2016 Republican Thread

[pettie4sox]

I agree with most of you that Cruz doesn't have a chance in the GE. Nobody wants America to be ran on christian values, that ship has sailed.

 

EDIT: I should say most not nobody.

Edited February 2, 2016 by pettie4sox

[RockRaines]

I agree with most of you that Cruz doesn't have a chance in the GE. Nobody wants America to be ran on christian values, that ship has sailed.

Its not 'Christian Values" its Evangelical Christian Values which is a super extreme.

[pettie4sox]

Its not 'Christian Values" its Evangelical Christian Values which is a super extreme.

 

Thanks for the correct. I'm not a religious man and tend to lump all religious people into one category.

[RockRaines]

Thanks for the correct. I'm not a religious man and tend to lump all religious people into one category.

me either but a good portion of my extended family falls into the Evangelical camp and I've seen it first hand, it can get pretty extreme.

[pettie4sox]

Yeah I feel you, it's always awkward going home for the holidays and your family members grill on your "heathen" life.

[Chisoxfn]

Trump losing Iowa is news, but to me the fact that Rubio is in a near-tie with him for 2nd is the biggest news here. And allows the GOP to continue having some chance of winning the general.

 

Also...

 

 

 

100%, my man.

I am fully on board with Rubio. Really can get excited about him and get behind him. Trump had a big win with his concession speech tonight as well (extremely classy...downright surprised and impressed me). Cruz looked pathetic as the winner. Please let Cruz's momentum slip and let some of the other repubs pull out so Rubio can ideally get a state primary prior to super tuesday (he doesn't just need to keep building momentum leading up to super tuesday, he also to me, needs to get one of the states). And it won't be New Hampshire (I don't think...would seem Trump has that on lockdown and I thought I read where Kasich and Christie were about tied for 2nd.

[RockRaines]

Yeah I feel you, it's always awkward going home for the holidays and your family members grill on your "heathen" life.

More like "when was the last time you had a conversation with Jesus?"

 

 

[cabiness42]

More like "when was the last time you had a conversation with Jesus?"

 

To a certain extent, this is more what Christianity is about than conservative politicians spewing hate on TV. We are supposed to be having these conversations with people close to us, but not to the point that it's repetitive and makes people not want to be around us. If your family has had this conversation with you once or twice, then they should back off and leave it at, "if you ever have any questions, we're free to talk." Also, if they are having these conversations with you, then they better damn well be setting living examples of what they are preaching. Not to the extent of being perfect, because nobody is, but if the people having conversations with you are having problems with adultery, drugs, etc., then they really ought to be getting their own lives in order before preaching to you. Big reason why Christians are widely viewed as hypocrites. Also a big reason why politicians should not base their political beliefs on their faith. It's hard for your life's decisions to hold up under that kind of scrutiny.

 

I have had a lot of ups and downs in my life and there have been times where I made it a point NOT to discuss religion because I knew I wasn't living what I would have been preaching.

Edited February 2, 2016 by HickoryHuskers

[cabiness42]

Wow, so apparently Cruz supporters were at best intentionally misleading, and at worst flat-out lying to Carson supporters in suggesting that he was quitting the race in order to get them to switch their support to Cruz.

[southsider2k5]

To a certain extent, this is more what Christianity is about than conservative politicians spewing hate on TV. We are supposed to be having these conversations with people close to us, but not to the point that it's repetitive and makes people not want to be around us. If your family has had this conversation with you once or twice, then they should back off and leave it at, "if you ever have any questions, we're free to talk." Also, if they are having these conversations with you, then they better damn well be setting living examples of what they are preaching. Not to the extent of being perfect, because nobody is, but if the people having conversations with you are having problems with adultery, drugs, etc., then they really ought to be getting their own lives in order before preaching to you. Big reason why Christians are widely viewed as hypocrites. Also a big reason why politicians should not base their political beliefs on their faith. It's hard for your life's decisions to hold up under that kind of scrutiny.

 

I have had a lot of ups and downs in my life and there have been times where I made it a point NOT to discuss religion because I knew I wasn't living what I would have been preaching.

 

If you read the new testament, one thing that jumps out at me is that Christ himself didn't pester people to convert. He went in, preached the word, and then left. No extra guilt. No chasing people around. Either you hear the holy spirit or you didn't. He even acknowledged that some would be deaf to the word of God. How do people who call themselves Christians not see this?

[RockRaines]

To a certain extent, this is more what Christianity is about than conservative politicians spewing hate on TV. We are supposed to be having these conversations with people close to us, but not to the point that it's repetitive and makes people not want to be around us. If your family has had this conversation with you once or twice, then they should back off and leave it at, "if you ever have any questions, we're free to talk." Also, if they are having these conversations with you, then they better damn well be setting living examples of what they are preaching. Not to the extent of being perfect, because nobody is, but if the people having conversations with you are having problems with adultery, drugs, etc., then they really ought to be getting their own lives in order before preaching to you. Big reason why Christians are widely viewed as hypocrites. Also a big reason why politicians should not base their political beliefs on their faith. It's hard for your life's decisions to hold up under that kind of scrutiny.

