Jump to content
southsider2k5

2016 Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:31 PM)
Nope. But that's the reaction I was expecting. How does Bill fall into the same category? Are they not allowed to become more progressive over time, ya know, the way Obama has? And ALL democrats have? Come on.

 

I don't buy that it is noble, not for a second. The policy changes have been cold and calculated based on majority polling. Guys like Bernie Sanders has always been "progressive". He didn't need time to figure it out. Does that mean in 20 years the Clintons will be where Sanders is today, since he is the most progressive of all? If that is the end game, why not just vote for Sanders now, and not wait for the years needed to evolve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:35 PM)
I don't buy that it is noble, not for a second. The policy changes have been cold and calculated based on majority polling. Guys like Bernie Sanders has always been "progressive". He didn't need time to figure it out. Does that mean in 20 years the Clintons will be where Sanders is today, since he is the most progressive of all? If that is the end game, why not just vote for Sanders now, and not wait for the years needed to evolve?

Bernie Sanders is a white man from the most LIBERAL state in the f***ing union. Congrats on being progressive your whole career. Meanwhile Clinton was in AR and NY, both diverse in very different ways. Good lord. Context matters man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:37 PM)
Bernie Sanders is a white man from the most LIBERAL state in the f***ing union. Congrats on being progressive your whole career. Meanwhile Clinton was in AR and NY, both diverse in very different ways. Good lord. Context matters man.

 

You can feel free to keep making excuses for the Clintons. If it were my two cents, I would be voting for the candidate who has exhibited the right tendancies all along, and not waiting to see if this candidate would still be holding the right convictions if polling numbers changed again. To me that goes to the central issue of trust in a candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:40 PM)
You can feel free to keep making excuses for the Clintons. If it were my two cents, I would be voting for the candidate who has exhibited the right tendancies all along, and not waiting to see if this candidate would still be holding the right convictions if polling numbers changed again. To me that goes to the central issue of trust in a candidate.

Lol you call them excuses, I call it pragmatic understanding of how the world actually works, but potato potahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:17 PM)
Obviously Sanders isn't a moderate, which is why I was assuming you thought Kasich was, since that would put him closer to Bernie ideologically. But since you said it's about personality over policy, then it's a moot point.

 

They're both pretty douchey, so I guess that's a fair comparison. :P

Again with the putting words in my mouth. It's not just "personality" (which I did not say). It's leadership skills, the ability to drive change, the priorities, the track record, the ability to work with people on a professional level, the ability to represent the country as a face to the world, etc. Lots of factors that aren't policy points, and they sure as heck aren't just "personality".

 

But you go on ahead trying to pigeon-hole everyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:41 PM)
Lol you call them excuses, I call it pragmatic understanding of how the world actually works, but potato potahto

 

I understand how the world works. I also understand when a politician will quite literally say anything to get elected. I don't respected candidates who don't have deep convictions on major issues, especially on a repeated basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:46 PM)
Again with the putting words in my mouth. It's not just "personality" (which I did not say). It's leadership skills, the ability to drive change, the priorities, the track record, the ability to work with people on a professional level, the ability to represent the country as a face to the world, etc. Lots of factors that aren't policy points, and they sure as heck aren't just "personality".

 

But you go on ahead trying to pigeon-hole everyone.

 

Y'all are feeling all sorts of defensive these days. In any case, I'd argue you might want to read up on both their records in regard to their abilities to work with people - neither are stellar at it record-wise. But hey, in the end you do you. This really wasn't meant to be a big thing - just odd that you lumped those two together. No biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:46 PM)
I understand how the world works. I also understand when a politician will quite literally say anything to get elected. I don't respected candidates who don't have deep convictions on major issues, especially on a repeated basis.

It's a thin line, but there is a key difference between a candidate who has strong convictions but has shown they can make things work with others, versus someone with strong convictions but doesn't play well with others. That's political leadership in a nutshell, really.

 

Clinton can compromise I have no doubt, but she's slushy on her own stances going in which won't serve her well. Sanders has very strong convictions, and goes in with a positive attitude, but I am not convinced he can compromise. Cruz is outright adamant in his views, and I have zero faith he can work with anyone else. Kasich I think may be the closest to being able to balance these things, which gives him some appeal.

