Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ted Cruz – 2016™

Ted Cruz – 2016™
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2016, 07:06 PM
 
So, Ted Cruz has reached front runner status, so rather than keep derailing the other Trump thread, I thought I'd give the man his own thread.

To start us off, today's PPP poll has given us some hilarious and interesting numbers to consider:
Trump/Cruz Close in Iowa; Birther Issue Could Hurt Cruz; Sanders Gaining on Clinton - Public Policy Polling
The poll finds that the 'birther issue' has the potential to really hurt Ted Cruz. Only 32% of Iowa Republicans think someone born in another country should be allowed to serve as President, to 47% who think such a person shouldn't be allowed to serve as President. Among that segment of the Republican electorate who don't think someone foreign born should be able to be President, Trump is crushing Cruz 40/14.
So, not only is the birthed issue live, it seems proponents flock to Trump.

Despite all the attention to this issue in the last week, still only 46% of Iowa Republicans are aware that Cruz was not born in the United States…36% of Cruz voters aren't aware yet that he wasn't born in the United States, and 24% of Cruz voters say someone born outside the country shouldn't be allowed to be President.
Assuming the 'truce' conspiracy isn't real, this means Trump should blanket the airwaves with this attack.

In fact, there are more GOP voters in the state who think Cruz (34%) was born in the United States than think Barack Obama (28%) was.
Yeah, there's a surprise...

Among people who think Obama was not born in the United States Trump is dominant, getting 38% to 23% for Cruz. But among non-birthers- either people who think Obama was born in the country or aren't sure, Cruz is leading Trump 29/22. Similarly Trump leads Cruz 37/26 among the 52% of Republican primary voters who are offended by bilingual, but among the 40% who aren't offended by them Trump is in only third place at 17% behind Cruz's 26% and Rubio's 18%. Trump's success really is built on the support of the most intolerant segment of the GOP base.
Trump, not racist, but #1 with racists.

Anyway at three weeks out still plenty of time for the votes to move around, but it really looks like it might be a Trump/Cruz or Trump/Cruz/Rubio (If he can get 2nd in NH) showdown.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 12:52 AM
 
These poll numbers indicate that Trump can sink Cruz by being very "passive-aggressive" on the birther issue. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

OAW
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 04:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Anyway at three weeks out still plenty of time for the votes to move around, but it really looks like it might be a Trump/Cruz or Trump/Cruz/Rubio (If he can get 2nd in NH) showdown.
It's probably a Trump/Cruz showdown in Iowa, but not nationally. Someone from the Rubio/Bush/Christie etc wing will remain in the race until long after Super Tuesday, because while a supporter of Bush might settle for Rubio or vice versa, it will take a lot to convince one of them to back Cruz or Trump (if it is even possible).
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
while a supporter of Bush might settle for Rubio or vice versa, it will take a lot to convince one of them to back Cruz or Trump (if it is even possible).
Not possible. That branch of the GOP is too well educated to genuinely back Trump and his unpredictability puts their vested financial interests at risk. You'll see that they will use their money and influence through proxy to ensure either one of them get defeated in the general election and then rely on at least one republican controlled branch of Congress to stifle Clinton on issues that they believe goes too far. She's not great but she's a populist at her core which is better than what Cruz or Trump position themselves to be. The only outcome worse than those two is Sanders.

People who back Cruz or Trump are almost universally peasants.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 12:54 PM
 
The establishment politicians (both sides) are what the US citizens are sick of. Trusting Hillary is a beginner mistake.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
It's probably a Trump/Cruz showdown in Iowa, but not nationally. Someone from the Rubio/Bush/Christie etc wing will remain in the race until long after Super Tuesday, because while a supporter of Bush might settle for Rubio or vice versa, it will take a lot to convince one of them to back Cruz or Trump (if it is even possible).
Well, that's the rub. Do you bet on thing returned to previous norms once actual voting begins, or does the polls hold up? As I mentioned in another thread, 1 & 2 in NH Is highly predictive of the future nominee. i do think if the establishment is going to have a representative in the race, I think it's going to be Rubio (who not so coincidentally is vying for second in NH). No one else has had a sniff of national appeal.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 07:54 PM
 
I just think that someone from that camp will stay in the race until it is really all over but the crying. The moneymen that Obvious mentions is another good reason for that: if the other "establishment" candidates start dropping out, money and support will flow to who is left in that camp (currently Rubio), and that fuels a story that someone is rising in the polls, and the snowball starts rolling.

