The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So, here are your "legitimate" choices (i.e. the ones that have a chance to win in a two party system) for the 2016 election

1. Reality TV Star
2. Socialist
3. Criminal
4. Robot
5. Ayatollah

And the also rans

1. Pretty Boy
2. Narcoleptic
3. Wrinkly Angry Looking Guy

I'm very worried for the future of this country. I thought the candidates were bad in 2008 and 2012 but man, this really takes the cake.

Wait... did Pretty Boy drop out?

Last time we had a celebrity run for president, he did a pretty damn good job

Just because he played the saxophone and banged a lot of chicks doesn't make him a celebrity...

  :)

I think he was referring to Reagan.

He couldn't have been referring to Reagan, because he said that guy did a good job.  :D

Reagan is exactly who I was referring to.  And yes, he did a damn good job.  

One could argue that Reagan was a benefactor of the times economically. And that he did nothing especially noteworthy compared to others.

One could argue that he engaged in a criminal conspiracy and was only spared by a patsy falling on the sword.

One could argue that Reagan responded to the AIDS crisis in an abhorrent and inhumane way.

One could argue that he did not in fact do a damn good job, and that history would judge him as a middle of the road president.

Just to stir the pot, he was ranked 11th all-time in this poll in 2014 surveyed by 162 members of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents & Executive Politics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/16/new-ranking-of-u-s-presidents-puts-lincoln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/16/new-ranking-of-u-s-presidents-puts-lincoln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/)

Spoken like a true liberal. 

And if you read a little further in the article it goes to rank him the second most overrated President behind Kennedy. Interesting.

(http://acculturated.com.previewdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/enhanced-buzz-10726-1368545973-6.jpg)

He did better than anyone that we've had since!

It's a tough time for most fans of Republican presidents.

Astoundingly, Lincoln is rapidly becoming persona non grata on the right.  Teddy was a self-proclaimed progressive.  Eisenhower was a RINO if there ever was one, as was Poppy Bush (plus, Poppy was a 1-term "failure").  So in the last hundred years, that leaves us with:

Hoover and Dubya (duking it out with Buchanan for worst ever)
Harding (up there with Grant as one of the most corrupt administrations ever) and Nixon (resigned to avoid impeachment)
Ford (another 1-term failure)

Basically, you've got Reagan and Coolidge, or you're conceding the last hundred-plus to Team Blue.  And amazingly, there is a resurgence of pro-Coolidge Republicans (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history_lesson/2011/11/calvin_coolidge_why_are_republicans_so_obsessed_with_him_.html)!

The 1 person I wanted,or was hoping to they'd run didn't...(I've been enamored with the stuff they say when I hear them speak,etc.)

This year especially,I wish the U.S. held elections like the U.K. elections.

That's pretty normal actually. It's because people of the other parties like to say that about the other's popular president. You get most popular then everyone who didn't vote you will vote you most overated.

I'd say Democrats have a pretty high opinion of the first Republican President.  In fact, I'd say most of his detractors are Republicans.

To be honest, I would probably compare Reagan to Bill Clinton.  Although they both had a major influence on their parties over the span of a few decades, I'm not sure that either one of them will be too memorable when everyone that's currently alive is dead; I think they are both overrated by people that overemphasize the historical importance of events relevant to themselves.

I think the most famous Presidents of the 20th century will be FDR and Teddy (the latter exclusively because of Mt. Rushmore).  (edit: also Nixon, unless we have a string of resignations-under-scandal at some point)  Similarly, I doubt most Americans today would be able to name more than three 19th-century Presidents.

I know he was.

This seems like a pointless post as one could argue that any president didn't do a good job by picking certain items and putting a different perspective on them.

i guess one could argue anything .. but the topic was that reagan was a damn good president .. i don't even buy the good part .. he was a pretty middle of the road president

I think Reagan and JFK are both products of baby-boomer-centric bias.  I don't think either of them had outsized historical impact, and 100 years from now they will be viewed the same way we view Grover Cleveland or William McKinley now.

The two things Reagan gets credit for, were the results of other people's work.
1. Volker crushed stagflation coming out of the 70's and had it eliminated by 1982. Of course everyone gives Reagan and his supply side economics the credit for the economy's recovery. Even one of the creators of trickle down economics has admitted it was an economic lie, and that Reagan hid a trillion dollars off the books.
2. The Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was in a decline when Kruschev took over. That is why he started trying to make reforms to halt the decline and turn things around. It is also what got him retired from office, without his approval. By the time Reagan got into office and started his massive military buildup, the Soviet Union was done. Gorbechev was begging every world leader, to include Reagan for loans, and Reagan said no in 85. It was just a matter of waiting for the apparatus to collapse in on itself. It would have collapsed if someone else was president.
So Reagan is not a great president. His reputation has ridden high on the tailcoats of the work and issues that came years before he became president.
We have not even gotten into the various scandals and prosecutions that took place as a result of our affairs in Central America.

If only economics and geopolitics were as simple to explain as two paragraphs on a message board...

