Support NeoGAF

[Holmes]

why are 43% supporting a gun nut after what happened in Newtown?

New England is his strongest region in the country. He's getting a lot of white support there. Clinton is winning because of olds and non-whites, and there's enough of it in the Connecticut Dem electorate to put her over the top, just like in Massachusetts.

 

[Macho Madness]

New England is his strongest region in the country. He's getting a lot of white support there. Clinton is winning because of olds and non-whites, and there's enough of it in the Connecticut Dem electorate to put her over the top, just like in Massachusetts.

I'd say his strongest area is the Pacific Northwest (outside of Vermont but that's cheating)

There just aren't many states out there.

 

[Holmes]

I'd say his strongest area is the Pacific Northwest (outside of Vermont but that's cheating)

There just aren't many states out there.

I would say it's upper New England, but it's hard to really compare because Washington was a caucus, along with Maine, and Oregon will be a closed primary, compared to Vermont and New Hampshire which were open to indies.

 

[Macho Madness]

I like the mini Q&As that Chris Hayes does on Facebook:

Sam Raskin: Do you see the potential for a Trump like figure in the Democratic Party? A celebrity a plurality of Dem primary voters love but is unacceptable to party leaders? If so, what issues would he or she run on? It may be that the Democratic Party is that much more in tune with how its base feels that this scenario isn't likely to occur anytime soon, but it's an interesting thought experiment and possibly a useful one, so a celebrity with little policy knowledge or attention doesn't take over the party like its possible Trump does.

Chris Hayes: I've been somewhat obsessed with this thought experiment throughout this campaign: what would a Democratic version of Trump look like? The short answer is that I don't see it happening, due to some powerful structural differences between the two parties. That said, I think the closest I could come to a similar figure would be... Kanye West? I mean, the guy is unquestionably talented, and brilliant in his own crazy way. Would he be able to win 40% of D primary voters? I doubt it. Maybe there's a better example that I'm missing

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I would say it's upper New England, but it's hard to really compare because Washington was a caucus, along with Maine, and Oregon will be a closed primary, compared to Vermont and New Hampshire which were open to indies.

I have to agree that it's the Pacific Northwest. Maybe I'm biased because I live in Oregon and I'm getting sick of all the Bernie bumper stickers, but look at the margins he scored in the Northeast compared to the Northwest: apart from Vermont (his homestate), he got slightly under 2:1 in New Hampshire and Maine and lost Massachusetts. Compare that to over 3:1 in Idaho and nearly 3:1 Washington, with Oregon poised to do similar numbers.

 

[TyrantII]

New England is his strongest region in the country. He's getting a lot of white support there. Clinton is winning because of olds and non-whites, and there's enough of it in the Connecticut Dem electorate to put her over the top, just like in Massachusetts.

You do realize Massachusetts is the college capital of New England, right?

Clinton won every demo just about in Massachusetts. She only lost the youngest demo, those without bachlor degrees and lower, and white men.

She won those with bachlor degrees and crushed in those with Master degrees. She also won the 25-45 demo.

 

[VendettaRed07]

why are 43% supporting a gun nut after what happened in Newtown?

There's a couple factors here. It's probably safe to safe CT is the most pro gun control state in the country especially recently. But it's still New England and the liberals that are here are very liberal. Also Connecticut is one of the worst performing economies right now, I think the frustration people feel here is similar to Michigan in regards to the state losing jobs and also the young people are moving out at an alarming rate.

A positive for Hillary is also that the young people are moving out so they aren't here to vote anymore. The gun issue will resonate a lot with voters, plus CT has the highest minority population in New England; although relatively it's still small it's more of a factor here than other New England states

There's a lot working for and against both but I think Hillary will ultimately win.

 

[hawk2025]

You do realize Massachusetts is the college capital of New England, right?

Clinton won every demo just about in Massachusetts. She only lost the youngest demo, those without bachlor degrees and lower, and white men.

She won those with bachlor degrees and crushed in those with Master degrees. She also won the 25-45 demo.

I think there might be a gap in support if we were able to break that down.

Do we have any polls (from MA or elsewhere) that considers post-graduate degrees?

 

[User 463088]

I think there might be a gap in support if we were able to break that down.

Do we have any polls (from MA or elsewhere) that considers post-graduate degrees?

Most exit polling has that data.

 

[hawk2025]

Most exit polling has that data.

And does that hold?

Do post-grads support Clinton more than Sanders, typically?

