Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Bush family, Kasich vs Reince Priebus

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Recently, Reince Priebus threatened Republicans who aren't endorsing Trump with this:

"Those people need to get on board. And if they're thinking they're going to run again someday, I think that we're going to evaluate the process " of the nomination process and I don't think it's going to be that easy for them."

In simpler terms: "if you don't fall in line, I will rig everything against you." Along with the likes of Kasich and Cruz, Jeb Bush is very clearly implicated.

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does. He will not be bullied by a Kenosha political operative that is unable to stand up for core principles or beliefs. (Priebus) should be thanking (Governor Kasich) for an inclusive, conservative vision that can actually win a national election. The Governor is traveling the nation supporting down ballot Republicans and preventing a potential national wipeout from occurring on Reince's watch."

Ouch.

All is quiet on the Cruz front.

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

Priebus cannot live through an openly hostile Bush family. He just brought death upon himself.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
pkennedy119
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 4:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
President George Washington was the first to warn the American public against partisan politics, and now as it has done many times in history partisan politics reaches it's boiling point. The morality of men are put totally to the test when they are faced with a decision similar to the one governor Kasich is faced with currently. If he supports Donald Trump for the sake of his career, or he can stick to his moral belief and not support the man, but risk losing everything that he has built so far in his career. I am personally proud that Governor Kasich is standing against Reince Priebus. It seems that Donald Trump is not the only person standing against the establishment of the Republican party.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 6:17:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 4:05:05 PM, pkennedy119 wrote:
President George Washington was the first to warn the American public against partisan politics, and now as it has done many times in history partisan politics reaches it's boiling point. The morality of men are put totally to the test when they are faced with a decision similar to the one governor Kasich is faced with currently. If he supports Donald Trump for the sake of his career, or he can stick to his moral belief and not support the man, but risk losing everything that he has built so far in his career. I am personally proud that Governor Kasich is standing against Reince Priebus. It seems that Donald Trump is not the only person standing against the establishment of the Republican party.

http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 8:38:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

There is apparently some flaw in your theory when the establishment can't influence it's very own etablishment members to vote for a particular candidate. Either that or the RNC is not part of the establishment.

Many of the concepts around "establishment" have run so wild this election that it has gotten ridiculous.

Maybe people should consider the establishment not as people but as systems which enable the abuse of power such as a private citizen being enabled to give donations to politicians to gain access or political favors .
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 8:56:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 8:38:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

There is apparently some flaw in your theory when the establishment can't influence it's very own etablishment members to vote for a particular candidate. Either that or the RNC is not part of the establishment.

Many of the concepts around "establishment" have run so wild this election that it has gotten ridiculous.

Maybe people should consider the establishment not as people but as systems which enable the abuse of power such as a private citizen being enabled to give donations to politicians to gain access or political favors .

I agree with much of this, it's like children(or myself) toss about insults or words in an insulting way in an attempt to elevate themselves. The majority of people just don't see it for what it is I don't think. We aren't suppose to label people and yet we do. A bit different there was a debate I watched with this guy who was pro "hate speech" words and saying we should use, the interviewer nailed him every time he used the words he said people shouldn't. We have become a culture of do as I say, not as I do.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:33:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.

Not saying he is a dictator, just observing that he is quick to dismiss the will of the voting GOP, and where that may lead.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:35:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I don't really feel that way at all. Party betrayal is a very clear possibility when selecting candidates and is something to consider. Parties should exist so people can better push for their beliefs - not direct them on who to vote for and to fall in line. People who press this idea that voting for candidates across the isle is somehow immoral are pushing an idea that can only lead to more anti-political party, pro-independent voters - party members should not be expected to act like soldiers.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:35:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:33:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.

Not saying he is a dictator, just observing that he is quick to dismiss the will of the voting GOP, and where that may lead.

See bold.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:37:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:33:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.

Not saying he is a dictator, just observing that he is quick to dismiss the will of the voting GOP, and where that may lead.

See bold.

reword the part about "like anywhere else." I don't understand your point.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:57:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:37:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:33:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.

Not saying he is a dictator, just observing that he is quick to dismiss the will of the voting GOP, and where that may lead.

See bold.

reword the part about "like anywhere else." I don't understand your point.

Leadership contests - where party leaders are selected.

