Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

2020 Republican Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

So, now that Bill Weld and Joe Walsh have announced that they will primary Trump, I believe this deserves its own thread - despite the fact that they are both extreme long shots. 

 

FWIW, I'd campaign for Bill Weld, I think he's a great guy and the Conservative I wish still existed en masse. 

 

Joe Walsh has said racist, xenophobic, and flat out stupid remarks in the past and, in many ways, he watered the soil from which Trump grew. Nonetheless, I have some thoughts I'd like to share about him. 

 

  1. If you refuse to support him because of the things he has said in the past, that's cool - He said some truly awful things, and sounded a lot like Trump earlier in his political career. He was also duped by Sacha Baron Cohen. So, if you refuse to get behind him for those reasons, I think it's totally rational and understand your reasoning for doing so. 
  2. He might be the perfect guy to lead some cultists out of the darkness - So, I don't think I could support Joe Walsh, I think I fall in the above-referenced camp. But I think there are compelling arguments to be made on the contrary. Both of my uncles by blood are alcoholics - and when my younger uncle finally admitted it, it was my older uncle who was his "sponsor" of sorts. He took him to the AA meetings, he could relate to the feelings and actions that alcoholism led to, he could reflect and look at what excessive drinking did to his psyche, his family, and his life. In that way, I think Walsh can reach a lot of Trump voters. He knows what they're feeling, he spewed the same venom, and he's now reflected and acknowledged and apologized for his words and actions. I'm aware that the people I am referring to are likely racist and "deplorable", but answer me this - is it better to leave these people alone than to target them with someone who once behaved like them and believed in Trump? I read a story the other day about a black police officer who convinced over a dozen men to leave the KKK, merely by befriending them. 

 

I still can't support Walsh, but I really hope he's as described in #2. 

 

As for substantive Conservative policy (which has become quite the oxymoron in 2019) - Weld is my guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

So, now that Bill Weld and Joe Walsh have announced that they will primary Trump, I believe this deserves its own thread - despite the fact that they are both extreme long shots. 

 

FWIW, I'd campaign for Bill Weld, I think he's a great guy and the Conservative I wish still existed en masse. 

 

Joe Walsh has said racist, xenophobic, and flat out stupid remarks in the past and, in many ways, he watered the soil from which Trump grew. Nonetheless, I have some thoughts I'd like to share about him. 

 

  1. If you refuse to support him because of the things he has said in the past, that's cool - He said some truly awful things, and sounded a lot like Trump earlier in his political career. He was also duped by Sacha Baron Cohen. So, if you refuse to get behind him for those reasons, I think it's totally rational and understand your reasoning for doing so. 
  2. He might be the perfect guy to lead some cultists out of the darkness - So, I don't think I could support Joe Walsh, I think I fall in the above-referenced camp. But I think there are compelling arguments to be made on the contrary. Both of my uncles by blood are alcoholics - and when my younger uncle finally admitted it, it was my older uncle who was his "sponsor" of sorts. He took him to the AA meetings, he could relate to the feelings and actions that alcoholism led to, he could reflect and look at what excessive drinking did to his psyche, his family, and his life. In that way, I think Walsh can reach a lot of Trump voters. He knows what they're feeling, he spewed the same venom, and he's now reflected and acknowledged and apologized for his words and actions. I'm aware that the people I am referring to are likely racist and "deplorable", but answer me this - is it better to leave these people alone than to target them with someone who once behaved like them and believed in Trump? I read a story the other day about a black police officer who convinced over a dozen men to leave the KKK, merely by befriending them. 

 

I still can't support Walsh, but I really hope he's as described in #2. 

 

As for substantive Conservative policy (which has become quite the oxymoron in 2019) - Weld is my guy. 

 

In terms of Joe Walsh, I just don't trust him to have actually changed at all.  I am totally okay with the fact that people can realize that they made mistakes or held gross views and at least attempt to change, and if that was ever going to happen, someone like Trump might be the catalyst for waking a few people up.  That said, is this a case where Walsh has realized the error of his past ways or is he just capitalizing on Trump's general unpopularity with most of the country, but otherwise still holds the same views?  I'm definitely leaning toward the latter, and if I was a conservative who was still independently rational, I don't know if I take that chance.  If Trump isn't your guy, it wouldn't be a good idea to put much faith in the idea that Walsh would be different.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, YABO713 said:

So, now that Bill Weld and Joe Walsh have announced that they will primary Trump, I believe this deserves its own thread - despite the fact that they are both extreme long shots. 