The Iowa caucuses are always hard to predict, but I don't think Rubio is better than third behind Trump and Cruz. That won't change anything - someone like Santorum and/or Fiorina might drop out, but they're both polling too low to matter.

NH is the crucial one. Bush and Christie both need it, and Rubio is going to be in trouble if one of them passes him. I know that Bush has lots of money left, but even he will probably drop out if he comes in too far behind in NH. That is when the field will start to narrow down to that three way race.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2016, 11:04 PM
 
Like i said, peasants.
There is nothing Donald Trump hates more than losers, but, statistically-speaking, that is what his supporters are.

A beginner mistake is thinking that a majority share of a sub-faction of a political party is indicative of a potential victory in November. The truth is that the bulk of Trump supporters are in states that are not in play in a general election. Texas is not going to go blue no matter who is the GOP candidate is. However, a candidate purposely being hostile towards minorities is guaranteeing New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia and Ohio go to the Democrats along with any competitive Senate and HoR seats.

These Tea Party types lack the mental capacity to understand the long game.
An establishment candidate may not be completely inline with their agenda but they are electable. In our plurality electoral system if you want any of your platform to go through you go after who can win you the swing states.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Jan 13, 2016 at 11:15 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2016, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I just think that someone from that camp will stay in the race until it is really all over but the crying.
Well, duh. I mean we've still got like 10 candidates in the field even though half aren't polling above 2%. It's like a game of chicken, with quite a few not realizing they can't win. Jeb! epitomizes your point. It looks like he's going to finish embarrassingly poorly in NH, but people think he'll stick out tip he Florida, where he's not even their favorite potential nominee anymore.

Originally Posted by P View Post
The Iowa caucuses are always hard to predict, but I don't think Rubio is better than third behind Trump and Cruz. That won't change anything - someone like Santorum and/or Fiorina might drop out, but they're both polling too low to matter.
Rubio doesn't have the Christian bonfires. Neither does Trump, of course, but his case has defied lots of precedent so I won't dwell on that.

Originally Posted by P View Post
NH is the crucial one. Bush and Christie both need it, and Rubio is going to be in trouble if one of them passes him. I know that Bush has lots of money left, but even he will probably drop out if he comes in too far behind in NH. That is when the field will start to narrow down to that three way race.
Christie is a fun case because while he can be quite appealing, his entire shtick has been hijacked and cranked to 11 by Trump. That's all he is now, Establishment Trump-lite. Maybe that's a good place to be if Trump supporters get cold feet, but polls indicate Trump supporters would go elsewhere first. (One wonders if he kicks himself about skipping 2012).
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2016, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Like i said, peasants.
There is nothing Donald Trump hates more than losers, but, statistically-speaking, that is what his supporters are.

A beginner mistake is thinking that a majority share of a sub-faction of a political party is indicative of a potential victory in November. The truth is that the bulk of Trump supporters are in states that are not in play in a general election. Texas is not going to go blue no matter who is the GOP candidate is. However, a candidate purposely being hostile towards minorities is guaranteeing New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia and Ohio go to the Democrats along with any competitive Senate and HoR seats.
I don't think anyone here would argue with you on that.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
These Tea Party types lack the mental capacity to understand the long game.
An establishment candidate may not be completely inline with their agenda but they are electable. In our plurality electoral system if you want any of your platform to go through you go after who can win you the swing states.
It's not that they don't understand, it's that they don't care. They see the past 15 years as precedent that when they control things, they still can't get what they want. And, in my opinion, they don't realize a lot of their views are a minority of the minority. Of course there's majority support for conservative positions – but not to the extremes they want to take them to.