We use our dumb primaries where candidates get delegates in each state - some Republican primaries make it winner take all - which is kind of stupid for determining how much support someone has.

Most other countries have leadership contests where the leader of the party in the next general election is chosen on one day - leaders being determined when they reach mandate support in first option voting and then, if needed, second option voting is used to determine who has the greatest support.

So, for example, a leadership contest leads to 42% for Candidate A, 35% for Candidate B, and 23% for Candidate C in the first-option voting. In the US Republican Primary, Candidate A is near certain to have won. However, say, in a Canadian leadership election, there is no mandate, so instant runoff is used. Only A and B remain. Most of Candidate C voters hate Candidate A, so the end result is, say, 54% to 46% in favor of Candidate B. This results in a much stronger base of support for the candidate chosen, as well as a better considered "will of the people".
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:19:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 8:38:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

There is apparently some flaw in your theory when the establishment can't influence it's very own etablishment members to vote for a particular candidate. Either that or the RNC is not part of the establishment.

What are you talking about? What we have, in the United States, is something called the Donor class. http://www.nytimes.com...

This class is made up of individuals and/or families who contribute significantly to political actors and movers during every election cycle and/or fundraiser event. When I say "The Establishment" those are the individuals I am talking about. While political families or politicians that have been active for many decades could also be considered "The Establishment" the real establishment members are those who belong to the Donor Class.

With this said, it's evident that the Donor Class has chosen Hillary, and with them goes their puppets. Puppets are politicians who've served or acted on behalf of their financial supporters (those who've contributed to them in several instances). What we are seeing are many Republican politicians (and subsequently their staff) who are now jumping the party ship (RNC) to support the candidate chosen by the Donor Class.

What we are seeing, and what makes this election so unique, is that one of their own kind decided to enter the race. How can one member of the Donor Class own another? These people are rich in the truest sense, they are all Alphas, they all have pride, and they all have their own reasons for financially supporting and/or funding various politicians who could serve to benefit their interests. The issue here being that Trump has so much money that he doesn't need to pander to the will of others in his own class, which is a problem for them considering they need people in high offices to push their agendas. This is how the world works, and to deny this is an act of sticking one owns head into the sand.

So your point is misplaced; The donor class has no aisle, they donate to both sides as Trump himself has admitted to doing, thus it's not an issue of the RNC not being a part of the "Establishment", it's an issue of the establishment abandoning the RNC due to its nominee being uncontrollable by them (the donor class) since he *is* one of them. As I originally said, it's disturbing that the Republican puppets are jumping ship due to their donors all going over to Hillary. I feel that any Republican that does so, rather than supporting their party's nominee or just abstaining to vote, should lose their status as a Republican.

Many of the concepts around "establishment" have run so wild this election that it has gotten ridiculous.

Agreed.

Maybe people should consider the establishment not as people but as systems which enable the abuse of power such as a private citizen being enabled to give donations to politicians to gain access or political favors .

The establishment is made up of people who are acting in an unfair system created by the freedom to donate to those who have the ability to enact, repeal, or alter policies and laws. Although the term unfair should be more carefully analyzed. We should really look at the pros and cons of being able to donate to politicians.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:20:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I think that is mainly because the GOP has always operated a certain way and under certain principles. Those principles are aligned with trumps beliefs but have always been marginalized by the people who are running. Like almost any candidate in the GOP will support tighter immigration, but Trump takes it to an extreme.

They are bailing ship because they got a republican jihadist and hope to hold on to what values the party has without doing a total party reformation. It's like Islam. You can look at it respectfully, but the extremist give it a bad reputation. It's much the same with the GOP. Some of their ideals are outdated and are not appealing to the mass but are tolerable, but when you have someone who goes as far right as you can get it exposes the flaws and gives it a bad reputation.

If they did not bail ship, they risk losing the GOP itself.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:32:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:35:33 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I don't really feel that way at all. Party betrayal is a very clear possibility when selecting candidates and is something to consider. Parties should exist so people can better push for their beliefs - not direct them on who to vote for and to fall in line. People who press this idea that voting for candidates across the isle is somehow immoral are pushing an idea that can only lead to more anti-political party, pro-independent voters - party members should not be expected to act like soldiers.

