Is the GOP's stop Trump campaign too late? Speaker Ryan rules himself out as a last minute nominee
159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=smurfy;49958911]More than 60% of GOP primary votes so far have been cast for candidates other than Trump - he has support from a plurality of GOP voters, not a majority.[/QUOTE]
This is terrible logic because this isn't a two person race, far from it.
Trump has the highest share of the popular vote, Cruz--the next closest--is behind by ~10%. Some ~22% of votes have been cast for candidates who are no longer in the running, which just points out how flawed of a statistic that is; Trump is ~3% behind in the popular vote than the combined total of the other two candidates still in the running.
Further, you assume, had there only been two candidates, none of those ~63% of voters would have voted for Trump over the other candidate. That's a big assumption, especially when you consider a [url=https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/trump-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/]recent poll[/url] showed Trump at 53% support nationally from GOP voters; Cruz, the second closest, had 22% in that poll.
Trump has not been the first choice for ~63% of the elections thus far, that's meaningless in knowing who those voters' second, third, fourth, etc.. choices would have been.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49960769][Citation Needed]
In addition, I have the right to enter voluntary agreements-contracts, because I can do whatever I want with my property (body, items or land) without initiating violence, and the same is true for whomever I deal with. This is the basis for trade. The Market is not some mysterious concept, it is simply an extension of my rights to own property and to peacefully exchange it for the property of others. In such a voluntary, uncoercive agreement, the two parties obviously consent only if they believe the result benefits them. Value is created for both. Since the market, when it does not cling to government-enforced monopolies and crony capitalism, by definition benefits both parties, it can not be called exploitative.[/QUOTE]
Yes it can. Have you ever heard of Procedural Unconscionability?
[QUOTE=Melkor;49960958]Yes it can. Have you ever heard of Procedural Unconscionability?[/QUOTE]
Remember that nobody is forced to accept a contract. There is always the option to say no, and leave things as they were before, with no net change. From this we can deduce that a voluntary contract is only made when both parties believe they have something to gain from it, and that something is acceptable to them. Sure, one of the two parties may gain [I]more[/I], but that is up to the two to decide and nobody else.
The biggest problem in such a contract is information asymmetry, but because no party is obligated to sign the contract, they can simply refuse if they are not satisfied with the information at hand. Hidden terms and complex language can be taken care of by lawyers, as they have for centuries. If, even after being given every chance to make the most of a deal, somebody fails, then that is one of the risks of doing business.
[QUOTE=Skanic;49960076]All your Candidates are bad[/QUOTE]
...really?
do you really want to get into how awesome Euro politicians are?
there are SSSSSOOOO many to choose from
[editline]18th March 2016[/editline]
some of them actually have swastikas in their flags
I'm torn, I'm desperate for the GOP to die in a fucking hole, but the thought of that manipulative self centered narcissistic psychopath becoming one of the most powerful people on the planet makes my insides ache.
[QUOTE=toaster468;49959364]If your family is here illegally they should be deported.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ what is wrong with you
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49961254]That's such an immature thing to say. Because you fundamentally agree with the policies supported by a party you want them to die in a fucking hole. Get a grip. I don't like the policies of democrats but I don't go around saying their party should eat shit and die.[/QUOTE]
wow stop hiding behind preachy banter
I'm usually pretty strong in my political convictions but if it really comes down to Trump/Clinton I really don't care if someone supports the candidate opposite to me. It would be so disappointing as they're both just different flavors of bad.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49960769][Citation Needed]
Libertarians are people who shun violence and support natural rights. To put it simply, we believe that property rights are inseparably linked to freedom, because it is from the ownership of one's own body that they derive all of their other liberties. I own my body, therefore I am free to use it however I want without using violence on others, and as a result of that I own the products of my labor and the land I develop. Because my property rights are the basis for my liberty, an attack on them (theft) is an act of violence. To defend my life and my property, I can use force (but not violence, because self defense is not defined as violence in any dictionary I have seen).
In addition, I have the right to enter voluntary agreements-contracts, because I can do whatever I want with my property (body, items or land) without initiating violence, and the same is true for whomever I deal with. This is the basis for trade. The Market is not some mysterious concept, it is simply an extension of my rights to own property and to peacefully exchange it for the property of others. In such a voluntary, uncoercive agreement, the two parties obviously consent only if they believe the result benefits them. Value is created for both. Since the market, when it does not cling to government-enforced monopolies and crony capitalism, by definition benefits both parties, it can not be called exploitative.
