Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.

I think the betting money has switched over to Rubio in the last few days. (Yeah, there is actually a betting market on this and it is pretty spot on since money is at stake, better than most snapshot polls at this point, at least).

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.

I think the betting money has switched over to Rubio in the last few days. (Yeah, there is actually a betting market on this and it is pretty spot on since money is at stake, better than most snapshot polls at this point, at least).

Yeah my thinking is if not Bush, then Rubio. I acknowledge Bush is running votes in an environment with a loud anti-dynastic, anti-establishment, anti-government-in-general subset of voters.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.

I think the betting money has switched over to Rubio in the last few days. (Yeah, there is actually a betting market on this and it is pretty spot on since money is at stake, better than most snapshot polls at this point, at least).

Yeah my thinking is if not Bush, then Rubio. I acknowledge Bush is running votes in an environment with a loud anti-dynastic, anti-establishment, anti-government-in-general subset of voters.

And who is more that than Rubio, a man who can't even stand his job as a senator?

It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..

 jasper76 wrote:
It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..

Would Ronmey fall under the "P" as a Mormon? I don't know if Mormonism is considered Protestant?

Edit, if so, I don't believe they have ever nominated a non WASP.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..

Would Ronmey fall under the "P" as a Mormon? I don't know if Mormonism is considered Protestant?

Edit, if so, I don't believe they have ever nominated a non WASP.

Oh yeah, I forgot Romney was a Mormon lol. Mormons aren't technically Protestant. I know alot of Christians don't even consider Mormons to be Christian, and Romney was nominated, so maybe a Latino isn't such a longshot.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..

Would Ronmey fall under the "P" as a Mormon? I don't know if Mormonism is considered Protestant?

Edit, if so, I don't believe they have ever nominated a non WASP.

Oh yeah, I forgot Romney was a Mormon lol. Mormons aren't technically Protestant. I know alot of Christians don't even consider Mormons to be Christian, and Romney was nominated, so maybe a Latino isn't such a longshot.

If they thought they could win, I doubt any obstacle would impede them. Hell the Dems nominated a foreign born Muslim, right? I really think this might be a last gasp election of a dying party here. People tend to do crazy things when their backs are against the wall, in this case of changing demographics and religious ethics. I wonder what what we now call the GOP will look like in 20-30 years. It's hard to be the party of tradition when the world is changing so rapidly.

IMO, it should really be split up into two parties. That's basically what's happening now anyways, except in this case, the divided constituency on both sides of the Republican divide really only have half a party, and they are battling in a zero sum game for control rather than just splitting into 2 natural parties, pursuing their own political agendas, and allying on those issues where they have bipartisan agreement.

Sure, both will lose some power, but they're really only a power in Congress. They really have no chance of winning the Presidency since Trump has spoiled the brand entirely with Hispanic/Latino voters. And its hard to see this mono party having too much of a future without some serious platform revision, since it is so unpopular with women and youth.

Or when the traditions the party espouses are held to dishonestly For a party that proclaims the virtue of small government and fiscal responsibility, they sure spend inordinate amounts of time trying to legislate the bedroom and lots of money on ain't gonna go anywhere investigations (and that's without me ranting for a paragraph on all the other weird stuff the party gets tied up in).

I honestly think the issue the party faces isn't one of values. Many of the Party's values are still quite popular among voters and that's served the GOP well. The issue is that, far more than the Dems imo, the GOP is ripe with ideological hypocrisy and readily alienates large numbers of voters.

Did Trump have his "we were broke" moment when he talked about his hard upbringing and how he got a "small" million dollar loan from his father?

 LordofHats wrote:
Or when the traditions the party espouses are held to dishonestly For a party that proclaims the virtue of small government and fiscal responsibility, they sure spend inordinate amounts of time trying to legislate the bedroom and lots of money on ain't gonna go anywhere investigations.

I honestly think the issue the party faces isn't one of values. Many of the Party's values are still quite popular among voters and that's served the GOP well. The issue is that, far more than the Dems imo, the GOP is ripe with ideological hypocrisy.

I guess what I'm saying is that the constituency that hold "traditional Judeo-Christian values" sacred and consider the federal government unholy, these people deserve a party that also holds those ideals, rather than what they have, which is basically a free market party where "traditional values" is largely used as a veneer to attract socially conservative voters.

I feel that the conservative values voters really have no party, or at least a large chunk of them don't. The GOP is the party of moneyed interests, and the stereotypical conservative values voter is not particularly moneyed. So they are basically forced to vote against their economic interests, because they cannot vote against their conscience on certain values issues that the GOP dangles in front of them like a carrot.

 jasper76 wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that the constituency that hold "traditional Judeo-Christian values" sacred and consider the federal government unholy, these people deserve a party that also holds those ideals, rather than what they have, which is basically a free market party where "traditional values" is largely used as a veneer to attract socially conservative voters.