I understand the way you're seeing that. I view it differently. I agree that the point of having multiple parties is to allow everyone to find a representative that is in line with their own ideological positions. I also agree that they don't exist just to direct them on who to vote for or anything like that. But let's actually look at this situation. It's Trump vs. Hillary, and we've got articles saying that people like Bush Sr. is going to vote for Hillary. Clearly if his son, or any other Rupublican running in the primaries was on the ticket other than Trump, he'd still be most likely voting in line with his party.

Rather than doing this though, he's now opting to vote for Hillary, someone who he'd never vote for before Trump secured the nomination. When the option to abstain from voting exists, and his own party candidate isn't aligned with his own views, why not just abstain? Why go to the other side when we all know that the other side isn't aligned with his goals either? Either he's betraying his party by voting for Hillary or he is, somehow, closer aligned to Hillary than he is to Trump. If this is the case, I'd be interested in knowing why or how (this goes for every Republican jumping ship right now to vote for Hillary). I've already elaborated on why I believe so (see my response to Slo1), but if you have other thoughts I'd appreciate hearing them to get a bigger picture.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:36:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:20:12 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I think that is mainly because the GOP has always operated a certain way and under certain principles. Those principles are aligned with trumps beliefs but have always been marginalized by the people who are running. Like almost any candidate in the GOP will support tighter immigration, but Trump takes it to an extreme.

They are bailing ship because they got a republican jihadist and hope to hold on to what values the party has without doing a total party reformation. It's like Islam. You can look at it respectfully, but the extremist give it a bad reputation. It's much the same with the GOP. Some of their ideals are outdated and are not appealing to the mass but are tolerable, but when you have someone who goes as far right as you can get it exposes the flaws and gives it a bad reputation.

If they did not bail ship, they risk losing the GOP itself.

This is an interesting take on the matter that I didn't consider myself. I'd have to think more about this though, because I don't understand how jumping ship will save them... They're actually willing to give the Dems the office for another 4-8 years for the sake of saving their Pre-Trump party rather than having Trump change the party from the inside should he win? I mean, I get it, but jeez. Does the GOP really believe it'll be able to recover after another 4-8 years of Blue control in the Whitehouse?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:44:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:32:08 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:35:33 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I don't really feel that way at all. Party betrayal is a very clear possibility when selecting candidates and is something to consider. Parties should exist so people can better push for their beliefs - not direct them on who to vote for and to fall in line. People who press this idea that voting for candidates across the isle is somehow immoral are pushing an idea that can only lead to more anti-political party, pro-independent voters - party members should not be expected to act like soldiers.

I understand the way you're seeing that. I view it differently. I agree that the point of having multiple parties is to allow everyone to find a representative that is in line with their own ideological positions. I also agree that they don't exist just to direct them on who to vote for or anything like that. But let's actually look at this situation. It's Trump vs. Hillary, and we've got articles saying that people like Bush Sr. is going to vote for Hillary. Clearly if his son, or any other Rupublican running in the primaries was on the ticket other than Trump, he'd still be most likely voting in line with his party.

Rather than doing this though, he's now opting to vote for Hillary, someone who he'd never vote for before Trump secured the nomination. When the option to abstain from voting exists, and his own party candidate isn't aligned with his own views, why not just abstain? Why go to the other side when we all know that the other side isn't aligned with his goals either? Either he's betraying his party by voting for Hillary or he is, somehow, closer aligned to Hillary than he is to Trump. If this is the case, I'd be interested in knowing why or how (this goes for every Republican jumping ship right now to vote for Hillary). I've already elaborated on why I believe so (see my response to Slo1), but if you have other thoughts I'd appreciate hearing them to get a bigger picture.

He probably is closer aligned to Hillary, but that doesn't mean he should be considered a Democrat. He still fits the GOP general mold better.

Also, George H.W. Bush, before reaching his 90s, was known for being active - usually in humanitarian support - while traveling with Bill Clinton. Perhaps during the years that was a thing he developed enough of a respect for the Clintons to vote across party lines for them. Not to mention, H.W. was notably moderate: more than both of his sons. One of the reasons he lost re-election was his tendency to mix more Democratic policies with Republican ones in his economic policy, alienating him from a lot of Republican Congressmen.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:36:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:20:12 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I think that is mainly because the GOP has always operated a certain way and under certain principles. Those principles are aligned with trumps beliefs but have always been marginalized by the people who are running. Like almost any candidate in the GOP will support tighter immigration, but Trump takes it to an extreme.

