1982

That hasn’t been true for a loooong time - you’re way out of date. Trump has had a big lead for a long time, with Carson running 2nd in Iowa, and everyone else way, way back. Walker was in 7th in the latest poll, and irrelevant in Iowa. That’s likely one of the main reasons he dropped.

1983

Well, it looks like it’s going to come down on the Republican side to some combination of Rubio, Fiorina and Jeb, and I’m o.k. with that.

Didn’t expect to be in this situation, but at this point I’d be o.k. with Romney showing up as a white Knight too.

1984

Off the cuff, yes, but they speak for our level of discourse.

Personally, I find the lack of empathy strange. If I can’t find something to like in a person, then my mind has failed me - or I simply haven’t tried hard enough.

I think Fiorina has made too many enemies over the course of her career. Her record will sink her. And Jeb, I don’t think he has the personality for it. Trumps criticisms have been spot on and they will be difficult to shake.

Rubio, I know little about.

1985

There is very little to like about Rubio’s political views. Yes, Rubio the man is younger and good looking, a decent speaker, but Rubio the politician would never get my vote.

1986

Well, did we really?
To me, the notion of “there isn’t anything I like about X” kind of creeps into the area of modern politics which has resulted in the mess we have today. Where politicians are viewed as abstract caricatures. Beyond policy disagreements into demonization of the people themselves, effectively precluding any sort of rational discussion or compromise on policy.

What’s resulted in the complete disfunction of government right now, is not simply a policy disagreement between Democrats and Republicans, but rather the fact that you have things like Republicans who believe that Obama is actually an evil man. And that feeling is based upon essentially nothing. He’s certainly not done anything I am aware of that would cast him as such to me. But because they view him as an abstract commodity, rather than a person, there is “nothing they like about him”. And without there being anything you like about someone, it’s difficult to actually engage that person and come to any sort of compromise.

“Not liking” someone in politics is generally a policy thing, unless they’re complete scumbags or nutjobs - and on the latter that often leads to policy things anyway.

Yeah, I think the problem is that this is no longer the case. There are politicians who I can really say there’s almost nothing I like about them. Ted Cruz comes to mind, as I feel he is ACTUALLY a bad person in many ways. And yet, even with him, there are things which suggest he’s more than the caricature he’s presented to the public.

1987

More on why Walker exited the race. It seems to be largely because he’s bad at math: he had a completely unsustainable 90 people on his campaign staff five months before the Iowa caucuses.

(So why couldn’t the Koch brothers or other billionaire angels keep him afloat? Because while Super PACs can pay for an infinite number of TV ads praising a candidate, they can’t pay for the campaign itself. That has to be paid out of the candidate’s own funds, and donations to that are capped at $2600 per person. And of course, unlike Trump, Walker has no money of his own to blow on the campaign.)

1988

Of course when I say I don’t like anything about X, when X is a politician I mean X’s policies and positions. If he was my brother-in-law there’s always the possibility I could find something else to like about him, but as a public figure it’s plainly obvious that his salient features are his stated positions on policy matters. And I’m not aware of a single one of those I approve of.

1989

Right here, quoted from his Wiki, is enough reason for me to dislike Rubio. He’s doing the exact same shit that Brian Williams, and Bill O’Reilly, and Steven Rannazzisi have done, and all got in trouble for it. He lied about his biography to aggrandize himself. I find that despicable. And then he bullshitted some more to try to explain it away.

"In October 2011, newspapers reported that Rubio’s previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect. His parents left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. According to The Washington Post, Rubio’s “embellishments” resonated with many voters in Florida, and the newspaper claimed they would be less impressed by his family being economic migrants instead of political refugees from a communist regime.[5] Rubio responded: “The real essence of my family’s story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here. The essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place, and why they had to stay.”[7]?

1990

I suppose that I never considered this forum as an extension of media, where in many corners that’s certainly the case. In those regions, politicians are villified, refugees are dehumanized, and insults to intelligence are deemed “righteous.” I always imagined QT3 as a water cooler type of place (or living room, as Tom once put it). When I say “I hate [random politician],” I expect that people here know that means I hate that person as a politician. Likewise, if I bash a publisher of video games, I’m not extrapolating it to a slam on every employee of the company. Certain things go unsaid amongst people who are familiar with each other.