These concepts come together to form a [B]socially liberal[/B] stance (people can do whatever they want if they are peaceful, which means Libertarians are pro-LGBT, pro-religious freedom and pro-civil liberties), and a [B]fiscally conservative[/B] stance (the government has no right to my property, and if state-sanctioned theft can not be completely stopped, it should be reduced and the state should limit its expenses to the absolute essentials).
You seem to believe that all Anarchists are Anarcho-Communists. You forget about Anarcho-Capitalists (the extreme end of Libertarianism). The two groups share similar, anti-government beliefs, and their only difference is that Anarcho-Communists do not accept the concept of private property. Personally, I find that stance foolish: all it does is replace one tyrant (the government) for another (the mob), because violence is the only way to enforce Anarcho-Communism on those who do not want it. By contrast, an Anarcho-Communist society can freely exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. But they are entitled to their position, and any step towards abolishing the state is better than nothing.
But please, do tell us how Libertarians are edgy kids who hate cops. I would love to hear the mental gymnastics one has to go through to justify theft and violence if somebody wears a blue uniform.[/QUOTE]
Thinking anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate way to form society. I'm sorry, but you completely lost me there. Your last sentence literally disproved the point you were trying to make in "Edgy kids who hate cops" by the way. Also, Libertarians and Anarcho capitalist are not liberal in any sense of the word. They believe people choose can to enforce inequality at their own will and the government has no right to interfere. Capitalism is an inherently unequal system and inequality goes against the idea of any left leaning principles. Have you taken a single sociology or economics class in your life?
When they thought it was going to be Bush V Clinton they said THAT would be the most demoralizing election to US citizens. Boy where they wrong.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49960769]You forget about Anarcho-Capitalists (the extreme end of Libertarianism). The two groups share similar, anti-government beliefs, and their only difference is that Anarcho-Communists do not accept the concept of private property.[/QUOTE]
how does that work
anarchism means to have a society without states as political units
even the concept of property (let alone a developed legal system for property rights) doesn't really exist in stateless societies
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49961845]Thinking anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate way to form society. I'm sorry, but you completely lost me there. Your last sentence literally disproved the point you were trying to make in "Edgy kids who hate cops" by the way. [B]Also, Libertarians and Anarcho capitalist are not liberal in any sense of the word[/B]. They believe people choose can to enforce inequality at their own will and the government has no right to interfere. Capitalism is an inherently unequal system and inequality goes against the idea of any left leaning principles. Have you taken a single sociology or economics class in your life?[/QUOTE]
You're wasting your time trying to paint broad strokes when libertarians have an extremely wide ranging set of ideals that varies from person to person. I've got a good friend that identifies as Libertarian Socialist which from my experience draws MANY parallels to anarchism. He is pretty liberal in many regards, hell I am too in some ways.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49961055]Remember that nobody is forced to accept a contract. There is always the option to say no, and leave things as they were before, with no net change. From this we can deduce that a voluntary contract is only made when both parties believe they have something to gain from it, and that something is acceptable to them. Sure, one of the two parties may gain [I]more[/I], but that is up to the two to decide and nobody else.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you spent half a minute looking the term up before posting, because it's clear you don't know what it means.
One of the most important aspects of Unconscionability that's relevant to the argument here is that in addition to terms and conditions that are unjust, there is a lack of a realistic or reasonable alternative for the weaker bargaining party. Which is an issue that used to come up frequently for unskilled workers in employments contracts. Generally it came down to a choice between selling your labor at an incredibly deflated value while working in inhumane conditions, or living on the streets and eating out of trash cans. That's why we have labor laws that protect workers today.
Anarcho communists might be living in a pipe dream, but even they have to good sense to realize the hypocrisy of calling a free market free when you don't have the option to not participate in it.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49961055]The biggest problem in such a contract is information asymmetry, but because no party is obligated to sign the contract, they can simply refuse if they are not satisfied with the information at hand. Hidden terms and complex language can be taken care of by lawyers, as they have for centuries. If, even after being given every chance to make the most of a deal, somebody fails, then that is one of the risks of doing business.[/QUOTE]
Lawyers aren't cheap. What if I'm too poor to afford a lawyer for every contract that I have to sign? I guess i'm shit out of luck then huh. You see, in the current system we have now there's a reasonable expectation on the part of the strongest bargaining party that they make sure the weaker bargaining party is able to know what they're signing up for. And if they hide harsh and unreasonable clauses within the contract using obfuscating language, that's grounds for having the contract dismissed in court.
