Eviora

It's less about chances to win in the fall and more about wanting the most disgusting candidate to lose. I'd feel safer with Kasich than Trump, even though he's projected to beat Hillary. This has pretty much become an election where I can only afford to care about one issue. Root for one bigot to keep out another. There's nothing *not* sad about that. Like I said. Seriously considering Canada. Or some other options.

Looking at the numbers, if Trump completely sweeps California (winner take most, so he'll probably only take... most) and NJ (winner takes all) then he's a bit over 60 delegates short of the nomination. It looks like there are 4 proportional states left. If he can take about 33% of the delegates from those and like any other winner take all/most state, he's going to be very close to (if not over) the threshold. I believe polling suggests he's overwhelmingly ahead in California, so if he takes Indiana he may all but win then and there. It's pretty sad that I'm rooting for Trump to win the nomination...

But it could be that the will of the people is split in such a way that no one actually has 50%+ of the vote. Using delegates instead of voters could result in choosing a candidate with a lower than optimal percentage of the people's vote.

...But all that writing ignores the hypocrisy that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. And a lot of what you said is flawed logic, besides. The winner on the second vote may represent the majority of delegates but not the majority of voters. Not particularly helpful.

If current polling is to be bought, BigoTed winning the nomination also hands Hillary the presidency. You didn't prove anything to do with the will of the people mathematically. You just proved that the already known number was the smallest integer greater than 50% of the delegates. Your conception of "the will of the people" is too closely tied to a strict majority. If Trump has exactly 50% of the delegates, BigoTed has 40%, and Kasich has 10% (I'm just making these numbers up to illustrate my point), then Trump still represents the will of a significantly larger percentage of voters. (Assuming the delegate distribution process is reflective of the will of the people at all.) If the vote goes to the second round and the delegates just do whatever with no regards to how their state voted, then those votes were all essentially meaningless. The system is fundamentally broken to favor insiders over voters, and the guy who always rants about insiders is the one exploiting that fact rather than trying to expand his voter base everywhere he can. It may be effective politics, but it's just more hypocrisy coming from one of the most toxic politicians I've ever seen.

Bernie is trying to win the nomination by getting lots of people to vote for him. I see no reason why he should be forced to drop out just because he's behind. Super delegates are undemocratic nonsense that he just has to work with. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see him go if he does poorly tonight. On the other hand, the scumbag you're so eager to defend has made the will of people the basis of his campaign and is now trying to circumvent it. Let the people decide on (and vote out) Supreme Courst justices, he says, but when he's the one losing the vote, he behaves like the snake he is and makes deals with delegates to avoid being eliminated. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. That sounds like legal corruption. Even if some good presidents did the same, that doesn't justify it. Sometimes, the ends really don't justify the means. Especially when the ends are also terrible.

Unless Trump loses the first vote and BigoTed's shady dealings with delegates help him in the second. Then the will of the people counts for precisely nothing. So much for democracy.

Oh, look. Kasich and BigoTed are trying to undermine the primary voting process. So much for the will of the people. Politicians are prone to hypocrisy, but I don't think I've ever been so disgusted by one before. Trump has every reason to stay in the race even if he loses the nomination - to spite the party that ganged up on him, if nothing else. I think it's time to start seriously looking into moving to Canada.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.