Chase Posted March 25, 2016 Author Share Posted March 25, 2016 I would be too. It's fair to say that Trump initiated this spat after an non-affiliated Super-PAC named 'Make America Awesome' ran attack ads all over the state of Utah (which is a very huge stronghold for the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) crowd) in order to bolster Senator Cruz's efforts to reach the 50% mark and damage Trump further in the public eye. The attack ad focused on a photo op of Trump's wife - Melania - who posed half nude - and appealed to the very religious area by vilifying Melania's scandalous appearance, followed by suggested that Utahans vote for Cruz. However - the error on Trump's part at the beginning of this family feud is that Trump wrongly assumed Senator Cruz issued the attack ad. Make America Awesome isn't in Cruz's corner so much as it simply is very far away from Trump's Trump responded with a tweet that threatened Cruz of 'spilling the beans' about Cruz's spouse - Heidi. Cruz - no less than 30 minutes later - distanced himself from the attack ad and called Trump 'more of a coward than [Cruz] thought' for threatening to attack his own wife. The next day, Trump struck again with this side-by-side comparison meme. This picture objectifies Heidi Cruz as an unattractive woman - and is directly from Trump - prompting Cruz's ire today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/donald-trump-melania-trump-gq-photo-shoot The owners of said photos are also saying that Trump was off base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Unfortunately, this sort of immature tussle has basically become typical of the 2016 presidential campaign. I guess one thing Trump and that SuperPAC has in common is a similarly depraved idea of what 'greatness' entails. Though I have a great distaste for the man, I can see why Cruz would be ticked off. The sad irony is that his comments in the above video apply to himself just as well - he's made some pretty rude comments about a trans girl in a Texas school. Perhaps a man with such a (justified) dislike of having his family attacked should refrain from taking shots at children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 25, 2016 Author Share Posted March 25, 2016 Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Ted Cruz to me is that the dominoes fall his way to make amends for those dated (and recent) transgressions against particularly liberal constituents or voters that don't identify with him particularly well, but due to the position he is in with regards to the race and his already one-track mind of defending conservatism in America he doesn't capitalize on those opportunities. Politicians make gaffes, and some politicians alienate and verbally wound various individuals and groups. One of my favorite politicians - Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee - is one of those people who "crusaded" against transgendered individuals on the grounds that allowing transgendered individuals to use the restrooms of the gender they identify with would threaten cis individuals in a sexual manner - painting them (perhaps accidentally, perhaps on purpose) as sexual predators. It's comments like that will immediately turn off voters - but it's also comments like those that rally the bases. As a Christian, I naturally won't personally affirm that being homosexual or transitioning are well and good in the grand scheme of things, but as an American who has watched time elapse - and yes, this is a traditionalist acknowledging changing times - I won't condemn, disown, or make it a part of my stump speech to disavow their choices. My rationale for opposing those issues in the political arena will be limited to the means of which those rights are obtained. If the Constitution's corners are not being cut - the will of the people through their legislators is being carried out. This shows in my distaste for the Obergefell decision and my alternative suggestion of carrying out the ratification process to reach the same end. Because Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials but instead are nominated by one person - the Democratic Process, and therefore legislation, is not reserved to those officials in America. If the result of a Court decision mirrors federal legislation, the American People are subverted on the matter and the results could cause the Constitution to lose strength with regards to the citizenry as a whole. Aside from that - I don't oppose the decision. If the American People want same-sex marriage legalized, then who am I to oppose that so much to overturn the decision? It is well with my soul. I agree with you Eviora, without surrendering conservatism. To attack a trans person - ESPECIALLY a child - is a sign of cowardice, and it's high-time those of us on the right "come to Jesus" on the issue. It's not going to make me condemn Senator Cruz for sticking up for a voter bloc that feels abandoned by their government, but it is enough to denounce what he said, and I have hopes that one day Ted will also come to change his views on the issue. Jesus once ate with the tax collectors, the lepers, the prostitutes, the poor. He once did the unthinkable and talked with women in broad daylight - something that was not with the times and especially looked down upon in Biblical Israel. He was someone that reached out to those who the religious authorities would instead cast stones at and vilify. I'll admit that I am not the best example of the suffering servant as Christ was. I'm someone who struggles with mercy and who is incredibly stubborn. I can utilize microaggresions with the worst of them. I was never royalty but I was blessed to avoid true strife and to have been born in this nation that despite Trump's repeated stump speech's push-back is still "Great." I am too much of an analyst and as such tend to be cold. I find it hard to forgive. When I support someone like Ted Cruz, it's because his vision is agreeable on issues that Americans that support him to those that despise him face. - not the people he slights, gaffes he issues, or wrongs he commits. I have already in this thread owned my potential co-lateral damage. I believe a man like Ted Cruz stands for the right things on some issues - and can be reconciled with on the others. This is a race that includes someone far worse on his side of the aisle and the potential opponent of that far worse someone is not even all of the Democrats' first choice. This doesn't make Cruz the best option for everyone - but in the same way Bernie feels "genuine" to you left-leaning folks, Ted speaks to those of us on the right looking for a "real" individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I don't particularly feel like reliving our pointless, circular discussion regarding how the Supreme Court works. The way I see it, some politicians passed greedy, tyranny-of-the-masses type laws, and the Supreme Court threw them out, which in effect but notably not technicality created a new set of rules. This isn't the first time such a thing has happened - interracial marriage has a similar history, I believe. It is the Supreme Court's job to revoke laws it deems unconstitutional. Feel free to disagree. The thing about Cruz, as well as some other influential Republicans these days (looking at you, McConnell) is that when it really comes down to it they're not really standing up for the principles they espouse, but just for their own religion. When asked to compare interracial and same-sex marriage, Cruz said something to the effect of 'interracial marriage isn't a threat to religious freedom'. Well, maybe not to Christianity, but aren't our country's laws supposed to protect all religions equally? It seems that little fact slipped his mind the moment he was confronted with a challenging comparison. And now he's suggesting policing Muslim neighborhoods to deter "radicalization." But aren't even the most extreme views permissible under the Constitution as long as they aren't translated into action? So much for religious liberty and not discriminating on the grounds of religion. Looking at many conservative Christians in this country, I'm reminded of a certain quote from Gandhi that I doubt I need to repeat. As you pointed out, the Jesus of the Bible treated outcasts and 'sinners' with compassion. Yet keeping the downtrodden where they are seems to be a theme of the conservative agenda in this country. They become the persecutors. In their haste to put a stop to allegedly inevitable sin, they discard the message of love so central to the Gospels. I don't believe Jesus is alive in any regard, and I'm not even sure he existed at all, but if he were watching, I can't help but feel he would be deeply disturbed by what his followers have made of his teachings. Cruz is the epitome of this contradiction. He claims murder is wrong yet speaks for a pastor who suggests gay people should be killed. When he's asked a tough question, he deflects, deflects, deflects. Seriously. I could link you several videos where he just dodges questions one after another. And I don't believe for a second that that isn't his intention. I can tell he's smart enough to know exactly what he's doing. Neither compassion nor honesty are on this man's agenda. He may try to pass some laws you like, but he'll compromise everything he claims to stand for in the process. It's been a long time since I've read the Bible, but I'm pretty sure Jesus never said anything remotely like "Thou shalt sacrifice thy neighbor for the greater good." Anywho, I'm sure you've thought about these ideological conflicts before. I know I'm not really saying anything new, and I've heard plenty of attempted defenses of the contradictions I briefly described. Needless to say, I found none of them convincing. =p But it's not like you have to justify anything to me. These are just the things I think about when I watch the reality TV show embodied by the 2016 Republican primaries. =p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 25, 2016 Author Share Posted March 25, 2016 Let me start by saying that there are two types of Christians, ironically mirroring that of the two majority types of political identities in this country. Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians. The Conservative Christian ranges from the radical Fundamentalist that spouts about the end times and likely is willing to stand up and advocate young earth creationism while his wife spends the majority of her time doing housework under the incorrect notion that that's all she's worth and his children save up money to run away in the future - to the New Reformer (which I am one of) who understands the costs of sin and wishes to pursue the reality and gravity of the gospel, while working to go against the grain and hold discourse with as many different Christians - and others from Muslims to Nones - as possible. The weaknesses of the conservative Christian are often found in an overemphasis of sin and lack thereof in grace - as you've pointed out. When you focus so much on sin - it shows even in your political disposition and you tend to vote for laws to be enforced. You tend to favor tough love over tender approach and you tend to reflect the visages of the Pharisees Jesus condemned during his travels - the same Pharisees that ultimately had Jesus crucified. The Liberal Christian - from fringe New Reformers who focus on grace to Episcopalians and Non-denominational churchgoers focuses on the "Gospel" in the sense of it's root meaning - "Good News". When it comes to grace, the liberal Christians are actually quite adept at being welcoming. Recently, with regards to the LGBT community, the Episcopal became "that church" that elected to allow same-sex marriages to be conducted. It drew criticism from textual scholars and everyone to the right of Episcopal on the spectrum in that the idea wasn't "Biblical" - but it's a staggering difference from the conservative Christian in that it's accepting. Conservatives can learn a thing or two from Liberal Christians about hope and grace. However - the liberal Christian's faith and doctrine becomes suspect to heavy scholarly scrutiny in that it does two things off base - make pie-in-the-sky earthly promises [Pray to the Lord, and He will heal your dying loved one, help you win the Powerball, get you that Lamborghini you've always wanted.] and contrasting with the weakness of the right, the left tends to overemphasize on grace - to the point where Sin isn't mentioned at all. This is where you get the people who are nominal Christians more often than not. They aren't taught the doctrine or the importance of Jesus' death - and they go with nothing with a badge and hope that is not founded in Scripture. --- I'm not going to say Cruz doesn't dodge questions, but I've seen everyone from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders have a moderator ask them a question twice due to a similar fault in a debate. Deflection is the knack of the politician and if you can't answer it it's better to deflect and score political points than it is to drop the ball and take a net loss - that's part of the game. I'm not going to say that Cruz has always appeared to have been compassionate, but he's running an anti-establishment campaign that lives and dies on being oppositional and it's par for the course for him to be unapologetic. Any Christian that tells you they are perfect is a liar and that should never be used as a selling point to be one. Many people assume Cruz is the mold of the Mike Huckabees and Rick Santorums of the world, where the Religious Right is the backbone of their campaign - but Cruz isn't running on Religious conservatism so much as he is running on pure unadulterated conservatism - from Deep red conservatives to Libertarians. Every politician from Trump to Sanders has missed the dartboard when it comes to truth - and it's easier for us to point at the bullshit coming out of a candidate we don't support than it is to do so for those we support. Honesty is spotty when the top priority is campaigning. This is why debates are more important than stump speeches. Despite Trump's parroting of the "Lyin' Ted" schtick - Cruz,a former lawyer - has actually been very well versed with the truth. Abraham Lincoln, by the same coin, isn't batting a 1.000 in honesty, despite the popular moniker. The biggest problem with ISIL is that it does two things to America - it makes the conservatives look weak for falling for the fear triggers and calling for such policies as Cruz did on Tuesday, and it makes President Obama and fellow liberals look weak for redirecting the attacks to preserving the identity of Muslim America. Terror, regardless of if a Conservative or a Liberal has been Commander-in-Chief, has done a fair deal of besting us. It's caused a lot of finger pointing. Democrats at conservatives for supporting a war that potentially de-stabilized the Middle East, and Republicans at Muslims in general for the evidences found through the attacks. It pits the importance of protecting America and it's allies against Social Justice - which makes it harder for anyone on either side to get things done. It makes complete jerks like Trump and ideologues like Cruz look "right" to their constituencies whenever terror attacks commence. As with religious liberty and ....again social justice - it makes compromise and meeting both goals harder. As a conservative I could take the opportunity - as the candidates have unfortunately - to point out that establishing political correctness and presenting olive branches impedes on doing anything to solve the problems ISIL poses - or I could be willing to find some way to meet liberals halfway. The problem with national defense and social justice? Those are two topics nobody is going to compromise on respectively. Social Justice always is a progressive agenda that has no grounds for making a U-turn in hopes of solving other issues, while national defense is an outright obligation of whoever is holding the Oval Office as Commander-In-Chief. Compromise is an essential tool when it comes to being an American politician at any level, because of the widely encouraged spectrum of political identity. Without it, nothing gets done, and every politician gets dragged into undeserved scrutiny. There is no argument to be had here - Compromise is the most effective way of fighting off ideological conflict, and when either side fails to do so - Lookin' at you, Cruz - it makes life much more difficult. Believe it or not, there was a time Neolibs and Neocons got along. --- To answer your question about radicalization - I believe both you and Senator Cruz have points. Yes, the radicalization of any religion is permissible until it denies another party their right to life. Cruz could argue that terrorist attacks is enough probable cause to say lives are endangered to justify such hardline position on patrolling neighborhoods. You can also say that if lives aren't lost there is no probable cause, but the issue with this approach is that it's very reactionary. Conservatives tend to want to fight terror before it occurs, while Liberals want to preserve the unflinching face of freedom until they have enough evidence to act. Neither approach should be vilified, but when you take into other issues like social justice and constitutionality - it becomes a little harder to avoid scrutiny from either side. This is in no way a justification of Cruz's tactics, but hopefully it sheds a little bit of light on his approach. For example, if Christians were the ones behind terror attacks in the scale ISIL seems to have, I would be willing to comply to a patrol in my neighborhood as a Christian. Muslims and Christians both have "sword verses" in their Scriptures that - to me - should the need to prevent terror rise high enough - would present probable cause. So long as I don't become a radical Crusader and start leaving breadcrumbs in my subdivision on my way to the supermarket down the street - I won't get arrested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Looks like Ted Cruz has announced plans to rescind an executive order protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination as well as take other measures to facilitate unequal treatment - and this is coming two days after North Carolina passed one of the worst anti-LGBT laws in the country. All of this is done in the name of "religious freedom", as usual. Once again, I'm going to have to reflect Cruz's comments about Trump back at him. His suggestions would effectively endorse the bullying of women (and men) all over the country in ways far worse than tweeting an unflattering