Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The thing is, someone has to be president because they are head of state apart from any legislative functions.

I would vote Hillary just to prevent Trump. Unfortunately it is the most likely outcome I feel. I detest voting for Hillary as I feel she will set women in American politics back a decade or so and potentially give rise to an even uglier candidate in 4 to 8 years. The campaign run between Hillary and Trump will probably damage American politics for a while if not alter it in less than savory ways. I can't help but wonder what will happen if Trump gets snubbed by the GOP in a last ditch effort to save themselves or what will happen if Trump gets the nomination and then gets smashed in the general election.

This year is going to be one to remember in American politics. An either we will look back and think we dodged a bullet or we will look back an think thats when we swallowed a bullet.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I would vote Hillary just to prevent Trump. Unfortunately it is the most likely outcome I feel. I detest voting for Hillary as I feel she will set women in American politics back a decade or so and potentially give rise to an even uglier candidate in 4 to 8 years. The campaign run between Hillary and Trump will probably damage American politics for a while if not alter it in less than savory ways. I can't help but wonder what will happen if Trump gets snubbed by the GOP in a last ditch effort to save themselves or what will happen if Trump gets the nomination and then gets smashed in the general election.

This year is going to be one to remember in American politics. An either we will look back and think we dodged a bullet or we will look back an think thats when we swallowed a bullet.

There were rumours that even if Trump wins enough of the delegates... that he wouldn't get the nomination.

Not sure what's the mechanic... but, man... would we see convention riots like in the 70's?

 whembly wrote:
Well said Ouze...

Well said...

I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.

Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 feeder wrote:
General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

I'd probably just vote for some grass-roots third party.

I live in California, so it's perfectly acceptable to toss my vote directly into the trash.

Good to see we have something in common.

I would vote for Hillary. The Republicans will try to run a circus of made-up scandals regardless of who is elected, and I trust that Hillary will have the effect that I want on policies if elected.

Plus, I always vote against the Republican, regardless...But I hold no animosity towards Hillary and actually think she would be a better president than Sanders. I love Sander's policies, but I don't think they are achievable with the obstruction that is going on. Clinton can actually make some headway towards good policies.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well said Ouze...

Well said...

I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.

Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"

The party apparatchik could put anyone up for nomination, however that works. They're only governed by party rules, not by law.

Whole lotta grey interpretations though.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well said Ouze...

Well said...

I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.

Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"

Yes and no. The scenario described is if neither gets enough delegates to be a clear winner - i.e., the party members didn't elect a candidate to be "their guy".

This is why Marco Rubio will almost certainly be the nominee, in my opinion. The states that Trump is strong in are states that divide the delegates proportionally, whereas the states that Rubio are strong in are all-or-none. If Rubio wins them all, he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, then Trump doesn't have enough either, which leads to a brokered convention, which leads to Rubio anyway since in no world will they pick either Trump or Cruz.

At least that's my casual read.

 skyth wrote:
I would vote for Hillary. The Republicans will try to run a circus of made-up scandals regardless of who is elected, and I trust that Hillary will have the effect that I want on policies if elected.

Plus, I always vote against the Republican, regardless...But I hold no animosity towards Hillary and actually think she would be a better president than Sanders. I love Sander's policies, but I don't think they are achievable with the obstruction that is going on. Clinton can actually make some headway towards good policies.

Sure, provided that the beneficiaries of said "good" policies donated substantial funds to the Clinton Foundation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well said Ouze...

Well said...

I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.

Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"

Yes and no. The scenario described is if neither gets enough delegates to be a clear winner - i.e., the party members didn't elect a candidate to be "their guy".

This is why Marco Rubio will almost certainly be the nominee, in my opinion. The states that Trump is strong in are states that divide the delegates proportionally, whereas the states that Rubio are strong in are all-or-none. If Rubio wins them all, he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, then Trump doesn't have enough either, which leads to a brokered convention, which leads to Rubio anyway since in no world will they pick either Trump or Cruz.

At least that's my casual read.

I can only hope Ouze.

There's a real strong pucker factor watching the results tomorrow and the 15th.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I would vote Hillary just to prevent Trump. Unfortunately it is the most likely outcome I feel. I detest voting for Hillary as I feel she will set women in American politics back a decade or so and potentially give rise to an even uglier candidate in 4 to 8 years. The campaign run between Hillary and Trump will probably damage American politics for a while if not alter it in less than savory ways. I can't help but wonder what will happen if Trump gets snubbed by the GOP in a last ditch effort to save themselves or what will happen if Trump gets the nomination and then gets smashed in the general election.

This year is going to be one to remember in American politics. An either we will look back and think we dodged a bullet or we will look back an think thats when we swallowed a bullet.

There were rumours that even if Trump wins enough of the delegates... that he wouldn't get the nomination.

Not sure what's the mechanic... but, man... would we see convention riots like in the 70's?

Well from what I've been lead to believe, Trump rallies are pretty violent already. So I can imagine that unless Trump wins everything and becomes POTUS we will see some sort of violence in America. Given the militia types are pretty fond of Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of them choose not to take their medication an start "freedoming" things for Trump.

I would like to vote Sanders, but as said by others more clearly, it seems like a major stretch that he would get the nomination. Failing that, I'd vote for HRC, not as a show of solidarity to her, but I think she will do far less damage than Trump would.

Of course, if Cruz or Rubio wins the nomination, that may change my mind on things, but that said, I'm doubtful that they will get that nomination yet. The GOP (and public in general) has consistently underestimated Trump's capacity to win, so I think it is wholly possible that Trump emerges the candidate for the GOP simply because nobody until very, very recently has done anything to stop him other than say 'oh he'll flame out'.

As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.

He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, this was a thing today.