 

I have had a lot of ups and downs in my life and there have been times where I made it a point NOT to discuss religion because I knew I wasn't living what I would have been preaching.

Thats strange in its own right.

[greg775]

If you read the new testament, one thing that jumps out at me is that Christ himself didn't pester people to convert. He went in, preached the word, and then left. No extra guilt. No chasing people around. Either you hear the holy spirit or you didn't. He even acknowledged that some would be deaf to the word of God. How do people who call themselves Christians not see this?

Great post. I don't live near my siblings, etc., but when they ask me over holidays if I still go to church, I just say yes and never expand on it. Not going to be a preacher type guy to turn them off. They've never asked me any questions about why I believe or anything so I don't try to get them to convert even though I think it would help my sister. I'm not gonna go there because people don't want to hear it and I don't want to be "that pushy relative."

[caulfield12]

Thats strange in its own right.

 

 

It's that argument that has been misinterpreted to extremes from the New Testament...if someone is actively doing something that goes against (your version of Christianity, the key) the Bible, then it's your responsibility to at least present evidence of their "sins" as not taking any action is tantamount to committing the same sin yourself.

 

This is often argued about homosexuality/lesbianism, but it could be any issue, like taxes (the parable relating to those burying their treasure versus multiplying it justifying being rich and not taxed as highly) or the death penalty, which I've never understood from a conservative viewpoint since Christ in no way would be connected with that belief. It's only the Old Testament (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...), so it's nice to pick and choose what you like and don't like as if you're eating at a buffet but it doesn't work that way.

 

At any rate, proselytizing to the point where others are made to feel uncomfortable is counterproductive. You see it directed at the LGBT community all the time (see Fred Phelps' church or "curing" gay people), but you very rarely see Christians actively seeking out the modern-day equivalent of sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes to minister to. In fact, they almost always seem to feel uncomfortable in those same communities Christ chose to make his "home," where he felt most comfortable.

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[cabiness42]

It's that argument that has been misinterpreted to extremes from the New Testament...if someone is actively doing something that goes against (your version of Christianity, the key) the Bible, then it's your responsibility to at least present evidence of their "sins" as not taking any action is tantamount to committing the same sin yourself.

 

That only holds true for people who claim to be Christians. You are supposed to confront fellow believers with their sins, but with nonbelievers you are to focus on the basic message of the faith.

 

It's backwards to confront non-believers with their sins, because since they are non-believers they don't believe what they are doing is sin.

[RockRaines]

pokes head in, looks around, darts out

[caulfield12]

Let's go back to the idea of Rubio pulling this off (by the way, the Iowa Electronic Market is a great way to track the race day to day as opposed to the polls, because the candidates are tracked like stocks)...

 

Who would you consider for his VP?

 

I proposed a woman, to balance out the Hillary advantage.

 

So you start out with Nikki Haley (Indian-American side makes both her and Rubio perfect "American Dream Team" candidates but still too young?), Susana Martinez (NM) and Carly Fiorina. Fiorina just doesn't seem like a good pairing or the right chemistry.

 

Others:

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA)

Pam Bondi-AG (FL)

Kristi Noem-(SD)

Susan Collins (ME)

Condoleeza Rice (probably too controversial, ties to Bush and foreign policy debacle)

 

Since the GOP gave her the chance to rebut Obama, that's a pretty good measure of her standing. She did much better than Bobby Jindal in the spotlight.

 

If it's not Rubio/Haley, then I would like to see Rubio's relative inexperience (one of the main left attacks will be comparing him to Obama, obviously) is rounding that out with someone like John Kasich. Plus, the Republicans desperately need to take Ohio back.

 

In terms of personality and temperament, Kasish is very optimistic and reasonable...so they are pretty similar. Kasich is like a lovable uncle/university professor and that plays off against the youth/hype surrounding Rubio. Plus, he's even more moderate and doesn't have the Tea Party connection to attack, so they would work well together as a team. Christie's just too much of a loose cannon and not perceived to be a team player, although I'm sure he would agree to be on the ticket.

 

Rand Paul would be another interesting choice...more from a practical sense of taking back more and more independents, but the contrasts on military intervention/strategy would seem to be too great.

 

(Note: I say all these things only from the standpoint of what I would do trying to form the team to beat Hillary, as I'm a lifelong Democrat but not particularly enamored with the idea of the Clintons being back in the White House...and, I believe that somehow Rubio might just be the best person to take on the immigration issue once and for all...and, finally, electing a Cuban-American and Indian-American to the two highest offices in the most powerful democracy in the world sends a strong signal of hope out there regarding what made America great and is to be most admired about our country.)

Edited February 3, 2016 by caulfield12

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I agree with a lot of that. I like both Nikki Haley and John Kasich. They would be at or near the top for me.

[cabiness42]

I agree with a lot of that. I like both Nikki Haley and John Kasich. They would be at or near the top for me.

 

Yeah, those would both be excellent running mates for Rubio. If you're going to have a Senator as you Presidential candidate, I really like having a governor as VP.