Hey Clinton gets credit for balanced budgets and a growing economy during the dotcom bubble and Bush gets the blame for a recession that actually started under Clinton.

The fact of the matter is the ups and downs of an economy and the rise and fall of empires are too complicated to point to one or two things.

Are you saying that the dotcom recession lasted from 2000 throughout Dubya's entire presidency?  Or that the 2008 collapse started under Clinton?

Back to the original topic, the 2016 elections if you forgot, the only candidate still running that I would feel good about voting for is John Kasich.  He has executive office experience, and I think his stance on most issues comes as close to the middle of issues, which is where most Americans are.  Not to mention I think he is the candidate that would have the best chance of forming a coalition between the highly political divided Congress.

I never thought I'd say this, but if Kasich drops out I think Trump would be the best remaining candidate.

What has Trump ever said throughout this entire time that would make you think Trump is a good idea?

Not really. You can point to turning points, or individuals who took measures to bring about change. Reagan gets credit for two things he had little to no effect on.

My thoughts exactly. I also think you could take 99.4% of all Trump comments and file them under one of two categories, "Incite" or "Insult."

Trump is the only national Republican in the last... century?... to not actively attack working-class Americans; most other GOP politicians prefer to  prop up multinational corporations (and to be fair, there are many corporatist Democrats that do the same).  He has advocated for many protectionist policies (particularly regarding Mexico and China) that can definitely have an appeal to Rust Belt Americans that have seen their jobs shipped off to foreign country after foreign country.

There will always be a place in politics for blaming the other.  Sometimes the other is people of different race; sometimes it's people from other countries; sometimes it's people of different religion, or different sexual orientation, or economic class (and yes, sometimes the other is rich people).  I believe Trump's particular targets for the other resonate strongly with working-class Republicans who have told for decades that their jobs need to be shipped off for the benefit of "capitalism" (read: corporate profits).

Trump is a Fascist. Gotta call that one out He just retweeted a Benito Mussolini quote.

He may not know that he is one. But history does.

I think the fact he speaks his mind and says what he thinks is a positive, even though I don't agree with everything he says.  Everyone else (except maybe Bernie) just tailors their speech to get elected.  And everyone else is going to have a long list of people he/she owes, and will have to repay with jobs, favors, etc.; Trump would have the fewest.  I also think he would be good for businesses and the economy, and when the economy is good everything else is good.

Bush got the blame for the recession he inherited when he got into office in 2000. He deserves blame for a lot of other things, but this recession was caused by the dotcom bubble bursting.

Since we're in "it could be argued mode", it could be argued that Clinton's presidency benefitted from a tech bubble.

Trump has proposed as many good ideas as Bernie Sanders.

The economy doesn't rise and fall on a turning point. The turning point is simply the result of other forces materializing over time. The Housing Market crash that led to the Great Recession did not happen overnight. It took 5+ years for those variable rate mortgages to force people into foreclosure.

I agree with a lot of what you said. The idea of Trump as president scares me almost as much as 4 years of Hillary but it looks like that is where things are going to end up and I don't know how to feel about that yet. The fact the two most polarizing individuals are leading by far in both races says more about how unhappy the country is than anything else. Regardless of who wins it's kind of sad.

I do realize this web site leans liberal but I put a poll up just to see peoples thoughts. Hard to have an election thread without a poll.

If Trump somehow manages to get elected - Dear Lord, have mercy - then America will be the laughingstock of the planet for the next 4 years.

I'm less scared of President Trump than I am of President Cruz, and it's not even close.  I simply do not believe that Trump will even attempt about 90% of what he's saying.  He's a salesman.

Cruz is too conservative so he won't get anything done. He doesn't compromise on anything and as such, has no one to work with him. While as a Christian I can support much of what he says there is a reason other Senators aren't backing him. Everyone hates the word "politics"  but the truth is if you aren't willing to concede anything you won't get anything in return.

Cruz and Sanders are opposite sides of the same radical leaf.

I wouldn't say that.  The Republicans in Congress are pretty open about how much they despise Cruz.

You'll have to explain that one to me.  ;D I didn't even know Trump had ideas or even a way to support them other than getting some real smart people in there to do business deals.

Kinda like Bernie's idea of giving stuff for free. He hasn't explained how this is going to happen or how it will get paid for. It's just going to happen.

It seems given the amount of establishment support for Hillary, Democrats aren't too excited about a guy who until 2015 was not a Democrat.

Hillary certainly is the establishment.  But I haven't seen the array of back-daggers for Bernie that Republicans (particularly Senate Republicans) are brandishing for Cruz.

Hate to break it to you, but America has been the laughing stock of the planet for the last 16 years...

This just sounds like a great talking point quote to me. Countries may laugh at us, we laugh at other countries, they laugh at someone else and the cycle continues. It's no different that telling a joke about being from New Jersey to someone from New York. How you react and what you learn should be the key, not just the fact someone laughs at you because everyone gets laughed at.