No, they deserve to be ignored and diminished into irrelevance. They should be grateful that the republican party offers them even a token amount of attention, and can't even attempt to win elections without doing so. That they have a voice in politics at all is an embarrassment to the country.

So Peregrine doesn't like evangelicals. There's a shocker.

 LordofHats wrote:
Or when the traditions the party espouses are held to dishonestly For a party that proclaims the virtue of small government and fiscal responsibility, they sure spend inordinate amounts of time trying to legislate the bedroom and lots of money on ain't gonna go anywhere investigations (and that's without me ranting for a paragraph on all the other weird stuff the party gets tied up in).

I honestly think the issue the party faces isn't one of values. Many of the Party's values are still quite popular among voters and that's served the GOP well. The issue is that, far more than the Dems imo, the GOP is ripe with ideological hypocrisy and readily alienates large numbers of voters.

I agree with you on the values front, the GOP could get lots of Latino and African American voters if they went that route. As you say, the problem there is hypocrisy. I was speaking more to a specific sense of non religious voters and people who respect and understand science. Strangely, that is the more educated crowd, not traditionally a Dem base, but is becoming more so. But that again points to how rapidly the world is changing. Less than 100 years ago we couldn't have predicted how quantum mechanics would change our views of science so dramatically. A party that is rooted in tradition has no hope in this landscape. Of course some people still don't understand how email works or why it is important. Values and party identity are slow to change, see the number of DEMs in southern states.

 jasper76 wrote:


I guess what I'm saying is that the constituency that hold "traditional Judeo-Christian values" sacred and consider the federal government unholy, these people deserve a party that also holds those ideals, rather than what they have, which is basically a free market party where "traditional values" is largely used as a veneer to attract socially conservative voters.

I feel that the conservative values voters really have no party, or at least a large chunk of them don't. The GOP is the party of moneyed interests, and the stereotypical conservative values voter is not particularly moneyed. So they are basically forced to vote against their economic interests, because they cannot vote against their conscience on certain values issues that the GOP dangles in front of them like a carrot.

I think that's a bit too modern a look that leaves out how the party ended up where it currently is. The GOP isn't a conspiracy taking advantage of voters. The Traditional Judeo-Christian voter became core to modern Conservatism when the Party adopted a Southern Strategy following the passage of the Civil Rights Act. At that time, the party did the smart thing; they took an opposing stance to the socially progressive Democrates who pushed through the CRA but avoided overt racism. Instead, they catered to the interests of the Christian right and small government types building up Modern Conservatism into what it is now. The GOP isn't dangling a stick in front of tradition voters. They've been integral to it's success and power base for decades and the GOP most certainly spends lots of time and money on the things that interest them. How else did DOMA pass? Why is Abortion still a political hot topic? Why are GOP politicians constantly espousing the importance of God and the Bible?

The issue is that the pursuit of the Traditional Judeo-Christian voter, integral to the GOP's ability to win national elections, has become detrimental. The party has sacrificed the integrity of it's claim to small government and fiscal responsibility in unending battles over Gay Marriage, Abortion, Sex, Welfare, and keeping women in the kitchen to continue catering to and drawing in those votes. I don't think the Religious Conservative voters have been betrayed with no where else to turn. The party very much is theirs. Unfortunately Religious Conservatives just keep losing ground in almost all those areas, while shifting their line to increasingly extreme positions. If anything this alienates small government and economic conservatives, who by their very nature don't want the government regulating the bedroom or instituting religious education in schools.

This is especially noticeable in primary season because Conservative Values voters are a massively powerful lobby with the ability to raise huge amounts of money.

Yeah, the GOP needs to bone up on science...I think the kids these days are smart and know to trust scientists rather than preachers and business interests on an issue as potentially deleterious to their future as the warming of the planet. And that this is a partisan red tribe-blue tribe issue is amazing to me...it's a generic security issue, like leaded gasoline was.

I tend to think most GOP politiicians are fully aware of global warming as a reality, but are paid to do nothing about it that would harm their donors economic interests. And they are probably threatened by those interests in terms of threats to back political rivals, eliminate jobs, or move jobs from states.

I guess I just buy into the "Republicans are corporate sells out" line of thought. I really don't think they are. At least, no more than the Dems or anyone else in government.

For Global Warming, I'd again point to the Religious Right which has made being antagonistic with science a corner stone of it's foundation. Evolution is a conspiracy. Carbon dating is inaccurate. Vaccines cause Autism. Stem cell research probably would have never become a religious issue if it weren't conducted using discarded embryos ('aborted' babies). The Religious Right can't concede that something good came from a baby not being born. Abortion is murder damn it!

If science makes a claim, the Religious Right immediately jumps to refute it (often using the most brain dead logic while doing so). It's all about "science is the enemy." It has nothing to do with whether science is right or wrong anymore. This causes the Religious Right, and the GOP by extension, the drag in a number of other issues that have only tenuous, if any, relationships to religion and automatically oppose them simply because "science is the enemy." Corporations can certainly take advantage of that, and even encourage it, but I don't think it's something that can be solely blamed on them.