They are bailing ship because they got a republican jihadist and hope to hold on to what values the party has without doing a total party reformation. It's like Islam. You can look at it respectfully, but the extremist give it a bad reputation. It's much the same with the GOP. Some of their ideals are outdated and are not appealing to the mass but are tolerable, but when you have someone who goes as far right as you can get it exposes the flaws and gives it a bad reputation.

If they did not bail ship, they risk losing the GOP itself.

This is an interesting take on the matter that I didn't consider myself. I'd have to think more about this though, because I don't understand how jumping ship will save them... They're actually willing to give the Dems the office for another 4-8 years for the sake of saving their Pre-Trump party rather than having Trump change the party from the inside should he win? I mean, I get it, but jeez. Does the GOP really believe it'll be able to recover after another 4-8 years of Blue control in the Whitehouse?

No matter what happens, the GOP is screwed long-term.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:55:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:57:20 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:37:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:33:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.

Not saying he is a dictator, just observing that he is quick to dismiss the will of the voting GOP, and where that may lead.

See bold.

reword the part about "like anywhere else." I don't understand your point.

Leadership contests - where party leaders are selected.

We use our dumb primaries where candidates get delegates in each state - some Republican primaries make it winner take all - which is kind of stupid for determining how much support someone has.

Most other countries have leadership contests where the leader of the party in the next general election is chosen on one day - leaders being determined when they reach mandate support in first option voting and then, if needed, second option voting is used to determine who has the greatest support.

So, for example, a leadership contest leads to 42% for Candidate A, 35% for Candidate B, and 23% for Candidate C in the first-option voting. In the US Republican Primary, Candidate A is near certain to have won. However, say, in a Canadian leadership election, there is no mandate, so instant runoff is used. Only A and B remain. Most of Candidate C voters hate Candidate A, so the end result is, say, 54% to 46% in favor of Candidate B. This results in a much stronger base of support for the candidate chosen, as well as a better considered "will of the people".

I still don't see how you think the primary selection system was rigged against Kasich, or how you are sure there wouldn't be a large "neverKasich" crowd from the people tired of the old GOP guard courting alliances with the crony left. You can't win elections if people don't show up to vote for you, regardless of your relative popularity.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:01:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:55:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:57:20 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:37:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:33:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:31:23 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:00:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does.

lol...this is the reasoning every dictator gives when his ideas do not mesh with the will of the people.

Very difficult to say Kasich is a dictator for being against someone that struggles to touch 45% in national support, and wouldn't have a party mandate from the primary if the US chose party leaders like anywhere else.

Not saying he is a dictator, just observing that he is quick to dismiss the will of the voting GOP, and where that may lead.

See bold.

reword the part about "like anywhere else." I don't understand your point.

Leadership contests - where party leaders are selected.

We use our dumb primaries where candidates get delegates in each state - some Republican primaries make it winner take all - which is kind of stupid for determining how much support someone has.

Most other countries have leadership contests where the leader of the party in the next general election is chosen on one day - leaders being determined when they reach mandate support in first option voting and then, if needed, second option voting is used to determine who has the greatest support.

So, for example, a leadership contest leads to 42% for Candidate A, 35% for Candidate B, and 23% for Candidate C in the first-option voting. In the US Republican Primary, Candidate A is near certain to have won. However, say, in a Canadian leadership election, there is no mandate, so instant runoff is used. Only A and B remain. Most of Candidate C voters hate Candidate A, so the end result is, say, 54% to 46% in favor of Candidate B. This results in a much stronger base of support for the candidate chosen, as well as a better considered "will of the people".

I still don't see how you think the primary selection system was rigged against Kasich, or how you are sure there wouldn't be a large "neverKasich" crowd from the people tired of the old GOP guard courting alliances with the crony left. You can't win elections if people don't show up to vote for you, regardless of your relative popularity.

I never said anything about rigging the election, nor was that even about Kasich's lack of support.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:25:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:36:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:20:12 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I think that is mainly because the GOP has always operated a certain way and under certain principles. Those principles are aligned with trumps beliefs but have always been marginalized by the people who are running. Like almost any candidate in the GOP will support tighter immigration, but Trump takes it to an extreme.