 

Trump is the worst case. There is no core there, AND he plays horribly with others.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:46 PM)
I understand how the world works. I also understand when a politician will quite literally say anything to get elected. I don't respected candidates who don't have deep convictions on major issues, especially on a repeated basis.

When is it ok for a politician to change their position on an issue, in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:50 PM)
It's a thin line, but there is a key difference between a candidate who has strong convictions but has shown they can make things work with others, versus someone with strong convictions but doesn't play well with others. That's political leadership in a nutshell, really.

 

Clinton can compromise I have no doubt, but she's slushy on her own stances going in which won't serve her well. Sanders has very strong convictions, and goes in with a positive attitude, but I am not convinced he can compromise. Cruz is outright adamant in his views, and I have zero faith he can work with anyone else. Kasich I think may be the closest to being able to balance these things, which gives him some appeal.

 

Trump is the worst case. There is no core there, AND he plays horribly with others.

agreed with this (with a miiiinor disagreement re: Kasich but whatevs :P )

Edited by Reddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:50 PM)
When is it ok for a politician to change their position on an issue, in your mind?

This is just a single example, but I want to point out Hunstman as an example (ran for GOP a couple cycles ago). He flipped his views on gay marriage, from anti to pro. Said it was because of his friendship with someone who was gay. May not be believable, except here's the thing - he actually changed to a view that was very much against his own party. In fact he probably knew it would play poorly, especially in a state like Utah, or running for President from the GOP. But he did it anyway. So that's an example of a change where I can look and say, OK, this wasn't a purely political move to get votes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:53 PM)
This is just a single example, but I want to point out Hunstman as an example (ran for GOP a couple cycles ago). He flipped his views on gay marriage, from anti to pro. Said it was because of his friendship with someone who was gay. May not be believable, except here's the thing - he actually changed to a view that was very much against his own party. In fact he probably knew it would play poorly, especially in a state like Utah, or running for President from the GOP. But he did it anyway. So that's an example of a change where I can look and say, OK, this wasn't a purely political move to get votes.

Agreed completely. Always liked Huntsman. But then the argument is, just because it's a change that's in line with where the party's platform is moving, doesn't INHERENTLY mean it's an in-genuine thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:50 PM)
It's a thin line, but there is a key difference between a candidate who has strong convictions but has shown they can make things work with others, versus someone with strong convictions but doesn't play well with others. That's political leadership in a nutshell, really.

 

Clinton can compromise I have no doubt, but she's slushy on her own stances going in which won't serve her well. Sanders has very strong convictions, and goes in with a positive attitude, but I am not convinced he can compromise. Cruz is outright adamant in his views, and I have zero faith he can work with anyone else. Kasich I think may be the closest to being able to balance these things, which gives him some appeal.

 

Trump is the worst case. There is no core there, AND he plays horribly with others.

 

I think there is a clear line here. You can hold convictions, but be willing to compromise. I do not see Clinton as being in this camp. I don't see any of what I have seen the Clintons do over the past few decades as compromising. It is their positions that have changed, not their ability to compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:55 PM)
I think there is a clear line here. You can hold convictions, but be willing to compromise. I do not see Clinton as being in this camp. I don't see any of what I have seen the Clintons do over the past few decades as compromising. It is their positions that have changed, not their ability to compromise.

The world is SO different now than it was decades ago! You REALLY want them to stick to all their views they held in 1992? Have YOU stuck to every single opinion you held when you were thirty years younger than you are now? come on dude you're really grasping here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:57 PM)
The world is SO different now than it was decades ago! You REALLY want them to stick to all their views they held in 1992? Have YOU stuck to every single opinion you held when you were thirty years younger than you are now? come on dude you're really grasping here...

 

On the scale that the Clintons and Trump have done it? No. I don't buy it for a second. Every single change has been in line, and timed with, majority opinion holding for their party. That is a gigantic red flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:59 PM)
On the scale that the Clintons and Trump have done it? No. I don't buy it for a second. Every single change has been in line, and timed with, majority opinion holding for their party. That is a gigantic red flag.

Only to you (and anyone else who agrees with this position), because it fits your confirmation bias.

Edited by Reddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:01 PM)
Only to you, because it fits your confirmation bias.

 

And coincidentally not believing it fits your confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 04:02 PM)
And coincidentally not believing it fits your confirmation bias.

