

― larry appleton, Sunday, March 6, 2016 3:18 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh you missed a riveting discussion in the other thread

i think trump is riskier than cruz in the sense that he suggests a total abrogation of the democratic system - if not merely concentrated in himself as executive but also in the willingness of his supporters to threaten the norms of the public upon activation. the slow crawl of religious fundamentalist beliefs through legislation and executive orders are also a threat but not in the same existential sense, i don't get the feeling that the evangelicals are flirting w/ strongman fascism whereas i could imagine a world where trump authorizes a paramilitary to help defend the homeland.

Not a Cruz defender at all btw. He is the worst type of politician in our system/tradition, but I think he is still answerable to that tradition in a way Trump is not. Trump is a bigger threat because he is a new kind of politician. There is no telling how he would govern, or how he would conceive of his role, or what principles if any would restrain his actions. Even though it looks almost safe to assume he would just be ineffective, and maybe even backpedal on his positions, I am still more frightened of him bc he represents a rupture with ordinary politics

sorry xp

for years i've been wondering - probably since huckabee's first primary - why a religious nationalist/populist movement wasn't picking up steam in the republican movement and so far i guess we should be really grateful that trump's supporters and cruz's supporters seem distinct and hostile. bc it's not v hard to imagine the 2 sides compromising and putting together a nationalist christian movement.

Or what mordy said

I think that's different than barring "Muslims," not in effect but in principle.

There is no principle beyond barring Muslims. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are just professional enough to have fleshed out a vaguely plausible way of doing it rather than blurting it out at a press conference.

cruz is still too committed to reagan + ideological conservatism i guess so despite being a real outsider to the republican party he's still seen by trump supporters as an insider. and trump's religious faith is such a poor hoax that even evangelical christians can see through it. but if you found an actually religious trump authoritarian? it's hard to imagine bc so much of trump's appeal is his iconoclasm - that he'll say anything. and cruz's religiosity requires at least a veneer of high-mindedness to work. i'm sure someone is trying to crack the code right now.

in terms of cabinet appointees / supreme court nominees, i perceive more ideological wiggle room in trump than cruz, but i haven't really put much thought into critiquing that perception. feel like we'd be getting a bunch of hawks either way, but trump's foreign policy opinions don't seem very ideologically consistent. idk maybe i'm just still shook from cheney/rumsfeld/ashcroft/wolfowitz and the rest of the gang... a rat's a rat.

the economist this week laments, among other things, that a president trump would abandon the gop's commitment to a "muscular foreign policy". no he wouldn't, lads.

which muscle

supercalifragalisticbulbospongiosus

can i do a write-in vote for "cyanide pill"

trump without a doubt, still

I'd like to vote for "take pill, wake up in November"

did rubio drop out? i understand not including kasich.

Rubio was converted into pure energy this morning

Cruz to bring swing voters against the GOP
Trump to cause GOP discord

It's win-win. Neither of these idiots have a chance.

it's not v hard to imagine the 2 sides compromising and putting together a nationalist christian movement.

― Mordy, Sunday, 6 March 2016 20:30 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I might be missing subtleties here but isn't the Republican nominee p much always this

cruz is a worse person than trump and has even worse views but i'm going w/ him since i think he has very little chance of ever appealing to anyone who isn't already in his corner, whereas trump doesn't even act like a guy trying to get elected president, he acts like a guy who's time traveled to next year and already seen the results of the election.

"and trump's religious faith is such a poor hoax that even evangelical christians can see through it. "

I would have thought so too but he has a large evangelical following, maybe more so than Cruz? I don't get it.

does he? i've been hearing a lot about evangelicals feeling skeptical about trump's values but maybe that was just anecdotal data and most evangelicals are responding well to him. deems - the big difference is jettisoning the conservative movement principles (like cutting benefits + cutting taxes for the wealthy) which always stood in the way of the republicans being a legitimate populist movement (as opposed to trying to exploit populist sentiment without coupling it to actually populist policy).

It's more that his support is strong among people who'd tick 'evangelical' as a tribe-marker but maybe aren't likely to wrestle in their souls with how his policies match biblical values (even the subset of biblical values that those voters 'should' be all about) - much, as you say, like his appealing to people who'll tick 'Republican' but don't really care that much about conservative movement principles.

Trump has expressed his deep love for evangelicals--"the evangelicals"; no one uses articles like Trump--on many occasions.

The evangelicals, the sportos, the motorheads, they think he's a righteous dude.

No poorly educated, no credibility.

The Mexicans, too!

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

We all lost.

lotta accelerationists itt

not sure which one is more accelerationist tbh

I have decided on my endorsement: chaotic convention, ted cruz steals the nomination despite being behind in delegates, donald trump supporters riot / boycott election