Presidential Primaries Megathread: (Election'16 V.3)

[Eviora]

I don't think you can prove "human fetuses" are human without making an assumption that directly implies the conclusion. =p (A condescending hashtag isn't proof.) But, regardless of pedantic arguments about what it means to be human, the question of who would care for those children remains. I think far fewer conservatives would be willing to take up that responsibility than are willing to protest loudly. The quality of a life does matter, not just the life itself, as does the mother's rights. But this argument is old and tired. Even if abortion is unequivocally wrong, I am willing to acknowledge my share of the responsibility for legislation passed by the pro-choice candidates I vote for.

Do you do the same for the candidates you vote for and what they may do to people you care about? Could you look LGBT people you care about in the eyes and say, "I would sacrifice you for 'the greater good?'"

By the way, the candidates' positions on contentious topics seems pretty relevant to the primaries to me.

I don't know where you stand on Global Warming, but if you acknowledge it I wonder how you deal with Cruz's refusal to do so, and the irreparable damage he could do in his ignorance.

[Chase]

Assumption? If you tell two humans to procreate, and give the fetus the justice of having them wait for the end of the nine months, the DATA shows that the baby infant is a human being 100% of the time. Look at every human being born throughout history. That's all the data you should ever need.

I'm a proud conservative that would do my best to find those new lives a place where they can grow - but the reality of life is that in any capacity, the only impossible amount of struggle we as humans will face is 0%. Death is easy and is a weak cop-out option that you have defended and yet opposed by claiming those who are forced into suicide should have their lives protected. Life - no matter what shape, form, color, duration, etc it has - is HARD - and it's also a gift that shouldn't be so quickly thrown away if there's even a remote chance something can come from it.

If a mother has the right to kill their baby, my mother should have been given the right to kill my sister when she turned 13 and started back-talking her. She wouldn't have - but I doubt any legislator or litigator in their right mind would be sympathetic to a mother who kills someone 13 years strong as much as they are to the lives they terminate after heartbeats are detected all the up to post-birth.

I'm glad you can own it - because I feel much safer voting for Ted Cruz and saving MORE lives than your vote for a liberal nominee would.

As for global warming, I'm tired of liberal politicians selling it as a do-or-die issue and perhaps shockingly, I'm even MORE tired of politicians claiming it doesn't exist. I am an anthropocentric person - meaning I uphold humanity above the ecosystem - and I do feel that the regulation the EPA imposes on businesses causes economic and energy limitations that are inhibiting. Do I think we should encourage alternative energy use, conservation, and the like? Absolutely

However, I would rather tackle this issue by rewarding the alternative as opposed to enforcing it and shooting the immediate populace in the foot. Does GW exist?

Sure - but I don't care about it all that much as a voter.

---

For president, where there are so many groups of people that I am to be held accountable by?

I think it's unfair to blame someone's suicide attempt on me - but I can tell them squarely "You will be persecuted, but it's okay. As a Christian, I've been there. As a young Conservative in the middle of various Liberal circles. I've been there. As someone who has made the terrible mistake of harming someone many people loved - including myself - I've been on the other side of the proverbial pitchfork."

The greater good is the key phrase there. I'm not bending over the anyone in specific, from LGBT individuals to the National Rifle Association.

If only there was an ideology where blood didn't have to paint the hands of the president - or apparently, the voter.

[Eviora]

What you are assuming is that the fetus itself is a human, not that it will result in a human if left alone. We all know that would happen. The question is essentially "what makes an organism a human?" Your answer probably has something to do with souls. Not everyone believes in those.

As far as death goes, I do support opt-in euthanasia. I don't expect many people to agree with me on that front, but it seems to me that any adult ought to be able to make that choice if they deem it best. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care whether people want to die or not. Obviously, I'd prefer for people to be happy. That's not always possible. It's easy for you to sit there as an outsider and talk about how people should carry on despite however bad things are, but it's certainly not helpful. You can call the suicidal weak, cowards, whatever you want. I would imagine those comments would be less likely to dissuade them than the opposite. If you truly want to help such people, I recommend less judgment and more compassion.

No one is claiming a mother has the right to kill her baby. Many liberals believe she has the right to remove a fetus from her body - which, yes, kills it. But by labeling the fetus as a baby, you're again trying to sneak in the assumption that the fetuses are already human.

You can try to brush off global warming if you want, but even if you count would-be aborted fetuses (he'll make little progress there anyway), your confidence that Cruz is saving more lives than he's endangering is completely unfounded in light of it. Enough so that it makes me question whether you actually care about saving lives and not just conservative ideology. If there's a phenomenon that could ever plausibly cause global catastrophes, it seems like addressing it should be pretty high up on the priority totem pole for those who care about human lives.

Fortunately, it's looking more and more like this election is becoming a choice between "embrace Trump" and "pave the way for Hillary" on the conservative side. At this point, I think Trump has plenty of reason to defect if he doesn't get the nomination for any reason, and he's just the man to do it. Although my optimism about people gets proven unjustified again and again, I'll just hope there are enough conservatives who realize the damage Trump would deal their party that he won't win the general election. =p

[Chase]

Labeling as not a baby when the thing will always prove to be a human at birth - which is my first and foremost conclusion that it's a human, thank you very much - is seemingly a cop-out. What's YOUR answer as to what makes them human? That they use tools or logical reasoning or pick up a language?

Kinda hard to just discern while in the womb if a fetus has the ability to do that - and if your immediate answer is "Well obviously they can't speak, use tools, or reason - therefore they are not human" - You could tell a 3 month old baby girl the same thing. That makes the definition of "non-human" kinda "convenient" for Pro-Choicers more so than it answers a philosophical and biological question about pre-birth stages of life in a human being. And - if you take into account potential along with the absolutely certain data point that all human offspring end up humans - then you can glean that that fetus will one day be a human, biologically (which can be determined via ultrasound pre-birth might I add) -and- cognitively.