 

That - by definition - is not true. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my problem with Clinton, lots of people used to be against gay marriage, and I'm glad that she is one of the people that now publically supports it. But what I don't like about her is that she will come out and state that she was always for it, when there is video evidence of her stating otherwise. I'm not bashing anyone who has changed their minds, but rather how they respond to people saying they changed their mind. She just goes straight to a bold faced lie, when a respectable answer would've been "times have changed, and so have my opinions. I've grown and matured and so have some of my ideologies, one of those being my support for gay marriage."

 

If she gives an answer like that it humanizes her, because we've all had moments like that where we've decided that something we used to believe just doesn't mesh with your current moral stances. She decided that her best course of action was lying when there was a very good opportunity to give a reasonable and relatable answer, and that's why I don't trust her. (and this isn't the only time she's done this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:06 PM)
That - by definition - is not true. ;)

 

Not really. You are try to feed me that changing your mind often on major policy positions somehow makes you smarter than everybody else. Hillary has to be the best candidate because she has changed her mind so many times. Every subsequent time she changes her mind just proves that again, thus confirming the bias of what you believed all along.

 

For my two cents, I want to see a candidate that will stand up for what they believe. Even though I think Bernie Sanders is a loon, I can respect the guy for being who he is. I don't think it is any coincidence that he has been able to parlay that into a sizable level of support. Not only can people understand his convictions, they can trust the guy to stay there. They know who is he. A large part of the unlikability rating for Clinton is exactly because of that. People feel like they can't trust her, and for good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:10 PM)
Here's my problem with Clinton, lots of people used to be against gay marriage, and I'm glad that she is one of the people that now publically supports it. But what I don't like about her is that she will come out and state that she was always for it, when there is video evidence of her stating otherwise. I'm not bashing anyone who has changed their minds, but rather how they respond to people saying they changed their mind. She just goes straight to a bold faced lie, when a respectable answer would've been "times have changed, and so have my opinions. I've grown and matured and so have some of my ideologies, one of those being my support for gay marriage."

 

If she gives an answer like that it humanizes her, because we've all had moments like that where we've decided that something we used to believe just doesn't mesh with your current moral stances. She decided that her best course of action was lying when there was a very good opportunity to give a reasonable and relatable answer, and that's why I don't trust her. (and this isn't the only time she's done this)

 

Don't tell Clinton supporters this man, they'll have to come up with some other reason they support a pathological liar such as her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 04:10 PM)
Here's my problem with Clinton, lots of people used to be against gay marriage, and I'm glad that she is one of the people that now publically supports it. But what I don't like about her is that she will come out and state that she was always for it, when there is video evidence of her stating otherwise. I'm not bashing anyone who has changed their minds, but rather how they respond to people saying they changed their mind. She just goes straight to a bold faced lie, when a respectable answer would've been "times have changed, and so have my opinions. I've grown and matured and so have some of my ideologies, one of those being my support for gay marriage."

 

If she gives an answer like that it humanizes her, because we've all had moments like that where we've decided that something we used to believe just doesn't mesh with your current moral stances. She decided that her best course of action was lying when there was a very good opportunity to give a reasonable and relatable answer, and that's why I don't trust her. (and this isn't the only time she's done this)

 

You're right about that - but is it possible that she has privately always supported it, but it wasn't the popular position of the day? I don't know, and you don't know. But the reality is that I simply think she will be the best President - by far - of any of these current options when it comes to handling EVERY aspect of the job, and being prepared on day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 08:57 PM)
The world is SO different now than it was decades ago! You REALLY want them to stick to all their views they held in 1992? Have YOU stuck to every single opinion you held when you were thirty years younger than you are now? come on dude you're really grasping here...

 

Her track record suggest a person who CANNOT be trusted. I think that's pretty obvious. Only justification to vote for her IMO is if you think she's the best of this horrible lot of candidates. Her views can change, sure. But she changes policy and yes, lies, with the best of the politicians. She's very lucky IMO she's skating on this email thing. It's kind of like North Carolina and the basketball scandal. Everybody knows they are guilty, but we also know they aren't going to be punished. Just the way it is.

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't arguing about who is the most trustworthy presidential candidate kinda like arguing who is the nicest guy among Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×