photo. Apparently, he either doesn't realize that demonizing people (and this applies to Muslims as well) will perpetuate the cycle of hatred or he just doesn't care. But I doubt his supporters here care about that enough to do any more than pay lip service to how horrible it is. I don't know why I even bother. As for the whole liberal vs conservative Christian spiel, I think you're overgeneralizing. I've met plenty of Christians you would call liberal who still emphasized sin and the like. Be careful not to let over categorization blind you to individuals in the middle. You don't have to make empty promises or sweep doctrine under the rug in order to stop persecuting people. Incidentally, vilifying some of your own citizens as a reaction to the terrorism of others is a spectacular way to let the terrorists win. How many major terrorist attacks were plotted by American Muslim communities? I'm not familiar with any. I'm aware that there are some American Muslims who went on to join up with ISIS or another terrorist group abroad and even some individuals who plotted and enacted such attacks on American soil (the Boston Marathon attackers, for instance), but such plans could easily be hatched behind closed doors. Unless he's going to assign police officers to each and every American Muslim, Cruz's little monitoring plan will do nothing but ensure that already persecuted people know they are viewed as the enemy. That might even convince a few of them that America is as bad as ISIS claims and persuade them to join up. That's indicative of a major problem with Cruz. You suggest he's usually truthful, but all I see him doing is lying and deceiving, far more than the average politician. He'll just make up whatever excuse he wants to dismiss the criticisms of his policy suggestions and plow ahead without a care in the world for what's real. You can also see this in his position on Global Warming. It doesn't matter how many scientists disagree with him or how much evidence they offer, because he can find a handful who disagree. With Cruz, ideology comes before everything, including the well being of the people, despite how much he harps on about carrying out their will. If things can't be exactly the way he wants them, he just throws a tantrum and obstructs, obstructs, obstructs until he can't continue anymore, and in the process he only wastes time. He's by far the most uncompromising candidate concerning the ways he thinks things ought to be, to the point where he will put up a smokescreen and dismiss any and all dissent regardless of how well founded it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 25, 2016 Author Share Posted March 25, 2016 I -didn't- overgeneralize. The middle of spectrum tends to be younger New Reformers who see Christ as a political inspiration/individualist and thus emphasize grace more than they do sin/sin more than they do grace. New Reformers are essentially the "moderates" of the group, with right leaning -and- left leaning individuals. (To clarify - this point is driven by going from Fundamentalists to New Reformed on the right, and from New Reformed to Good News Apostle on the left.) There legitimately "isn't" a Christian that is unique to oneself. 99 percent of the time one has a legitimate concept of their faith - there is a group they fit into, while the one percent is essentially so due to outside factors such as population density. To further clarify, these are mostly tendencies within the spectrum, not declarations. This is the co-lateral I was talking about earlier. Senator Cruz has emphasized that he would overturn EVERY executive action order made under President Obama by his own executive order. This is an area where I -will- say Cruz's approach is insensitive and absolutely wrong, and as a voter earlier in the process I didn't take as kindly to it, which lead to my vote for Rubio. If your goal is to sway my vote from Cruz to the Democrat in November should he beat out Trump - It won't work for you because there are many executive orders Obama has made - some regarding immigration - that actually hinder conservative issues more than they do helping them without being justifiably better for the country. Yes, it's too brash for my liking - No, it's not going to make me vote for Trump instead - and it's for sure not going to give me a vote for Hillary. If Cruz is the presumptive nominee, most of his message I -can- get behind. This is an area where I didn't before and I won't now. This is the crux of the issue. Liberals will first denounce Cruz's plan as overblown and reprehensible, and then pivot and point to ineffectiveness. Meanwhile, in Brussels, raids on Muslim neighborhoods (a step up from Cruz's policy suggestion of patrolling the streets.) has produced more evidence tying ISIL to the attacks at the airport, and produced six arrests that prevented another attack. Cruz also pointed to a rather controversial effort in NYC under Mayor Bloomberg that was largely ineffective - with the argument from some being that it wasn't comprehensive enough - as opposed that it was ineffective and undercut Muslim communities. Again, Global Warming is real - but it's no selling and buying point for me. I'd rather Cruz come out and say it as I did rather than deny, deny, deny - but to his voter base here in Texas, that 21 hour filibuster he's famous for is EXACTLY why the state put him in that Senate seat. Texas wanted a conservative who was going to fight on behalf of it's deep-red constituents and in that respect it elected one who has. I agree with you on the uncompromising issue - and I personally didn't vote Cruz's way on it - but his record as a Senator has proven that he is more truthful after the fact than some politicians in the same respect you feel he lies more than other politicians. For a voter like me that wants a conservative in office to throw bombs every now and then - his record proves that he can and that he has. For a voter like you that probably would support very few conservatives if at all - Cruz would look like a deceiver to you. It's easier to call the bull on a candidate you don't have a remote chance of supporting than to call it on those you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 But regardless of what labels you give to groups of Christians, the point stands that you can respect your doctrine without persecuting people. I certainly know better than to think I could sway your vote. As you've suggested yourself, you seem to value (your perception of) reason over empathy and compassion. I just thought I'd lay out the facts. It's easy to say you support things like LGBT rights and equality for Muslim Americans, but words are wind; one who votes for Cruz de facto opposes both of those things. You can rationalize it as collateral if you want, but don't expect the people you're trying to sacrifice to take kindly to that sort of justification. Positions like Cruz's on social issues basically ensure that people on opposite sides of the spectrum will continue to hate each other. I'm not sure what Cruz thinks he'll accomplish by patrolling the streets of Muslim neighbors. Raids are one thing, but unwarranted (no pun intended) ones are a gross violation of privacy protected under the Constitution. Viewing the predominant religion of a neighbor as "probable cause" on its own is tantamount to revoking the Constitutional rights of the inhabitants. Anyway, people who are plotting something like a terrorist attack aren't likely to just parade it through the streets, especially if they know they're being monitored, so frankly, morality aside, I don't see how Cruz's suggestion would be useful for anything. It's pretty easy to call bull on just about any candidate. Hillary is a liar who's bound to change her positions on tons of issues and it would be nigh-on-impossible for Bernie to pass half the laws he'd like to. But neither of them are attacking each other's spouses, or insulting children for political points, or trying to pass discriminatory laws. In other words, they both pass the "minimal decency" test. It's a shame neither of the two most prominent Republican candidates can say the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 26, 2016 Author Share Posted March 26, 2016 If your point was on respecting doctrine while avoiding persecution - then I certainly agree. I was only pointing out that tendencies on the outside - along with internal uncertainty in several cases - make it harder for some than for others. I also think avoiding persecution of groups doesn't have to amount to supporting them. I think Cruz stopped short of advocating raiding Muslim homes because of the 4th Amendment - which would directly block search and seizure without a warrant. Granted, I don't think if the presumable crime was a mass terror attack that it would be all that hard to obtain a warrant, but Cruz pushed for something from the angle of viable law enforcement under the Constitution. it's a matter of tough love versus tenderness - where the expectation for the Muslim communities that are surveyed is that they cooperate with police and continue to be law-abiding citizens. He approached the matter in a suggestive tense from a candidate's perspective as well - which means it was more off-the-cuff in response to the Brussels attacks then it was a part of his platform. He certainly wasn't