Is there a republican Dems would vote for over Hillary?

[Gulo Blue]

Let's just say Trump implodes and the Republicans have to pick someone to replace him. I fully expect them to pick some jackass like Cruz, but if we could pick some other republican, who could they pick that a significant number of dems would see as better than Clinton? Is there one? Kasich?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Wasn't Kasich matching up well against her in the polls when the nomination was still in question?

That would probably be more from independents.

 

[Michchamp]

Eisenhower, maybe, but he's been dead for a long time.

I can't really think or any others. almost none since the late 60's.

it's kind of a catch-22... no sane Republican would get in the race against Hillary at this juncture.

 

[grandy]

Definitely Kasich, he'd at least have a decent chance.

I don't think Jon Huntsman was ever in the race this cycle, but I always thought he'd do well as a moderate option.

 

[Sbee]

Kasich is a reasonable candidate, he actually believes that weather patterns are influenced by scientific factors, not god's will. He also believes that a baker who hates gays should sell a cake to a gay couple because it makes business sense. He's not one of the crazy ones, which means that he's appeal to one of the many factions of the party, he's take some independent votes as well.

 

[Michchamp]

Kasich gets bonus points for not going to the convention and being the sanest member of a very insane house.

still... he's a member of an insane house.

 

[Spartanmack]

Kasich is a reasonable candidate, he actually believes that weather patterns are influenced by scientific factors, not god's will. He also believes that a baker who hates gays should sell a cake to a gay couple because it makes business sense. He's not one of the crazy ones, which means that he's appeal to one of the many factions of the party, he's take some independent votes as well.

everyone knows it makes business sense for a baker to sell a cake to a gay couple - even the baker knows that. What everyone on the other side is saying is that it doesn't make sense for the government to force a baker at gunpoint to sell the cake. If you don't like the baker's stance on the issue, you're free to not patronize their bakery - let the market put them out of business if they're so inclined, not the jack booted thugs of government.

 

[Sbee]

everyone knows it makes business sense for a baker to sell a cake to a gay couple - even the baker knows that. What everyone on the other side is saying is that it doesn't make sense for the government to force a baker at gunpoint to sell the cake. If you don't like the baker's stance on the issue, you're free to not patronize their bakery - let the market put them out of business if they're so inclined.

So you're for legalized discrimination based on sexual orientation, nice. In half of the states pediatricians can refuse to treat the child of a gay couple, I guess that's the America you want to live in. Wouldn't the christian stance be to love thy neighbor as thyself?

 

[Spartanmack]

So you're for legalized discrimination based on sexual orientation, nice. In half of the states pediatricians can refuse to treat the child of a gay couple, I guess that's the America you want to live in. Wouldn't the christian stance be to love thy neighbor as thyself?

no, I'm for freedom of religion and the US government getting out of the marriage business altogether. I'm for Americans making their own choices about how to live their lives - nothing the government needs from or provides to me or any other American should have anything to do with my or their marital status. And before you bring up abortion again thinking the word "choice" is your big "gotcha", I'm for the rights of defenseless, innocent human beings, not the wanton, barbaric murder of them.

 

[Sbee]

no, I'm for freedom of religion and the US government getting out of the marriage business altogether. I'm for Americans making their own choices about how to live their lives - nothing the government needs from or provides to me or any other American should have anything to do with my or their marital status. And before you bring up abortion again thinking the word "choice" is your big "gotcha", I'm for the rights of defenseless, innocent human beings, not the wanton, barbaric murder of them.

I'm for government staying out of marriage as well, that would have solved these issues before they got to the supreme court. all partnerships, homosexual or heterosexual would be civil unions, then you'd go to your own church for "marriage." I don't think that would solve the hatred on the right though, they want the union of gays to be a step below theirs.

That really doesn't address the point of legalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation though.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm for government staying out of marriage as well, that would have solved these issues before they got to the supreme court. all partnerships, homosexual or heterosexual would be civil unions, then you'd go to your own church for "marriage." I don't think that would solve the hatred on the right though, they want the union of gays to be a step below theirs.

That really doesn't address the point of legalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation though.

there is no way to solve hatred on the right or left - well there are indoctrination camps I suppose, like the American University system. Americans have the right to choose who they do business with and it's not the role of government to force your worldview on the rest of the country. That's not a vote in favor of discrimination. If people don't like a particular businesses practices, they can take their money elsewhere.

 

[Sbee]

there is no way to solve hatred on the right or left - well there are indoctrination camps I suppose, like the American University system. Americans have the right to choose who they do business with and it's not the role of government to force your worldview on the rest of the country. That's not a vote in favor of discrimination. If people don't like a particular businesses practices, they can take their money elsewhere.

Given that logic, it's within the rights of a business owner to not serve black people, they just have the right to go somewhere else.

 

[Michchamp]

Given that logic, it's within the rights of a business owner to not serve black people, they just have the right to go somewhere else.

I would not be surprised if he agreed with that as well.

 

[byco42]

Hillary on marriage, 2016: "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality represents America at its best: just, fair and moving toward equality."

Hillary on marriage, 2004: "I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

This juxtaposition of viewpoints suggests to me that she really has no opinion. NOTE: The '04 statement was her speech to the Senate that expressed her opposition to Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage where she also said:

"I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they become adults."

Yet, now, her present opinion unravels her prior one with devastating efficiency. And the bolded phrases should represent the "code words" that liberals love to ID as something more sinister and hate-motivated. But not if one of their own utters them.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Kasich said the baker should just bake a cake; that said he also said that the gay couple, if the Baker won't bake the cake, they shouldn't Sue, they should just find another baker.

If I'm a baker, I'm going to sell whoever wants a cake the cake.

If I want a cake and a particular Baker doesn't want to sell me the cake, I'm just going to find another baker.

 

[byco42]

A Satanist walks into a bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic. "I want a cake that says 'Jesus Christ is dead,'" says the Satanist.

A gay married couple walk into a bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic and want a birthday cake for their son.

A gay engaged couple walks into bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic and wants a wedding cake.

Which, if any, does the Catholic owner have the right to refuse?

 

[Michchamp]

A Satanist walks into a bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic. "I want a cake that says 'Jesus Christ is dead,'" says the Satanist.

A gay married couple walk into a bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic and want a birthday cake for their son.

A gay engaged couple walks into bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic and wants a wedding cake.

Which, if any, does the Catholic owner have the right to refuse?

if he wants to live in a theocracy, where the laws of the state are used to further the interests of religion, he should move to Saudi Arabia.

 

[tomdalton22]

A Satanist walks into a bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic. "I want a cake that says 'Jesus Christ is dead,'" says the Satanist.

A gay married couple walk into a bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic and want a birthday cake for their son.

A gay engaged couple walks into bakery shoppe owned by a Catholic and wants a wedding cake.

Which, if any, does the Catholic owner have the right to refuse?

this is why America is great...he can refuse them all if he wants. Just like if an owner wants to decline to make an 9/11 anniversary cake with a picture of the twin towers falling.

 

[byco42]

if he wants to live in a theocracy, where the laws of the state are used to further the interests of religion, he should move to Saudi Arabia.

Never figured a lib like you to adopt the "America: Love it or leave it" slogan.

 

[byco42]

this is why America is great...he can refuse them all if he wants. Just like if an owner wants to decline to make an 9/11 anniversary cake with a picture of the twin towers falling.

But he can't refuse them all.