They are bailing ship because they got a republican jihadist and hope to hold on to what values the party has without doing a total party reformation. It's like Islam. You can look at it respectfully, but the extremist give it a bad reputation. It's much the same with the GOP. Some of their ideals are outdated and are not appealing to the mass but are tolerable, but when you have someone who goes as far right as you can get it exposes the flaws and gives it a bad reputation.

If they did not bail ship, they risk losing the GOP itself.

This is an interesting take on the matter that I didn't consider myself. I'd have to think more about this though, because I don't understand how jumping ship will save them... They're actually willing to give the Dems the office for another 4-8 years for the sake of saving their Pre-Trump party rather than having Trump change the party from the inside should he win? I mean, I get it, but jeez. Does the GOP really believe it'll be able to recover after another 4-8 years of Blue control in the Whitehouse?

Imagine Trump wins, his term will be catastrophic. It will leave a stigma on the GOP and alienate voters for years to come. Imagine if he actually manages to ban muslims or starts this deportation thing. He will virtually destory the GOP while being elected. People that alienate themselves have a pass saying "we did not support him" while people who did support him will have no chance of getting elected in anything.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 9:43:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:19:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 8:38:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

There is apparently some flaw in your theory when the establishment can't influence it's very own etablishment members to vote for a particular candidate. Either that or the RNC is not part of the establishment.

What are you talking about? What we have, in the United States, is something called the Donor class. http://www.nytimes.com...

This class is made up of individuals and/or families who contribute significantly to political actors and movers during every election cycle and/or fundraiser event. When I say "The Establishment" those are the individuals I am talking about. While political families or politicians that have been active for many decades could also be considered "The Establishment" the real establishment members are those who belong to the Donor Class.

With this said, it's evident that the Donor Class has chosen Hillary, and with them goes their puppets. Puppets are politicians who've served or acted on behalf of their financial supporters (those who've contributed to them in several instances). What we are seeing are many Republican politicians (and subsequently their staff) who are now jumping the party ship (RNC) to support the candidate chosen by the Donor Class.

What we are seeing, and what makes this election so unique, is that one of their own kind decided to enter the race. How can one member of the Donor Class own another? These people are rich in the truest sense, they are all Alphas, they all have pride, and they all have their own reasons for financially supporting and/or funding various politicians who could serve to benefit their interests. The issue here being that Trump has so much money that he doesn't need to pander to the will of others in his own class, which is a problem for them considering they need people in high offices to push their agendas. This is how the world works, and to deny this is an act of sticking one owns head into the sand.

So your point is misplaced; The donor class has no aisle, they donate to both sides as Trump himself has admitted to doing, thus it's not an issue of the RNC not being a part of the "Establishment", it's an issue of the establishment abandoning the RNC due to its nominee being uncontrollable by them (the donor class) since he *is* one of them. As I originally said, it's disturbing that the Republican puppets are jumping ship due to their donors all going over to Hillary. I feel that any Republican that does so, rather than supporting their party's nominee or just abstaining to vote, should lose their status as a Republican.

Many of the concepts around "establishment" have run so wild this election that it has gotten ridiculous.

Agreed.

Maybe people should consider the establishment not as people but as systems which enable the abuse of power such as a private citizen being enabled to give donations to politicians to gain access or political favors .

The establishment is made up of people who are acting in an unfair system created by the freedom to donate to those who have the ability to enact, repeal, or alter policies and laws. Although the term unfair should be more carefully analyzed. We should really look at the pros and cons of being able to donate to politicians.

I hate to break it to you but political donations are very different today versus in mid 90's.

The RNC and Trump pulled in $82 mil versus $90 for H and RNC. There is plenty of "donor class" pulling for Trump. To suggest that there is a tight conspiracy that prominent Republicans are voting for H instead of T because their donors are telling them to is ludicrous.

Listen, I would be the first to tell you that politicians pander to where the money comes from, but usually the more simple answer is right. Is it possible they don't believe Trump would make a qualified president or is not socially consevative? I have a hard time believing Ted Cruz's backers want him to vote for Hillary and are threatening to not back further him if he doesn't.

It is just not a good conspiracy theory at all, because it leads to more questions than it can answer.

Where was this influential donor class's during the primaries and why was it ineffective at getting some of the primary candidates to step aside so the anti Trump vote did not get split?

Secondly where are the conservative Super PACs supporting Hillary? Surely the conservative donor class should have some super PACs.