 Frazzled wrote:
So Peregrine doesn't like evangelicals. There's a shocker.

No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I tend to think most GOP politiicians are fully aware of global warming as a reality, but are paid to do nothing about it that would harm their donors economic interests. And they are probably threatened by those interests in terms of threats to back political rivals, eliminate jobs, or move jobs from states.

I think it's even simpler than that: they know they'll be dead before any real problems happen, and their families are all rich enough that they won't suffer any consequences. So why give up their wealth and comfortable lives just so some poor people can maybe have a better future? It's pure selfishness, and I have no sympathy at all for them.

@ Lordofhats : I think if you take corporate money, you are by definition a corporate sellout, and that applies to both sides. The fact that most politicians do it doesn't make it any less so. That's just my opinion on the matter. I believe in publically funded elections.

The idea of a corporate sellout used to be anathema to art. Once upon a time in a place not so far away, the idea that an artist who would pander their wares to corporate shills was abhorrent. The few modern songs that I could have liked "Renegade" by whoever and the drop kick Murphy's music has been destroyed by over saturation and commodification. Guess I will still have to listen to Zepplin, Beatles and The Who. I think it could be worse. Ever hear Ween's Pizza Hut ad? Mother effen cheese bread.

Edit: Pizza Hutt dropped them. Look up "where'd the cheese go" on YouTube.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I tend to think most GOP politiicians are fully aware of global warming as a reality, but are paid to do nothing about it that would harm their donors economic interests. And they are probably threatened by those interests in terms of threats to back political rivals, eliminate jobs, or move jobs from states.

I think it's even simpler than that: they know they'll be dead before any real problems happen, and their families are all rich enough that they won't suffer any consequences. So why give up their wealth and comfortable lives just so some poor people can maybe have a better future? It's pure selfishness, and I have no sympathy at all for them.

I've been saying that for a long time. And it basically applies to all the other problems that politicians of all sides continually fail to address. They're too well-insulated from the consequences of their actions. Most of them are already wealthy going in, and even if not, once elected they're on the gravy train for life, as they can always rely on getting jobs as lobbyists, think tank members, staff members for other politicians, political analysts/commentators, etc. Even then, do they really care about any problems their own kids will eventually face? They'll be dead before it happens to their kids, so why care?

Regarding the GOP opposition to global warming/climate change, it just defies logic that they still stick to that. Be smart, GOP, and just sidestep the issue altogether and say you're in favor of improving the environment in general to make us all healthier or something. Nobody can argue against cleaner air to breathe, cleaner water to drink, and cleaner land to grow our food in.

But that takes regulation and regulation is evil! The government can't tell business owners what to do (unless they're gay... or thinking of having an abortion... or thinking of paying their employees $70k, then it's completely okay to deride them and demand they change their behavior ). Polluting the water and air? Pft;

When is the chair master going to step in and put an end to this sensical debate?

 d-usa wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Articles keep popping up on news feeds, one mentioned his cut backs to paid staff for the campaign, that is never a good sign for any candidate.

It also happens fairly frequently though. I think that McCain had to scale his staff back to a skeleton crew and was running with mostly volunteers before eventually getting the nomination.

While that is true, Jeb! is no McCain. John McCain never fell below 15% polling, even at his lowest. Jeb! is at a strong 5%, weak 7%.

Yeah, but McCain didn't have to deal with the levels of crazy we've got now with Trump and Carson actually leading in the GOP polls (he did have Palin, sadly, which is why he lost my vote).

So there's another GOP debate tomorrow, but at this point, I'm not expecting too much difference from the last two. There are still too many people for any one to give meaningful, detailed answers about their plans and policies.

It would be cool of there were some sort of themed debate at this point, where one or two or three issues are discussed at length. But I 'm expecting just another 2-3 hours of , "Obama bad, Clinton bad, Iran bad, abortion bad, government bad".

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, the GOP needs to bone up on science...I think the kids these days are smart and know to trust scientists rather than preachers and business interests on an issue as potentially deleterious to their future as the warming of the planet. And that this is a partisan red tribe-blue tribe issue is amazing to me...it's a generic security issue, like leaded gasoline was.

The same scientists that brought us the Bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, GM food, predicted global cooling/now global warming/now 'climate change", can't get their story straight on whether anything in particular is good or bad for you, and have a definite financial interest in whatever they are saying?

No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.

And what particular theocracy is this?

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.

And what particular theocracy is this?

The Priests of the Temple of Syrinx.

I feel a Headbanger's Ball coming on.

You guy s are attributing quotes to me that I did not make (specifically the 'worst theocracy' bit).

Frazzled , part of me want to engage with you in a discussion of the role of science in society, the near unanimity of climate scientists on climate change, etc, but I'm probably not the best suited to do so. My main point here was that its not in the GOPs future interest to be the party of science denial, and that it really makes no sense for the climate to be a partisan issue.

Besides, I don't have kids, so let the world boil, I suppose...