I had a discussion about this over Christmas and the best metaphor I could think of is they're so concerned about burning dow the house (the system or the GOP) they haven't given any thought to where they'll live while it's being rebuilt (It's not a great metaphor).
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2016, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Talk about mental gymnastics? Didn't you ask "What 'moderate' stances of his is it you find appealing?" It isn't his moderate stances that I find appealing, I like his more hardcore Right-wing stances WRT the economy and foreign policy. His more moderate ideas about immigration and national defense I don't agree with (I'm pretty far Left on both).
I get what you're saying about what you like (That wasn't clear since there wasn't a break in your response.


However:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
He's not ultra conservative compared to just about anywhere in the country, he's what I'd call a moderate Republican.
This needs some illustration.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2016, 11:11 PM
 
Isn't Cruz one of the Tea Party? I hardly call them moderate.

How are they going to deal with the issue of his being born in Canada? if they let him run, Arnold is gonna be pissed. Or next.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 05:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This needs some illustration.
He's not ultra conservative, that would be borderline fascist, and he isn't.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Isn't Cruz one of the Tea Party? I hardly call them moderate.
He isn't, though many in the Tea party like him, mainly because the rest of the Repub nominees are either obvious corporate candidates, liberal Republicans, or both.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
These poll numbers indicate that Trump can sink Cruz by being very "passive-aggressive" on the birther issue. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

OAW
And now it begins ...

Attorney files 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz | TheHill

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 05:57 PM
 
Barry Goldwater (AZ territory), George Romney (Mexico), John McCain (Panama CZ), and now Ted Cruz (Vancouver, America's Hat™). All four were born outside the US. Mitt's dad George dropped out of the race before any challenge was made. I guess that makes Mitt an anchor baby.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 07:43 PM
 
Here's a crazy idea: How about Congress passing a law defining that "natural born citizen" thing once and for all? According to Wikipedia, they did so once before (in 1790), but that law has since been superseded by one that doesn't define the term. Because I am no lawyer, but I went googling expecting to find out that it was more nonsense as these "birther" things usually are, but the waters are murkier than they were with Obama or McCain. It is certainly not obvious to me that Ted Cruz is eligible (or not). I happen to think that he should be, but this is what lawyers like to call "an interesting question", which is lawyer-speak for "expensive".

Ironically, I think that the entire "birther" thing regarding Obama will help Cruz here, because I suspect that most voters will just roll their eyes when seeing (what they think is) another rerun of that particular conspiracy. It also captures people on the other side of the issue - if you used to argue that Obama wasn't eligible to run, you will be hard pressed to argue that Cruz is.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Here's a crazy idea: How about Congress passing a law defining that "natural born citizen" thing once and for all? According to Wikipedia, they did so once before (in 1790), but that law has since been superseded by one that doesn't define the term. Because I am no lawyer, but I went googling expecting to find out that it was more nonsense as these "birther" things usually are, but the waters are murkier than they were with Obama or McCain. It is certainly not obvious to me that Ted Cruz is eligible (or not). I happen to think that he should be, but this is what lawyers like to call "an interesting question", which is lawyer-speak for "expensive".

Ironically, I think that the entire "birther" thing regarding Obama will help Cruz here, because I suspect that most voters will just roll their eyes when seeing (what they think is) another rerun of that particular conspiracy. It also captures people on the other side of the issue - if you used to argue that Obama wasn't eligible to run, you will be hard pressed to argue that Cruz is.
Obama would veto it. Let's hope the courts deal with it quickly so the question can be put to rest.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2016, 09:08 PM
 
Why would he veto, unless it somehow disqualifies him?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2016, 04:29 PM
 
Maybe Obama will introduce the law defining natural born via executive order before the election, barring Cruz and handing the GOP nom to Trump and (hopefully) the election to the Dems.

I can only imagine how well that would go down.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 07:48 AM
 
I think that if Obama were seen to be barring Cruz, that would only increase Cruz' chances to win the nomination - and since Congress can pass some resolutions without presidential approval, they can pass one saying that Cruz is so too eligible to run, kicking it back to the courts to decide.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 08:31 AM
 
Obama had better watch himself, or he'll end up impeached and spend his last year in office being drug through the mud in both houses of congress. They can't get him removed, but they can make his remaining months very unpleasant (ask Bill).
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 10:13 AM
 
Do you honestly think Obama is considering doing something like butting into the birther debate? It seems extremely unlike him.

