Vote for President

[bashwell]

Hillary Clinton "might" be able to be knocked off if (rightly or wrongly) the DOJ indicts her over her email scandal thing. That could throw a monkey wrench into the whole Clinton machine. But it's probably unlikely to happen and even if it happens she could still make it through with some bumps and bruises. I'd vote for Bernie over Hillary and almost anyone over Trump.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Trump is an idiot and shouldn't be President of the United States. While I despise Hillary the fact remains she is a cold, calculating, bi$#h who would be a much better President than Donald Duck Trump. (I apologize for insulting Donald Duck).

I'm not sure if I can vote for Trump or Clinton. If these two are the nominees we can expect very low voter turnout on both sides.

Her tough guy monotone speech style is painful. I don't hate her, but I hate watching her. I doubt I'll vote either if that's what we've got, unless it looks real close.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Hillary Clinton "might" be able to be knocked off if (rightly or wrongly) the DOJ indicts her over her email scandal thing. That could throw a monkey wrench into the whole Clinton machine. But it's probably unlikely to happen and even if it happens she could still make it through with some bumps and bruises. I'd vote for Bernie over Hillary and almost anyone over Trump.

I'd vote for Trump over Cruz. Cruz would reduce the country to Stone Age rubble a la Kansas

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Hillary barking like a dog. Wow.

I'd pick Hillary over Bern. Bern will destroy folks in medicine with his uncapped tax rate for those making > 250K.

Trump over Hillary or Bern.

 

[chessknt]

I wish there was some kind of test in place to prevent idiots that obey TV ads from voting... I can't recall a single time in my life from when my memories started forming that I believed a political TV ad, poster, lawn sign etc as something that was actually true, yet somehow billions of dollars go in to this so one can only assume it must work on most people.

It's like everyone is pissed at both major parties so we get these whackjob candidates when, THE ENTIRE @#&^ING TIME, there is the moderate libertarian party that puts up a candidate that takes the best ideals from both parties but only gets 1% of the vote.

We need a concerted secession of conservative states and let the people who want each ideology move accordingly and see who wins. Or even better--leftists can move to any country in Europe, Russia, China, Australia, Latin America, Scandinavia, hell essentially EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH to fulfill the vision of high taxes and the iron nanny net.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Gary Johnson. There are other people on the ticket.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Gary Johnson. There are other people on the ticket.

So, you're basically throwing away the vote. He made his announcement in January and openly admits that he doesn't expect to beat Hillary or Bernie or Trump. He has no media coverage, he has no name recognition and his attempt in 2012 was.... Uneventful.

 

[bashwell]

I'd vote for Trump over Cruz. Cruz would reduce the country to Stone Age rubble a la Kansas

I'd still vote for Cruz over Trump because at least I know what I'll get with Cruz (and it's easier to oppose people who are dogmatic), but Trump is an opportunist and will say and do almost anything to get what he wants. I find Trump is more dangerous in that respect.

But Cruz shouldn't be in politics at all. He's too intelligent and too unlikeable for politics. He should be in academia i.e. academic law. (Ba dum tss!)

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I'd still vote for Cruz over Trump because at least I know what I'll get with Cruz (and it's easier to oppose people who are dogmatic), but Trump is an opportunist and will say and do almost anything to get what he wants. I find Trump is more dangerous in that respect.

But Cruz shouldn't be in politics at all. He's too intelligent and too unlikeable for politics. He should be in academia i.e. academic law. (Ba dum tss!)

Cruz is a liar though!!

 

[bashwell]

Cruz is a liar though!!

That's true, although I don't think there's a single politician on either side who hasn't lied about something. Even Bernie who I think is very transparent has probably lied about something. Some lies are worse than others, but a lie is still a lie.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

That's true, although I don't think there's a single politician on either side who hasn't lied about something. Even Bernie who I think is very transparent has probably lied about something. Some lies are worse than others, but a lie is still a lie.

While tongue in cheek, he has shown that he will do anything to win a vote. His campaign has been by far the dirtiest. He claims to have a constitutionalist ideology and is ultra-conservative. I'm not so sure that's the best for this country. I cannot vote for him. I think this nation needs someone who is smart enough to know to cut his/her losses and to be flexible, perhaps a little opportunistic, in order to get something done then I'm probably in favor of that person. The Obama administration has been anything but flexible and as you can see, even he admits that the government has been very polarizing.