demanding President Obama to ditch Cuba early and issue the order himself. When Cruz clarified that he was thinking of something similar to the NYC patrols - I kinda didn't understand where he was going for in terms of effectiveness. Either you bust in with a warrant, or I agree, you won't be digging up much of anything. LGBT rights is a fair argument as they are unfortunately in conflict with religious liberties as of this time - but I think you're swapping some of Cruz's policies with Trump's when it comes to the equality of Muslim Americans (giving him a break for his response on patrolling neighborhoods in the case of it being a response to the attacks and being off the cuff as opposed to it being a policy point.) The Republicans have been very opposed to Syrian refugees and have been tough on Middle Eastern Muslims in proximity to ISIL, but with regards to Muslim America, only Trump is calling for brash review of Islam as a whole - Cruz actually is softer on American Muslims' rights than me when it comes to acquiring weapons and the like. I think you're being a little unfair to Bernie. Just because his policies are going to have to survive a conservative Congress doesn't mean he's lying about them or a flip-flopper. I think Bernie is one of the three most genuine folks in the race, along with Cruz (through record) and Governor Kasich (through record and having no shame in centrism.) Unfortunately, most of America seems to like their front-runners like they like their pancakes. --- Now comes the part where I would encourage you to level with me instead of positing false merits such as "minimal decency" that only favored candidates get to disregard. Instead of attacking children and LGBTers and spouses - liberals tend to attack hard-working Americans who have been frugal enough to consider themselves "wealthy" along with who have been vigilant enough to become a business owner of any size. Some of the most disgusting "insults" from the left are that all stock brokers are "crooks" - and suggests that they "should be jailed" when buying and selling stocks is a service those brokers offer. Liberals have adopted a tolerance policy that belittles the views of religious people in a manner that mirrors anti-theism and as such they attack the logic of one's faith as a part of their opposition. Liberals also tend to attack men (See the calls for rebuke when Bernie shushed Hillary in the Flint, Michigan debate as opposed to the time Ted Cruz told Donald to "Breathe" in Detroit.) when they are trying not to assert dominance but to compete on a level playing field with women. Under your suggested definition of "minimal decency" - it would seem that some groups get more pity than others when it comes to insults and attacks. That's not minimal decency - that's just outright favoritism. If we're going to establish decency as a standard, then we had better be doing so in a manner that is fair and balanced. I think the best way to determine decency is to see the regular attack lines of each candidate: Donald Trump: Lyin', Little, Low-Energy, No-Action, All/Most Muslims hate us Hillary Clinton: Republicans are Terrorists Bernie Sanders: Wall Street = Criminals Ted Cruz: 'Washington Cartel', 'Lyin' Mitch McConnell' - the insults you claim apply to the LGBT community go here too. John Kasich: "Toxic Environment" Looks like everyone fails the minimal decency test. Why not just establish two things - that All Americans have equal value, and that resorting to insults is weaker than talking issues and logical reasoning? --- The other thing here is that I still think you are very, very wrong in attributing my vote for a candidate as a support for rescinding the rights of certain people. I encourage you to talk to those that know me best if you don't believe me - but I don't think I have to vote liberal and vote pro-LGBT just to avoid being anti-LGBT. Senator Cruz's heart and intents are not a reflection of mine. I can't judge his heart - and in the same token you can't judge mine correctly. Owning the risks doesn't mean I am justifying the means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 First and foremost, Bernie is the only person in this race who I actually trust. I voted for him, and will absolutely do so again should he be the nominee. I'm just calling 'bull' where I think it's due - while I 100% believe he believes in his cause and thinks his goals can be accomplished, realistically I think he'll face tons of resistance. The thing about logic is that everyone seems to have their own version of it. You'd think it was supposed to be an objective sort of thing, but, actually, pure logic is employed very scarcely in subjects other than math/programming/etc. Most positions - including mine - are based in personal values. In my case, I assume that everyone deserves equal treatment and rights to the greatest extent possible that does not infringe upon the rights of others. In cases of conflicting candidate rights, I tend to defer to compassion and favor the inclusive one. Since other people's underlying values, which, (like mine) are almost never swayed by reason, frequently fail to match with my own, we effectively end up talking at cross purposes and getting nowhere. That's why I prefer empathy as a means of persuasion. In some cases, rights are "abundant". For instance when one couple gets married, that doesn't exhaust any "available marriage" resource such that others don't have enough to do the same. Material wealth, sadly, is not abundant. Feel free to portray measures to lessen income inequality as an attack on the rich, but that perception would actually be borne out of a different evaluation of the fairness of chance. I certainly don't claim to speak for other liberals, but I personally view chance as being in diametric opposition to fairness. Some people end up being screwed over and others thriving in large part because no reason. A huge percentage of Bernie's talking points are focused on measures to reduce the influence of chance. On the other end of the spectrum, many conservatives seem to view chance in the light of opportunity. And it's true, opportunity is a factor. The trouble with that is that opportunity also isn't available to everyone. Some people just get unlucky and have no good recourse under the existing system. I (and I imagine many other liberals) value their right to have their basic needs met over the right of the very rich to buy that twentieth limousine. And, yes, some liberals do get upset with systems that allow, say, stock brokers to make tons of money without really contributing anything of value in return. Many of them (even Bernie!) may go too far and claim that those brokers disobeyed the law when they didn't. People are prone to overreact. However, in Bernie's case, as far as I'm aware no suggestions to actually prosecute people for actions that were legal at the time are being made. He just wants to change the rules going forward. The whole "religious liberty" debate is basically the same issue in a different mask. Some people happen to have sexual orientations and/or gender identities that provide a de facto disadvantage in our society. Many liberals want to level the playing field, while some conservatives would like the right to push LGBT people away because they haven't taken their "opportunity" to fall in line with religious beliefs. So the question becomes whether the "unlucky" ones have to stress over which stores they're allowed to shop at so business owners can retain the luxury to not deal with people they don't approve of. Are all people's rights important, or only the rights of the "lucky" ones? The thing about the whole voting for Cruz issue is that, while I can't judge what's in your heart, in the grand scheme of things it also doesn't particularly matter what's hiding in there. You may legitimately believe that LGBT equality is important, but by supporting someone you know will try to revoke those rights, you are in effect opposing their existence, and how you feel about it just doesn't come into play. It's what you do that defines you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 26, 2016 Author Share Posted March 26, 2016 I guess we'll have to disagree on that matter. If actions dictate what defines a person, then the only thing that matters about people is that they are all flawed, depraved, and inconsistent. There isn't a single living soul on this planet that has a clean rap sheet. You can't value recent "improvement" because it's usually always cancelled out by the next mistake. You can't conceivably tally up every "good" and "bad" thing someone does throughout the course of their life. What defines you - and truthfully, what defines all the candidates when pertaining to identity - is intent. I don't recall Ted Cruz pulling a Donald Trump and saying "I -WANT- to take the rights away from the LGBT community that they have earned." or "I -WANT- to persecute Muslim Americans." - Both of those "positions" are actually adverse effects of Ted's plan to carry out his intents on "defending religious liberty" and "destroying ISIS". If we did the justice of putting the candidates hearts and intents into the political arena, we would have a completely different race on the Republican side. We would have 17 candidates with a hopeful vision for America. Same goes for the 5 or 6 Democratic candidates that were there at the beginning. What becomes the next thing to talk about due to all the positions being similar in intent? THE ISSUES - which I think we can BOTH agree matter more than records when it comes to fixing the problems of the present and bettering America in the future. If we are putting so much credence on the actions of a person - then it's no wonder we get petty fights over past happenstances on both sides. --- The second issue with your assertion that my supporting Cruz over the other four remaining candidates reflects my position on LGBT equality is that it dismisses every other issue in the race and provides special pleading to the group. If I were voting solely on the behalf of the LGBT community would my first, second, hundredth, etc. choice really be Ted Cruz of all people? No - and I'm not going to vote on behalf of myself or even my friends when the ramifications of who ascends to the Oval Office are so much greater than us. Ideally, we'd have a conservative president that acknowledged the 49.9% < of Americans that probably opposed said conservative president as equally American and equally important when it comes to representation. --- Thirdly, there is the side-by-side comparison that has to be made when selecting which candidate "best" represents the ideal president. Ideologically, the best choice for President of the United States in the field would be Governor John Kasich - who is proudly a moderate center-rightie who has flip-flopped on supporting the LGBT community only because he's looking for the best way to attract voters in a primary that is polarizing and not favorable to the center. With regards to strength, All five remaining candidates have had flashes of strength. With regards to outward care for the most Americans - it would again favor Governor Kasich. With regards to experience, take your pick between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich for executive positions. With regards to compromise in general - look at Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and John Kasich, who all have been relatively good negotiators. With regards to passion, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders are the bastions of their parties. Of those six points - Governor Kasich is identifiable as exemplary in FIVE of them - and despite being the best polling Republican in head-to-heads against Clinton and Sanders, he's the remaining candidate the least amount of Republican voters are excited about. His presumptive opponent would Hillary Clinton - who bats a respectable .500 due to being exemplary in three of the six points - and she herself doesn't exactly make the blues excited to go to the polls. I would HAPPILY vote for John Kasich - if only he had a chance to win - due to being the best fit by meeting the most criteria above his opponents for a position that is held accountable by every American and beholden to none. --- Fourthly, you completely ignore the nuances of the campaign by saying a Cruz vote is indicative of my real views on LGBT equality. The nominee having a conceivable path to the White House unfortunately matters when deciding who to get behind. Cruz is someone that still has a chance of beating Donald Trump before a convention fight (albeit a slim one) and would allow for a democratic process to decide the nominee as it should. Kasich has no math on his side and might even need to make a deal with Cruz in order to actively "bar" Trump from the nomination by having Cruz cease fire in Kasich friendly areas on the map - just to hope to succeed in horse trading to a degree that a large majority of Republican Primary votes were essentially worthless. --- Fifthly, there's the effect of voting to harm the least amount of people, because with the four candidates with a prayer of the White House - you have to agree with positions and take all of the above into account to cast a meaningful vote - the other Americans around you do matter. Let's say I'm a Cruz voter in November and he wins the nomination - My vote doesn't look too helpful to LGBT members yes, but outside of that, it may only hurt Muslims. Let's say the two groups are all at risk. My other option is holding my nose and backing Donald Trump - hurting LGBTers (if he's not lying about religious liberties and selecting conservative judges.), Muslims FOR SURE, Mexican immigrants FOR SURE, Chinese Immigrants FOR SURE, and Women - with potentials for African Americans, Japanese Immigrants, and even disenfranchised conservatives. ....That's not very ideal. We've also already established Kasich's faults and I'm not going to compromise principles and specific ideological mainstays to vote for someone on the other side. A vote for a third partier would only spoil a Ted Cruz who I feel is not nearly as harmful as the man in the front of the pack right now. --- With so much at stake behind a vote - the final piece rebuke I have is that I am not currently running for President. If I were - I would vote for myself and hope for the blessing of getting elected and having the chance to SHOW you my intent if even after all that you still need actions to re-enforce my true identity. There's much too many other variables in play to make the claim to who I am based on my vote. Just like having the ability to judge my heart, you also don't have the ability to tell me who I am when you hardly know me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) There's that misanthropy lying at the heart of "original sin" doctrine. It's not quite accurate. No one is saying perfection is required, and though people are prone to continuously make mistakes, they can decrease the frequencies of their errors and avoid really egregious errors. But you have to want to. If you judge yourself to be irreparably and irredeemably flawed, you'll have no incentive to improve. As the saying goes, the road to "hell" is paved with good intentions. People do horrible, horrible things in the name of what they deem right all the time. I would think many members of ISIS fall into that group. They labor under the pretense that they're doing the bidding of a benevolent god, and it twists them, drives them to do horrible things. Sadly, their desire to do good is not enough. They become the monsters their beliefs molded them into. Intent is secondary at best. As for the issues... yes, those are exactly what I'm upset about. Presidential candidates generally aren't just engaging us in a philosophical debate. They stand for some policy - some action - to be adopted with respect to that issue. Records and declarations of intent can provide hints at what a candidate wants to do with regards to an issue. Since we can't see the future, they're all we really have to go by. --- Your side by side comparisons are quite clearly informed by your own perception of what's "good". For example, I definitely would not say Kasich is the best candidate ideologically, though I'd put him well above Trump or Cruz. I also disagree that the six criteria you chose are all important. Passion, for instance, isn't always a good thing. I know this is cliche, but consider Hitler. He was a pretty passionate guy... about some really awful things. --- It's true that I'm disregarding the nuances of the campaign. I simply don't subscribe to your philosophy of choosing the lesser of two evils when both evils are so far gone. I do not consent to be sacrificed, and will most certainly hold you and anyone else who votes to disregard my basic rights accountable for that action, regardless of the excuse. If, instead of compromising on principles, you elect to stand by one of the two deplorable candidates being favored in the Republican primaries, then you immediately become someone willing to sacrifice the well being of his friends in the name of ideology. It follows so easily it's almost a tautology. And notice that assessment is one that speaks only of action. "What's in your heart" is never mentioned, just the outcome of your decision to weigh one thing you value over another. Edited March 26, 2016 by Eviora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Her and just about every other gun control supporting politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 Currently, only three candidates of the five (Cruz, Sanders, Kasich) - have the ability to talk about current action as they are currently holding positions of government authority. If you're not talking about current action and you are talking about "wants" then the only thing you can do is appeal, hold discourse, and you can't actually act - then you effectively have a philosophical debate and the intent gets more attention then arcane action, unless we're going to "re-litigate the past" as Hillary Clinton effectively put it in Flint. At the time the "actions" are suggestions and the only action is free-speech in the hopes of persuading voters. In order to level to playing field in the race - the authority of candidates-in-power is reduced to stump speeches, ground games, fundraising, and debates, giving the candidates insignificant opportunity to use action as a beacon for their potential presidency during the campaign cycle. --- It's okay if you don't agree that centrism is the most positively effective ideology, and appealing to as many Americans as possible regardless of political