[StrangeSox]

Rand Paul is out.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand...s-2016-campaign

[caulfield12]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dona...ion-church-iowa

 

This probably won't help Trump with the evangelical vote in South Carolina.

 

He's already got the Bible mistake (Two Corinthians instead of saying 2nd Corinthians) being used against him by Cruz.

 

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-...z-go-from-here/

What happens to Ted Cruz from here...interesting panel discussion at Nate Silver's site.

Edited February 3, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mar...02c9_story.html

Marco Rubio is running scared

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-l...ters/?tid=a_inl

 

That's the biggest hole in the Rubio candidacy...he doesn't have the ability to improvise and have that feel for different audiences that Bill Clinton and Obama were so good at sensing intuitively. Everyone is criticizing him for giving the same canned speech over and over again, and being the product of his speech writers.

 

If you look at his policies, he's very much the same thing as GW Bush. Hard line/military interventionist, cutting taxes on the rich/supply side economics, God knows exactly where he stands on immigration at this point. Just like Obama, people are projecting their hopes/dreams/aspirations about what he and is and what he represents and I wonder if it another sort of trap that voters will quickly become disillusioned whenever a young/attractive "change" candidate comes along.

 

Rubio's currently getting a huge advantage of looking "normal" or more palatable because of the constant comparisons with Trump and Cruz...the longer they stay in the race together and the other candidates who are/were legit possibilities are wiped out (Bush first, then Kasich and Christie depending on NH, my sense is Kasich can stay in this longer and will start to spend more and more time "mentoring" Rubio unless they absolutely just don't get along well), the better Rubio's chances of winning the nomination.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mar...02c9_story.html

Marco Rubio is running scared

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-l...ters/?tid=a_inl

 

That's the biggest hole in the Rubio candidacy...he doesn't have the ability to improvise and have that feel for different audiences that Bill Clinton and Obama were so good at sensing intuitively. Everyone is criticizing him for giving the same canned speech over and over again, and being the product of his speech writers.

 

If you look at his policies, he's very much the same thing as GW Bush. Hard line/military interventionist, cutting taxes on the rich/supply side economics, God knows exactly where he stands on immigration at this point. Just like Obama, people are projecting their hopes/dreams/aspirations about what he and is and what he represents and I wonder if it another sort of trap that voters will quickly become disillusioned whenever a young/attractive "change" candidate comes along.

 

Rubio's currently getting a huge advantage of looking "normal" or more palatable because of the constant comparisons with Trump and Cruz...the longer they stay in the race together and the other candidates who are/were legit possibilities are wiped out (Bush first, then Kasich and Christie depending on NH, my sense is Kasich can stay in this longer and will start to spend more and more time "mentoring" Rubio unless they absolutely just don't get along well), the better Rubio's chances of winning the nomination.

 

Obama is not a good public speaker. He doesn't make a room laugh or feel comfortable based on off the cuff remarks. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were two of the best in that category that I've seen. Obama is a robot in comparison. It drives me nuts that people keep saying this.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mar...02c9_story.html

Marco Rubio is running scared

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-l...ters/?tid=a_inl

 

That's the biggest hole in the Rubio candidacy...he doesn't have the ability to improvise and have that feel for different audiences that Bill Clinton and Obama were so good at sensing intuitively. Everyone is criticizing him for giving the same canned speech over and over again, and being the product of his speech writers.

 

If you look at his policies, he's very much the same thing as GW Bush. Hard line/military interventionist, cutting taxes on the rich/supply side economics, God knows exactly where he stands on immigration at this point. Just like Obama, people are projecting their hopes/dreams/aspirations about what he and is and what he represents and I wonder if it another sort of trap that voters will quickly become disillusioned whenever a young/attractive "change" candidate comes along.

 

Rubio's currently getting a huge advantage of looking "normal" or more palatable because of the constant comparisons with Trump and Cruz...the longer they stay in the race together and the other candidates who are/were legit possibilities are wiped out (Bush first, then Kasich and Christie depending on NH, my sense is Kasich can stay in this longer and will start to spend more and more time "mentoring" Rubio unless they absolutely just don't get along well), the better Rubio's chances of winning the nomination.

 

I actually think that Rubio can do that, but keeps trying not to. Watching the debates, he is at his best when he responds off the cuff. But it seems his handlers prefer he stay on-story.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama is not a good public speaker. He doesn't make a room laugh or feel comfortable based on off the cuff remarks. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were two of the best in that category that I've seen. Obama is a robot in comparison. It drives me nuts that people keep saying this.

I agree that Clinton and Gingrich were (or are) better. But I do think Obama is quite good - far better than his predecessor for example. And far better than most of the current Prez candidates in either party.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree that Clinton and Gingrich were (or are) better. But I do think Obama is quite good - far better than his predecessor for example. And far better than most of the current Prez candidates in either party.

 

I'm not saying he's terrible, but he's not good either. He doesn't have good pace and he's always got bad inflection. He constantly emphasizes the wrong word(s) in his speeches so they end up sounding all choppy.