I don't think Bernie has the best interest of the middle class, in fact I believe he is pandering the populist and the millennial idiots. The fact that he wants to target the professional working class with his uncapped and added income tax policy for those making 250K is proof. Hillary is a pathological liar and barks like a dog and has no sense of emotional IQ, and she is not smooth enough like Obama to get anything done. Rubio has been exposed by Christie and he is done. He is not the last Republican hope anymore. He would be destroyed in the election. He will not attract a high voter turn-out, especially not from the Trumpettes and the Sleezy-Cruzies. I am unsure if the Bush followers would even support him, since they all feel he betrayed his mentor. While Trump may not win, I think at this point he is the only person who has a chance. His targeting of Dubya was potentially very timely and may help him bolster votes outside of the Republican vote (potentially). He's a blow hard and we all know it, but if you look at MSM - he gets more attention via MSNBC than even Fox News and he gets plenty there. MSNBC is even tracking WHEN his townhall speech will be occurring. That's something right there. He knows how to market himself in a cost-effective and efficient manner. He's a business man and if you look, he has not even spent over 10 or 11K campaigning. The more Sanders has made money via his private interest supporters, the more he has spent campaigning and burned money.

 

[bashwell]

While tongue in cheek, he has shown that he will do anything to win a vote. His campaign has been by far the dirtiest. He claims to have a constitutionalist ideology and is ultra-conservative. I'm not so sure that's the best for this country. I cannot vote for him. I think this nation needs someone who is smart enough to know to cut his/her losses and to be flexible, perhaps a little opportunistic, in order to get something done then I'm probably in favor of that person. The Obama administration has been anything but flexible and as you can see, even he admits that the government has been very polarizing.

I don't think Bernie has the best interest of the middle class, in fact I believe he is pandering the populist and the millennial idiots. The fact that he wants to target the professional working class with his uncapped and added income tax policy for those making 250K is proof. Hillary is a pathological liar and barks like a dog and has no sense of emotional IQ, and she is not smooth enough like Obama to get anything done. Rubio has been exposed by Christie and he is done. He is not the last Republican hope anymore. He would be destroyed in the election. He will not attract a high voter turn-out, especially not from the Trumpettes and the Sleezy-Cruzies. I am unsure if the Bush followers would even support him, since they all feel he betrayed his mentor. While Trump may not win, I think at this point he is the only person who has a chance. His targeting of Dubya was potentially very timely and may help him bolster votes outside of the Republican vote (potentially). He's a blow hard and we all know it, but if you look at MSM - he gets more attention via MSNBC than even Fox News and he gets plenty there. MSNBC is even tracking WHEN his townhall speech will be occurring. That's something right there.

I agree with most of this. Although unfortunately I think a lot of what you say about others could easily be applied to Trump too. For example, Trump is virtually the epitome of someone who "will do anything to win a vote," he's also a huge or yuge "liar," he "has no sense of emotional IQ," etc. I regard Trump as an opportunist, megalomaniac, possibly even a tyrant in the making. His main appeal is he's a strongman, I guess.

 

[bashwell]

While tongue in cheek, he has shown that he will do anything to win a vote. His campaign has been by far the dirtiest. He claims to have a constitutionalist ideology and is ultra-conservative. I'm not so sure that's the best for this country. I cannot vote for him. I think this nation needs someone who is smart enough to know to cut his/her losses and to be flexible, perhaps a little opportunistic, in order to get something done then I'm probably in favor of that person. The Obama administration has been anything but flexible and as you can see, even he admits that the government has been very polarizing.