 

[eBay Huckster]

iirc postgrads are either her first or second-best educational demographic

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Things to remember about the guy that the GOPe has settled on:

-Wants to reinstate the Gold Standard, probably leading to a massive recession.
-Wants to raise taxes on the poor and seniors to cut taxes nearly to zero for the rich.
-Wants to blow up the debt by $12T while balancing the budget.
-Wants to monitor Muslim communities
-Wants to make it impossible for raped women to get abortions
-May or may not want to nuke the Middle East
-Extremely pro war crimes
-Wanted the U.S. to default on its debt and destroy the world economy to prove a point
-Shut down the government over an attempt to prop himself up and throw all of his colleagues under the bus, pretending that he could defend Obamacare if it just had more support from the RINOs.
-Supports Auditing the Fed to undermine its independence if he doesn't destroy the economy via the Gold Standard.
-Wants to end Affirmative Action
-Loves Jesse Helms
-Believes liberals are fascists for thinking that gay people are human beings
-Loves Sisi
-Wants to build a wall across the Mexican border
-Wants to deport 11 million people
-Wants to rip up the Iran deal
-Wants to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem
-Friends with Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is on trial for slander.
-Has foreign policy adviser who believes Obama is a Muslim.
-Friend with pastor who will probably murder several gay men soon.
-And he's just fucking crazy: http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-push-for-mandatory-gay-marriage-6278493.php



This is the guy that the GOPe had to settle on.

 

[ivysaur12]

There's a couple factors here. It's probably safe to safe CT is the most pro gun control state in the country especially recently. But it's still New England and the liberals that are here are very liberal. Also Connecticut is one of the worst performing economies right now, I think the frustration people feel here is similar to Michigan in regards to the state losing jobs and also the young people are moving out at an alarming rate.

A positive for Hillary is also that the young people are moving out so they aren't here to vote anymore. The gun issue will resonate a lot with voters, plus CT has the highest minority population in New England; although relatively it's still small it's more of a factor here than other New England states

There's a lot working for and against both but I think Hillary will ultimately win.

Agreed. There are no bastion of young voters in CT outside of Storrs, New Haven, and Stamford. There are some now in the Greater Hartford area, weirdly, since West Hartford is such a Hot Spot for the Youth, but there's just no base of support.

Also -- you can't win Fairfield County while shitting on the financial industry. Sorry.

 

[Wilsongt]

Things to remember about the guy that the GOPe has settled on:

-Wants to reinstate the Gold Standard, probably leading to a massive recession.
-Wants to raise taxes on the poor and seniors to cut taxes nearly to zero for the rich.
-Wants to blow up the debt by $12T while balancing the budget.
-Wants to monitor Muslim communities
-Wants to make it impossible for raped women to get abortions
-May or may not want to nuke the Middle East
-Extremely pro war crimes
-Wanted the U.S. to default on its debt and destroy the world economy to prove a point
-Shut down the government over an attempt to prop himself up and throw all of his colleagues under the bus, pretending that he could defend Obamacare if it just had more support from the RINOs.
-Supports Auditing the Fed to undermine its independence if he doesn't destroy the economy via the Gold Standard.
-Wants to end Affirmative Action
-Loves Jesse Helms
-Believes liberals are fascists for thinking that gay people are human beings
-Loves Sisi
-Wants to build a wall across the Mexican border
-Wants to deport 11 million people
-Wants to rip up the Iran deal
-Wants to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem
-Friends with Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is on trial for slander.
-Has foreign policy adviser who believes Obama is a Muslim.
-Friend with pastor who will probably murder several gay men soon.
-And he's just fucking crazy: http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-push-for-mandatory-gay-marriage-6278493.php



This is the guy that the GOPe had to settle on.

You just described half of the people running for the GOP nom. I'mma need you to be a bit more specific.

 

[Crayons]

You just described half of the people running for the GOP nom. I'mma need you to be a bit more specific.

I know you're joking but Cruz is really bad. Cruz is so bad that he makes Romney and McCain look progressive

 

[Jack Remington]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/merrick-garland-senate-grassley-meeting-221829

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s breakfast summit with Merrick Garland came and went Tuesday — with no change at all to the Iowa Republican’s stance that hearings should not be held for the Supreme Court nominee this year.

Grassley, whose powerful committee oversees all judicial nominations, dined on oatmeal as he stressed to Garland that the GOP-controlled Senate wouldn’t change its position on Garland this year. Following the meeting, the senator snuck out of the Senate Dining Room, avoiding the pack of reporters who had gathered outside.