Starting from the 2012 map and pulling some sliders, a GOP president has to pick up something like OH, FL, VA & CO. I actually think that Cruz as the GOP nominee is the best possible outcome for the Dems. Cruz is far right, and if the Dems run a centrist like Clinton, they have an advantage already there. I don't see him bring in any of the above battlegrounds except maybe VA, and he only has one VP slot. Trump is an unknown, which probably leaves political strategists with nightmares. He might turn out to be a hit in previously secure blue states, even if he loses in the regular battleground states - we simply don't know. The real problem for the Dems is Rubio, though. He would easily hold all the current red states and gain FL, while also keeping all the other battleground states in play and making PA look possible.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 04:14 PM
 
I think you may be discounting how much some people hate Hillary, as an individual.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 05:53 PM
 
Possible, sure. I just don't see how Cruz is going to win over someone who went with Obama last time. I know all Republicans think he is the Antichrist, but the fact remains that he did win. The possible counter argument - the enthusiasm factor, that GOP turnout will go up compared to the milquetoast Romney while Clinton is less charismatic than Obama - discounts the enthusiasm boost Clinton would get from being the first plausible woman POTUS.

Bottom line, I think that the Clinton haters already voted Romney last time and that wasn't enough to even make it close in the EC. Like it or not, the GOP needs to expand its base to win, and Cruz isn't going to do that.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 06:17 PM
 
Her stock has dropped substantially since last time, though. If this was 2008 she'd win in a walk against anyone, but her term as SoS did her no favors.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 07:28 PM
 
I agree - I just don't think that that has dropped her stock low enough that Cruz could beat her.

Just to clarify: do you agree that Rubio (or someone else from that camp) would have a better chance against Clinton than Cruz?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 10:54 PM
 
Most of the Clinton haters are people who are firmly wired in to the right wing news circuits. They were never going to vote for her or anyone else with a blue ticket. I'd expect feminist solidarity/enthusiasm to boost turnout to sufficiently counter any blueish voters who have been put off by the multi-decade hate campaign.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 05:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I agree - I just don't think that that has dropped her stock low enough that Cruz could beat her.

Just to clarify: do you agree that Rubio (or someone else from that camp) would have a better chance against Clinton than Cruz?
Clinton vs Cruz would be a dead heat (at least in popular vote), but I don't think he'd be able to carry the states to do it, the best outcome for him according to my map is a tie. Rubio would win in a landslide, especially if he chose Christie as his running mate (causing almost unprecedented problems for Hillary in the NE). As soon as he started rolling out campaign ads in Spanish, he'd lock-up states like Florida and New Mexico. Of course, the obvious problem for the Repubs is that Rubio has a <10% chance of taking the nom.

One interesting twist that few have talked about, what if both Sanders and Trump run as 3rd party (if they neither gets nominated)? I think that's more likely than many realize.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 08:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Clinton vs Cruz would be a dead heat (at least in popular vote), but I don't think he'd be able to carry the states to do it, the best outcome for him according to my map is a tie. Rubio would win in a landslide, especially if he chose Christie as his running mate (causing almost unprecedented problems for Hillary in the NE). As soon as he started rolling out campaign ads in Spanish, he'd lock-up states like Florida and New Mexico. Of course, the obvious problem for the Repubs is that Rubio has a <10% chance of taking the nom.
I agree with most of this. I don't think that Cruz will tie Clinton in the popular vote, but other than that I agree with the analysis. Rubio would put FL and CO in the red column, make NM and NV competitive and with the right VP candidate could bring in one or more of OH, VA, PA. An alternative to Christie is also Kasich, which would be even better from a vote maximization point of view (Christie would bring in some voters, but he would also push some voters away).