Too many holes in that stinky cheese.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:22:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:44:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:32:08 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:35:33 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I don't really feel that way at all. Party betrayal is a very clear possibility when selecting candidates and is something to consider. Parties should exist so people can better push for their beliefs - not direct them on who to vote for and to fall in line. People who press this idea that voting for candidates across the isle is somehow immoral are pushing an idea that can only lead to more anti-political party, pro-independent voters - party members should not be expected to act like soldiers.

I understand the way you're seeing that. I view it differently. I agree that the point of having multiple parties is to allow everyone to find a representative that is in line with their own ideological positions. I also agree that they don't exist just to direct them on who to vote for or anything like that. But let's actually look at this situation. It's Trump vs. Hillary, and we've got articles saying that people like Bush Sr. is going to vote for Hillary. Clearly if his son, or any other Rupublican running in the primaries was on the ticket other than Trump, he'd still be most likely voting in line with his party.

Rather than doing this though, he's now opting to vote for Hillary, someone who he'd never vote for before Trump secured the nomination. When the option to abstain from voting exists, and his own party candidate isn't aligned with his own views, why not just abstain? Why go to the other side when we all know that the other side isn't aligned with his goals either? Either he's betraying his party by voting for Hillary or he is, somehow, closer aligned to Hillary than he is to Trump. If this is the case, I'd be interested in knowing why or how (this goes for every Republican jumping ship right now to vote for Hillary). I've already elaborated on why I believe so (see my response to Slo1), but if you have other thoughts I'd appreciate hearing them to get a bigger picture.

He probably is closer aligned to Hillary, but that doesn't mean he should be considered a Democrat. He still fits the GOP general mold better.

I agree that this doesn't mean he should be considered a Democrat, but if he opts to vote for her rather than abstaining then I just can't see a reason for him to remain a Republican. This entire situation reminds me of the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I hate that this is what it has come to though, and still feel that it'd be more appropriate, in his case, to abstain from voting altogether rather than voting for Hillary over Trump.

Also, George H.W. Bush, before reaching his 90s, was known for being active - usually in humanitarian support - while traveling with Bill Clinton. Perhaps during the years that was a thing he developed enough of a respect for the Clintons to vote across party lines for them. Not to mention, H.W. was notably moderate: more than both of his sons. One of the reasons he lost re-election was his tendency to mix more Democratic policies with Republican ones in his economic policy, alienating him from a lot of Republican Congressmen.

All good points, but none that really justify him voting for Hillary over Trump. I mean, are Trump's values really that far off from his own? You know what would be interesting... we should compare his stances with both Hillary and Trump on that political-quiz website that shows who we align most with, they have that info on there - I'd be genuinely curious to see who he really does align with more.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:23:19 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:50:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:36:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:20:12 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I think that is mainly because the GOP has always operated a certain way and under certain principles. Those principles are aligned with trumps beliefs but have always been marginalized by the people who are running. Like almost any candidate in the GOP will support tighter immigration, but Trump takes it to an extreme.

They are bailing ship because they got a republican jihadist and hope to hold on to what values the party has without doing a total party reformation. It's like Islam. You can look at it respectfully, but the extremist give it a bad reputation. It's much the same with the GOP. Some of their ideals are outdated and are not appealing to the mass but are tolerable, but when you have someone who goes as far right as you can get it exposes the flaws and gives it a bad reputation.

If they did not bail ship, they risk losing the GOP itself.

This is an interesting take on the matter that I didn't consider myself. I'd have to think more about this though, because I don't understand how jumping ship will save them... They're actually willing to give the Dems the office for another 4-8 years for the sake of saving their Pre-Trump party rather than having Trump change the party from the inside should he win? I mean, I get it, but jeez. Does the GOP really believe it'll be able to recover after another 4-8 years of Blue control in the Whitehouse?

No matter what happens, the GOP is screwed long-term.

I agree.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:30:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 8:25:10 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:36:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:20:12 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

I think that is mainly because the GOP has always operated a certain way and under certain principles. Those principles are aligned with trumps beliefs but have always been marginalized by the people who are running. Like almost any candidate in the GOP will support tighter immigration, but Trump takes it to an extreme.