I'm not sure how to vote,It's not like I want Hillary,and I like what Bernie Sanda's  :D I don't see him winning.It's the who's left on that side.

Hillary probably has my vote,I'm not rah rah,go Hillary Wooohoo Go Hillary...

Modified to add...Let me clarify...I'd rather be castrated by a wooden spoon before voting for Trump,Cruz,and probably Rubio too.

I'd love it if Elizabeth Warren were in this race, and I'd vote for her without reservation (ba dum tish), but as it is my primary vote is probably going to Hillary.

If Bernie gets to the general, Swift Boat and Bill Ayers will look like patty cakes compared to the nuclear bombs the right will drop on Bernie.  Bernie is on the record as saying that major industries in America should be nationalized (something that Hillary will never mention about him in a primary).  In contrast, I think the GOP has been throwing everything they have at Hillary since 2013, and there's nothing to attack her with that they haven't already been deploying.

^ me too, I'm so enamored with Elizabeth Warren,and the stuff she says. :'(  I was disappointed when she said she would run...

Yep! Gotta love candidates who want to regulate credit lending while being completely ignorant on how it works.

Elizabeth Warren confuses me. She is a very smart person so I have to scratch my head when I hear her speak. She used to be a Republican so I kind of pay attention to her to see how much we relate. In the very same breath she will condemn her former GOP cohorts for telling women what to do with their bodies and then yet expect those same government officials to pay for what women do with their bodies.

^^^ Not quite. By law, federal funding cannot be used for abortions. The government pays for a lot of what women do to their bodies, just not abortions so we should drop that speaking point.

"The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception."

Even if we pretended the money doesn't cross buckets ... "The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception." That's pretty clear that we are paying for their sexual activity. Sexual activity that no one wants the government involved with.

I find it bizarre that we have no problem with taxpayer money being spent on wars that people find morally objectionable, but when it comes to constitutionally-guaranteed rights somehow there is this newfound moral veto.

There is all sorts of government spending that I disagree with but happens anyway; I disagree morally with the war on drugs.  Why is abortion (and family planning in general) a special case?

That's something I've never understood.  Abortion is legal.

I believe the argument goes that even though abortion is legal (and a right guaranteed under the Constitution), some people really don't like it so we should never spend any government money on providing it.

This same logic is never applied to, say, sending money to Israel to prop up their military.

we spend federal money on Viagra prescriptions .. why wouldn't we spend money on funding HIV screenings ? or HPV vaccines

i don't understand the double standard.. Well .. I "understand" it .. kinda .. men .. privilege .. etc .. but i don't think it's fair, nor have i ever heard a talking point about it from the right.

So only women get HIV and HPV?

Someone who thinks student loans should go at 0.75% interest is not a very smart person. Or they are an extremely smart person that chooses topics that make people "feel" a certain way and present no logic to the equation. That would make them a manipulative, disingenuous person.

Abortion is also the epitome of something you have to do because you made a behavioral choice that had consequences and now you want to absolve yourself of the long-term responsibility (of course we exclude rape because that isn't a choice). With all of the contraceptives available and all the information, if you are still having unprotected sex and you get pregnant and your solution is to kill the unborn life, then you should be the only one that has to live with that decision. The rest of us shouldn't.

Rubio is against a rape exception to anti-abortion laws .. as is Cruz. Trump .. meh .. i don't actually know what his views on it are.. and he's such an opportunistic lier that we won't ever know.

People make behavioral choices daily that have long term consequences that you and I pay for routinely. For example smoking .. that's a behavioral choice .. i don't see people advocating that we don't treat lung cancer because they somehow deserve it. And it should be their solitary responsibility and not the responsibility of the community at large.

the Constitution gives us the right to free birth control, free std testing and free abortions? You may want to read it again or else do a reading comprehension class or two.


We do not spend federal money on Viagra. Medicaid doesn't pay for it and neither does many insurances.

I agree that we do pay for people's bad choices but people who do not have healthcare do not get treated for lung cancer. One of the pills my father took for his lung cancer cost almost $7,000 a month and his insurance or Medicaid didn't pay for it.

You've hit the nail on the in regards to Cruz. The guy gives me the creeps.

As for Rubio, he's from my part of town. Really smart guy, but he was living it up at lavish parties with the local "leaders" when he was mayor of Westchester. He's the typical politician.


Yep and I disagree with me paying for someone else who chose to smoke and fuck up their life. If we continue to cover up for people's personal mistakes, we'll continue moving more and more towards a society where personal responsibility does not matter.

There is, however, a bit of a distinction between smoking and having unprotected sex. There is scientific evidence of certain people having addictive predisposition and addiction running in the family. So the argument could be made that some people are born with more of a propensity to become addicted to certain substances.

There is no evidence that people have an addiction to deciding to not purchase a condom or using contraceptives. By the way, I support ease of access to birth control and the morning after pill. I don't support the elimination of a life form with a heart beat that is composed of human genes.