“The meeting was cordial and pleasant,” according to a readout from Grassley’s office. “As he indicated last week, Grassley explained why the Senate won’t be moving forward during this hyper-partisan election year. Grassley thanked Judge Garland for his service.”

This scumbag is sticking to his guns. I honestly hope this opens him up to a loss in the Iowa Senate race, because this is one of the most indefensible political acts of my lifetime, if not the most indefensible.

Honestly, more than any of the other BS I've seen in the last few years, this Supreme Court fight has destroyed my faith that this country can be governed sustainably in the long run. I'm not sure we can come back from this. If a Republican wins in November and appoints the replacement next year, we are not coming back from this until every current Democrat is dead and the issue is gone from living memory. Liberals will never forget their president being denied a Supreme Court appointment to a seat that opened up during his presidency. There will be all-out war between the parties for a long, long time.

 

[Cybit]

Caucuses are shit and undemocratic in general. This of all things is the least of the problems.

Indeed. We are not that far removed from smoke-filled backrooms coming up with nominees. The primary process isn't really intended to be completely democratic. It's intended to be "democratic enough so people don't get upset when we pick the person we want to / let the party leaders know whether there is someone they should be considering that they were missing".

Sanders and Clinton are just a couple of years apart?

I think much of Sanders' appeal to younger voters is that his policies represent (to younger voters) the same kinds of sacrifices that the Baby Boomers got from their parents in terms of tax burden and policies. When you look at the federal and state funding (percentage wise) in the 60s for education as well as job training and infrastructure building (which led to many jobs) versus modern (80s and onward) policies, it's pretty easy (and fairly accurate) to accuse the Baby Boomers of more or less putting the screws to the tail end of Gen X / Millenials and then having the nerve to call them entitled.

Aside: IMO, I primarily blame Reagan and GWB for most of the bad moves (aka; nuking taxes and believing trickle-down worked) - but NAFTA / open trade policies do seem to have had the effect of hurting the middle class American economy (at the benefit of massively improving hundreds of millions of lives around the world, to be perfectly fair to everyone involved). But I think Clinton (somewhat unfairly) gets tagged in the "old people effed us and then called us entitled" camp, while Bernie legitimately gets a pass due to his policy proposals. Every time Clinton dismisses younger voters for being "dumb" or "blinded by free stuff" - it just reinforces that belief.

I think because of that (and his Iraq vote), he gets a pass as opposed to other politicians.

I think that the outsider aspect of Trump and Sanders is being dismissed for the wrong reasons (primarily because it would require an honest look at our political process, and whether it is inherently corrupting) - but that's neither here or there.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Bernie 2016!

(did not read article just hope its true)

I'm pretty sure the author is writing straight trollbait at this point, lol.

Saying "I'm going to continue and expand the policies of our current popular President" isn't hiding behind anything; this line of attack is just bizarre, the implications being you're somehow a mendacious opportunist if you don't rashly attack the existing policies and structures of your party (what's the point of a party then, if you don't share ideals and policies?). I just hate primary time, it brings out the nuttiness in everyone.

It's not just primary time - it's the idea that everything is black and white, us vs them, polarizing. The primaries are just the current venue for that war.

Horse races mean ratings.

Blowout in the Dem race just means more Trump Coverage.

Yep!

Obama is just chomping at the bit to get back out on the campaign trail isn't he?

Yeah. My FB feed is full of old Obama-stans who've been ramped up for a while now, grousing about Sanders not dropping out yet and about Clinton being unable to finish him off. Obama's probably chomping at the bit to let loose on Trump.

 

[hawk2025]

iirc postgrads are either her first or second-best educational demographic

Very interesting.


And lol, Cruz is a goldbug on top of everything? How did I miss this?

 

[Anoregon]

Can someone tell me what the whole "GOPe" thing is?

 

[RastaMentality]

Can someone tell me what the whole "GOPe" thing is?

The establishment. Dun dun dunnnn

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sanders has been done for all intents and purposes since March 1st and arguably even more since March 15th. The Proportionality makes it impossible for Hillary to "put it away" mathematically until June 7th which allows Sanders to keep running on his message.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Can someone tell me what the whole "GOPe" thing is?

Stands for GOP Establishment or Elite

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Probable Democrat ad:

"Meet the new leader of the Republicans *picture of Ted Cruz*
McCain: 'He's the King of the Cuckoo Birds'
*Cruz mandatory gay marriage comments*
Frank Gaffney: 'Barack Obama is the first Muslim president.'
*Glenn Beck acting crazy video*
*Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham to shut down the U.S. government video*"

Trump or Cruz is really such a win-win for the Democrats.