They are bailing ship because they got a republican jihadist and hope to hold on to what values the party has without doing a total party reformation. It's like Islam. You can look at it respectfully, but the extremist give it a bad reputation. It's much the same with the GOP. Some of their ideals are outdated and are not appealing to the mass but are tolerable, but when you have someone who goes as far right as you can get it exposes the flaws and gives it a bad reputation.

If they did not bail ship, they risk losing the GOP itself.

This is an interesting take on the matter that I didn't consider myself. I'd have to think more about this though, because I don't understand how jumping ship will save them... They're actually willing to give the Dems the office for another 4-8 years for the sake of saving their Pre-Trump party rather than having Trump change the party from the inside should he win? I mean, I get it, but jeez. Does the GOP really believe it'll be able to recover after another 4-8 years of Blue control in the Whitehouse?

Imagine Trump wins, his term will be catastrophic. It will leave a stigma on the GOP and alienate voters for years to come. Imagine if he actually manages to ban muslims or starts this deportation thing. He will virtually destory the GOP while being elected.

I think we differ specifically on whether or not his term will really be catastrophic. You say to imagine if he actually manages to ban Muslims or get his deportation thing off the ground. I honestly don't believe it'll get that far, he's already backtracking on the Muslim ban, so I tend to take those two things with a grain of salt. Sure, if those things actually happen then yeah - but I just don't see that stuff really happening.

I also think the GOP has already been destroyed, I mean, that happened when he won the nomination, so it'll take alot for the republican base to get behind any other person they put forward down the road. So either way the old guard is done. It's just a matter of whether they can hold on for another 4-8 years with Hillary in office or be destroyed for good once Trump gets elected. I don't think they can survive either at this point.

People that alienate themselves have a pass saying "we did not support him" while people who did support him will have no chance of getting elected in anything.

I think both sides are taking a major gamble at this point. If he wins, those who didn't support him are done regardless of what he does while in office, and those who did might actually get somewhere in the new wave of politics he brings with him. But if he loses, then those who backed him are also done for sure.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:30:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Recently, Reince Priebus threatened Republicans who aren't endorsing Trump with this:

"Those people need to get on board. And if they're thinking they're going to run again someday, I think that we're going to evaluate the process " of the nomination process and I don't think it's going to be that easy for them."

In simpler terms: "if you don't fall in line, I will rig everything against you." Along with the likes of Kasich and Cruz, Jeb Bush is very clearly implicated.

The Kasich camp response, by the way, was awesome: "Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does. He will not be bullied by a Kenosha political operative that is unable to stand up for core principles or beliefs. (Priebus) should be thanking (Governor Kasich) for an inclusive, conservative vision that can actually win a national election. The Governor is traveling the nation supporting down ballot Republicans and preventing a potential national wipeout from occurring on Reince's watch."

Ouch.

All is quiet on the Cruz front.

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

Priebus cannot live through an openly hostile Bush family. He just brought death upon himself.

roflmao

Rince is hilariously stupid, and he also just made enemies for life. I agree he is done. Before, he might have gotten a golden parachute. But now, he has forgotten his place.

He is such a stupidfuck. I thought no one could be dumber than Michael Steele, but oh my how wrong I was.

roflmao
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:41:16 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 9:43:45 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:19:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 8:38:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

There is apparently some flaw in your theory when the establishment can't influence it's very own etablishment members to vote for a particular candidate. Either that or the RNC is not part of the establishment.

What are you talking about? What we have, in the United States, is something called the Donor class. http://www.nytimes.com...

This class is made up of individuals and/or families who contribute significantly to political actors and movers during every election cycle and/or fundraiser event. When I say "The Establishment" those are the individuals I am talking about. While political families or politicians that have been active for many decades could also be considered "The Establishment" the real establishment members are those who belong to the Donor Class.

With this said, it's evident that the Donor Class has chosen Hillary, and with them goes their puppets. Puppets are politicians who've served or acted on behalf of their financial supporters (those who've contributed to them in several instances). What we are seeing are many Republican politicians (and subsequently their staff) who are now jumping the party ship (RNC) to support the candidate chosen by the Donor Class.

What we are seeing, and what makes this election so unique, is that one of their own kind decided to enter the race. How can one member of the Donor Class own another? These people are rich in the truest sense, they are all Alphas, they all have pride, and they all have their own reasons for financially supporting and/or funding various politicians who could serve to benefit their interests. The issue here being that Trump has so much money that he doesn't need to pander to the will of others in his own class, which is a problem for them considering they need people in high offices to push their agendas. This is how the world works, and to deny this is an act of sticking one owns head into the sand.