The decision to make the argument for personal responsibility where government won't assist seems arbitrary with abortion.  There are plenty of things that I'm morally against that government pays for.  It's a legal medical procedure.

Also, people gets pregnant from lots of different ways.  Willful unprotected sex isn't the only way.

I agree. I am an across the board type of guy on this.


I mentioned rape as an exception. Other than that and the condom breaking or the anomoly with birth control not working, what is this plethora of different ways?

The ol' jizz on the toilet seat gag.  I knew a guy who knew a girl whose roommate got prego from a toilet seat...

I think the "rape as an exception thing" shouldn't matter.  Are we in the business of making patients prove how they got pregnant?  Then, you're looking to coax false rape accusations out of desperate young girls. 

But you mentioned the ways...birth control is mostly effective.  But even if it's 99.9 percent, that's 1 out of every 1000 times there's sex, you get a child.  There's a lot of sex going on...not in my house, but around the country.

But I go back to the fact that this is a legal medical procedure.  It's legal.  It's been decided.

I think in the end question of abortion isn't so much of taking a life, that part is tragic but ultimately irrelevant.

It's a question of liberty. Government can no more force a women to donate a kidney to a dying child than it can force her to carry a baby to term against her wishes.

Even if we stipulated that a fetus of any sort is a human being with full constitutional rights. No citizen has the right to force another citizen to use its body to keep it alive.

Ending a pregnancy is the choice of the person that is pregnant. That the fetus dies as a result, while tragic, is a side-effect.

Forensics seem to have an easy time validating rape. Either there are physical injuries or narcotics involved. 


Great. It's legal. But it's illegal for the government to require taxpayers to pay for it.

I just can't fathom rape-testing for a medical procedure.  Or drug testing.  Would people just take narcotics at that point?

No, the Constitution gives us the right to access those things, and we have (separately) chosen to enact federal programs that pay for health services.  So if we are going to have government-run health services, why are these gov't-run health services prohibited from providing only certain legal procedures?

Incorrect. (https://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/smd103098.pdf)

"This law requires, with a few limited statutory exceptions, that a State that chooses to include outpatient drugs within its Medicaid program must cover, for their medically accepted indications, all FDA approved prescription drugs of manufacturers that have entered into drug rebate agreements. The specific exceptions are contained in section 1927(d)(2) of the Act, which provides that a State may choose to exclude or restrict drugs or classes of drugs, or their medical uses for certain purposes. These exceptions include drugs when used: for anorexia, weightloss or weight gain; to promote fertility; for cosmetic purposes or hair growth; for the symptomatic relief of cough and colds; or to promote smoking cessation. States may also exclude prescription vitamins and mineral products (except prenatal vitamins and fluoride preparations); nonprescription drugs; drugs with respect to which the manufacturer seeks to condition the sale of the drug on a requirement that associated tests or monitoring devices be purchased exclusively from the manufacturer or its designee; barbiturates; and benzodiazepines.

The FDA has approved Viagra only to treat erectile dysfunction in men. Viagra does not fall within any of the allowable exclusions or restrictions listed in section 1927(d)(2), and section 1927(d)(3) of the Act provides for the Secretary to add a drug to that list only when she determines, based on data she has received from the States, that a drug is subject to clinical abuse or inappropriate use. Therefore, the law requires that a State's Medicaid program cover Viagra when medical necessity dictates such coverage for the drug's medically accepted indication."

Medicare Part D also covers Viagra.

I've never heard the act of taking an innocent life as an irrelevant argument.


Life is also a protected right, so in this case, life and liberty are at odds with each other. Also, with liberty comes the responsibility of your actions. If you took the liberty of having unprotected sex, ending an innocent life seems like a very irresponsible way to take responsibility for your actions. You should have been responsible upfront so you wouldn't need to be irresponsible in the back-end.


But now a citizen has the right to take another citizen's life, but not in self defense?


That's a stupid argument. A side effect of an abortion would be not being able to have children later on because you're ruined your womb. Killing an innocent unborn life is not a side effect. It is the direct result of the action.

I find it interesting how the same people who have no problem with an irresponsible person choosing to end an innocent life have a huge problem when an irresponsible person who ends other innocent lives has their life ended.

It's a tragic circumstance, but the government can't tell me that i must use my body to keep another person alive. It doesn't matter who that person is. Everyone dies,  everyone has a right to life, but not at anyone else's expense.

I personally don't believe a fetus is "alive" until it can exist outside the womb on its own. But even conceding the much more liberal life at the moment of conception view. IT is still irrelevant to the discussion of personal liberty.

Government can no more force me to have a medical procedure to keep someone alive, than it can force a woman to keep providing a womb for a fetus against her will. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

You keep referencing "unprotected sex."  Does that mean it's OK to (in your words) "end an innocent life" if a condom breaks or is otherwise ineffective?  What if you get pregnant while on the pill, or with another form of birth control?  Since you took appropriate action to prevent a pregnancy, does that absolve killing an innocent baby?