Brushing off Global Warming and not caring about it are two different things. My provision for the lack of enthusiasm I have for the topic is simple. Reward those who use alternative fuel. Hurting our economy and government regulation on businesses and energy in this manner leads to citizens having their lives negatively affected elsewhere (higher taxes, less available energy.) That's is not only a plausible phenomenon, but one that has proven to hindered Americans' lives. Remember when I said living is hard? Regulated government doesn't exactly help in the area of Global Warming.

Bad news for Hillary - the 3 other remaining candidates officially renewed their pledge to back the Republican nominee - Marco, John, and Ted if it is indeed Donald Trump, and Trump in kind if it's one of the other three candidates. There may be a movement against Trump that spurs a primary upset, but if the solidarity given in Detroit tonight is for real - the other candidates in the race at the very least will rally around whoever wins.

[Deleted User]

I'm washing my hands of this thread, so those of you who still want to discuss the topic at hand, try to reel it back in. We've collectively managed to meander too far.

[Eviora]

I would probably tie "being human" in with cognitive ability somehow, but I'm no expert on the science, so I don't know the specifics. I do know that really late abortion doesn't sit super well with me. More importantly, once a baby has, in fact, been born, the argument that they're infringing on the mother's right to her body vanishes. if the baby is already born, there are better ways to get rid of it if you really don't want it.

it's silly to talk about potential humans, though. I mean, instead of arguing with me on the internet, you could be out procreating right now. Think of all the potential lives you "cancelled" just by not being a breeding machine! I don't think anyone would be silly enough to call your failure to do so murder. Within the framework of the not-yet-human viewpoint, nothing changes just because there's a fetus associated with the would-be human.

It's true that taxes associated with Global Warming regulations can cause financial/energy difficulties for people, but if you are truly going for the "greater good", it's hard not to acknowledge that those hardships pale in comparison to potential disasters that could eventually claim billions of lives. Failure to act now could have permanent repercussions for not just humans, but life in general. That seems like more than enough to overshadow abortion, LGBT rights, taxes, ISIS, and income inequality all combined.

As for solidarity... I'll believe it from Trump when I see it. Romney certainly just today sent the opposite message, and Rubio was recently blasting Trump in an incredibly juvenile manner. So far, the establishment has done an outstanding job of making Trump, the man with a commanding lead for his party's nomination, come off as the underdog. In this election, that makes him more likable. We'll see if that vow of unity holds over the next week, as several states where Trump is projected to win overwhelming hold their primaries.

As an aside, I do believe I'm the only one here to explicitly own the results of the policies of a candidate they intend to vote for. At this point, I'm not expecting anyone else to join me. Oh well.

[Chase]

As someone who also is hoping for a candidate NOT named Donald Trump in the Republican Party - Mitt needed to sit this one out.

The very reason Trump is doing so well outside of unorthodox campaign tactics and demagogue championing angry GOPers is because people like Mitt are the very reason those voters are frustrated in the first place. The only thing Mitt did by contributing is give Trump firepower and his supporters more things to salivate over.

Rubio was the biggest loser of tonight's debate for continuing the locker-room potshots at Trump for multiple reasons.

• This gave John Kasich the moral high road even more than Kasich would have already had it - making him a viable option for potential Democrats and the typically more moderate voters than Rubio in the North.
• This gave Ted Cruz the moral high road - which is a damning to Marco because Ted already leads him in delegates and Cruz doesn't need to appear more presidential than he.
• Trump is someone you shouldn't wasting too much time playing "not to lose" with if you are actively running to be president. The Donald knows how to take a few hits.

As for owning the positions Ted Cruz has in my vote - allow me to do so.

• I admit that voting for someone that is heavily invested in allying with Israel in the I+P conflict doesn't do much to strengthen our ties with neighboring Muslim theocratic governments.
• I admit that voting for someone that is opposed to same-sex marriage and the like could potentially cause harm to LGBT individuals - even though if I were running for President I would do better to connect with those voters.
• I admit that voting for someone that is against the notion of Global Warming in totality could look bad in the face of a disaster that could occur during Senator Cruz's presidency or later on.
• I admit that voting for someone that is a warhawk puts lives on the battlefield and causes their loved ones loss.
• I admit that voting for someone that is staunchly pro-life will threaten female autonomy.

I simply think the trade offs are better than any of the other candidates.

• Lower taxes, that enable citizens and businesses to thrive, which creates jobs and lowers the amount of those in need.
• ISIS hopefully falling off the face of the earth - blood I DON'T mind having on my hands.
• A strong capitalist economy driven by free-enterprise.
• Privatized healthcare that is truly competitive and allows for patient preference.
• State-level education boards retaining their former successes as opposed to Common Core.
• Stronger immigration policies that prevent large drug traffic and encourage immigrants to come here legally.
• More jobs home as opposed to abroad.

Eviora - this recently surfaced - but Caitlyn Jenner gave an appreciation for Senator Cruz when asked about the candidates and offered to be the man's "Trans Ambassador". Seeing as 2015's Woman of the Year is literally the face of transgender America - it seems like a huge opportunity for Cruz to get some crossover votes.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/election-center-2016/caitlyn-jenner-ted-cruz-trans-ambassador/index.html

It's worth noting she hasn't endorsed Cruz, but that she is a Republican and appreciates his conservatism - while acknowledging his faults in comparison to her situation.