Not in your system though.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49958911]More than 60% of GOP primary votes so far have been cast for candidates other than Trump - he has support from a plurality of GOP voters, not a majority.[/QUOTE]
But all those candidates are dropping out. Of course no one is going to have a majority when there's 50 people to choose from, but now that it's down to a 2 man race (and Kasich I guess), if he wins it's because a majority of republican voters support him instead of Cruz.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49958922]No democratic voter is going to swing to Trump. They only have two candidates and once Bernie loses they will be united behind Hillary.[/QUOTE]
a lot of bernie supporters would go third party or not vote rather than vote for hillary
[QUOTE=butre;49962412]a lot of bernie supporters would go third party or not vote rather than vote for hillary[/QUOTE]
Really wish people would back this claim up with evidence.
Everyone keeps saying "a lot of Bernie supporters won't vote for Clinton", whether it be not voting or insanely voting for Trump.
Citation?
How much is "a lot"?
Is it enough to actually swing the election? (probably not)
This isn't just to your post, but to every one who blabs out this in every election thread for the past month
[editline]18th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49961845] Also, Libertarians and Anarcho capitalist are not liberal in any sense of the word. [/QUOTE]
I'm [I]very[/I] curious to understand what your definition of "liberal" is.
I think most Sanders voters who swap to Trump want an "outsider", don't really know or care what an "outsider" is, and are (likely) such a small minority that it won't affect the race in any meaningful way.
Going from Sanders to Trump is such a stupidly large swing of political ideology, that the person in question likely doesn't even care about the ideas they represent.
[QUOTE=Tsyolin;49962239]You're wasting your time trying to paint broad strokes when libertarians have an extremely wide ranging set of ideals that varies from person to person. I've got a good friend that identifies as Libertarian Socialist which from my experience draws MANY parallels to anarchism. He is pretty liberal in many regards, hell I am too in some ways.[/QUOTE]
I clearly mean a very specific set of beliefs when I say libertarian, as in the United States definition of the word. Like Liberal, Libertarian has different meanings in other parts of the world. So think the likes of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, etc. when I say libertarian.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49962794]Really wish people would back this claim up with evidence.
Everyone keeps saying "a lot of Bernie supporters won't vote for Clinton", whether it be not voting or insanely voting for Trump.
Citation?
How much is "a lot"?
Is it enough to actually swing the election? (probably not)
This isn't just to your post, but to every one who blabs out this in every election thread for the past month
[editline]18th March 2016[/editline]
I'm [I]very[/I] curious to understand what your definition of "liberal" is.[/QUOTE]
the only way to back it up is through personal experience with sanders supporters. everyone I know is either trump, sanders, cruz, or hillary, and the trump voters would happily vote for cruz if it came to it while the sanders voters would absolutely not vote for hillary. I know a lot of people who say they'll write in sanders if hillary won the primaries
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49962794]Really wish people would back this claim up with evidence.
Everyone keeps saying "a lot of Bernie supporters won't vote for Clinton", whether it be not voting or insanely voting for Trump.
Citation?
How much is "a lot"?
Is it enough to actually swing the election? (probably not)
This isn't just to your post, but to every one who blabs out this in every election thread for the past month
[/QUOTE]
Only stats I can find for just Democrats is from [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-still-leads-democratic-race/]October[/url], says 14% of Democratic primary voters would not support Clinton in the general election, with only around half having enthusiastic support for her. Who knows what impact the Republican nominee would have on those numbers though, or the debates, etc...
Her [url=http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating]favorability rating[/url] among all voters is at ~41%, but [url=http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating]Trump's[/url] is at ~33%, so.
[url=http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating]Sanders[/url] and [url=http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/john-kasich-favorable-rating]Kasich[/url] are the only two who have positive Favorability ratings, how does it even work that the two least favorable candidates are winning.
[QUOTE=rilez;49962872]I think most Sanders voters who swap to Trump want an "outsider", don't really know or care what an "outsider" is, and are (likely) such a small minority that it won't affect the race in any meaningful way.
