Ted Cruz Ends His Campaign for President
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
People are sick of politicians and the game they play. Trump comes off as genuine. Sure, most of what he says is wrong, but people don't care.
People don't like Hillary for the same reason, she comes off as the opposite of genuine. The common refrain about her is that she'll say whatever it is that she thinks you want to hear.
On healthcare, she was influential in getting SCHIP going (after the Clinton administration took a huge hit for pushing for universal healthcare). That expanded coverage to millions of low income children. I used to live in Vermont and I've voted for Bernie ... but ... he's never secured healthcare for anyone. Then, there's the Pediatric Research Equity Act which she authored. It requires drug companies to study their products in children.
Next is foreign policy. Clinton authored the sanctions against Iran and got China, Russia, and the EU to support them. That's after 8 years of Bush that alienated the US in the international community. US exports to China also increased by 50% when she was Secretary of State. And, she was also influential in the work that finally got Osama bin Laden.
And, we can round this off by noting that, as NY Senator, she secured funding to rebuild NYC after 9-11.
> The common refrain about (Hillary) is that she'll say whatever it is that she thinks you want to hear.
Neither one is genuine - Trump is just the better actor. I find it maddening that so many people seem to fall for it.
There is a difference between the perfectly calculated and focus grouped image of Hillary, and the it doesnt matter what I say because tomorrow will be more outrageous of Trump. Sure they may both be manufactured lies, but they are different in their type of deception.
The human mind is lazy and doesn't want to think much if its gets satisfied easily unless you force it to do. But how many people actually put their mind while thinking about politicians. We just make conclusions from the things that we want and pleases ourselves.
That doesn't have anything to do with whether the OP's conjecture is correct. It could be that a huge number of Americans would welcome that change (not that I think they do).
Also I wouldn't say a huge number of voters have spken. Trump has only gotten about 10 million votes [1]. That's more than any other republican nominee, but hardly a sizeable percentage of the country.
>Why would you say it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-civil rights?
Trump said that he wants to: commit war crimes by murdering and torturing the civilian families of terrorists; ban all Muslims from entering the country; deport 3% of the country; and build a wall between us and Mexico.
I can see how people are worried about a descent to a darker time.
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/repub...
> commit war crimes by murdering and torturing the civilian families of terrorists.
He has said that the terrorist groups don't play by any rules that civilized societies do and so we must crush them. War is ugly and nothing will change that. I think it's a stretch to say he wishes to "murder and torture" anyone. He is clearly saying we have to crush them.
> ban all Muslims from entering the country
This along with the next thing you say are the primary bits of conjecture that have been spun in the media to paint Trump as a bigot, racist, islamaphobe etc... If you again go back and listen to what he's talking about, you'll hear him say that he wants to TEMPORARILY ban all Muslims coming from certain regions of the world as refugees (syria, north africa, etc). He also uses Europe as an example of failed refugee policies where millions of people are flooding in and unfortunately that includes bad actors because there is no way to properly vet them. So no, he has never once said to "ban all muslims". He is saying we should not let refugee's in until we know how to vet them, handle them, ensure that they WILL assimilate, and not have what's going on in Europe happen.
> deport 3% of the country; and build a wall between us and Mexico.
We have millions of people in our country ILLEGALLY that leech off our social systems, don't contribute monetarily (taxes) and send their money back to their home countries. Many of them that come in illegally ARE affiliated with drugs, crime etc. Not all of them (as he said) but it doesn't matter. The question becomes at what point do we decide we are going to enforce our own laws or do we just abolish our laws completely? What is wrong with building a wall at our border? What do you say to the millions of people who come into our country legally and through the proper channels often taking time, and effort to come in? Almost every country in the world has some form of this including the United States. News flash: we already have walls in many places along the border. Ask anyone who grew up in a south western state where drug tunnels of increasing complexity are routinely discovered, or who has worked in a hospital where the illegals have their children whether or not it's a logical thing to build a wall and I think you'll get a consistent viewpoint. Again check the soundbite. He never once says "all Mexicans are rapists" as the idiot rioters in California (waving MEXICAN flags for heck sake) have tried to make you believe.
edit: I don't agree with everything he says but especially the last two bits which are the primary reasons people have mislabeled him as racist, bigot etc, are simply not true. I do think people underestimate him greatly so we'll see what happens.
Wait, what? Here's a direct quote on torture:
> "Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would — in a heartbeat," [...] "It works, Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing. It works."
It's the top ranks pushing for more torture and interrogations while the actual guys on the ground keep reporting that it doesn't work. Lots of reports just a google away.
Didn't say refugees. Said all Muslims. And "until we can figure out what's going on" is a phrase that is so open ended, it basically means without due process
"And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families."
The next day he defended his remark, so it wasn't just a one time off the cuff remark.
>TEMPORARILY ban all Muslims coming from certain regions of the world as refugees
Another direct quote from a Trump PR release.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"
>We have millions of people in our country ILLEGALLY that leech off our social systems, don't contribute monetarily (taxes) and send their money back to their home countries.
No one can prove conclusively whether illegal immigrants are a net drain or a net benefit. But I can tell you one thing. Forciblyremoving 3% of the population is going to have negative economic consequences. It is also going to be hugely expensive and nearly impossible to actually pull off. There is no the way the benefit will outweigh the costs here.
Do you think terrorists would stop to think about your family before blowing themselves up? Think they thought that in Belgium? France? He's saying that they don't play by any rules and thus we can't win unless we really crush them.
> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering
Again, he's referring specifically to what's going on with the refugee's in Europe and it was said in the context of the terrorism over there. To be honest why does this get people so riled up? The fact is that almost ALL of the terrorism happening in the world right now and in recent times is with orthodox ("extremist") Muslims. That is just plain fact so until the Muslims in the world stop blowing shit up then maybe him or anyone else wouldn't think to do that.
> No one can prove conclusively whether illegal immigrants are a net drain or a net benefit
From http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-ille... (first google search result)
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level.
Could that be because he is running for the position of leader of the most powerful planet with the most powerful military the world has ever known.
You can't just say the first thing that pops into your head and think that people are going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you are running for president.
>Do you think terrorists would stop to think about your family before blowing themselves up? Think they thought that in Belgium? France? He's saying that they don't play by any rules and thus we can't win unless we really crush them.
No I don't, but I also think that terrorists would kill billions of innocent civilians if they could. Does that mean I think it's OK for us to kill billions of innocent civilians to stop them?
The terrorists do it too is not a valid defense for anything.
>He's saying that they don't play by any rules and thus we can't win unless we really crush them.
He's saying "We have to take out their families". There is no other meaning there. He is advocating committing a war crime.
>From http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-ille.... (first google search result)
Fair is an anti-immigration group. The SPLC even lists them as a hate group. Whether you believe they are actually a hate group, they're definitely not purveyors of unbiased research.
But that's what I mean when I said you can't prove conclusively whether illegal immigrants are a net economic benefit or drain. The only people doing research on the issue are biased, and there are too many variables. You can find plenty of studies by pro-immigration groups that say they contribute more to the economy than they take. Just like you can find plenty of studies by anti-immigration groups that say the opposite.
Historically, "civil rights" has referred to protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans. None of the things you mention implicate Constitutional rights. More troubling is your unstated implication that anyone who opposes open borders globalization/cultural relativism necessarily wants to take away civil rights for Americans.
Calling for more mass surveillance and registering Muslims are probably better examples of proposed civil rights violations.
"Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. 'They have to be,' he said. 'They have to be.'"
He's also suggested that we should surveil mosques and won't rule out "certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago" like warrant-less searches of Muslims, and closing down Mosques that we decide are a threat.
> More troubling is your unstated implication that anyone who opposes open borders globalization/cultural relativism necessarily wants to take away civil rights for Americans.
That's not my implication at all. It has nothing to do with open borders, only with banning a particular religion. If Trump believes Muslims are so dangerous that we have to ban them from entering the next logical step is to deport the ones already here, and then on to deporting Muslim citizens. This is clearly unconstitutional, so it won't happen, but I personally know many Trump supporters who are followers of Trumpian ideology who would support deporting Muslim citizens.
> If Trump believes Muslims are so dangerous that we have to ban them from entering the next logical step is to deport the ones already here, and then on to deporting Muslim citizens.
That's not a logical progression at all. The United States has no obligation to let anyone into the country. But it does have Constitutional obligations to people already here. As a practical matter, if you look at Trump's statements in context he's focused on Syrian refugees. The demographics of Muslims already in America are very different (in part because of our strict filters on immigration).
"'Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?'
'We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.'"
-----------------
"'Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
'There should be a lot of systems," Trump responded. "Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems.'"
--------------
In this last quote he is unambiguously being asked about a full Muslim database, not a database of immigrants.
"'Let's hear it directly from you," said host Kimberly Guilfoyle. "Would President Donald Trump support a full Muslim database?'
'Basically the suggestion was made and (it’s) certainly something we should start thinking about'"
-----------------
Establishing a Muslim database is clearly a civil rights violation. Trump says "we should start thinking about it". He says we should start thinking about something which is clearly a civil rights violation, so I don't think it's a stretch at all to be afraid that he may actually harm civil rights.
>That's not a logical progression at all. The United States has no obligation to let anyone into the country.
The police also have no obligation to protect any particular person, but when they refuse to protect someone based on their religion, it becomes a civil rights violation.
I understand that this is a matter for the courts do decide and it isn't actually a clear cut civil rights violation, but a quick google search shows at least a few respected legal scholars who believe that a ban on non-citizens based on religion would violate the constitution http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/harvard-professor-laurence-tribe-...
"According to several scholars surveyed by MSNBC, while foreign citizens do enjoy fewer rights than Americans, it is still illegal for the government to use a religious test on foreigners. The Constitution's 'bar against declaring an official religion' would apply to discrimination against non-citizens, argues Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe."
"Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy 'routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries,' Trump’s proposal to only exclude 'foreign nationals who are Muslim' would likely be 'unconstitutional.'"
Again, he's really talking on the context of terrorism and refugees in Europe. He's not talking about throwing out all the Muslims or stamping a tattoo on their arms. Also, it would make GREAT sense to have a database of every Muslim(and everyone else) that enters our country... I'm pretty sure we already have that. I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far...
His "no-filter style" frequently results in him saying things that are factually incorrect, based on mistaken beliefs, describing illegal policies, or in contradiction to things he's already stated.
His words describe his vision, and by extension, his vision lacks integrity and stability. A company with a CEO like that would not last long, and the CEO of a country could cause a lot of damage.
He said we should start thinking about it. He either wasn't paying attention to what she was saying at all, or he thinks a database of all Muslims could be a good idea.
That he even entertains the idea that requiring members of a specific religion to register with the government is absurd.
> I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far...
So when he said that we should "Take out" the family members of terrorists as a deterrent, and then defended his statement the next day, we shouldn't worry about it? He was just bullshitting, not actually advocating committing a war crime?
I don't know which situation is scarier. A president who actually plans on doing the things he says he will, or a president with no filter who just says the first thing that pops into his head.
It starts at the beach and goes into the mountains. When it was built peiple that crossed the border moved put into the desert and mountains.
Sure you can completely secure the border with less guards with the wall than without (you'll still need a lot more guards than we have now to secure the entire border), but the wall will cost so much money that could just skip the whole thing, take the money you save and hire enough border patrol agents to make the existing fences effective.
Then you don't have to deal with the awful PR image of a modern developed nation building a wall along the border.
The government spent more than $7 billion building a fence that only covers a fraction of the border. How much do you think it's going to cost to build an enormous wall that covers the whole thing?
Oh but wait, it won't cost anything because Mexico is going to pay for it. The wall isn't a real proposal, it's just Trump pandering to Republican voters. Just like he's now supposedly pro-life after years of being ardently pro-choice. Or how he is firmly for gun rights after years of supporting the assault weapons ban. Or how he loves reading from Two Corinthians.
Anyway, can't wait to see Bill back in the WH :)
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillarys-financial-armada-2330336...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clint...
She supported the Iraq war, and opposed the recent deal with Iran.
I am not sure what is a redeeming quality of Hillary as a democrat, she seems like an establishment GOP candidate in her positions, excluding social issues, more than anything.
You just said it yourself: social issues. That's the only thing where mainstream Dems and Reps differ. They use these "wedge issues" to give the illusion of differences between the parties and keep us distracted from the real issues.
The bug/feature of a two party system is that ~40% of the population (the non-swing voters) have no alternative to the GOP.
Sigh, I lost some money on betting Trump would not being the nominee (so take my political acumen with a grain of salt)
Trump is NOT the nominee. Not yet. He still hasn't gotten enough votes to become nominee, and if he doesn't, then they go to a brokered convention, where most likely Kasich will win. That's why Kasich is still in the race even though he has very few delegates.
You may still win that bet.
They will do what they did in 1980: Marry the populist (Reagan) with an insider (Bush) and dog-whistle to their establishment that Trump won't make any really meaningful decisions (that aren't supported by the insiders).
It's a tried and true winner. The last brokered convention was 50+ years ago without today's retail politics.
A first-past-the-post voting system like ours always guarantees a two-party system. Once in a while there may be an anomaly, but in the end it devolves back to two parties. It's impossible to have a stable 3-party system with FPTP voting.
1. On the first ballot, pledged delegates will be counted as having voted for their assigned nominee
2. Thereafter they can do whatever they want. You can call this "politics", or "the will of the delegates", or "shenanigans" if you want.
After Indiana, Trump will inevitably have enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot, so that's that.
> What about all the party/convention rules shenanigans they can do, where they can still nominate anyone who won delegates? Was that a misconception?
There was some vague talk about a rule change to unbind delegates on the first ballot, but that was never, ever, ever going to happen.
You don't know that. Kasich is still in the race for a reason. All they have to do is keep Trump from getting to that magic number of delegates, and then they go to a brokered convention. It's a bit of a long shot, but it's still possible, especially with Cruz out of the way.
There are 520 delegates still up for grabs; that means he needs just over a third of them. Which...he's going to get.
Projections had him getting at least 133 delegates in California before his only serious rival dropped out, and he's got a lock on 51 delegates from NJ. Add in the proportional share he'll get from Washington and Oregon based on current totals, and...
...yeah. It's over. The reason Cruz dropped out is he can do the math. If he'd won Indiana, AND all the other contests still up for grabs, Trump could have been stopped short of 1,237. With Indiana in his pocket, he can't be.
You don't know that; you're making assumptions. When this race started, everyone thought the idea of Trump making it this far was utterly ridiculous, because of their own assumptions at the time.
I admit it's a real long shot, but the elections aren't over yet. Anything could happen. If it were really over, Kasich would have dropped out too. Cruz dropped out because it's both mathematically impossible for him to get 1237 votes, and for him to get the nomination in a brokered convention (he's just too unpopular within his party). Kasich will be an easy win at the brokered convention if that happens, so he's staying in until Trump reaches 1237.
Finally, who knows what kind of things are going on behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP pulls some really dirty tricks to deny Trump the nomination somehow. Face it, their survival depends on it.
This is going to be an interesting election. I predict half the Democrat voters are going to vote for Trump, and half the Republican voters are going to vote for Hillary.
It'd be really interesting if Bernie changed his mind and decided to run as an independent. With so many people hating both Trump and Hillary, Bernie could actually win that one, maybe.
It was over for Kasich a LONG time ago, but he stayed in.
> Kasich will be an easy win at the brokered convention if that happens, so he's staying in until Trump reaches 1237.
...I feel like we've been watching different races. With different candidates. On a different planet.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP pulls some really dirty tricks to deny Trump the nomination somehow. Face it, their survival depends on it.
Both parties have survived worse nominees. The Democrats survived Mcgovern after all.
I guess so, if you really think the GOP actually likes either Trump or Cruz. They haven't hidden their contempt for either of those two, and the idea that either of them would win the nomination in a brokered convention is sheer lunacy.
This is moot now, since Cruz and Kasich have suspended their campaigns. But seriously, how can you not think Kasich would be an easy win if, through some miracle for the GOP, they got a brokered convention? Who do you think would win?
The idea that a far-right extreme conservative evangelical was going to beat Hillary was, as Trump would say, laughable.
Trump may also not beat Hillary, but he does have mainstream appeal and can connect with a much wider audience.
What will be interesting is how Trump now changes his outwards approach as he tries to win over the mainstream, swing voters, even some democrats who don't want an establishment figure, instead of registered republican voters that he has been targeting until now.
Cruz: "We're going to have to layoff all of the staff." Carly: "IT'S MY TIME TO SHINE!"
Why isn't this on the front page?
A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
542 points by warrenmar 17 hours ago | flag | past | web | 718 comments
People tend to see HN as ideologically biased in favor of whatever they disagree with—that's a classic cognitive bias in its own right. Indeed there are some biases on specific issues (Snowden detractors don't do well here), but I'm not sure I agree they cut left or right overall. The community is pretty divided, much as the larger population is.