 

 

As a lawyer, what are your (unofficial) thoughts on whether state requirements for candidates to release their tax returns will be upheld? 

 

If they are, and if Trump refuses to release his tax returns in full, he could have a problem getting reelected.  I think there is at least an argument to be made that the Emoluments Clause justifies knowing about a candidate's potential conflicts of interest before the election -- but whether the states have the right to levy requirements like that on a federal election, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not voting for this dummy!

 

William F. Weld

Former Governor of Massachusetts

 

Education: University of Oxford, Harvard University, Harvard Law School, Middlesex School, Harvard College, University College

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pablo said:

^He's also a deadhead. That's a positive in my mind!

Hmm, I bet he sneaks into New Hampshire and Vermont for Phish shows! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Republicans to scrap primaries and caucuses as Trump challengers cry foul

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/republicans-cancel-primaries-trump-challengers-1483126?cid=apn

 

I'm not expecting any comments from the "Dems rigged the primary for HRC" crew. 

 

This is suchhhhh a travesty for democracy. What an absolute joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still questions about states requiring disclosure of tax returns to get on the ballot.  If those hold up, Trump will still have problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

This is suchhhhh a travesty for democracy. What an absolute joke. 

 

Some of us have been arguing for years that the Reupublic platform is unpopular and that Republicans will abandon democracy before the abandon their ideology.  It appears that we've right about this all along. But hey....judges, so it's all good. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

Some of us have been arguing for years that the Reupublic platform is unpopular and that Republicans will abandon democracy before the abandon their ideology.  It appears that we've right about this all along. But hey....judges, so it's all good. 

 

 

This has been done before, but never in a year where there were multiple primary challengers; much less the fact that the President is polling below 45% in 40 states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bill-weld-just-went-on-tv-and-suggested-trump-committed-a-crime-punishable-by-death/

 

Bill Weld Just Went on TV and Suggested Trump Committed a Crime Punishable by Death

 

Quote

“Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election. It couldn’t be clearer. That’s not just undermining Democratic institutions. That is treason – it’s treason pure and simple – and the penalty for treason under the U.S. Code is death. That’s the only penalty,” Weld said, adding that Trump’s removal from office could be an alternative “if he could work out a plea deal.”

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bill-weld-just-went-on-tv-and-suggested-trump-committed-a-crime-punishable-by-death/

 

Bill Weld Just Went on TV and Suggested Trump Committed a Crime Punishable by Death

 

 

 

Good grief. The guy graduated Harvard Law with honors and he doesn't even understand the basic definition of treason? 

 

Did he sleep through Con law? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Good grief. The guy graduated Harvard Law with honors and he doesn't even understand the basic definition of treason? 

 

Did he sleep through Con law? 

I came across an interesting theory recently. Simplified:

 

Your brain does not really perceive everything you're physically taking in. There's way too much information incoming for that to be feasible. It has to prioritize what is important enough to take in based on what goals your mind has prioritized. For example, if you're thirsty your hypothalamus is already scheming of ways to alleviate that thirst; subconsciously, of course. It doesn't mean you're beholden to whatever happens to come up first or direct you to whatever comes up first, but it does control in a way what you perceive of your surroundings e.g. you don't perceive a glass on your counter as just some object, but rather a means to hold water to quench your thirst. If you weren't thirsty you may just perceive it as an object out of place that needs put in the cupboard. Some people may not perceive the glass at all. This is very elementary of course, but apply it to broader situations and you might have something.

 

Perhaps people have such warped priorities they perceive the same world everyone else is seeing very differently. Perhaps people who think the world is sh*t, or "what is the point of life?", or whatever political wrongs they see are just so in need of validating their "goals" that they only perceive the things that may do so; completely missing the forest for the trees, as the saying goes. The more I think about this the more I see it from the extremes of both sides. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...