 

[studyguy]

Paul Ryan will save us D:

Spoiler

ayyy lmao having to give a formal speech to make sure people are aware how much you don't want to deal with their shit lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/merrick-garland-senate-grassley-meeting-221829



This scumbag is sticking to his guns. I honestly hope this opens him up to a loss in the Iowa Senate race, because this is one of the most indefensible political acts of my lifetime, if not the most indefensible.

Honestly, more than any of the other BS I've seen in the last few years, this Supreme Court fight has destroyed my faith that this country can be governed sustainably in the long run. I'm not sure we can come back from this. If a Republican wins in November and appoints the replacement next year, we are not coming back from this until every current Democrat is dead and the issue is gone from living memory. Liberals will never forget their president being denied a Supreme Court appointment to a seat that opened up during his presidency. There will be all-out war between the parties for a long, long time.

Yup.

I feel as if had this happened under Bush, Democrats would have hemmed and hawed initially but eventually agreed to hold hearings for a nominee.

I'm going to be a little annoyed if they try to rush him through after the election tbh. These hearings usually take a while right? And the Senate is only in session for a few weeks during the lame duck period. It would be irresponsible, but in the other way.

On the other hand it would be nice for Obama's legacy to let him be the one to flip the Court. I guess he could always renominate Garland (or someone else) in his last two weeks when Democrats hold the Senate and just let the process take its time, even if it weren't finalized until Clinton was president.

 

[RastaMentality]

Why does Ryan have ads made about him unifying the country?

 

[Tesseract]

iirc postgrads are either her first or second-best educational demographic

unfortunate, this. reeks of i got mine, memories of the tax hike thread are firing

my fellows disappoint me, but that writing has been on the wall for a while

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Things to remember about the guy that the GOPe has settled on:

-Wants to reinstate the Gold Standard, probably leading to a massive recession.
-Wants to raise taxes on the poor and seniors to cut taxes nearly to zero for the rich.
-Wants to blow up the debt by $12T while balancing the budget.
-Wants to monitor Muslim communities
-Wants to make it impossible for raped women to get abortions
-May or may not want to nuke the Middle East
-Extremely pro war crimes
-Wanted the U.S. to default on its debt and destroy the world economy to prove a point
-Shut down the government over an attempt to prop himself up and throw all of his colleagues under the bus, pretending that he could defend Obamacare if it just had more support from the RINOs.
-Supports Auditing the Fed to undermine its independence if he doesn't destroy the economy via the Gold Standard.
-Wants to end Affirmative Action
-Loves Jesse Helms
-Believes liberals are fascists for thinking that gay people are human beings
-Loves Sisi
-Wants to build a wall across the Mexican border
-Wants to deport 11 million people
-Wants to rip up the Iran deal
-Wants to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem
-Friends with Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is on trial for slander.
-Has foreign policy adviser who believes Obama is a Muslim.
-Friend with pastor who will probably murder several gay men soon.
-And he's just fucking crazy: http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-push-for-mandatory-gay-marriage-6278493.php



This is the guy that the GOPe had to settle on.

I know, I have to LOL at the notion that Ted Cruz is somehow an improvement. I think I'd actually prefer a Trump presidency because at least A) it would probably be at least sometimes entertaining, amidst all the scary craziness, B) his obsession with making deals he can parade before his constituents would probably water down some of the crazy, whereas Lyin' Ted prides himself on being an inflexible hardliner, C) he has a history of social liberalism on at least some issues, and the conservative social shit he's more recently come to I think would be the first stuff under the bus if it came to making deals, and D) he comes to a cogent point every so often, like that debate where he went in on the stupidity of the Iraq War and Bush's failure to stop 9/11. He knows next to nothing about governance, and the shit he COULD implement (stepping up deportations, banning Muslims) even without Congressional approval would be truly reprehensible, but he's at least a wild card where you can say that it's hard to know how his presidency would actually look, and maybe some of his advisers would inadvertently set him up for decent policy on at least a few things. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, understands government very well, has a sweeping, well-detailed vision of how to fuck it up, and is such an underhanded slimeball that he'd probably figure out a way to get a ton of that shit through Congress.

 

[User 463088]

Very interesting.


And lol, Cruz is a goldbug on top of everything? How did I miss this?

Sorry. I didn't know you wanted a break down, just wanted to know if they tracked that.

I looked at a few states that were relatively close:

Massachusetts-Post graduate people made up 35% of the electorate, she won them 58/41.
Illinois: Post graduate people made up 21% of the electorate, she won them 56/43.
Michigan: Post graduate people made up 20% of the electorate, she won them 57/42.
Oklahoma: Post graduate people made up 23% of the electorate, she won them 52/47.

And even in New Hampshire, she only lost them by 3, even though she got blown out among every other "educated" group.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why does Ryan have ads made about him unifying the country?

Because he's definitely not running for president wink wink nudge nudge

 

[studyguy]

Why does Ryan have ads made about him unifying the country?

Gotta set yourself up for 2020 or further down the road

 

[Aaron Strife]

Gotta set yourself up for 2020 or further down the road

Seems like Speaker of the House is a pretty toxic position to run for president from.

 

[Tesseract]

ryan will never be president, diamond joe (ass, cash, grass) made paul out to be a little man baby liar in their debate.

greatest night, that was.

 

[Jack Remington]

Yup.

I feel as if had this happened under Bush, Democrats would have hemmed and hawed initially but eventually agreed to hold hearings for a nominee.

I'm going to be a little annoyed if they try to rush him through after the election tbh. These hearings usually take a while right? And the Senate is only in session for a few weeks during the lame duck period. It would be irresponsible, but in the other way.

On the other hand it would be nice for Obama's legacy to let him be the one to flip the Court. I guess he could always renominate Garland (or someone else) in his last two weeks when Democrats hold the Senate and just let the process take its time, even if it weren't finalized until Clinton was president.

Say if David Souter had dropped dead in February 2008?

Democrats would have done the proper thing, which would be to try to get the left-most nominee they possibly could. We'd probably have ended up with another Anthony Kennedy type, which honestly would be the best Democrats could reasonably expect in that situation.

Underlying all of this is the fact that it would have been unthinkable to deliberately leave a Supreme Court seat open for 15 months or so. All of that changed when Republicans decided it wasn't so unthinkable after all. We're really in uncharted territory (yes, I know something like this happened pre-Civil War, but it's not a good sign if you have to reach back to the decade leading up to the Civil War to find a precedent for something).


In a way it reminds me of the debt ceiling debacle. The universal assumption prior to 2011 was, "We can't just default." Then you get some people in office who say, "Well actually, we can!", and everything changes.

 

[Ecotic]

Ryan is in effect running a separate national campaign to keep Republicans in control of Congress.

 

[NeoXChaos]

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ryan is in effect running a separate national campaign to keep Republicans in control of Congress.

Good luck to him on that. His party is only in power because of gerrymandering and weak midterm turnout. There's not really an easy solution to the latter, but if liberals get a fifth justice on the Supreme Court then gerrymandering could be a thing of the past:

An important new redistricting lawsuit in Wisconsin just cleared a major hurdle by surviving a motion for summary judgment and will now head to trial. The suit raises an argument that has been made many times before but without success: that election districts were drawn with the improper aim of maximizing one side's partisan advantage. In this case, the plaintiffs, a group of Democrats, have alleged that Wisconsin Republicans unfairly gerrymandered the state's legislative maps to benefit the GOP.

Every such case in the past that has made similar claims has ultimately failed because the Supreme Court (or more specifically, Justice Anthony Kennedy) has ruled that there's no manageable standard for judging when a partisan gerrymander is impermissible. But here, plaintiffs are relying on a new metric known as the "efficiency gap," a very compelling approach its creators describe thusly:

The efficiency gap is simply the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are ballots that don’t contribute to victory for candidates, and they come in two forms: lost votes cast for candidates who are defeated, and surplus votes cast for winning candidates but in excess of what they needed to prevail. When a party gerrymanders a state, it tries to maximize the wasted votes for the opposing party while minimizing its own, thus producing a large efficiency gap. In a state with perfect partisan symmetry, both parties would have the same number of wasted votes.

Put more concretely, every time a Republican legislator or member of Congress wins with 55 percent of the vote but a Democrat in the same state wins with 85 percent, far more votes are "wasted" on behalf of the Democrat—exactly what Republican cartographers want, and exactly what they’ve achieved in Wisconsin, where the GOP holds 62 percent of seats in the legislature even though Barack Obama carried the state twice.

Unlike other proposals, this test can be rigorously and empirically applied to any map, and now plaintiffs will have the chance to make their case in court. And should this dispute eventually reach the Supreme Court, it's quite possible that Justice Kennedy will finally find that the efficiency gap is a partisan gerrymandering standard he can love. But even if he doesn't, if a fifth liberal justice joins the court and finds this approach workable, it'll be a whole new day in redistricting jurisprudence, and a massive flood of lawsuits will follow.