Going from Sanders to Trump is such a stupidly large swing of political ideology, that the person in question likely doesn't even care about the ideas they represent.[/QUOTE]
when your options are 'gamble on the only other non-establishment candidate' or carry on the status quo and have another clinton presidency (which was -terrible-, if you care to remember), im not surprised the switch would happen.
i dont think thatll be a big margin of people though. What i think will give trump the edge is the amount of people who will abstain from voting if sanders berns out, which is the responsible thing to do if youre against clinton
If you are that hardcore of a Sanders supporter, then just vote for Jill stein. She is super close to Bernie in her political views.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49964762]Voting third party in this election is literally the worst thing you could do, you're practically voting for Trump.[/QUOTE]
This is bullshit. People should vote how they want, now how the majority are voting. That defies the whole damn point.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49964762]Voting third party in this election is literally the worst thing you could do, you're practically voting for Trump.[/QUOTE]
I'm voting for the candidate I'm voting for. If the DNC wanted my vote they'd nominate Sanders, otherwise I'm going to continue voting for third parties. I'm not going to be owned or bullied by the GOP or DNC into backing a total farce of a candidate.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49964866]That defies the whole damn point.[/QUOTE]
does it, though
isn't the point voting in your best interests
you're getting more representation of your ideals by voting on someone who actually has a chance, even if they're not your ideal candidate
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49964999]does it, though
isn't the point voting in your best interests
you're getting more representation of your ideals by voting on someone who actually has a chance, even if they're not your ideal candidate[/QUOTE]
And if neither of the big parties are no were close to "ideal", what then?
If everyone votes for the non ideal person, simply because they're there, then we're just electing into office year after year people that no one cares or likes but only put there because "they might win, so they should win".
[editline]19th March 2016[/editline]
I feel as if people angry that some are voting third party are simply playing the "if you're not with me, you're against me" mentality and need to realize that the world is not so black and white.
It's not as if those voting third party will be substantial enough to rock the election, what does everyone fear of them not voting for [I]your[/I] party?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49965038]You're not accomplishing anything by voting third party in the US, you're not even sending a message, you might as well not vote.[/QUOTE]
And here get to the predictive "if you're not voting for my party and there's nothing to persuade you to, then just don't vote at all" phase of the "third parties suck" crowd.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49964866]This is bullshit. People should vote how they want, now how the majority are voting. That defies the whole damn point.[/QUOTE]
But we have a shitty system that we have to either work in, or disrupt. Which is actually one thing I'm interested in trump for, though currently I still plan to go hillary if bernie doesn't get the nomination, he does want to reform the election process a good bit.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49965011]And if neither of the big parties are no were close to "ideal", what then?
If everyone votes for the non ideal person, simply because they're there, then we're just electing into office year after year people that no one cares or likes but only put there because "they might win, so they should win".
[editline]19th March 2016[/editline]
I feel as if people angry that some are voting third party are simply playing the "if you're not with me, you're against me" mentality and need to realize that the world is not so black and white.
It's not as if those voting third party will be substantial enough to rock the election, what does everyone fear of them not voting for [I]your[/I] party?[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're completely misrepresenting things and you know it
I'm not talking about electing "people no one cares about or likes". I'm talking about electing people that [I]best[/I] represent your interests which makes it pretty fucking clear I'm going on about candidates you like to a certain degree, not random losers just because they're from your party.
Don't reduce my argument to nothing but "they might win so they should win" then give me this "the world is not black and white" bullshit. Real ironic
I am quite puzzled though, if voting third party is so pointless because so relatively few people will do it, then why some of you here so upset by those doing it?
If we're not a threat, then what's the concern? After all, we're just "throwing our vote away", and not really counting either way?
[editline]19th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49965064]Yeah you're completely misrepresenting things and you know it
I'm not talking about electing "people no one cares about or likes". I'm talking about electing people that [I]best[/I] represent your interests which makes it pretty fucking clear I'm going on about candidates you like to a certain degree, not random losers just because they're from your party.
Don't reduce my argument to nothing but "they might win so they should win" then give me this "the world is not black and white" bullshit. Real ironic[/QUOTE]
I don't like Trump or Clinton to any degree, though? Some others here have posted the same as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.