identity. It's also okay to be skeptical of any candidate - but by saying "Kasich's well above Trump or Cruz" you -are- essentially agreeing with me when taking into account how the two primaries work. Kasich winning the GOP nomination doesn't bar Bernie or Hillary from winning the Democratic nomination - but it does block out Cruz and Trump. I would disagree that Bernie is palatable to as many Americans as possible ideologically, which would make him a worse representative in comparison to Kasich - but I've already said Hillary would be a very good Democratic representative based on that check list as a whole. --- Passion absolutely matters during elections. A lively candidate encourages higher turn-outs and higher voters behind them. In an election - it's not just our own individual votes that count. I never claimed it was good or bad, but that it was important. If Bernie Sanders wasn't as passionate about his campaign as he is, do you think he reaches his fundraising goals as easily? Do you think he has enough support to remain in the race? --- My philosophy is not pick the shiniest of two dung beetles. My philosophy is a research-centered approach that is adaptable with the nuances of the campaign and aims to identify the best candidate to vote for based on agreement across the board, appealing to as many Americans as possible - including my friends in any group, and looking for the most efficient potential problem solver. It's okay to disagree with me that the appropriate candidate is Ted Cruz - but if we were to let all 17 GOP and 6 Democrats back into the party, I too would say Ted Cruz isn't the best fit - but he becomes increasingly so when there's two horribly flawed candidates, two ideologues, and a centrist that simply doesn't have enough gas in the tank to feasibly back. It's a little blown out of proportion to assume the absolute worst and crucify those who vote against your personal interests or disagree with you. If you want to garner support for your cause - crying wolf isn't the best way to go about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Insofar as this discussion goes I'm thinking of intent as the why and action as the what. I assume candidates are being honest when they talk about their whats - the policies they're telling the voters they would support - and don't particularly care about the whys. A vote for a candidate is a move toward enacting all their whats at some point in the future. It doesn't really matter that these actions aren't occurring in the present, because if the candidates are true to their words and they are elected, at some point they will be. Passion is definitely the sort of thing that helps one garner support. People tend to be drawn to it. My point was simply that a passionate person can still quite easily produce bad outcomes. Therefore, I wouldn't agree that it has to coincide with the "best" candidate. I'm not sure what to make of the second to last paragraph. It seems to me that what you describe is, in fact, a process of deciding which of the four remaining and viable "dung beetles" looks shiniest to you. Unless you're saying one or more of those candidates is, in fact, not a dung beetle at all, which would bring us back to the same tired issues we've been over time and again and will never agree upon. I'm not here to garner support for anything. Honestly, I think it's pretty silly of me to even bother with these discussions. Our underlying values don't shift so easily. That said, I will most certainly stand up for myself and others who share my position. You may view being told that what you say you value and what you claim you're going to do are in contradiction as a crucifixion, but I promise that discomfort is just a blip compared to the actual persecution you would inflict on millions as your collateral. The problem with sacrificing others in the name of the greater good is that it tends to corrupt everything around us and leave us in a position far worse than the one we started in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 If you were to ask me - the reason it may be silly to discuss the voter-candidate reflection is because it's so unfounded. NickCrash or Ody or someone earlier in the thread identified the needle in the haystack by saying that no one candidate truly reflects the voter's view on all issues. I've taken those 6 exceptions above because there's more behind a vote than deciding "Hey, this candidate and I agree so i'm going to vote for him without caring about those I know would take justifiable exception." I would vote 3rd party in the case of a Trump vs. Clinton match-up for multiple reasons. Both candidates are heavily flawed. Trump is harmful to a potential majority of Americans stylistically and with regards to platfrom Clinton and I agree on Criminal Justice and NASA......and literally NOTHING else. I would vote Ted Cruz in a Cruz-Clinton match-up for multiple reasons. Cruz is a genuine candidate with a vastly reassuring record over Clinton. Cruz is much more agreeable. Clinton potentially threatens people groups -I- personally identify with. I have faith in the checks and balances system of this country to protect citizens from Cruz when it comes to acquired liberties and rights. I believe Cruz's preference for shooting first-asking questions later is a more effective strategy for fighting ISIS (abroad) than waiting for every capital city in the European Union to be attacked - not to mention the middle-eastern and African nations that are regularly in the cross-fire. I believe Cruz respects the rights of the citizens and knows how much power the federal government -should- have, as he is the leading Constitution scholar in field of candidates. I don't think you would vote for someone you didn't tend to agree with. I don't think you would vote for someone that endangered people you identify with. I don't think you would care first and foremost from your own perspective - about the collateral yourself. This goes back to Jericho asking you about the victims of legalized abortion. How would you feel if I looked at the LGBT community and decided "You know what, Hunter - I think I can justify voting for a candidate that endangers these people by dehumanizing them?" Your argument to Jericho was that fetuses are not human. 55,772,015 abortions have taken place since the Roe v. Wade decision. If you were to humanize fetuses, that would be tens of millions of dead humans. Therefore, being pro-choice would mean you're bearing the lives of that many people that were not to be as collateral - and counting. On the other side of the coin - I would be bearing the homicides caused against the LGBT individuals - and I'm not going to stoop as low as dehumanize them. I would argue that we're talking about right to liberty in Cruz's case vs. right to life in the abortion scenario for the most part (making exception for LGBTers killed by the hands of others.) Any vote can be covered in blood - which is why nailing the voter to that cross IS silly. --- News: Bernie Sanders is flying (#BirdieSanders) on in a very competitive manner - picking up Alaska and Washington state yesterday. It's nice to see he and Cruz clawing back into the race. Boring primaries are boring, yo. Hawaii will also be announced soon - a state that has low African American and Hispanic populations and uses a caucus format - two things that favor Sanders sweeping Western Saturday. --- I read a very interesting article on the types of "evangelicals" when it comes to political identification. the "Old Evangelicals" are the only group of deep conservative Christians that prefer "religious right" candidates - and the best fit of those would be Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum. Old is pretty self explanatory. the "Institutional Evangelicals" - or the charity and megachurch heads - prefer electable Christian candidates (such as Marco Rubio.) the "Entrepreneurial Evangelicals" - or business-tycoons, televangelists, and private university heads - tend to prefer strength economically with regards to conservative candidates over religious influence (Trump.) the "Arm's Length" Evangelicals don't make a lot of political headlines because they care about individual research and faith over political activism. While varying - they like Marco Rubio's view of his faith in politics more than others. the "Millennial Evangelicals" are the young guns. They are politically aloof - less likely to be conservative on many issues save for abortion. Support tends to be anywhere from Dr. Carson to Bernie Sanders - sans Clinton. the "Liberal Evangelicals" consist of left-leaning Evangelicals - a noteworthy group being African American church groups. 