Still, there’s a point to be made - how familiar are any of us with each other? I haven’t been to any of the QT3 hangouts. Most people here likely don’t know what I do for a living, while only some may know that I have a kid, what my religious views are, or have a notion as to what my political views might be. That’s not any kind of a slight nor is it a “why isn’t anyone paying attention to me?” whine. It’s just the nature of an online forum. The people I actually do talk to at work know those things, by and large. When someone pokes fun at Trump or Clinton, or expresses how much they hate Congress, I know that’s couched in the context of their personality and what they’ve said leading up to that statement. Here, it’s really easy to take these things in isolation.

I think about various TV blowhards when it comes to this dynamic. Most of us will admit that we occasionally rant about our favorite/least favorite topics from time to time (I normally do my rants while listening to the radio in the car). The biggest difference between us and the TV blowhards is that they get paid to do it on the air. However, that means that their persona is more of a charicature than a true reflection of who they are. I mean, some of those people should have had heart attacks by now if that’s how they were all the time. On here, we don’t share our whole lives. We pick the topics that we discuss, but that also means a whole lot of that personal context is missing.

Interestingly (to me), I think the ease with which we can mistake a tv (or internet) persona and all its attendant limitations with someone we know in person is part of what makes such venues so engaging; things are more focused, and that accommodates deeper discussions and contemplations.

1991

A lot of this has to do with the republican mindset as of the last few elections. Compromising with a democrat or agreeing to anything Obama says, even if you said it first, is worse than coming out as a homosexual muslim who hates gun for a republican. Then if Republicans lose, they always believe that it was because they weren’t far enough to the right which creates a… “loop of failure.”

Democrats, in my opinion don’t really do either of these things. Which is not to say that Democrats are pure & innocent, but from what i’ve seen they tend to be more open to working together than going Death or Glory on every single issue. I understand everyone has issues which they won’t budge on. The problem is that for republicans this is basically every issue ever. The other problem i have is Religious Law…

1992

In any event, i’m surprised people actually thought Carson had a chance.

  1. He has been saying a lot of Trump level things recently, only when Trump says it, he is in his Entertainer persona where as Carson is serious

  2. He minimized his Charisma during character creation

  3. In most of the debates i’ve seen, he comes off as the shy nerd trying to speak up at student council. This goes against everything we’ve been told about who does well in elections and results in poor debate performances. I can’t think of a single candidate on either side that i’m not confident would absolutely DESTROY him in a one on one debate on pretty much any issue. It might be a good way to get rid of trump though because after the debate they could accuse him of murder.

  4. Pushing it on the religious crazy meter, even for a republican

1993

I’ve never been so glad to be wrong about something as I was about Walker winning the nomination.

I expect it’s going to be one of Kasich, Rubio or Bush at this point with Bush being the least likely and maybe Kasich the most.

1994

Kasich is still running for VP, In my honest opinion. I just don’t think he has the momentum to put his name at the top of the ticket.

1995

Whereas he’s a very good choice to “level out” or “professional up” a [relative] kid like Rubio, a goofball like Bush, or a wackjob like Cruz/Trump. Anything to avoid another Palin-level Hindenberg.

1996

I think it’s more running for 2020. Hillary if she wins has a high shot of being a one-termer, and 20-yr elections really shape the next 20.

I almost want Trump to win just so he can fail and the Dems can succeed in 2020. I think this election is as bad for the winner as 88.

1997

That’s a sucker’s bet. In the last hundred years, only three incumbent presidents have lost reelection campaigns. And one of them had never run a national campaign before.

1998

-Extending the bush tax cuts
-Voted against the Violence against Women act
-Opposes Roe v. Wade
-Opposes legalization of marijuana and even medically if “it causes a high” (why is this inherently worse than alcohol getting someone drunk again?)
-Doesn’t believe humans contribute to climate change

Yeah, so what, exactly, am I supposed to like about Rubio? What are the “lots of things I could like about Rubio”? Because he can eloquently explain utterly deplorable, anti-science, unempathetic, and fiscally irresponsible positions on literally every single possible issue?

1999

Well how about the fact that he smells of cedarwood and spice and makes a damn fine baked lemongrass cod, you insensitive clod!

2000

Precisely.

2001

Bill O’Reilly supports Ben Carson’s statements on Muslims.

“It is downright sad watching the left-leaning media beat up all the Republican candidates because they don’t embrace the liberal PC litmus test,” Bill O’Reilly said at the start of his Fox News show yesterday. “Dr. Carson believing that Islamic tenets don’t line up Judeo-Christian philosophy on which the country was founded? And he is not allowed to say that? It’s his opinion. Well here’s a bulletin: unlike many Muslim countries, we have free speech in America. And Carson’s opinion shouldn’t disqualify him from anything but individual votes if that be the case. All of this PC fog has shrouded important issues.”