So your point is misplaced; The donor class has no aisle, they donate to both sides as Trump himself has admitted to doing, thus it's not an issue of the RNC not being a part of the "Establishment", it's an issue of the establishment abandoning the RNC due to its nominee being uncontrollable by them (the donor class) since he *is* one of them. As I originally said, it's disturbing that the Republican puppets are jumping ship due to their donors all going over to Hillary. I feel that any Republican that does so, rather than supporting their party's nominee or just abstaining to vote, should lose their status as a Republican.

Many of the concepts around "establishment" have run so wild this election that it has gotten ridiculous.

Agreed.

Maybe people should consider the establishment not as people but as systems which enable the abuse of power such as a private citizen being enabled to give donations to politicians to gain access or political favors .

The establishment is made up of people who are acting in an unfair system created by the freedom to donate to those who have the ability to enact, repeal, or alter policies and laws. Although the term unfair should be more carefully analyzed. We should really look at the pros and cons of being able to donate to politicians.

I hate to break it to you but political donations are very different today versus in mid 90's.

The RNC and Trump pulled in $82 mil versus $90 for H and RNC. There is plenty of "donor class" pulling for Trump. To suggest that there is a tight conspiracy that prominent Republicans are voting for H instead of T because their donors are telling them to is ludicrous.

Sources for those numbers? Also, I doubt the donors are actually telling them to do so, they are just naturally following the money. A well-trained dog doesn't need to be told to 'heel', rather it will does so automatically.

Listen, I would be the first to tell you that politicians pander to where the money comes from, but usually the more simple answer is right. Is it possible they don't believe Trump would make a qualified president or is not socially consevative? I have a hard time believing Ted Cruz's backers want him to vote for Hillary and are threatening to not back further him if he doesn't.

There are a plethora of reasons as to why many in the donor class aren't getting behind Trump, but the fact remains that if we compare numbers we'll see that Hillary is clearly the chosen one for that class of people. Also, Ted Kruz isn't one of them (to my knowledge), as in - I haven't heard anything about him voting for Hillary. I'd imagine he's opting to abstain due to him betting on himself at a later run.

It is just not a good conspiracy theory at all, because it leads to more questions than it can answer.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. A majority of the donor class has chosen Hillary and those who don't wish to bite the hand that feeds them are following suit.

Where was this influential donor class's during the primaries and why was it ineffective at getting some of the primary candidates to step aside so the anti Trump vote did not get split?

Because the front-runners broke out way too late in the race - too many politicians were hungry. We had what, like 17 people in the RNC primaries. Several of them would have been solid choices for the donor class to get behind but they were too divided for too long. We also need to consider the key issues that Trump tapped into so early on, that was a major factor as well. The donor class isn't all powerful, the voices of a unified people are just as powerful at times and in this instance they shouted a little louder than the donor class counted on.

Secondly where are the conservative Super PACs supporting Hillary? Surely the conservative donor class should have some super PACs.

The conservatives didn't want Trump, lol. And obviously conservatives won't get behind Hillary regardless. I believe they are doing what any Republican should rightfully do in this situation when their party nominee doesn't align with them - abstain.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 4:22:26 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 7:43:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/20/2016 6:14:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

From the Bush family? H.W. is voting Clinton.

This really grinds my gears. I just read a NY Times article touching on that and they concluded by saying, "Many influential Republicans, including various members of both Bush administrations, have said they will not vote for the party"s nominee, Donald J. Trump. In June, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed article announcing that he would be casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, making him one of several members of the last Republican presidential administration who have said they would be voting for the Democratic candidate."

What kind of nonsense is that. Yes, the new Republican party Trump is creating is one that doesn't align with their own agenda(s) but honestly, this really just shows how the 2-party system is a joke for the elite who, in truth, control both sides. In this election there is only one controllable side for them this time though - Hillary - so it doesn't surprise me that they'd betray their own party in this sense. Regardless, I can't stand this nonsense and feel that any "establishment" Republican who votes for Clinton this cycle should have their party allegiance automatically changed. You cannot call yourself a Republican if you vote for her, especially if you're a career Republican, it's ludicrous.

Interesting perspective. Oligarchy at its finest.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW