tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2553233555257633091..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Some Seldom-Discussed Options For Defeating TrumpRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44009172997173458152016-03-07T08:08:22.782-05:002016-03-07T08:08:22.782-05:00I agree, David. And I suspect that the large major...I agree, David. And I suspect that the large majority of the most informed Evangelicals are supporting somebody other than Trump. He wins among less informed Evangelicals, especially in parts of the country where identifying as Evangelical is more popular.<br /><br />A key to making the most of your argument and other arguments against Trump is <i>time</i>. We still have three more months in this primary season. That's a lot of time in a political context. Most states haven't voted yet, and we're less than halfway through the primary season. New information about Trump and new scandals keep coming out. Trump's immorality, ignorance, and other negatives will likely make a lot of people more and more weary of him over time. After March 15, the remaining states begin voting at a slower pace. There will be more time to build up arguments against Trump, run negative ads against him, etc. The fast pace we're seeing in these opening weeks of March won't continue much longer. If Trump can be slowed down enough over the next eight days, culminating with at least one big loss for Trump on March 15 (Florida or Ohio), he should fail to get a majority of delegates.<br /><br />One big problem, though, is how the media keep making him seem like a stronger candidate than he is. There's no rational way to deny that this past weekend was a major setback for Trump. He lost Kansas, Maine, and Puerto Rico by double-digit margins. He only won Louisiana by means of early votes. The voting that took place there on Saturday itself favored Cruz. So, Trump only won the voting in <i>one</i> place out of <i>five</i> that voted this weekend. Cruz got more delegates than Trump over the weekend, and Trump got less than a third of the delegates overall. Yet, the media aren't covering this weekend as a big setback for Trump. It's important that Republican voters exercise enough discernment to realize what's actually been happening rather than gullibly accepting a false media narrative. And that false media narrative could be repeated by Limbaugh, Hannity, and other Trump supporters and enablers in the conservative media.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68628449171681512292016-03-07T02:21:22.697-05:002016-03-07T02:21:22.697-05:00Jason, there is an argument that I haven't see...Jason, there is an argument that I haven't seen being made, that ought to be relevant to professing evangelical supporters of Trump. I have seen Trump describe himself emphatically as a Christian multiple times now during this election cycle. His policies aside, this ought to be deeply offensive to any follower of Christ. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, indeed there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I need not rehearse that evidence. Labeling Trump a Christian is a preposterous, laughable proposition to anyone with a speck of discernment. So he is dragging the fair name of our Savior through the mud in his quest to become President. He has merited the just contempt of true Christians, not their votes or support, regardless of the merits or demerits of his policies.<br /><br />One could object that most recent presidential candidates have identified themselves as Christian. Romney, Obama, O'Malley, Rubio, Christie, and others. For the Democrats on the list, I would just add their false (or at least dubious) confessions to a long list of reason not to vote for them. Regarding those who identify with sects (Romanists) or cults (Mornonism), I would regard those self-identifications as unfortunate and detrimental to Christ's name, but at least as honest identifications considered on their own terms. Romney does not have the true Christ, and Rubio doesn't have the true Gospel, but they are moral and devout by the terms of their respective religions. Unlike Trump, they actually attend their churches. More importantly, they are decent and honorable men, though we may differ on policy. Trump has no semblance of Christian morality. He uses the name of Christ for self-gain, pure and simple. His profession of faith is far less credible than even Obama's.David Gadboishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375984671877016361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11625300032359457482016-03-06T18:48:44.624-05:002016-03-06T18:48:44.624-05:00Both are excellent suggestions, IMHO.Both are excellent suggestions, IMHO.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86150337206303016372016-03-06T12:20:37.265-05:002016-03-06T12:20:37.265-05:00If 60-70% of Republicans keep voting against Trump...If 60-70% of Republicans keep voting against Trump in primaries, it would be pretty undemocratic to make him the nominee. For that matter, winner-take-all primaries are "rather undemocratic". Likewise, it's undemocratic that late primary voters get stuck with what's left over after early primary voters drive some candidates out of the running. But that's the system. And there's no ideal alternative. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43453580336364991082016-03-06T12:14:31.686-05:002016-03-06T12:14:31.686-05:00"That sounds rather undemocratic."
Good..."That sounds rather undemocratic."<br /><br />Good thing we're in a Constitutional Republic instead of a democracy then, eh?<br /><br />Straight democracy is identical to mob rule.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69344856156234510332016-03-06T08:29:09.431-05:002016-03-06T08:29:09.431-05:00I should add that Trump has the potential to get a...I should add that Trump has the potential to get a majority of delegates without getting a majority of the votes (because of winner-take-all states, etc.). If Trump gets a majority of the delegates in such a scenario, how "undemocratic" is it to deny him the nomination? He only had a minority of the vote. And polling has often indicated that a majority views a Trump nomination in a negative way. There are <i>already</i> some undemocratic elements in this primary system (e.g., winner-take-all distribution of delegates). What I'm suggesting is that we make better use of some of those undemocratic elements. Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2791082712321711882016-03-06T08:19:28.381-05:002016-03-06T08:19:28.381-05:00So what? The murder scenario I described is simila...So what? The murder scenario I described is similarly "undemocratic". Would you recommend letting the murderer get the nomination? Being democratic isn't the only or highest standard we should be concerned about.<br /><br />Part of the system the Republicans have in place is that rule changes are allowed to be made along the way, including just before the convention. That's the Republican system Trump and his supporters agreed to participate in. Yes, the potential for rule changes makes things less predictable and less stable, and there's potential for the ability to change the rules to be abused. But it's part of the system, and the alternative (no rule changes allowed or the changes in this context aren't allowed) is worse. Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52507504066570648062016-03-06T08:13:51.109-05:002016-03-06T08:13:51.109-05:00By the way, I think this primary season suggests t...By the way, I think this primary season suggests that:<br /><br />- Every primary and caucus should be completely closed. No Democrats or independents should be allowed to participate. Only Republicans get to vote, and they should have to have been registered long before the day of voting. If we want to know how Democrats and independents will respond to the candidates, then gauge that with polls, focus groups, or whatever other instrument. Don't gauge it by letting Democrats and independents participate in voting on our potential nominees.<br /><br />- Early voting needs to be far more restricted than it is currently. The current loose standards allow for a charlatan like Trump to deceive people early on, get their early votes, then continue to benefit from those early votes after he's been exposed or his supporters have done more research. No approach will avoid that sort of outcome entirely. But it seems to me that we should have much less early voting than we do now. Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81876409856928242402016-03-06T08:13:23.146-05:002016-03-06T08:13:23.146-05:00"Keep looking for a way to deny Trump the nom..."Keep looking for a way to deny Trump the nomination even if he gets a majority of delegates."<br /><br />That sounds rather undemocratic.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.com