16-17 percent of Evangelicals fit into this group - and support Hillary Clinton (and Sanders) the most. the "Cultural Evangelicals" tend to be those guys that call themselves that without being a strong churchgoer - and these groups tend to support Donald Trump during this election cycle. I personally identify as an Arm's Length evangelical - focusing my political energy on things like interpretation of the Constitution and personal research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Oh, nononononono. Let me clarify one teensy thing. I think abortion should be legal. Aborted fetuses aren't my collateral - collateral damage is supposed to be incidental! I would vote the same way if abortion were the only issue on the line. The thing about your little dehumanization argument is that you can only dehumanize someone if they were, in fact, human in the first place. In other words, it's circular. Speaking of circles, this discussion has become one, so I'm gonna spend my time on other things. I think we've made it abundantly clear that you feel you have your reasons for your way of voting and that I'm not really interested in excuses. I will, however, say that I don't believe I am sacrificing the actual rights of any humans. See our previous discussion with regards to abortion. In the case of a business' "right to refusal" of customers based on their demographics, I don't believe anyone should have it because it infringes on the rights of others. If I owned a restaurant and Shirley Phelps walked in and placed an order I'd serve her. The only lingering question for me concerns why you care enough about my opinion on all this to spend so long trying to rebut it. You don't have to answer to me. I'm just some random girl on the internet! If you are convinced that you're doing the right thing, why does it matter whether I agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted April 7, 2016 Author Share Posted April 7, 2016 That's the impasse though, isn't it? A (still fairly convenient) stipulation is made for you to directly sanction infringement on the right to life of those fetuses with a vote to a pro-choice candidate, but when I stipulate that I'm seeking to ensure one group isn't losing their right to liberty in another group's pursuit of liberty while looking for the most optimal position for both parties - I'm to be labelled and the only thing that's to matter is the ends and I'm to be an exhibition on valuing ideology over my fellow man because of another man's actions and pursuits. I don't think the approach should ever be "Man, how dare you vote for Bernie Sanders, you must really want to keep killing babies" or "Man, how dare you vote for Ted Cruz, you must care about your ideology more than you do about your friends who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender." People have their reasons that are totally justifiable across the board - regardless of the result - and I highly doubt any of the candidates are in the running to make anyone's life miserable intentionally. --- I care because unlike the candidates on my side of the aisle that talk about "making America great again" or the failures and impending doom brought upon us by the last administration - I'm someone that still has hope for this country and can see where the policies I don't tend to agree with make a positive difference when employed at the right time. Talking to those that feel like they are targeted and are showing concerns matters to me because if I were in Ted Cruz's shoes I wouldn't want to leave anyone behind, be it those who hold a little too tightly to the past or those that cling to rights they've only just recently rightfully earned. I don't know how many people tell you this Evi, but people like you matter. You are important. I don't want to be the kind of person that fails to see the value in others regardless of if they are staunchly disagreeable or in my back pocket. I believe in compromise and I believe in doing as much good for as many people as possible. I believe you also mean well and that you fight not just for your own survival but for the survival and well-being of others. By offering pages of rebuttal over trying to insult you - I'm trying to tell you that I -do- care about your position and the way that you feel, and that as an individual I would do things differently from the man I'd most likely vote for in the Republican Party at this point. In Texas, there's an insanely stupid credence taken in "friendship". You don't see that throughout the state to any fair observer's liking, and you sure as HELL don't see it in Washington. Maybe you think talking to me is a total drag - and I can understand that due to having the self esteem of a battered mailbox - but I really, really, really enjoy talking to you about 99 percent of the things we've discussed - with the 1 percent being the vote-shaming and call-outs. Friend... I don't need to broadcast my political identity to make people dislike me. I'm unfortunately really good at that just by existing. --- The first post has been updated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kagamine Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 My primary is in June so I still have a way to go before I can vote. I'm voting for Bernie. I don't trust Hillary, and Trump has business experience, not political experience. I think it's going to be between Trump and Hillary, or Cruz and Hillary. My mother is a history teacher, and she and a few others think eventually they're going to kick Trump off because he has no political experience, they can do that. I know I only have a voice in the primary, as the electoral college is what determines the winner. However, the electoral college is who we vote for, so voting in those elections is important. Crossing my fingers for Bernie though, because nursing school is expensive and I'd appreciate help with these loans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted April 16, 2016 Author Share Posted April 16, 2016 News: Ted Cruz sweeps the remaining Wyoming delegates following the state's convention on Saturday, effectively making Wyoming a Cruz state. Ted is now only 185 delegates behind Trump and his momentum appears to remain in tact running into a likely substantial setback in New York next Tuesday. --- My respect for Bernie Sanders has definitely gone up as the race has gone on. My remaining issues with Sanders are as follows. For being a self-claimed Jew, Sanders is the most Pro-Palestine politician left in the race. In the Brooklyn debate, the topic of Israel came up and it was Clinton who was more agreeable with me. Sanders may have been playing devil's advocate on this issue - which is respectable in a race where he really needs to hit Hillary as much as possible in order to expedite his comeback - but for a Jew to not side with Israel in an argument, even for the sake of hand-to-hand combat in a debate, it's a bit disappointing. The other damning mark on this issue is that of the five remaining candidates, Sanders was the only candidate who did not speak at AIPAC's national conference a couple of weeks ago. (American Israel Public Affairs Committee.) When running against Hillary Clinton, there is one major angle of attack that you should always, always, ALWAYS take. You should be hitting Clinton on TRUSTWORTHINESS. Sanders however has refused to take that angle in hopes of not fracturing the Democratic Party in a manner similar to the way likely Republican challengers would attack Clinton. This calls into question how badly Sanders wants to win this primary race. I would imagine winning seven of the last eight contests and escalating tensions with Hillary would indicate a desire to win - but if you're not going to aim for the weakest link in Hillary's chain, as not only Republicans but many Pro-Sanders Democrats already have, it calls into question Sanders' authenticity. Sanders is a one-note politician. His approach seems to be to steal from the rich and give to the poor, Robin Hood style. That's his strongest policy approach - and one that he segues to almost every other policy angle he can. Education? Make Wall Street pay for it. Healthcare? Make Wall Street pay for it. Infrastructure? Job Creation? Defeating ISIS?....slight exaggeration aside, you get the point. Sanders' tax plan is supposed to be aimed at taxing the same "rich" from the above point - however, his plan hurts everyone from my lowly tax bracket of sub-5,000 dollars of income a year, all the way to that of Bill Gate's tax bracket. In order for Sanders' other policies to take effect (Universal HC, Free Tuition, etc.) - he would need to pass this tax plan FIRST or America wouldn't have the funds to make those things happen. The reality of Sanders' plan is this - everyone is going to be paying more taxes - and that's how he should be advertising it. Not lying to a bunch of misguided college students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mde2001 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Honestly some of your issues with Sanders are the reasons I like him. To me, it is nice to see an American politician being prepared to acknowledge the complexities involving Israel and Palestine, rather than just pretending Israel is completely good and fighting against the evil Palestinians. I know that America is overwhelmingly pro Israel, but having someone give the Palestinians a fair chance and showing them some respect is a nice change. There's a difference between being anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, and I definitely don't see him as anti-Israel. I also don't think that running a positive, issues based campaign is a bad thing at all. Both of the democratic candidates have generally tried to keep their campaigns clean. I also don't think it calls how much he wants to win into question- he just has standards. It isn't that Sanders doesn't care about winning, it is more that he believes in winning on his own merits- which is something I respect immensely about him. He is also probably seeing the real possibility of Clinton winning the nomination, and therefore doesn't want to sabotage her chances on winning a general election. He believes in party unity, and that is another really respectable thing. I'm not going to comment on the tax issues, as I'm not completely across American financial things, so probably wouldn't contribute anything much- but in general I agree that the rich should be asked to contribute some of their money to creating a better country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 Like I said, Sanders may have been playing devil's advocate. I'm not saying he for sure -is- pro-Palestine, but that his stance is the most so in a field of five candidates. Logistically speaking, his argument wasn't strong. New York is the largest Jewish area in the United States - and opposing Israel there of all places just didn't come off as very smart. His argument also was focused on Israel's response to a Hamas rocket - claiming that it may have been overtly aggressive. I understand that some people aren't very tolerant or appreciative of retaliatory violence, and I understand giving Palestine a fair shake when it comes to global representation - but the instance Sanders cited appeared to be a continuation of struggle that Israel has seemingly been in since the beginning of time. Israel's favor among the United States comes from post WWII relations in which the US assisted the Jewish people in creating a homeland for them in the Middle East - reestablishing "promised land" territories. The Israeli government and military is extremely dependent on US support in order to seemingly maintain itself - and a US withdrawal certainly endangers the Jewish State's well-being as Syria and Palestine are in perpetual opposition. In return, Israel provides perhaps the most solid foothold for the United States in a destabilized Middle East in which both nations share mutual opponents. Those same opponents still threaten the United States directly - making Israel more and more the sensible ally and more favorable position to take. The only instance of better US-Palestinian relations happens to be in Egypt - where here in the US, approval of the peacemaking is much more tentative. Sanders was taking a very radical position, and one that as an American who values Israel as an ally I can't really get behind, regardless of how much he really -does- regard Israel. Again, not speaking at the AIPAC conference makes it much less forgivable. --- I understand the base-building in backing off of Hillary - but Sanders has run too good of a campaign to be running for second place. The shot's there. Take it. Period. Sanders would only harm Hillary's general election chances if Sanders doesn't throw his hat in for her at the convention - and his supporters decide to stay at home or vote for the Green Party candidate instead. All signs point to Democratic Party loyalty despite he identifying as an Independent - so while he's still got a solid shot of his own campaign taking the nomination, he needs to use whatever angles he can. He is SERIOUSLY far down in Super delegates, but he can take states like New York and California and close that pledged delegate lead. Another thing is - Sanders has already told Hillary she's "not qualified" and that she "doesn't have the proper judgement" for the position. If he were really playing "nice" - he wouldn't have said those things. It's easier to just follow through with the punch and hope Donald Trump shrugs off Ted Cruz. That way, Clinton can probably survive and Sanders goes down fighting. --- Taxes need to be paid sure, but I don't support pointless government programs and unproven policies and I shouldn't have to give up -my- money as a low income earner if the President runs on a message of "taxing the rich". It's the one part of Bernie's stump speech that comes off as dishonest or misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 I'm not going to comment on the tax issues, as I'm not completely across American financial things, so probably wouldn't contribute anything much- but in general I agree that the rich should be asked to contribute some of their money to creating a better country. There in lies the fundamental problem of America. Either politicians don't know or don't care (depending on who is being spoken of) that the SUPER elite, are paying hardly any taxes. They take advantage of loopholes, but those who are 6 figures instead of 7,8,9+ have a far more difficult time taking advantage of said loopholes. To put it simply, it's not uncommon for those who are doing well, but would not be the super elite to pay an effective tax rate of 35%, while the CEO's and other insanely rich types will pay anywhere between 9% to 17% as a rough estimate. Not only that but many of those who are making 6 figures are small business owners and the increased taxes often will lead to the loss of jobs that would otherwise not occur. Long story short, don't raise the taxes, close the loopholes. Both the left and the right likely do nothing about this because of the everlasting love affair between money and career politicians who are more concerned about their re-election than their services to the people. Companies and Tycoons give them money for their campaign and push said politicians, and the politicians pretend things aren't wrong and pass policies that hurt the larger number of people. I'd say probably about 70-90% of U.S. federal politicians might fall under this umbrella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 I'm not one to deny that campaign finance reform is absolutely needed. Politicians are bought and sold in overwhelming masses, but there has to be an underlying reason as to why that is. Let's take Bernie Sanders for example. Bernie and Jane Sanders' tax return listed them as north of 200,000 dollar earners last year. That's not top 1%, but that's pretty well-off. (By comparison, the "middle-class" American family makes anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 dollars a year.) The Sanders campaign is able to boast of only receiving campaign contributions around 27 dollars from individual donors. Not every campaign can do it like Bernie can - because not everyone in the country has the kind of green to kick a campaign off. In a lot of ways, it may be safe to assume Sanders is in the same ballpark (albeit definitely not sitting in the club seats) with Donald Trump when it comes to campaign financing - They take donations and they are self-starters. --- ...how much would it take Middle-Class Mr. Smith to 'Go to Washington' then? Well, having a kick-starter fundraiser would be the slower but less-beholden way to do things, or you can impress the political insiders and interest groups to immediately turn your empty pockets into a campaign-ready war-chest. The issue with the latter though, is that those same insiders and interest groups determine your policy list. It's at this point where the candidate has to make a few decisions - does he opt to cut ties later on down the road once he gets his campaign on the tracks and more individual donors support the cause? Does he stick with the financiers? Policy matters at this point - because if you want your cash-flow to keep coming to you, you need to be in accordance with your financiers if your taking the PAC route. Looking at a candidate like Jeb Bush, who was absolutely stacked in PAC money, his policy seemed to be completely drafted and as a candidate he suffered from personal authenticity more than he did Trump hitting him over the head for it. --- However, if Mr. Smith is making 50,000 to 70,000 a year - frugality would have to start earlier than next campaign cycle in order to be a Trump or a Sanders. Yes, getting tangled up with the insiders and PACs isn't ideal from the identity perspective, but it causes the poorer politicians to have a way to get to the dance. To put the costs of a campaign into perspective, let's take my state's transportation issue into account in the event of a statewide election (say, the Texas gubernatorial election.) If Mr. Smith wants to drive from the New Mexico border to Louisiana, it would take him roughly 14 hours and 14 minutes. That means, it would take over half a day just to cross the state one-time, one-way. That doesn't take into account going county-by-county to campaign in Texas either. Amarillo (a prairie city located in the Texas panhandle) to Brownsville (the southernmost Mexican border city) is another near half day trek with a total time of 11 hours and 31 minutes. This of course, is assuming the candidate is travelling by automobile. Plane trips make for faster state-crossing, but pricier travel expenses. This means that even lower level elections require a sizable coffers. My argument here is that for now, campaign financing will almost -need- the big business and government insiders in order to level the opportunity field for any American wishing to run for office. Once the politician -gets- to the office they are running for, that's when the shackles may or may not be able to be broken. Is it a problem? Absolutely. But like other things, Sanders underscores the actual importance of money - perhaps due to actually having a bit of it himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.