I don't think Bernie has the best interest of the middle class, in fact I believe he is pandering the populist and the millennial idiots. The fact that he wants to target the professional working class with his uncapped and added income tax policy for those making 250K is proof. Hillary is a pathological liar and barks like a dog and has no sense of emotional IQ, and she is not smooth enough like Obama to get anything done. Rubio has been exposed by Christie and he is done. He is not the last Republican hope anymore. He would be destroyed in the election. He will not attract a high voter turn-out, especially not from the Trumpettes and the Sleezy-Cruzies. I am unsure if the Bush followers would even support him, since they all feel he betrayed his mentor. While Trump may not win, I think at this point he is the only person who has a chance. His targeting of Dubya was potentially very timely and may help him bolster votes outside of the Republican vote (potentially). He's a blow hard and we all know it, but if you look at MSM - he gets more attention via MSNBC than even Fox News and he gets plenty there. MSNBC is even tracking WHEN his townhall speech will be occurring. That's something right there. He knows how to market himself in a cost-effective and efficient manner. He's a business man and if you look, he has not even spent over 10 or 11K campaigning. The more Sanders has made money via his private interest supporters, the more he has spent campaigning and burned money.

I don't know how electable Trump is. Media coverage doesn't necessarily correlate with electability. I think Trump has a ceiling of about 35% (give or take) in the primaries. In the general election, Trump could gain more moderates and independents. But he could just as well drive them away. Trump could have significant opposition, and drive out more to vote against him as much as for him. In fact, I'm not sure if anyone else has as high numbers opposed to him as Trump does. Maybe Cruz? Bottom line: Trump seems to be at least as hated by others as much as he's beloved by his core.

 

[pgg]

Gary Johnson. There are other people on the ticket.

I would vote for him if it wasn't a wasted vote.

I might even give him money or volunteer.

 

[bashwell]

I would vote for him if it wasn't a wasted vote.

I might even give him money or volunteer.

I think it's (maybe) arguable "wasting a vote" could be better than voting for either Hillary or Trump.

If enough Americans are "wasting a vote" on someone else instead of Hillary or Trump -- for example, if approximately 1/3rd vote for Hillary, 1/3rd vote for Trump, and 1/3rd vote for other candidates combined -- then this could have a significant impact on the nation. It could be a meaningful statement against traditional politics. Hillary or Trump would end up with the victory, but then we'd also have a lot of disaffected voters, which Pres. Hillary Clinton or Pres. Trump can't simply always ignore. A lot of hopefully good change could come in traditional politics and our nation if there are a significant enough number of "wasted votes".

Also, if Trump is nominated, then the GOP could be effectively finished as a party. A lot of disaffected Americans could form a new party to fill the vacuum.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I don't know how electable Trump is. Media coverage doesn't necessarily correlate with electability. I think Trump has a ceiling of about 35% (give or take) in the primaries. In the general election, Trump could gain more moderates and independents. But he could just as well drive them away. Trump could have significant opposition, and drive out more to vote against him as much as for him. In fact, I'm not sure if anyone else has as high numbers opposed to him as Trump does. Maybe Cruz? Bottom line: Trump seems to be at least as hated by others as much as he's beloved by his core.

Absolutely.
I never said that he would win the general election. However, I do believe he stands the best chance against Hillary and if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, then I do think Trump may have a hard time. Either way, he may not win against either, but I think he has the best chance to pull a win.

I think he has plenty of emotional IQ. If he didn't, he wouldn't have support along a broad demographic base. This was supposed to be the election in the bag for the Establishment and Trump has torn the GOP into shreds so far. Things could change if more candidates drop out and the Establishment support base finally decide to throw total support to one of their own rather than this in-fighting that has been going on from within. You don't do well in business without knowing how to play the game, and business relies heavily on psychology.

He hasn't played a truly dirty game. Calling someone a liar isn't exactly playing a game. He hasn't been robo-calling nor has he been putting up a huge number of ads, nor did he proclaim Carson was dropping out. He's simply calling people out (with a load of exaggeration to boot). I think it was genius to call out Dubya on the Eve of Dubya's campaign to support Jebbie boy. He drops the occasional funny one-liner too "she (Barbara Bush) should run..." I will say he has pandered, and he's pandered heavily. He's doubled-down on things he has said and while his ideology has appeared to change, he hasn't directly flip-flopped during THIS particular run for the nomination. He's had to clarify a lot of things that the Cruz and Bush campaign has taken out of context, especially with Planned Parenthood. If he hadn't alienated as many people possible, I think he stands a better chance to win the General election. I also suspect that his flimsical details will probably dismantle him, but then again I haven't heard anything solid or concrete from the Sanders/Clinton campaign either.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I think it's (maybe) arguable "wasting a vote" could be better than voting for either Hillary or Trump.