And what if you never made a choice to have sex in the first place?  There is no other situation in which the appropriate response to a violent crime is to take the life of an innocent.  So why start here?

This is this issue: once you start defining clumps of cells as "innocent life," rape victims should logically be forced to undergo the (medically unnecessary) trauma of carrying their rapist's baby to term, then additionally forced to either abandon the baby they have bonded with over the last 9 months, or keep the rapist in their life forever.  Miscarriages potentially become negligent homicide, and should properly be criminally investigated.

Medical technology has been able to divorce sexual intercourse from pregnancy for many decades; I reject the idea that we must forcibly re-integrate them.  I see no way to logically reconcile the following:

abortion: killing of an innocent life
IUD: sensible precaution
Plan B: killing of an innocent life
birth control pill: sensible precaution

I don't classify a fetus as independent life until it can survive outside of the womb.  Until that point, it is a part of the woman's body, and she has the freedom to make her own choices about her body.

Yeah... I'm not going to force someone to carry a child for 9 months, let the pregnancy screw up their body, go to the hospital and pay those bills, then decide to either let that child go to an adoption agency or live with it for the rest of their lives. That seems a little punishing just to teach someone a lesson.

By your own definition it wouldn't be a life until it was several years old. A baby cannot survive on it's own and requires someone to care for it.


It comes down to opinion and that isn't' likely to change. I mentioned it earlier but it seemed to go over people's head. I don't understand how anyone can say you don't have a right to comment, make laws or have an opinion about what women do with their bodies but yet be expected to pay for the "health" of their bodies. You can't have it both ways.

It really comes down to this one question for me.  If we separated the country into two groups ... one liberal and one conservative ... do you really think the liberals paying for each other while banning guns and public displays of religion would fare better than the conservatives who would teach each other to take care of themselves and be more self sufficient?   

I think that's rather obviously not what he meant.

He meant that if it cannot survive with assistance out of the womb, it is not a life.  No one would argue that an infant (or a disabled senior) is "not a life" just because they require care.

It doesn't really take that much imagination to make this comparison, since we've already had the ideal conservative country: it is the America of the Industrial Revolution.  Back then, "job creators" were free to practice unfettered capitalism without intrusive government regulation, citizens were free to live a life of maximal liberty without oppressive income taxes or demoralizing safety nets, and individuals were free to associate with whomever they chose without the government ramming political correctness down their throat.

Our society has consistently become more progressive over time, and I would happily take 2016 America over 1896 America.

Can there be an option for none of the above in the poll?

Outside of people supporting Trump I think most everyone else is really in that category.

I have to say ...regardless of the picks it is surprising to me how close the voting is for Democrats and Republicans in here.  I wonder how many Trump supporters would typically vote Democrat?

More than likely, if I actually go out and vote, it'll probably be for some 3rd party.

Trump is unique.  He simultaneously crosses over between parties and is detested by segments of both parties.  On the issues, Trump is the most moderate of the GOP candidates.  He's just a blowhard and there is almost no substance to any of his policies.  He just repeats how great they're going to be.  That lack of specifics turns some people off, but it also is a blank slate for people to project their own ideas.

And Trump is (or has been) on both sides of most of the major issues, so you can either tell yourself that (on abortion, for example) he's a changed man who found Jesus and is now Pro Life OR you can tell yourself that he doesn't really believe that and he's just pandering to the right to get votes.

Former Apple CEO John Sculley who is a friend of Trump wrote a pretty good article today about what is going on. "Trump voters 'don't care about facts," http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/01/technology/john-sculley-donald-trump/

Many Americans are fed up and Trump is tapping into that. They are fed up with many things like being politically correct,  the middle class continues to shrink, having politicians be politicians and so on. He's like a cheerleader for their cause so they are jumping on that cheer and ignoring the facts. Like you said he lacks specifics but he isn't looking for that support yet. To me he is similar to a professional wrestler in that he is just trying to get people riled up to support him and will say anything.  In doing so he really gets the blue collared person excited and it is working for him.

In many ways he has hijacked the Republicans but I bet he could have probably done the same thing with the Democrats. The question is how long will it last?

I'm not sure about that. Democrats actually try to do what they said they were going to do during the campaign. Republicans, not so much.

There is an interesting piece in the New York Times about the make up of Trump voters. People assume angry white supremacists but they interview some former Democrats and even a Muslim who is supporting Trump. With a guy like Trump, you have to throw out conventional wisdom.

Trump will probably capture the Reagan Democrats, but I think Romney captured them in 2012 and it didn't make much difference.  The fundamental demographics issues still exist.  I find it difficult to believe that Trump can say something between now and November to make Hispanics forget about the Mexican rapists and blacks forget about his playing footsie with David Duke.  Energizing turnout for both white nationalists and minorities is not a winning play for the former.

Trump's lead solidified last night and there is even more talk about this election marking the end of the Republican Party; either a literal end (as the Whigs did, which seems unlikely) or a complete realignment from the Southern Strategy coalition of Nixon and Reagan.  Currently, the party base consists of the corporate ("establishment") conservatives, the social conservatives ("evangelicals") and working-class conservatives.  Outside of possibly gun rights, the working-class conservatives have been stiffed by the GOP for decades... particularly in the widespread export of jobs; this is a large part of what has fueled Trump's run.