But of course it won't go that way. Even if he gets the nom - and he might, but I did think that both Cruz and Trump would have lost steam by now - I don't see how he can pick a VP from the same wing of the party. He'll have to go with someone with a more social conservative/religious bent, preferably older, that will push some people away (Cruz is actually a possibility, although I doubt he'd play ball), and Clinton gets to pick a VP of her own to bring in another state. In the end, we'll all be watching the OH returns again.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 09:35 AM
 
Obama's vehement enemies felt as they do prior to his first 2008 election, if you recall the inexperienced socialist Muslim that is not patriotic, and might also be communist and Marxist, and is ideologically wrong even though we don't know what his ideology is stuff.

Sure there are people with genuine ideological disagreements, but there are also a lot of this crowd of people that had this difficulty with something else, unlike anything America has seen before really (including Bill Clinton).

if this morphs into something targeted at Clinton or Sanders, perhaps it is best to ignore this population completely because there is no candidate on the left that won't be the channeler of this stuff.

Perhaps the popularity of Cruz and Trump is another manifestation of this. It could be through that is population is big enough to win the nomination, but nowhere near big enough to win the general election, especially if it is as incoherent as it was last time.
( Last edited by besson3c; Jan 19, 2016 at 04:36 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 04:35 PM
 
I think thats how the GOP has looked since the start of the race. The ones that might be capable of winning the election haven't looked capable of winning the nomination and vice versa. Hopefully.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Obama's vehement enemies felt as they do prior to his first 2008 election, if you recall the inexperienced socialist Muslim that is not patriotic, and might also be communist and Marxist, and is ideologically wrong even though we don't know what his ideology is stuff.

Sure there are people with genuine ideological disagreements, but there are also a lot of this crowd of people that had this difficulty with something else, unlike anything America has seen before really (including Bill Clinton).

if this morphs into something targeted at Clinton or Sanders, perhaps it is best to ignore this population completely because there is no candidate on the left that won't be the channeler of this stuff.

Perhaps the popularity of Cruz and Trump is another manifestation of this. It could be through that is population is big enough to win the nomination, but nowhere near big enough to win the general election, especially if it is as incoherent as it was last time.
This is patently ignorant, and indicative of how blind some people are. The Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, it'll take decades to repair what he's done to the balance of power between the branches, all because he's an impatient, imperious brat, convinced that the office of the PotUS is some type of monarchy. That's what his inexperience has accomplished, not to mention creating an even deeper rift between races and classes, the likes of which we hadn't seen in >40 years. It's a shame he didn't slip in the shower his first day in office and put himself into a coma for 4 years, it would have been the best thing he could have done for this country.

Sure, Sanders is a Socialist, but unlike Obama, he does have country's best interests at heart. He's genuine, unlike Hillary, and isn't simply seeking power or the establishment of a legacy. I honestly believe he can't be bought, cares about civil liberties, and would be willing to sit and negotiate for as long as it takes to reach a compromise with the Right, without letting his ego interfere. I'd choose him over Trump in a heartbeat, and so would most other independents.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
This is patently ignorant, and indicative of how blind some people are. The Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, it'll take decades to repair what he's done to the balance of power between the branches, all because he's an impatient, imperious brat, convinced that the office of the PotUS is some type of monarchy. That's what his inexperience has accomplished, not to mention creating an even deeper rift between races and classes, the likes of which we hadn't seen in >40 years. It's a shame he didn't slip in the shower his first day in office and put himself into a coma for 4 years, it would have been the best thing he could have done for this country.

Sure, Sanders is a Socialist, but unlike Obama, he does have country's best interests at heart. He's genuine, unlike Hillary, and isn't simply seeking power or the establishment of a legacy. I honestly believe he can't be bought, cares about civil liberties, and would be willing to sit and negotiate for as long as it takes to reach a compromise with the Right, without letting his ego interfere. I'd choose him over Trump in a heartbeat, and so would most other independents.

We aren't going to agree on this, but I would say the vast majority of what you would call his bratiness has come about because of a congress impossible to work with, because their constituents have wanted them to reject everything and anything Obama regardless of what that thing is, and this was the case since day 1.

Living outside of the US now, I can say that few people really understand the vehement anti-Obama thing I described above (again, which was cemented in place well before his inauguration). What Obama says and does seems and has seemed entirely reasonable for the most part.