If Hunter White was running for president, and Caitlyn was this high on him - he'd probably take her up on the offer. (as I am actually one who would love to usher transgender individuals to the GOP and I see their value in who they are thanks to being a part of this funny place.) Do you think Cruz should in the event that he wins the election?

[NickCrash]

@Jericho, Since abortion, global warming, same-sex marriage and immigration policies are serious topics the presidential candidates have to compare their views on, it's productive to have mini-debates about them here, instead of simply presenting the vote results from various states or express our preferences.

That said, I'd ask you to collectively focus more on how global warming affects people's lives as well as the economy. Legislation that encourages alternative energy sources may hinder the economy at first, but it is a proven mid-term and long-term economy boost that's profitable for the environment. Brushing it off as something insignificant shows that one does not realize how severe the repercussions will be (and already are). For a presidential candidate not to acknowledge this is outside the borders of what's considered acceptable. Let's just say that this is blood nobody wants to have in their hands, unless they only care about short-term investments.

Moving on to same-sex legislation, forcing legislation that prohibits it is a step backwards to global progress, and as such the whole world will protest, given the slightest hint of such an action. Without mentioning how profitable it will be for European governments to support same-sex marriage, American citizens are against someone who is making actions based solely on personal religious beliefs, without listening to "what the crowd wants". It's not a form of protection, since you are not acknowledging their right to marry. At the same time, since we established that he cannot pose such legislature but he can abstain from even touching this field, there is no actual measure one can take against the LGBT community. At least none that will not be instantly withdrawn, given how people will react.

An ideology that gives people freedom of choice is one that gives the president the choice not to have any blood on their hands. I am not responsible for someone's self-hurting actions when I've not deprived them of any basic rights, and at the same time, I am not responsible for someone who decides to make an abortion, as it's their body they are working on and deciding upon. I did not force an abortion, as well as I did not force them to keep the baby (and might even have them injure themselves by trying to abort illegally through dangerous methods). No, this is not a cop-out or a way to say "I wash my hands and let them take the blame", simply because I am offering people with more choices.

As every notion that allows people further freedom of choice, the arguments against reside in whether they arbitrarily ignore the rules. Such technicalities can be overcome with proper legislation that's working around the possible outcomes and not stopping the notion all-together from fear of inability to deal with the problems that arise with it, because it itself is not a problem but a choice. You allow the choice itself, but pose restrictions in it so people can exercise their rights without causing problems to themselves or the community. Since a choice makes no harm to someone else, there's no reason for it not to be legal.

[Chase]

Unfortunately, Nick - the presidential candidates in this country - to this point - have not -had- to compare views to many of these issues.

The GOP candidates for example are regularly never asked about education, global warming, and income inequality.

The Democratic candidates for the most part are not asked about foreign policy, immigration, and national security.

Simply put, the respective parties have certain issues they care about more during the primary than others - and that's what we've seen to date. Jericho is at least right in that going off into tangential argument land would be better served during the general election, when all of the issues matter and the race is for the presidency as opposed to a mere nomination. Right now, it's essentially a beauty contest for each party - combining the traits of honesty, election-readiness, and having agreeable policies with the mostly conservative/liberal electorate that composes each party's backbone. The candidates that do so the best will win their respective parties nominations.

What we're doing here is best suited for the general race - as it was all prompted by a question about such scenario.

[Eviora]

Yeahhh... Caitlyn Jenner's offer fails on so many levels that it's hard to cover all the ways it falls short. For starters, I doubt Cruz feels he needs a trans ambassador any more than he feels he needs an atheist one. He probably views us as abominations, judging by his previous comments. Further, Caitlyn is spectacularly unqualified to be a trans ambassador. Specifically because she is conservative, she's extremely unrepresentative of the trans community. She's a champion of "throw others under the bus" logic that doesn't even make sense. (Case in point: She opposes same sex marriage because she deems herself a "traditionalist." Because transitioning is totally an age old tradition.) Also, unlike most trans people, she's rich. She doesn't seem particularly sympathetic to the plight of those who find it hard to find work due to discrimination. Literally the only thing she has going for her over any other trans person is fame. If that's how people choose their representatives in this country, we'll end up with Trump for sure. So, no, I don't think Cruz should make her his "trans ambassador". If he actually wanted one, there would be many, many better choices.

I don't think you're owning all of your positions to the extent you should be. Example: Ted Cruz's willful ignorance on the subject of global warming could contribute to the deaths of billions, not merely make us look bad. You also ignore a lot of lives that are at stake, such as those of the people who would be geographically close to members of ISIS when he "carpet bombs" them. You also ignore a lot of the downsides of rampant capitalism and brush off the benefits of higher taxes. You don't have to look far to find a bunch of conservatives who are grateful they had access to Obamacare. Do you truly own the deaths of those who die because they couldn't afford healthcare without placing a staggering burden on their families as solemnly as if they were your own call? Are you so confident in your capitalistic ideology that you don't mind sinking a few million more people below the poverty line in pursuit of it? I believe a certain governor of Louisiana tried that recently and it didn't go so well. You could try to replicate the experiment on a national level, but, well... you're gonna have a bad time.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Eviora

[NickCrash]

I don't think you're owning all of your positions to the extent you should be. Example: Ted Cruz's willful ignorance on the subject of global warming could contribute to the deaths of billions, not merely make us look bad. You also ignore a lot of lives that are at stake, such as those of the people who would be geographically close to members of ISIS when he "carpet bombs" them. You also ignore a lot of the downsides of rampant capitalism and brush off the benefits of higher taxes. You don't have to look far to find a bunch of conservatives who are grateful they had access to Obamacare. Do you truly own the deaths of those who die because they couldn't afford healthcare without placing a staggering burden on their families as solemnly as if they were your own call? Are you so confident in your capitalistic ideology that you don't mind sinking a few million more people below the poverty line in pursuit of it? I believe a certain governor of Louisiana tried that recently and it didn't go so well. You could try to replicate the experiment on a national level, but, well... you're gonna have a bad time.

I believe this compilation of questions is better targeted at a presidential candidate than most people here, whose votes are given based on what % of the candidates' suggestions they most agree with. This might be a low percentage but one is deemed to have a higher than others. Hunter thinks of Cruz as the better candidate, so his opinion is somewhat biased, allowing him to forgive some of Cruz's faults, similarly to Evi and her fav candidate, Sanders.

I know it's more or less a beauty pageant, but the nomination outcome judges the final result, so somebody has to take it seriously.

[Chase]

I don't think Cruz should either (largely because fame is the only redeemable quality for her in comparison to others) - and I agree that there are better representatives of the trans community. I know a few of them personally. The only reason Caitlyn Jenner is huge for Ted is that she's more of a bridge to those voters that would normally be wary of him than trans people have ever had before.

There is one thing that I do wonder about. It seems like when you start going down the line of alphabet soup that is L-G-B-T, the first two groups (Lesbians and Gays) tend to be the most liberal minded individuals, while Bisexuals are happy to follow liberal suit because of the mere choice being open.

Transgender individuals have the most ability to fall anywhere on the political spectrum. I've always found that the "T" in LGBT was sorta just tacked on there as a result with regards to political matters. What about the case where you have a transgender person that is explicitly heterosexual? Is a traditional worldview not that applicable? I understand that transitioning from one gender to the other isn't exactly a traditional act to be sure - but I also don't see where a transgender person necessarily has to ascribe to gender-fluidity and non-binary acknowledgement either. This would seemingly leave the door open to conservative views on other issues, particularly because transgender individuals aren't beholden to the rest of the LGBT community.

---

Yes, I'm prepared to bear the weight of mass casualties in the wake of a catastrophic event due to global warming.

Yes, I am prepared to own the potential loss of life due to lack of universal healthcare.

Yes, I am prepared for collateral damage in the event of strikes against ISIS. I would hope the Obama voters feel the same way, as he's ordered similar attacks.

Yes, I am so confident in capitalism that I am prepared to bear the burden of those falling below the poverty line - it is the most proven economic system in job growth and in prosperity given the correct amount of effort.

Firstly, I would like to say that many of the outlying catastrophes are water woes, something that can be covered by improving infrastructure quickly. Looking at the list of possible disasters we can brace for the problems head-on, rather than try the near impossible task of getting the entire world to combat climate change.

Secondly, socialized medicine doesn't prevent people from dying and only causes people the LACK of choice in many countries as medicine is rationed and people are no longer able to keep their family doctors (as Obama said would occur.)

To assume that universal healthcare saves more lives is naive at best.

Thirdly, Trump made a particularly interesting point in the debate when asked about hunting down terrorists' families. "The wife knew what was going on and she didn't stop him." - While I'm no advocate for that particular extreme order, the communities around ISIS are liable to know about what is going on as well.

Fourthly, I think a large percentage of poverty is induced by bad fiscal approaches and higher taxes from the Federal Government in turn - so saying that Big Government saves lives using socialistic policies is not necessarily true. Mind the Soviet Union.

I don't understand why you think I should be held accountable to -this- extent for my vote. I never gave you a litany of questions as to why your candidates are just as endangering. The guilt trip certainly isn't working.

[Eviora]

The reason trans people are less likely to fall anywhere on the political spectrum than gays and lesbians (if that's even true - I don't know if it is) is that there's less promise of beneficial legislation for trans people than there was for gays and lesbians before national marriage equality was a thing. For the longest time, no one was really talking about trans issues. It has only recently become a more prominent topic. But that, of course, is pure speculation. Certainly, members of the LGBT community can have any view under the sun. You can be sure that there are many repressed members of the community corresponding to each letter. People quite frequently have contradictory or otherwise puzzling beliefs.

Maybe in the short term you can try damage control as a method of lessening Global Warming related disasters, but if you don't address the problem at its source it's just gonna get worse and worse. And a man who doesn't believe in Global Warming at all isn't likely to take measures to control for it.

You can keep trying to justify denying healthcare to the poor all you like, but the fact of the matter is Obamacare has produced concrete results significant enough that many poorer conservatives don't want rid of it. No amount of ideology or speculative reasoning negates that.

Let's say the communities around ISIS know exactly what's going on. They're living side by side with terrorists, and they're way too afraid to fight back. Do you earnestly believe that justifies killing them? That sounds an awful lot like Muslim extremists' own justification for killing any old westerners.

A look at the U.S.'s own history shows that unbridled capitalism can lead to very, very oppressive living conditions for a whole lot of people. While I'm happy to acknowledge that there may be a degree of uncertainty surrounding the success of socialistic policies, they've also prevented economic collapse more than a few times. Your opinion of them is too black and white.

Everyone who votes - myself included - is basically endorsing their candidate of choice by doing so. By helping Cruz get his power, you'd be assuming the same responsibility for what he does with it that he has. The same goes for me and Bernie. The simple matter is that, even if Bernie is naive, he is trying to protect everyone he can. The abortion issue is pretty much the only one that comes to mind where you can make a remotely credible argument that he's trying to "ruin lives". I prefer naivety to Machiavellian calculations every time. Better to try and fail than to sacrifice people group by group in an attempt to serve the "greater good."

Long story short, I just wanted to see whether you'd own up to your willingness to throw many members of this very community under the bus in pursuit of your ideals.

[Deleted User]

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12800318_910811099042126_1717008958001461877_n.png?oh=39d1b13a0a57ee37196982f653108fe3&oe=576B2F31

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/12800198_910810609042175_5276879354391597362_n.png?oh=71047ddfa4df9d7ecd3bc26791238815&oe=576641C2

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12799336_909764385813464_6642832746241528189_n.png?oh=a3a4f317b7df69a9e3c65b96a7d0914c&oe=574EC712

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12806136_909762965813606_1218120414542659693_n.jpg?oh=c45d18a2a5d2d74d0dddddae45b1495d&oe=5797C6E1

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12745825_902044506585452_3632448640187596094_n.png?oh=cc501769c3985dec2d1b62669a7b0ab2&oe=576249BC

[NickCrash]

Shouldn't you post a meme about the 4th one as well? And I mean one that offends him, like the others, instead of trying to make him look good.

We get that you support Cruz, but when making a sarcasm post, you should try to remain impartial if you don't want people to see it as propaganda.

[Deleted User]

Shouldn't you post a meme about the 4th one as well? And I mean one that offends him, like the others, instead of trying to make him look good.

We get that you support Cruz, but when making a sarcasm post, you should try to remain impartial if you don't want people to see it as propaganda.

There weren't really any that I could find about Cruz on those two places I'd looked. I would have otherwise. You're welcome to check there as well if you'd like. You won't really find anything. If I wanted to make a post that wars propaganda I would have only posted Bernie and Hillary.

http://politicalmemes.com/

https://www.facebook.com/ThePoliticalMemes/

There are certainly some with him in them, but nothing that really goes after him specifically.

'3 blind mice' is one you could go with if you need to have a token Cruz meme to meet your quota.

[Chase]

Finally, I do find it unfortunate that as fellow Americans the best we can do is attack each other. I don't mind the issues talk and disagreement is as unavoidable as some form of taxes and death. However, just because we support different candidates and ascribe to different political ideologies - one shouldn't hold the will to shame one another. If that isn't what you intended and you just wanted to see my paint my hands red - I understand - but that quip about Reborn users is a form of slander.

The Texas Primary has already past - so I'll reveal my vote. My primary vote didn't even -go- to Senator Cruz, but Senator Rubio. My vote fit the assertion that Marco was the candidate who was going to unify the GOP against Donald Trump and that he was going to continue to do so in running the race on the issues - many of which I agree with. Due to his efforts with the 'Gang of Eight' immigration bill - though failed - Rubio seemed like a man who would play ball with Democrats and would actively embrace being held accountable to all Americans as opposed to a select few. He isn't as ideal politically from a broad country standpoint as Governor John Kasich, but his polling and electability gave me hope that we would have a conservative candidate that wasn't going to treat the presidency as a trophy and half the country as invisible. I voted early - before Rubio began attacking Trump with petty insults.

To assert that by presumably supporting Senator Cruz in the general election I am actively engaged in valuing conservatism over the friendships I've fostered with those who could potentially be negatively effected by conservative policies would be wrong. I'm owning the risks because you asked me repeatedly to do so. I would run on a different platform than Senator Cruz is - although I am of the belief that many of the policies and approaches he implores are better than the ones the liberal candidates are offering - just as you are vice versa.

I could be crass and assert that by voting liberal you are throwing my 1st and 2nd constitutional rights into the trash heap and thus are also hurting members of this community yourself. I will not do that.

The major problem with what makes a candidate like Cruz or Trump so appealing, is that for far too long the political correctness regime has misconstrued handcuffing GOP leaders to liberal policies at the point where the GOP has to endanger their congressional, gubernatorial, and SCOTUS seats in order to protest - as "Bipartisanship."

If there's no real way to compromise and work together as a nation, then you have to actually compete to keep your ideological movement alive on top of having it represented in the branches of government. Doing so has caused the GOP to champion the "brave souls" of gentlemen like Senator Cruz, who filibustered ObamaCare as long as he humanly could - instead of the "unifying" figures.

In that scenario, in order to maintain a real sense of political centrism - which is infinitely better than both conservatism AND liberalism - the only option is to make the pendulum swing the opposite direction. Obama got his re-election just like Bush did prior.

We're trying to get back to preserving what makes this nation great for the most people - as they ALL are involved in the democratic process regardless of placement on the spectrum. As conservatives, that's really what Mike and I have been about this whole time - not sending as many people to hell as humanly possible.

[NickCrash]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Mike does propaganda, but someone could interpret the lack of memes for a certain candidate, as opposed to others, as one. We should avoid getting the discussion too heated, since it's not personal differences we are discussing here. As I said above, a candidate's voters have responsibility on his actions, but they do not vote agreeing with 100% of his suggestion. It just happened that he was the one with whom they agreed most.

Now, Chase. While you say that both sides should try to reach a consensus, which is the right action to get towards the centre, you appear inflexible in some of your positions like the following:

Yes, I'm prepared to bear the weight of mass casualties in the wake of a catastrophic event due to global warming.

Yes, I am prepared to own the potential loss of life due to lack of universal healthcare.

Yes, I am prepared for collateral damage in the event of strikes against ISIS. I would hope the Obama voters feel the same way, as he's ordered similar attacks.

The problem is, one cannot bear the burden of such destructions. Once they are there, you can neither fix them, nor actively bring the people affected by it to their previous living standards. I refuse to believe all Obama voters were content with multiple bombings in the Middle East, and it's the worst form of irony that this man received a Nobel Peace Prize a few months before that, for wanting to reduce universal (nuclear) weaponry. Therefore I think it's wrong to defend courses of action similar to the ones mentioned above by using the reasoning that "the other guy did the same and you tolerated him". While indeed true that they chose wrong to tolerate, and they would again, no matter which president issued the order, does not immediately turn the choice to be right. The voter's lives are not directly affected by a bombing in another continent when they cannot retaliate, but they are when a universal problem like climate change or a country-wide problem like expensive healthcare knock on their door.

[Chase]

I assure you, Eviora is also inflexible in some of hers. Just because you agree with her doesn't mean she's much more ready to compromise than I am. As for all of your policy points - yes, one person can.

As predictable as climate change may be - the more catastrophic occurrences are much less an immediate threat and those can be braced for as such. Plans can be put in place to protect citizens in such events. Capitalist healthcare doesn't equate to expensive healthcare. The idea is that competition between companies - particularly once businesses are allowed to offer healthcare in hospitals across all fifty states - drives down the costs. Yes, there are - for some - instances in which Republicans are happy with ObamaCare - which is hardly the norm. For many others, it meant their healthcare options were limited and it meant that their premiums increased, effectively making care harder to afford - which one would think is the opposite intent with something officially named "the Affordable Care Act"

I'm not saying Obama voters "were content" - and Eviora's question wasn't about being "content" - it was about owning the risks that involved loss of life. If anything, collateral damage should be one of the easiest things to accept as inevitable.

[NickCrash]

Eviora appears quite rigid as well, and I am answering to her as well. I chose your post to quote since you seem to understand that the "edges" are not profitable to everyone, hence both liberals and conservatives need to be more flexible and go towards the centre. It has nothing to do with what my personal beliefs are.

A phenomenon and its repercussions being predictable makes it easier to plan ahead and take measures in order to slow it down or even stop it. Naturally you will deal with imminent problems (or disasters) first, but you also keep your mind concentrated to what comes next. I am well aware of what the idea behind capitalist healthcare is, and at the beginning, it works just fine. The reason a full capitalistic plan is wary lies on its long-term establishment without legislation that allows new enterprizes to work (and make profit) alongside the big ones. This in turn will limit competition among the big ones who will raise the prices, when they see that they can, especially where patents are involved. In this way, poor people have a harder time dealing with health issues, with medical costs being extremely high, especially since the country's insurance policy does not cover part of the expenses (in comparison to what happens in Europe).

Taking this thought a step further (and here I'd like your informing me of existing laws on the matter), reduced healthcare costs can be achieved by certain changes in the taxation system. As a flat tax is the most unfair form of taxation, adjusting the current into a progressive taxing system that obligates enterprizes and entepreneurs alike to provide their fair share to the government can be more profitable for the country than a high tax for all. By "fair share" I mean gradual tax increases that also bear in mind the benefits one may receive from disabilities, multiple children, company benefits etc. This way, the system stops tax evasions, makes the higher incomes pay more while still having their benefits (my aim is not to make everything flat), and at the same time allows the companies or entepreneurs to flourish in the free market. The only issue with such a system is that capital will no longer stack indefinitely. Of course I cannot provide you here the exact ways this will be applied since it will take too long and I am not an expert at this, so you may find several loopholes. However, such systems are already in place in the Scandinavian countries, and it appears to be profitable.

I am not answering in Eviora's position, and I'm not to be held accountable for anything that someone I may or may not agree with says in this topic. I am stressing a matter I think it's of high importance and believe in avoiding collateral damage, at least as humanly possible. I set a goal and then try to explain and work together with you (with whom I may disagree on a lot) in order to achieve this, since it's common. Isn't that the greater purpose of an election?

#voteforNickCrash2016

[Eviora]

It's only slander if it's false, and you've already admitted you're willing to sacrifice the well being of LGBT individuals for what you perceive to be the greater good. It's cool that you voted for Rubio in the primary, but you've already made it clear that you have every intention to support Cruz in the general if it should come to that. And I'm afraid actions speak far louder than words. Just because you say you aren't placing your ideology before some of your friends doesn't make it so. The simple fact is that friends don't try to ruin the lives of friends, and no amount of talking overcomes that.

You could accuse me of jeopardizing your 1st and 2nd amendment rights - but not with a terribly lot of credibility. As far as the 2nd goes, many liberals do want to make it more difficult for dubious people to have guns, or for people to obtain assault rifles and the like, yes, but if you're a stable, law abiding citizen you can still obtain arms if you want to, Any attempt to actually remove that right would be obliterated by the Supreme Court as a blatant violation. I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards to the first amendment, but the only issues that come up for me involve protecting minorities from forms of discrimination that are already illegal with respect to race, sex, and religion. I can't say I'm terribly worried about oppressing people by limiting their rights to oppress others.

I see people saying that I'm quite rigid... and, with respect to certain issues, I'm happy to say, "Guilty as charged!" I'm absolutely and unapologetically unwilling to compromise with regards equal treatment for minorities. There's simply no good reason for it, and fellow Americans will continue to attack each other as long as it persists. You don't get to work to destroy someone's ability to function and pursue a happy life without having that held against you.

[Deleted User]

I see people saying that I'm quite rigid... and, with respect to certain issues, I'm happy to say, "Guilty as charged!" I'm absolutely and unapologetically unwilling to compromise with regards equal treatment for minorities. There's simply no good reason for it, and fellow Americans will continue to attack each other as long as it persists. You don't get to work to destroy someone's ability to function and pursue a happy life without having that held against you.

I'm not responsible if someone decides to end their own life. It's not equality, I know that, but if someone is really going to end their own life because they can't have a piece of paper to validate your love for another, then something isn't quite right in the head. Intolerance and shaming are the real heart of the issue that usually lead to such actions.

“It's an universal law-- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Trying to regulate or shun people into a state of tolerance is ineffective and not genuine at best. There are some who are beyond the help of being educated on matters. What you can do is teach as many as possible with even the slightest bit of an open mind how they are mistaken over time. If you belittle people for their ignorance or bigotry, they are far less likely to learn and take it to heart. I myself had prejudice and misconceptions regarding transgender individuals for I came here to Reborn, but I was proved that my views were misguided. Not through forced acceptance but rather with example and stories that were completely different than what I'd believed to that point in time. I doubt I would have come to change my views if I was yelled at about matters.

I've already said I would support an amendment to the constitution to legalize same sex marriage nation wide, but until then I'm not going to budge on the foundations of how this nation was built. If my 'friends' aren't okay with me thinking the way I do, then I don't need them as friends. If something such as that is enough for them to despise me, then I welcome it.

As for the matter of guns, the biggest issues we need to tackle to stop gun violence are mental health and culture. People going off the deep end and growing up in cultures that welcome violence over working hard are huge issues. Additionally, I would support a motion to make crimes committed with a handgun also accountable to whoever the registerred owner of the gun. i.e. if you leave it out for someone who shouldn't be able to access it or be stupid and sell it to someone who uses it for crimes, then you will receive the same criminal punishment as the offender who used the fire arm. I do -not- support limiting magazine capacity or specific types or firearms, the constitution does not have clauses in the 2nd amendment saying 'unless this' or 'but that' no, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If someone is a criminal or mentally unstable this no longer applies.

While I would personally say that any business should be permitted to discriminate and bigoted for any reason they so choose, I'm NOT going to propose that this is actually brought to the table as potential policy. Any religious institution should have the right to refusal to perform ceremonies for a homosexual couple if it is clearly stated in their respective official doctrine that it goes against their religious belief. There are non religious affiliated ways to be wed, and you'll even find some churches that will perform the wedding regardless, but there is a deliberate separation of Church and State. The First Amendment states this for two reasons. In order to prevent the intervention of religion into politics, and to prevent the intervention of politics into religion. Many conservatives, not myself, are strongly Christian and often do let that steer some of their social policies, I'm not fond of this, rest assured.

See the comments on 'Bipartisanship' and why I support Cruz above. If you and those who you support are unwilling to compromise, then why should I throw away all of my views to yours? If you won't budge, then neither will I. You have to give some to get some, and since it's clear the left doesn't actually intend to surrender any ground then there is nothing to talk about and 'compromise' on.

Bonus piece:

Why is Trump's campaign not imploding and actually going strong? That's relatively easy, watch this 2 minute video and anyone who doesn't understand the viewpoint of Trump supporters. (I'm not one)

[Eviora]

So, Jericho, let's go through this little post of yours. You open up by trivializing the struggles of LGBT individuals by portraying them as a simple matter of having a piece of paper. You go so far as to portray the despair they may experience in the face of such rejection as "something not quite right in the head," This isn't really starting well. You're kind of making my point for me.

Then you go on to talk about intolerance, and I certainly agree that you can't dispel it by force. That isn't what pro-LGBT legislation tries to do, though. Such laws would lessen the social effects of such intolerance. Dismiss it though you may want to, marriage has several legal implications related to finances, rights to make choices for your spouse in the event that they're unable to, and so forth. Being granted these privileges, along with others pro-LGBT legislation promote, can markedly improve the lives of such people. The fact is simple: no matter what we do, a whole lot of people are going to hold onto their intolerance. the well-beings of many are at stake today - we don't have time to wait for them to come around.

I understand that you disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, but I haven't particularly seen you provide any compelling reason. It seems to me that if 5 Supreme Court justices (including a conservative) supported the notion that it's protected under the Constitution, then that conclusion probably isn't as far-fetched as your behavior suggests. Regardless, we've already gone through all the proper channels. You act as if it would be appalling for your friends to be upset with you for wanting to delay the issue even more, but you're the one trying to put their lives on hold for no particularly good reason. Not everyone welcomes hatred. Many of us are just trying to live our lives.

I'm not as adamant about the gun issue as many liberals, so I'm not going to dwell on it. I'll just note that "the right to bear arms" does not equate to "the right to bear ANY arms". If you're found to be stashing a nuclear bomb in your basement things probably aren't going to go very well, even in the most conservative of states.

While I disagree that businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth, I don't particularly see the problem with churches refusing to perform marriages and such that don't fit into their system of beliefs. My lax stance on that is probably influenced by my atheism, though.

I'm perfectly willing to compromise on several issues - the balance of capitalism and socialism among them. But civil rights? No. If, out of spite, you decide to obstruct those rights, don't answer to me, but to the people who are close to you who are hurt. No matter how you try to justify that, the damage is dealt in part by your hands should you make that choice.

As for the Trump video... it's sadder than his success. It never ceases to amuse me how irritated proponents of anti political correctness get when, after they use their free speech to say something horrible about some group, someone else uses their free speech to say that opinion is depraved and disgusting. You do know it goes both ways, right? You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from the consequences of your words. Blaming the actions of Donald Trump supporters (which you may not be now, but will be the second you vote for him) on social justice warriors is so such deliciously typical behavior that I can't help but laugh. You're responsible for who you vote for because you went out of your way to support that person, but you're not responsible for who everyone else votes for. The train of logic in that video is so absurd that it can be extended in a number of other hilarious ways. For instance:

"Trump supporters are responsible for Trump's success not because they vote for him, but because they say rude things that cause the SJWs to attack them, which causes them to vote for Trump out of spite."

This view treats people as non-autonomous, as if SJWs attacking non-politically correct comments are forcing Trump supporters to vote Trump. Obviously, they are not. If you can't take the heat, maybe you shouldn't dish it out.

[Chase]

@ Nick

Part of the flexibility comes with avoiding gridlock in Congress - which was what "real" bi-partisanship is. You draft a law, that law gets denounced and receives a "Nay" by every senator/representative from the opposing party and even some in your own, you go back to the drawing board and make compromises that firstly achieve the goal the legislation was trying to accomplish and secondly are able to pass with a majority comprised of various points of the political spectrum. The result over the years has caused what I referred to earlier - "Pendulum Politics" - but because of the level of co-operation the battles are being fought over the legislature as it's being drafted and it causes effective law-making that has rooted America in the center of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, due to people who buy into the rhetoric of SJWs on both sides of the aisle (the Religious Right AND the LGBT community, for example) - bi-partisanship has devolved into the party-in-power strong-arming the party-out-of-power while the media and special interest organizations threaten to tarnish said party's reputation should they refuse. This doesn't -change- the dynamic of power - it's still a pendulum model.

However, that model is now dangerously larger - it's brought out of the Senate and House chambers, the White House, and the Supreme Court building and into the election cycles - where the power tips from party to party by majority of seats filled and the turnout of voters from both sides. Suddenly, we're not focusing on passing legislature as much as we are defending ideology in seats of power - hence things like the Government Shut-down, erratic sequestration, an increase of Executive Orders from the President, Senate Republicans willing to deny Obama the right to put another Supreme Court Justice on the bench, and campaigns where the basis is "Anybody-but-So-And-So."

Currently, the United States is running a progressive tax system. By contrast, a flat tax is by definition fair in that everyone is paying the same amount in taxes. The thing that needs to be addressed in regards to those below the poverty line is the minimum payment for those individuals perhaps being lower - along with allocating tax credits. I personally am one for seeing credits continue to exist as they help out those who are physically unable to work or who support families - but I have serious inclination to believe the government is just as guilty as big business when it comes to strapping small businesses - such as the Affordable Care Act requiring all businesses provide healthcare for their workers and the refusal causing a heavy fine. I think there are also alternative ways to fight off the national debt and fund government programs, such as consumption taxes paired with a lower graduated income tax. Bernie's 'Robin Hood'-esqe progressive tax plan is the most staunch plan on the table because it relies heavily on the income tax to make up the deficit and it targets a very small percentage of Americans to the point where his numbers don't add up for him.

There are ways to start with a flat tax -or- a progressive plan that is less dependent on the top 1 percent like Bernie's an ideal compromise discussion point. Another thing Trump said. You bid high at first, and then you negotiate.

@ Eviora

It -is- false. My vote doesn't hurt LGBT communities on it's lonesome, and there are a number of precedents that have yet to be set and processes that would have to take place in order for a Cruz Presidency to actually damage those rights.

1. In the event of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, a similar court case must be elevated to the SCOTUS and the Court must rule in a manner that contrasts from the previous case. Currently, that will only happen if Senator Cruz is able to obtain the right to elect the replacement for Justice Scalia over President Obama -and- another Justice dies/leaves - and both nominations most but conservative Justices that rule against the LGBT position every single time. The Republican presidents have been notoriously batting .500 when it comes to nominating conservative jurisdiction as opposed to the Democrats being very partisan when it comes to their own nominations. On top of this, both nominations have to be affirmed by the Senate - who would have to risk it's Republican Majority to block Obama from making the Scalia replacement -and- is comprised of moderate Republicans as well as Democrats.
2. No landmark Civil Rights case has been overturned to defend a traditional view over a progressive one as of yet.

So, I am confident that Senator Cruz won't get that lucky when I say I am comfortable with the risks to LGBT individuals here. I have faith in the American system of checks and balances to protect the rights of it's citizens and to prevent anyone from garnering too much power.

By 1st Amendment - I mean that we now are to the point where sermons are suspect to subpoena for hate speech litigation - which is an infringement of the pastor's right to free speech, as well as right to free exercise of religion. We are now to the point where practicing one's faith through their private business by rejecting the concept of same-sex marriage (which as I have pointed out has no written definition in any legislature at the national level yet.) in favor of a traditional marriage (which is indeed written in Scriptural Law of various religions) is probable cause and could result in prison sentencing - which is again a violation of free exercise.

Obergefell's ruling is that the latter is a violation of the same-sex couple's 14th Amendment rights - which has made it a blessing court decision AS WELL as a cursed one that has turned the Constitution into a contradictory document and has put two groups of people in a bitter dispute over which amendment is more important when in reality both are.

I'm all for hashing out ideological disputes, but I would rather our politicians did it on the Senate and House floors and not on my television and computer screens. At least that way I would know our elected officials are doing something worthwhile.

[Eviora]

Obviously it takes more than one vote to elect a candidate, but that doesn't lessen the fact that you're responsible for the policies enacted by the person you vote for. And there are certainly ways Cruz could hurt the LGBT community (especially transpeople) without overturning the ruling on gay marriage. You seem like the type to follow political news, so I trust I don't have to enumerate them. You can be sure Cruz would sign any such bill that gets placed in front of him. It's pretty easy for you to have faith in the system and be comfortable with the risks to other people, but I promise that from my position the uncertainty is nothing short of crushing. Cruz is on record saying some pretty terrible things about the LGBT community, so there's every reason to believe he'll try something. I don't know about you (or maybe I do...) but I don't vote for people who will try to hurt my friends, regardless of how likely I think they are to succeed.

I'm not familiar with the whole hate speech sermons thing. Since, as far as I'm aware, the Westboro Baptist Church still gets away with its shenanigans, I'd speculate that those speeches incite violence or some other type of lawbreaking. If that's true, no sympathy. Expressing your opinion is one thing; trying to convince others to hurt people is another.