Needless to say this would also work to undo Democratic gerrymanders in Illinois and Maryland but that's a worthy trade.

Would love it if the Court set some kind of precedence for this, forced fair maps, let the Democrats win a majority and pass a new Voting Rights Act that included some strict federal standard for redistricting. Along with no voter ID laws because fuck.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Ryan is in effect running a separate national campaign to keep Republicans in control of Congress.

That is strange. In today's age.. How effective is this going to be?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Maybe if he was running against Obama you'd have a point but he isn't.

You're right... he wanted that to happen in 2012

 

[NeoXChaos]

Good luck to him on that. His party is only in power because of gerrymandering and weak midterm turnout. There's not really an easy solution to the latter, but if liberals get a fifth justice on the Supreme Court then gerrymandering could be a thing of the past:


Needless to say this would also work to undo Democratic gerrymanders in Illinois and Maryland but that's a worthy trade.

Would love it if the Court set some kind of precedence for this, forced fair maps, let the Democrats win a majority and pass a new Voting Rights Act that included some strict federal standard for redistricting. Along with no voter ID laws because fuck.

Constitution will stop you soooo

 

[Metaphoreus]

If we're strictly talking electability and the effect on the downticket races, I think Trump is worse. But Cruz is actually the most far right candidate by far, even counting all of the previous contenders who have dropped out, so he's likely going to alienate moderates.

If we're speaking to the person's character? Cruz has no edge and might be worse overall. Trump will say anything to get votes, thus it's very hard to tell what he is actually thinking. Cruz on the other hand comes off as very honest and committed to his "principles", but that's not a good thing:

Carpet bombing advocacy
Associates with a pastor who wants to execute gays

Cruz has by far better character than Trump. Yes, Trump will say anything to get votes, and that shows he has no character. And what he says reveals he has no commitment to the Constitution--not even the parts that liberals sometimes like, such as the First and Fourth Amendments. He is also completely ignorant about most any topic of government policy, and shows no real desire to become informed on them.

Electorally, he would be a disaster, and not just for this cycle. If the Republican party nominates him, it would for a long time be known as the party that nominated Donald "Mexicans are rapists, women are objects, protesters should be attacked, the media should be silenced" Trump. Cruz may have been introduced by a speaker with horrendous views, but Trump is that guy. There's just no comparison.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Constitution will stop you soooo

Can't hurt to try.

VRA needs an update anyway, SCOTUS said the idea itself wasn't unconstitutional (plus that ruling likely would have gone differently if you'd subbed Garland in for Scalia)

 

[daedalius]

Newest ep of Sam Bee is amazingly awesome

Go watch it

 

[ivysaur12]

McCory signs an executive order that doesn't actually repeal the vindictive piece of shit law that he signed

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Cruz has by far better character than Trump. Yes, Trump will say anything to get votes, and that shows he has no character. And what he says reveals he has no commitment to the Constitution--not even the parts that liberals sometimes like, such as the First and Fourth Amendments. He is also completely ignorant about most any topic of government policy, and shows no real desire to become informed on them.

Electorally, he would be a disaster, and not just for this cycle. If the Republican party nominates him, it would for a long time be known as the party that nominated Donald "Mexicans are rapists, women are objects, protesters should be attacked, the media should be silenced" Trump. Cruz may have been introduced by a speaker with horrendous views, but Trump is that guy. There's just no comparison.

Cruz is clearly against the first amendment with threatening to suspend funding from schools that support BDS.

Cruz believes that all transgender women are mentally ill rapists.

I mean, these are mainstream GOP views, but they're still horrific.

 

[ivysaur12]

he has no commitment to the Constitution--not even the parts that liberals sometimes like, such as the First and Fourth Amendments.

Thank god for emojis, which can now accurately express a multitude of opinions in one picture!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Republicans are bold defenders of the 14th amendment though. So constitutional they are, wow.

 

[Wilsongt]

Thank god for emojis, which can now accurately express a multitude of opinions in one picture!

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

[Metaphoreus]

Cruz is clearly against the first amendment with threatening to suspend funding from schools that support BDS.

Money isn't speech, I heard.

Cruz believes that all transgender women are mentally ill rapists.

Source?

Thank god for emojis, which can now accurately express a multitude of opinions in one picture!

Hey, I said "sometimes."

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

That's right, threats from the state to silence political speech from minorities is very similar in intent.