The reason why I'm writing this (it sure isn't an expectation of agreement here) is that I wonder if you'd acknowledge that Obama faced some *fierce* opposition starting before his inauguration that has persisted, and that there is a definite possibility that Congress has not had the best interests of Americans at heart?

It is *very* hard to separate what is the congress and what is the presidency, and your bias is going to come down on one side, mine the other, but can we agree that the problems are with the entire government, and not just the presidency?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We aren't going to agree on this, but I would say the vast majority of what you would call his bratiness has come about because of a congress impossible to work with
No, they weren't, he never ****ing tried. His majesty simply expected to be obeyed. Want to know how much time he's spent on Capitol Hill negotiating Obamacare and his budgets with either house of congress? I'll guarantee the avg person spent more time at work today than he did in 7 years. He very well could be the greatest failure in leadership this country has ever seen. Why? Because the fool doesn't know how to lead and what that entails. He'd send a proposal, it would get knocked down, and then he'd jump on TV and start talking shit.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, they weren't, he never ****ing tried. His majesty simply expected to be obeyed. Want to know how much time he's spent on Capitol Hill negotiating Obamacare and his budgets with either house of congress? I'll guarantee the avg person spent more time at work today than he did in 7 years. He very well could be the greatest failure in leadership this country has ever seen. Why? Because the fool doesn't know how to lead and what that entails. He'd send a proposal, it would get knocked down, and then he'd jump on TV and start talking shit.

That's an absolutely crazy assertion to me, but let's leave it here. I don't have the energy to delve into this, and any efforts would involve pasting webpages and articles and stuff you'd disagree with anyway, so it's pretty pointless.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 06:37 PM
 
Yeah, right.
You're perfect, yes it's true, but without me you're only you, your menstruating heart ain't bleedin' enough for two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 08:33 PM
 
Obama's presidency was a disaster based on the criteria he put forth during his initial presidential run.
Comparable disasters would happen if Trump or Sanders ever made it to the White House.

There's a process of how to get things done in D.C. You have to build coalitions and real relationships with members of congress, with lobbyists, and with private industry leaders. That is the reality of how things work like it or not.

Presidents who think that they are bigger than the system and believe they can impose their will on the rest of the Federal government and have their way are delusional. It didn't happen for Obama and it won't happen for any one else until you change how our representatives are elected into office. No one with any power has to compromise because they answer to a predetermined selective demographic that allows them to keep their jobs. Unless both parties are willing to take on gerrymandering and risk their protected fiefdoms real reform of any kind by either side is not possible.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 12:10 PM
 
So really the disaster is currently only a potential disaster. He has made dangerous changes in order to get things done but so far he has only used the extra power to do good. The real test will come next time a Republican gets in. My bet is that if one somehow gets in this time they will repeal the good stuff like Obamacare, then keep the bad stuff and probably do the damage they claim to be afraid of using the changes Obama made.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 05:16 PM
 
There is nothing good about Obamacare. You can't institute a national health insurance program into a for profit healthcare system and expect it to work itself out for the benefit of the public. He created a giant sinkhole for people to throw their money into and get next to nothing in return.

It was naive and poorly thought out and the pinnacle of how blind idealism doesn't work in the face of real world practices.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
There is nothing good about Obamacare. You can't institute a national health insurance program into a for profit healthcare system and expect it to work itself out for the benefit of the public. He created a giant sinkhole for people to throw their money into and get next to nothing in return.

It was naive and poorly thought out and the pinnacle of how blind idealism doesn't work in the face of real world practices.
And just which "national health insurance program" would that be? You do realize the "public option" was never implemented right?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 09:25 PM
 
I'm still waiting for a politician to really start drawing attention to an Obamacare alternative.

The "have to repeal it first" is garbage. It took 2384092348 months to negotiate Obamacare once the project started, it is reasonable to expect that it will take a significant amount of time to establish support for the alternative, whatever it is. If you want to repeal Obamacare you need an alternative more or less ready to go, because you can't just expect that people will do without anything during this transition phase. We should require more from our politicians than simply supporting or opposing.