If enough Americans are "wasting a vote" on someone else instead of Hillary or Trump -- for example, if approximately 1/3rd vote for Hillary, 1/3rd vote for Trump, and 1/3rd vote for other candidates combined -- then this could have a significant impact on the nation. It could be a meaningful statement against traditional politics. Hillary or Trump would end up with the victory, but then we'd also have a lot of disaffected voters, which Pres. Hillary Clinton or Pres. Trump can't simply always ignore. A lot of hopefully good change could come in traditional politics and our nation if there are a significant enough number of "wasted votes".

Also, if Trump is nominated, then the GOP could be effectively finished as a party. A lot of disaffected Americans could form a new party to fill the vacuum.

If you don't even try to campaign and you clearly voice that you won't be trying to beat the Republican or Democratic nominee, then you don't deserve my vote. You're just wasting people's time and you're wasting someone's money. I hope he's self-funding or it's even worse.

If Trump wins, maybe the GOP does need to be finished. To me, Trump and Sanders seem more like a third party candidate disguised under the Republican and Democratic label.

 

[bashwell]

Absolutely.
I never said that he would win the general election. However, I do believe he stands the best chance against Hillary and if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, then I do think Trump may have a hard time. Either way, he may not win against either, but I think he has the best chance to pull a win.

I think he has plenty of emotional IQ. If he didn't, he wouldn't have support along a broad demographic base. This was supposed to be the election in the bag for the Establishment and Trump has torn the GOP into shreds so far. Things could change if more candidates drop out and the Establishment support base finally decide to throw total support to one of their own rather than this in-fighting that has been going on from within. You don't do well in business without knowing how to play the game, and business relies heavily on psychology.

He hasn't played a truly dirty game. Calling someone a liar isn't exactly playing a game. He hasn't been robo-calling nor has he been putting up a huge number of ads, nor did he proclaim Carson was dropping out. He's simply calling people out (with a load of exaggeration to boot). I think it was genius to call out Dubya on the Eve of Dubya's campaign to support Jebbie boy. He drops the occasional funny one-liner too "she (Barbara Bush) should run..." I will say he has pandered, and he's pandered heavily. He's doubled-down on things he has said and while his ideology has appeared to change, he hasn't directly flip-flopped during THIS particular run for the nomination. He's had to clarify a lot of things that the Cruz and Bush campaign has taken out of context, especially with Planned Parenthood. If he hadn't alienated as many people possible, I think he stands a better chance to win the General election. I also suspect that his flimsical details will probably dismantle him, but then again I haven't heard anything solid or concrete from the Sanders/Clinton campaign either.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Trump's emotional IQ (e.g. he was chock full of insults and hysteria in the last GOP debate; I also think it's possible to manipulate "psychology" and at the same time have poor emotional IQ) as well as his ethics (I don't even know where to start).

 

[bashwell]

If you don't even try to campaign and you clearly voice that you won't be trying to beat the Republican or Democratic nominee, then you don't deserve my vote. You're just wasting people's time and you're wasting someone's money. I hope he's self-funding or it's even worse.

To each their own, I suppose. A lot of people have a different set of criteria as well as priorities when it comes to voting.

If Trump wins, maybe the GOP does need to be finished. To me, Trump and Sanders seem more like a third party candidate disguised under the Republican and Democratic label.

I suppose more like third and fourth parties, which could (at least in theory) split their own parties.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Trump's emotional IQ (e.g. he was chock full of insults and hysteria in the last GOP debate; I also think it's possible to manipulate "psychology" and at the same time have poor emotional IQ) as well as his ethics (I don't even know where to start).

Not everyone has the ability to manipulate psychology, and clearly this is seen from both the Democratic and the Republican side.

 

[bashwell]

Not everyone has the ability to manipulate psychology, and clearly this is seen from both the Democratic and the Republican side.

True, but my point is that the two aren't necessarily incommensurate with one another.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Trump's emotional IQ (e.g. he was chock full of insults and hysteria in the last GOP debate; I also think it's possible to manipulate "psychology" and at the same time have poor emotional IQ) as well as his ethics (I don't even know where to start).