I concur with the commenters that it was likely private security, rather than Secret Service - I feel like if it was Secret Service A.) There would have been more than one of them acting and B.) There would have been an arrest made to justify it. I definitely could be wrong but I'd be fairly surprised.

Damn, I was about to post that.

Not sure how the Secret Service handles things but if that had been a cop then the reporter would warming his butt on a bench in the police lockup waiting for arraignment.

Still, that reporter is a little and should probably be arrested anyway.

 feeder wrote:
As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.

He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.

I don't think he could win the general election (and almost certainly won't get the nomination barring an unexpected indictment) but sure, I like Sanders.

 feeder wrote:
As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.

He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.

We have some of the best educated idiots in the world, that's why, you filthy peasant.

 Breotan wrote:

Damn, I was about to post that.

Not sure how the Secret Service handles things but if that had been a cop then the reporter would warming his butt on a bench in the police lockup waiting for arraignment.

Still, that reporter is a little and should probably be arrested anyway.

Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.

I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd really have to see the entire altercation - especially the few minutes leading up to it - before making that conclusion, not just the choke-slam.

If the officer felt sufficiently threatened to employ force, then there should have been an arrest made. I'm sure we'll have more information tomorrow.

THe law says that reporters have to stay in squares designated by people trying to be nominated. If he can't respect the law of the square I just don't know what kind of world this is.

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.

I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd really have to see the entire altercation - especially the few minutes leading up to it - before making that conclusion, not just the choke-slam.

I'm not saying he hasn't broken any laws, but there's nothing to suggest that he has either

Yeah, I agree - I'm saying I don't really have an opinion as to whether or not it was justified yet.

 feeder wrote:
General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

Neither. I won't vote for either one, but I will vote against Trump.

Yes, I'll push the button next to Hillary's name on election day, but it won't be because I want to see her in the White House. It will be because I don't want to see Trump in the White House more than I don't want to see Hillary there.

It is a subtle, but important, distinction. For clarification purposes, I voted for Obama in 2008. But I did not vote for him in 2012; I I voted against Romney. I will do the same thing if it comes down to a Trump/Clinton face-off in November. Hillary will get my vote, but it will in no way be an endorsement or an approval of her. It will be nothing more than an indictment of Trump.

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.

I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd really have to see the entire altercation - especially the few minutes leading up to it - before making that conclusion, not just the choke-slam.

If the officer felt sufficiently threatened to employ force, then there should have been an arrest made. I'm sure we'll have more information tomorrow.

I kinda doubt we'll get more information. Secret Service has been an embarrassment of late.

In any regards, the agent kinda looked like he got accepted not for his geniality but because of military/law enforcement experience and had no damn business being assigned protection detail at a rally.

Well, we have yet to see what happens on Super-Tuesday Dems wise, we may yet see Bernie rise, and he has been shown by Quinnipiac to crush Republicans, and they have predicted Presidential winners consistently fr the past few decades. Ties possibly could have gone to Bernie with the missing precincts votes wit the delegate system, and Iowa's governor was a pro-Hilary type Dem.

We are seeing more politicians and other high profile supporters endorsing Bernie, including lately Representative Gabbard of Hawaii broke from the DNC committee to endorse Bernie.

Gabbard was a soldier twice in Iraq, and she prefers the Bernie style of foreign leadership to Hawk-Hillary.


Trump, well, he is a bad penny who turns up more than most things, and he has always loved being in the news as the narcissist he is.

I find this to be a funny headline to be on the front page of the Washington Post right now https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/for-first-time-in-10-years-justice-thomas-asksquestions-during-argument/2016/02/29/b47f2558-df00-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

 feeder wrote:
As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.

He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.

I love sanders, but I think he would do alot more for what he wants as a senator than as a president. as a president, he would be trying to do things that currently isnt possible.
As my friend said, Bernie is the kid in the school election promising pizza for lunch everyday and longer recess.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.

He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.

I love sanders, but I think he would do alot more for what he wants as a senator than as a president. as a president, he would be trying to do things that currently isnt possible.
As my friend said, Bernie is the kid in the school election promising pizza for lunch everyday and longer recess.

You're friend's analogy would be apt if all the other schools in the district had pizza for lunch and longer recess, but the current student body president is claiming "it wouldn't work" at your school.


edit: format

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I find this to be a funny headline to be on the front page of the Washington Post right now https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/for-first-time-in-10-years-justice-thomas-asksquestions-during-argument/2016/02/29/b47f2558-df00-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Why? It's sorta been his thing.

Scalia pretty much asked all the questions he might have had, so there wasn't much reason for him to speak up.

squidhills wrote:

 feeder wrote:
General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

Neither. I won't vote for either one, but I will vote against Trump.

Yes, I'll push the button next to Hillary's name on election day, but it won't be because I want to see her in the White House. It will be because I don't want to see Trump in the White House more than I don't want to see Hillary there.

It is a subtle, but important, distinction. For clarification purposes, I voted for Obama in 2008. But I did not vote for him in 2012; I I voted against Romney. I will do the same thing if it comes down to a Trump/Clinton face-off in November. Hillary will get my vote, but it will in no way be an endorsement or an approval of her. It will be nothing more than an indictment of Trump.

I think this is me as well... But, we can expand that to include Cruz and Rubio right alongside of Trump.

Just about the only Republican who could show up and potentially get my vote from a Democrat candidate right now, would have to be Colin Powell.... But I don't think there's a very good chance of him running, he's stated numerous times (IIRC) that he is simply not interested in even running.

 Breotan wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I find this to be a funny headline to be on the front page of the Washington Post right now https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/for-first-time-in-10-years-justice-thomas-asksquestions-during-argument/2016/02/29/b47f2558-df00-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Why? It's sorta been his thing.

I know, I just found the headline to be funny. As if it is somehow a front page news story.