To this day I still don't fully understand the psychology behind the anti-Obamacare vehemence, and it is pretty evident that there is more involved here than concrete ideological disagreement with many. Obamacare is just a requirement to buy private insurance, closing of the pre-existing condition loophole, and subsidies that attempt to offset the costs of people hitting up the ERs in an attempt to avoid healthcare they can't afford.

I would say that the net effect of Obamacare is pretty meh, but I'm not losing my shit over it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would say that the net effect of Obamacare is pretty meh, but I'm not losing my shit over it.
I wouldn't characterize 18 million people who have healthcare now who didn't before as "meh".

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I wouldn't characterize 18 million people who have healthcare now who didn't before as "meh".

OAW

That is great, but I meant meh in relation to what it could have been had we been able to pass something far more bold and cost cutting.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 07:42 AM
 
Would Obamacare have gone over better with conservatives if they had sold it more on the notion of cost savings due to increased buying power via free market principles?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 08:53 AM
 
I think those that were the loudest opponents were the sort of people I described where it wouldn't have mattered what was said so long as it was Obama's thing.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Would Obamacare have gone over better with conservatives if they had sold it more on the notion of cost savings due to increased buying power via free market principles?
Absolutely not. Obamacare is essentially a conservative idea. It originated with the Heritage Foundation and was floated as a GOP alternative to what hey perceived Hillarycare would be during the Clinton Administration. They feared it would be the "Medicare for all" approach that Bernie Sanders is pushing now. So this was a mechanism for expanding coverage while preserving the private insurance industry. Anyone who followed politics in the 1990s knows this to be the case. The GOP simply unleashed unprecedented levels of obstruction against President Obama. To the point where they opposed their own ideas. If Obama held a press conference today and came out in favor of breathing we would see conservatives talking about the government infringing upon the American people's "freedom" to hold their breath.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Absolutely not. Obamacare is essentially a conservative idea. It originated with the Heritage Foundation and was floated as a GOP alternative to what hey perceived Hillarycare would be during the Clinton Administration. They feared it would be the "Medicare for all" approach that Bernie Sanders is pushing now. So this was a mechanism for expanding coverage while preserving the private insurance industry. Anyone who followed politics in the 1990s knows this to be the case. The GOP simply unleashed unprecedented levels of obstruction against President Obama. To the point where they opposed their own ideas. If Obama held a press conference today and came out in favor of breathing we would see conservatives talking about the government infringing upon the American people's "freedom" to hold their breath.

OAW

Exactly!

And even if you still have ideological differences with the actual specifics of Obamacare (which is fine), there is no denying that the rhetoric against the plan was so overblown by interest groups and right wing ideologues that many people were left confused as to what Obamacare actually is/was. The fear was ratcheted up to extremes.

Although, it's probably very easy to rile up idiocy, and idiocy is loud. For example:

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Absolutely not. Obamacare is essentially a conservative idea. It originated with the Heritage Foundation and was floated as a GOP alternative to what hey perceived Hillarycare would be during the Clinton Administration. They feared it would be the "Medicare for all" approach that Bernie Sanders is pushing now. So this was a mechanism for expanding coverage while preserving the private insurance industry. Anyone who followed politics in the 1990s knows this to be the case. The GOP simply unleashed unprecedented levels of obstruction against President Obama. To the point where they opposed their own ideas. If Obama held a press conference today and came out in favor of breathing we would see conservatives talking about the government infringing upon the American people's "freedom" to hold their breath.

OAW
Did the Heritage Foundation model include provisions to force Catholic entities to provide: abortion, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs or face onerous fines?
administration targeted catholic groups for contraceptive mandate
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Did the Heritage Foundation model include provisions to force Catholic entities to provide: abortion, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs or face onerous fines?
administration targeted catholic groups for contraceptive mandate

We are discussing the rhetoric that surrounded Obamacare. There were fundamental problems here before even delving into these sort of low level details, that likely could have been negotiated without obstinance around the high level details (such as whether any health care plan coming out of the Obama administration should exist).
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2