Well, if we are talking ethics - I don't believe politicians or big businessmen are truly "ethical" so his poor ethics is comparable to the next candidate's ethics.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

True, but my point is that the two aren't necessarily incommensurate with one another.

I'll agree to disagree on this, as well. There may not be a pure correlation, but I think it is there to a degree.

 

[bashwell]

Well, if we are talking ethics - I don't believe politicians or big businessmen are truly "ethical" so his poor ethics is comparable to the next candidate's ethics.

I agree with this. It's mainly a matter of degree.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Trump has said despicable things, and he is by far the most childish politician we've ever seen.

That being said:
He speaks to REPUBLICAN CROWDS about spending more on roads, bridges, airports, mass transit, etc... Hell yes. All these dudes with flags on their lapels are 100% willing to let this country go to s**t in the name of reducing the deficit.

He speaks to REPUBLICAN crowds about the unfairness of Wall Street and one percenters benefitting from the economy while the rest watch on.

He talks about being "militaristic", but he speaks out louder than anyone about the disasters left behind when we topple s****y regimes.

I LOVE the idea of him coming out of conferences with lobbyist-owned senators, telling the world "senator X won't budge because he got $200k from Shell oil."

Mark my words, if he wins the nomination, he will start sounding a LOT more centrist/liberal, in line with statements he made before all this.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I'd still vote for Cruz over Trump because at least I know what I'll get with Cruz (and it's easier to oppose people who are dogmatic), but Trump is an opportunist and will say and do almost anything to get what he wants. I find Trump is more dangerous in that respect.

But Cruz shouldn't be in politics at all. He's too intelligent and too unlikeable for politics. He should be in academia i.e. academic law. (Ba dum tss!)

I personally think Cruz would be by FAR the worst president of the entire field. Both socially and economically. A religious fundamentalist who wants to do away with social programs and federal regulation? I know he's a smart person, which is why I can't BELIEVE he doesn't see how disastrous those things would be to our future.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Trump has said despicable things, and he is by far the most childish politician we've ever seen.

That being said:
He speaks to REPUBLICAN CROWDS about spending more on roads, bridges, airports, mass transit, etc... Hell yes. All these dudes with flags on their lapels are 100% willing to let this country go to s**t in the name of reducing the deficit.

He speaks to REPUBLICAN crowds about the unfairness of Wall Street and one percenters benefitting from the economy while the rest watch on.

He talks about being "militaristic", but he speaks out louder than anyone about the disasters left behind when we topple s****y regimes.

I LOVE the idea of him coming out of conferences with lobbyist-owned senators, telling the world "senator X won't budge because he got $200k from Shell oil."

Mark my words, if he wins the nomination, he will start sounding a LOT more centrist/liberal, in line with statements he made before all this.

He already sounded more centrist/liberal during the SC GOP Debate. This is why I think he has the best chance to win (albeit probably a small chance overall) the General election compared to the other Republican candidates. The rest of the Republican candidates are simply infighting and knocking each other off knowing full well they don't have a chance. At some point, I suspect they may broker a deal, but it's unsure when.

The kicker here, he is not ultraconservative and he is not an evangelist, and those groups are fine with it because they feel he would still fight for their overall interests, financially and with social security/Medicare, etc.

 

[bashwell]

Mark my words, if he wins the nomination, he will start sounding a LOT more centrist/liberal, in line with statements he made before all this.

I think Trump is an opportunist, megalomaniac, maybe worse. He'll say and do whatever it takes to win. He's a "winner" and everyone else is a "loser".

 

[bashwell]

I personally think Cruz would be by FAR the worst president of the entire field. Both socially and economically. A religious fundamentalist who wants to do away with social programs and federal regulation? I know he's a smart person, which is why I can't BELIEVE he doesn't see how disastrous those things would be to our future.

As I said above, I think Cruz is very ill-fitted for politics let alone the presidency. He shouldn't be in politics. But in my opinion neither should Trump.

 

[bashwell]

The fact that we're debating Trump vs. Cruz is sad. I didn't mean to suggest anything else other than we have bad choices.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

As I said above, I think Cruz is very ill-fitted for politics let alone the presidency. He shouldn't be in politics. But in my opinion neither should Trump.

Who should be in politics then? I don't necessarily disagree, but I am curious as to who you think should be in politics.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

The fact that we're debating Trump vs. Cruz is sad. I didn't mean to suggest anything else other than we have bad choices.

I think we have bad choices across the board, whether it's Trump, Cruz, Jeb, Rubio, Hillary, Sanders.

It's too bad Rand Paul doesn't have the ability to attract a broad electorate. He has no personality or charm.

 

[deleted162650]

We all know that politics is a Greek word. Originally derived from the words poli meaning "many" and tics meaning "blood sucking invertebrates".

 

[bashwell]

Who should be in politics then? I don't necessarily disagree, but I am curious as to who you think should be in politics.

Damn that's hard to say. It's easier to rule out than rule in here. I honestly don't know, but I just know I don't like most of the current candidates on either side. I like some better than others, but in the end I don't really like any of them. Maybe Rand Paul if he were still running. I like Ben Carson as a nice guy I'd have a beer with, but not as a politician.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I think Trump is an opportunist, megalomaniac, maybe worse. He'll say and do whatever it takes to win. He's a "winner" and everyone else is a "loser".

You're right, but despite the crazy policies he's offering his racist/xenophobic followers, he does seem to have SOME understanding of what things have harmed the country and what things the country needs.

I'm not saying I support him. I think the things he's said about Muslims and Mexicans are unacceptable and disqualifying on their own. But I don't think he's nearly as crazy as the people he's putting on a show for, and I think the more he talks to people the more he's realizing how inclusive he needs to be.

 

[bashwell]

You're right, but despite the crazy policies he's offering his racist/xenophobic followers, he does seem to have SOME understanding of what things have harmed the country and what things the country needs.

I'm not saying I support him. I think the things he's said about Muslims and Mexicans are unacceptable and disqualifying on their own. But I don't think he's nearly as crazy as the people he's putting on a show for, and I think the more he talks to people the more he's realizing how inclusive he needs to be.

I don't think he's crazy either. I do think he's opportunistic. I suspect one big reason he's "realizing how inclusive he needs to be" is because he's opportunistic and wants to advantage of things so he can increase his chances of becoming president. Just my opinion.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I don't think he's crazy either. I do think he's opportunistic. I suspect one big reason he's "realizing how inclusive he needs to be" is because he's opportunistic and wants to advantage of things so he can increase his chances of becoming president. Just my opinion.

Absolutely.
He's treating SC like the general election since Democrats aren't focused on campaigning there and there isn't an election at this time for them. SC was his experiment, and if the predictions are spot on, he at least has the affirmation to keep on. He's in a position to look ahead.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I don't think he's crazy either. I do think he's opportunistic. I suspect one big reason he's "realizing how inclusive he needs to be" is because he's opportunistic and wants to advantage of things so he can increase his chances of becoming president. Just my opinion.

Agreed. And not that it makes him any less opportunistic, but I think his move to be more inclusive is more in line with his true beliefs. He never came across as a racist xenophobic before this. He definitely showed hate for individuals, but not for ethnic groups. At least that I can remember.

 

[Spinach Dip]

I think it's (maybe) arguable "wasting a vote" could be better than voting for either Hillary or Trump.

If enough Americans are "wasting a vote" on someone else instead of Hillary or Trump -- for example, if approximately 1/3rd vote for Hillary, 1/3rd vote for Trump, and 1/3rd vote for other candidates combined -- then this could have a significant impact on the nation. It could be a meaningful statement against traditional politics. Hillary or Trump would end up with the victory, but then we'd also have a lot of disaffected voters, which Pres. Hillary Clinton or Pres. Trump can't simply always ignore. A lot of hopefully good change could come in traditional politics and our nation if there are a significant enough number of "wasted votes".

Didn't Ross Perot get ~10% of the vote a couple decades ago?

And the response from Dems and Reps was to DISALLOW any 3rd party candidate from taking part in the debates again.

The only thing all our elected officials can agree on, regardless of party, is that they don't want to see a 3rd party start to take root. That would threaten their monopolies on power.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Didn't Ross Perot get ~10% of the vote a couple decades ago?