However, I'm unsure of how this realignment could take place.  The corporate conservatives have all the money, so as long as our politics are controlled by money it seems unlikely that they would not be a partner in the new coalition; however, their goals (which are largely libertarian) are pretty much at direct odds with those of the working-class conservatives.  I could certainly see an alliance between the evangelicals and the working-class conservatives, but the first action in such an alliance would have to be a move to get money out of politics (so as to de-power establishment money).  If that were to happen, the American right would be replaced with something more similar to the European right: protectionist authoritarians.

He has won with Hispanics despite running against two Hispanics. The David Duke thing will get lost in the 24 hour news cycle.

Trump is winning with people that find him unfavorable according to many exit polls. Throw conventional wisdom out the window with him. His campaign was supposed to implode 20 despicable comments ago... but every time he demonstrates what a jackass he is, he gets more support.

An angry bunch of voters,tend to be a stupid bunch of voters.

That would explain 2008.

I humbly submit that if you are a Hispanic Republican, you are likely already fully immune to racism; if you couldn't get past the gently-veiled references to "anchor babies" then you wouldn't be a Republican in the first place.

I also think you are significantly underestimating the importance of David Duke.  You may not think it's a big deal, but frankly, you're not part of the cohort that would think it's a big deal.

I am a Hispanic Non-Republican and I don't find the term anchor baby offensive. Because the term has nothing to do with being Hispanic. In fact, it is derived from the term anchor child which was originally used to describe Vietnamese children back in 1987.

I think another facet of the Trump candidacy is that many people are fed up with everything being offensive.

Further evidence that the Trump candidacy may be defying conventional wisdom.


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party

Also, since Hispanic is a not a race, then you cannot be racist against a Hispanic. There are blond, blue eyed Hispanics. There are black Hispanics.

Just saying...

Again, if you can't overlook terms like "anchor baby" (and other dog whistles) then it would be nearly impossible to be a conservative in the first place, as that kind of coded language abounds.  So I'm not surprised to hear that you are fine with it.

It's pretty easy to be "fed up" with other people being offended.  Kind of like how Sarah Palin is against political correctness right until she hears someone use the word "retard."

That's funny. I'm being called a conservative.  ::)


You'd be surprised at how many Hispanics are not offended by a candidate that wants to stop people from coming into the country illegally and unaccounted for.

I only call you a conservative because you consistently defend and advocate for conservative positions.

I'm also registered as an independent (and always have been).  Opting-out of the D/R label does not magically make one non-partisan.

I consistently defend and advocate for conservative positions. Hyperbole much?


That is very clear in YOUR case.

Rather than perform the easy (but tedious) task of filling this thread with your pro-conservative quotes, I'll just ask: exactly which positions have you advocated for that, in your opinion, are NOT conservative?

I'd also like to add that I always forget that this is a site for Miami Dolphins fans, and that Miami has a high Cuban population.  I'm not necessarily saying that you're Cuban, but Cubans are unlike literally every other group of Hispanics in America; there is no such thing as illegal Cuban immigrants, as they can just show up in America and automatically be granted political asylum, with no sort of limit or quota.   (It is no coincidence that both Hispanic GOP candidates are of Cuban heritage.)

So I grant that there is one specific group of Hispanics in America that are 100% against illegal immigration, because it literally cannot apply to them.  I'm sure Ted Cruz' father will be happy to talk at length about the scourge of illegal immigration, even though many of them entered the country exactly as he did.

I love this sensationalistic term. It is what it is. Nothing coded about it. An anchor baby is an anchor baby.

Sure, in the same sense that when Reagan campaigned on "states' rights," he was only talking about the states' ability to decide matters for themselves.  Exactly which matters we are talking about is intentionally left open-ended, because we aren't specifically talking about segregation; we are talking about "states' rights," which is a completely different thing that is totally reasonable to be in favor of, and not at all racist.

Similarly, when we use the phrase "anchor baby," we are potentially talking about anchor babies from Germany, or Denmark, or Australia.  It could be an anchor baby from anywhere in the world!  So technically, "anchor baby" isn't specifically talking about the children of illegal Mexican immigrants at all, and when we talk about repealing or re-adjudicating the 14th Amendment, we aren't talking about eliminating citizenship status of millions of Latinos... maybe we're talking about eliminating the citizenship of illegal Canadian immigrants!  So this is not at all a race-oriented attack.

Coded language.

Just to follow up on this:

Trump won the Latino vote in the Nevada Republican caucus with 45% (http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nv/Rep) of the vote; his next closest competitor, Rubio, had 27%.  And it turns out that that 45-27 number is useful in more ways than one, as it was based on a grand total of 100 Latino Republicans (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/24/donald-trump-apparently-won-the-latino-vote-in-nevada-it-doesnt-mean-latinos-suddenly-love-him/); that is to say, he didn't just win 45%-27%, but 45 people to 27.

This is not what I would call overwhelming positive support from the Latino community.

The Republicans created Trump.  It's really interesting.  They sat on their hands and benefited from his crazy talk like "Obama wasn't born in this country."  Even legitimate politicians didn't denounce that kind of stuff and said very weak things like "well, if the president says he was born here, then I take him at his word."  Now, they let that tumor grow and it's killing them with the same tactics.

I know Democrats like to blame Republicans for what they are going through but I don't see it as a something that was built from Republicans. I see conservative and liberal posts all day long on Facebook and people in the middle are attracted to him. The politically correct police have created Trump. People are so fed up with being told what is right and what is wrong about offending people that someone like Trump only has to say things that piss other people off to get their support. People's number one reason for supporting Trump is "he tells it like it is" and "he sounds like me".  They couldn't care less that he hasn't said anything of substance.

I swear if Trump was running Democrat that many Republicans would have made the leap to follow as well.

I know several deputies who escorted Trump the other day on his visit to UCF. They came away completely supporting him. He's very charismatic ... especially when the cameras are off.  It's surprising to me how many strong willed guys who I never thought would follow him jump on his bandwagon. I'm going to see Rubio tonight so I'll have to see if he has the same effect on people.

I think saying the GOP created him is a little strong, but I agree in essence what you are saying.  The same thing happened with the Tea Party movement, the GOP liked it because it was anti-Democrats, and they thought they could just control the tea party Congress members, but they learned the tea party people weren't going to play that game.

Unfortunately, that is a fairly regular occurrence when dealing with the hyper-religious right. Once you've convinced yourself that not only is God real, but that he loves you more than people of other religions, or people of no religion, then it's pretty hard to ever get you to admit that you're wrong.

YOur options are a Democrat or a Republican. There are other parties, and some people will consider to vote third party.

At the end of the day, it's the Republican primary that Trump is dominating, not the Democratic one.  If you're saying that Trump was created by a culture of backlash against "political correctness"... well, political correctness is not something that liberals complain about, so that seems to validate Dave's point.

Trump would not be winning the Democratic primary with talk of walls, deportations, and bans.   The only liberal-ish positions he has represented so far (at least at some time, because his positions "evolve" rapidly) are guaranteed healthcare, trade protectionism, and support for Planned Parenthood; Bernie shares all of those positions (and none of Trump's negatives, from a Dem perspective)... and Bernie is losing.

Ultimately, Trump is telling the Republican electorate what they want to hear.  The Republican establishment has subtly hinting at these ideas for decades; it is far too late for them to feign shock when Trump exchanges the dog whistles for a brass marching band.

If you think Trump's fans are only Republicans either you haven't been paying attention or are just pretending to be ignorant. The numbers are big this year for the Republican nomination ... double or more in some elections and they aren't coming from the Republican base. They are coming from new voters or people outside the Republican party.

Below is a list of "open" primaries. The bold ones are the ones that Trump has won. Personally I don't understand why we have parties if anyone can nominate for those parties. It just seems stupid to me.

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma (Only Democratic primary is open to Independent voters as of November 2015) [11]
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin[12]

Here is an eye opening article written by The Guardian ... which is a very liberal paper.

'Not even my wife knows': secret Donald Trump voters speak out
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out

That's not exactly an encouraging list to support your point.

If AL, AR, GA, SC, or TN are actively being contested, the race is already over.  Likewise for MA or VT.

VA (and maybe NH) qualify as swing states, but in those states:

- Bernie got over 50% more votes in NH than Trump did (and Hillary got 95% as many votes as Trump did while being blown out by Bernie), so it's hard to see where there was a huge number of non-conservatives jumping ship for Trump
- In VA, again, Hillary got 40% more votes than Trump, while Bernie got 75% as many votes while being blown out by Hillary

I'd also like to point out that primary (and especially caucus!) turnout is not much of an indicator of anything.  It simply does not have much of a correlation to what the general election will look like.

---

In the article you linked, of the 12 e-mails cited, the rationale for nearly half of them is quite intentionally that he'll be a disaster; two of these "Trump supporters" compared him to Hitler.  I guess it's possible that a majority of this country actually wants to elect someone they think will be the next Hitler, but I doubt it.  Call me a relentless optimist.

And there's a good chunk of those e-mails that reflect exactly what we've been saying: the fight against political correctness.

They don't want to hear about enhanced interrogation; they want us to torture terrorists.
They are uninterested in lowering immigration quotas from nations with known ties to terrorist groups; they want to ban all Muslims.

After decades of hearing Republican politicians describe conservative policies in carefully-couched terms like "states' rights" and "religious freedom," they are elated to finally have a politician who just says what they REALLY mean without worrying about what everyone will think.  That, in a nutshell, is what the fight against political correctness is about: the freedom to express positions that society no longer finds palatable, just as you could back in the old days.  It is one of the primary essences of conservatism.