And the response from Dems and Reps was to DISALLOW any 3rd party candidate from taking part in the debates again.

The only thing all our elected officials can agree on, regardless of party, is that they don't want to see a 3rd party start to take root. That would threaten their monopolies on power.

This is another good reason to have Trump win the republican nomination. Same could be said for Sanders, but I feel he is waaaaaay left and would (to paraphrase Rubio) - systematically put into policy things that would forever alter the course of this country and there would be no reversing that.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Latest WSJ/NBC poll came out with republicans across the board:

Cruz ahead of Trump by 2%

Unsure of how this computes. SC will be interesting.

 

[futureplastics07]

Why vote? We all know that the electoral college has the final say anysways.

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

 

[bashwell]

Didn't Ross Perot get ~10% of the vote a couple decades ago?

And the response from Dems and Reps was to DISALLOW any 3rd party candidate from taking part in the debates again.

The only thing all our elected officials can agree on, regardless of party, is that they don't want to see a 3rd party start to take root. That would threaten their monopolies on power.

For the sake of clarity, although some people may think it's pedantic:

1) I should point out I never mentioned anything about a third party in the above quotation. I talked about people voting for a candidate other than Hillary or Trump (assuming they're the nominees), but that could happen in context of people voting for multiple different parties. Third, fourth, fifth parties, etc.

2) Also, whether it's actually a good or bad idea to cast a "wasted vote" is a separate question (and I did say it's "(maybe) arguable" so I'm personally not committed to the idea). As I mentioned above, it depends on one's personal criteria and priorities in voting (among other factors).

3) There's a distinction between what parties want vs. what will happen. For example I've seen articles suggesting if Trump wins the GOP nomination, then the GOP is done as a party. Personally, I don't know how likely this is to actually happen. Maybe it won't happen. However, some people seem to think it's a possibility. If for the sake of argument it's true the GOP will die if Trump is the nominee, then presumably a new party could possibly emerge to take its place. If that happens, I presume that'd be a new second party, not third.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

For the sake of clarity, although some people may think it's pedantic:

1) I should point out I never mentioned anything about a third party in the above quotation. I talked about people voting for a candidate other than Hillary or Trump (assuming they're the nominees), but that could happen in context of people voting for multiple different parties. Third, fourth, fifth parties, etc.

2) Also, whether it's actually a good or bad idea to cast a "wasted vote" is a separate question (and I did say it's "(maybe) arguable" so I'm personally not committed to the idea). As I mentioned above, it depends on one's personal criteria and priorities in voting (among other factors).

3) There's a distinction between what parties want vs. what will happen. For example I've seen articles suggesting if Trump wins the GOP nomination, then the GOP is done as a party. Personally, I don't know how likely this is to actually happen. Maybe it won't happen. However, some people seem to think it's a possibility. If for the sake of argument it's true the GOP will die if Trump is the nominee, then presumably a new party could possibly emerge to take its place. If that happens, I presume that'd be a new second party, not third.

The question would be if this new party would offer anything that would unite folks, and I don't mean the general public - I mean the politicians from within.

 

[bashwell]

The question would be if this new party would offer anything that would unite folks, and I don't mean the general public - I mean the politicians from within.

That's true too. Though some politicians bend in response to their constituents.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

That's true too. Though some politicians bend in response to their constituents.

We will see how well the Establishment bends and unites behind Trump should he win the nomination. If they don't, then we could see a split potentially, and Trump's populist party could become the new second party and turn the current GOP into a 3rd party as undoubtedly some would shift. It would be like the olden days where the Republican Party of then is nowhere near being the equivalent of the current Republican Party.

Sanders has his own populist groupie as well.

It would be awesome to see the Establishment on both sides be destroyed.

 

[Silent Cool]

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Can't stand with Rand anymore. Home boy dropped out.

 

[Silent Cool]

Can't stand with Rand anymore. Home boy dropped out.

He did not drop out. He is on the ballot in all 50 states, I believe. He SUSPENDED his campaign. I will be voting for him.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

He did not drop out. He is on the ballot in all 50 states, I believe. He SUSPENDED his campaign. I will be voting for him.

Go ahead and waste your vote.