Ted Cruz seems to be winning the conservative vote more and more and Trump seems to be winning with a wide swath of Republicans as well as Independents and "blue collar" Democrats that have switched over. So I don't believe the demographics back up your theory at all.

I mean... are conservatives even allowed to enter Massachussets and Vermont?

Anyone who tells you God loves them more than you isn't speaking about the God of the Bible. It's pretty clear Jesus died for all of us and all of our sins. He loves every single person regardless of how they reject Him.

It's a great plot line...someone ought to write a book.

Both VT and MA are open primaries, so they wouldn't need to, right?

KY, LA, and NV are all closed primaries that Trump won, so he obviously has appeal with the Republican base.  Furthermore, for every blue collar Dem Trump is supposedly capturing, you will have 2 additional Dems driven to the polls to vote against him AND a Republican who stays home to avoid voting for him (see: #NeverTrump).

Did anyone see Trump's speech last night? 

Even though I've seen it all, I continue to be surprised at what he's doing.  This time, it wasn't offensive; it was just weird.  Apparently, he was very offended by Romney calling out his various companies (Trump Water, Trump Steaks, some of his building projects, etc.) so he took the time to pitch a 30-minute, live infomercial on how great his steaks and water are. 

I can't even believe what I'm watching at this point.

^^^ I saw portions of it. He just kept going on about the water, steaks, and magazine. At least we didn't have to hear about his penis anymore. How does anyone think this guy is Presidential?

People think he can fix the economy and that is what matters most. He says what he wants which separates him from the Washington establishment in having a new direction and people feel like he can fix an economy that has been in suffering for 12 years or so. Most people either ignore or don't believe his crazy talk.

I think it's pretty clear he will be the next president.

I forgot about the magazine.  He talked about that for a bit.  And then talked about some Bank of America building somewhere, too.  It was like he was doing a timeshare presentation. 

It had nothing to do with his presidential run and more was like an "Oh yeah, Romney?" moment.  His platform is just talking about how great he is.  It's like we're in a dream.

Do these people understand that he's filed for bankruptcy four (4) different times?

The only economic policy Trump has ever espoused is "what will make Donald Trump more money."

The only reason Bernie is losing is because the fix was in for Hillary before a vote was even cast.  She locked up just about all of the Super Delegates, which is why she is winning.  If this were a straight up race like the GOP has Bernie would probably be winning.

LOL there is no reality in which Trump actually has a shot at winning.  His own party won't even give him the nomination.

I think they will. While most do not want Trump the idea of not backing him and allowing Hillary back in the White House is even worse. If he gets the majority and is not selected the Republican party will cease to exist moving forward. Not many Republicans want that regardless of what they are saying now.

This just isn't true.

Super-delegates will move to wherever the vote goes.  So, initially, they side with Clinton, but that means nothing as they will (and have...they did with Hillary/Obama) move to the eventual winner to secure the nomination.  The aren't bound to a candidate.  You can't "lock them up", as you put it.  The purpose of this is to reduce the odds of a brokered convention for someone who wins the most delegates, but doesn't have enough to cross the finish line.  They want to avoid a situation like the GOP is in right now.

Sanders is still losing, without super-delegates.  It's because he's winning some places, but he's winning close.  Hillary is losing some places close and then trouncing with others, as well as with the black vote.

Without super-delegates, Clinton leads 760-546.  It's not insurmountable or anything, but it's 1 1/2 times the delegates to this point.  Florida and Ohio will be interesting and will probably decide it.  They are "winner take all".  Bernie needs at least one, but really both to make a push to pass Hillary.  We'll see.  Voting on Tuesday.

Hillary has received the most actual votes of any candidate, on either side, in this primary season.  And it's not even close.  Even if you completely exclude superdelegates, her delegate lead over Bernie is over twice as big as Trump's delegate lead over Cruz.

Everyone complained about superdelegates in 2008 too, when they were all lined up behind Hillary at the start.  But once Obama started beating her in the actual primaries, they jumped over to him.  Superdelegates are a non-issue.

Democrats do not do "winner takes all" in their primaries, which is why Hillary's already-huge lead is really even bigger than it looks.  All Dem primaries/caucuses are proportional, which means that Bernie cannot simply win states 52-48 like he did with Michigan last night; he will have to start winning large states 80-20 to catch up in delegates.  That is highly unlikely, to put it mildly.

Many Republicans have come out plainly and said that they would prefer Hillary to win over Trump.

If Hillary wins, the GOP is set back for 4 years.
If Trump wins, Reagan conservatism is dead and the party will be fundamentally reshaped.  The GOP would potentially become a European-style right-wing party: nativist authoritarians (which describes Trump to a tee).

You are correct to point out that stealing the nomination from Trump (if he has the most delegates) would break the party apart from within.  Most of the #NeverTrump crew seem resigned to letting him have his (fairly earned) nomination and then hoping he loses in the general.

No kidding.  That makes sense.  A lot, actually.  Thanks.