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.

 jasper76 wrote:
I doubt Bernie runs Third Party (even though he actually is third party), because I'm pretty sure he knows how dangerous Trump would be.

Trump, on the other hand, might not be able to contain himself if somehow the stars align and he's denied the nomination at the convention. I don't think I've ever seen a human being, let alone a politician, so thin-skinned. Dude doesn't let real or perceived slights against him go. He seems constitutionally incapable of doing so.

It may not necessarily just be Trump that could go third party. Lately, Cruz has been refusing to say if he'll support Trump if Trump is the nominee. I guess the Trump/Cruz bromance is over.

Good for Cruz. At least there's some backbone left to be found in the GOP.

Unless when all is said and done he ends up behind Trump's podium with a sad face ala Christie

 jasper76 wrote:
Good for Cruz. At least there's some backbone left to be found in the GOP.

Um... I think Cruz ALWAYS had some backbone, as he's been that proverbial "stick in the mud" in the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but up til now Cruz was one of the dudes who said he'd support whoever the nominee is, including Trump.

They all made that pledge, though.

Yeah, they did. Doesn't speak well for their collective integrity, at least in my opinion (they all knew what Trump was at the time). I don't now what they could have said that would have been popular, but the pursuit of popularity is not a fundamental aspect of integrity.


On a loosely related subject, is anyone watching he town hall tonight? I'm going to tune in on the off chance of some post-Wifegate WWF antics.

How quickly people seem to have forgotten the bromance between Cruz and Trump. At the time it seemed like Cruz was just doing so out of a caution of offending Trump voters so that when he got out (as pretty much everybody expected) Cruz would swoop in and be their default second choice.

Thing is, that pledge was intended to rein in Trump. To keep Trump from running on his own. But would it stop Cruz? Is Cruz willing to break the Republican Party in two and run on his own, as The One True Republican, should Trump get the official nomination?

I'd give it even odds, at the moment.

I doubt Cruz would run as an independent candidate. He smart enough to know that he'd only be electing Clinton/Sanders or whoever and that would end his career forever.

While he might very well be willing to spite Trump by throwing the election, he isn't ready to commit career suicide.

Considering the stuff that Cruz has done and gotten away with already...I wouldn't put it past him to believe he has a shot as a third party and not thinking it would be career suicide.

In other news, in a bit of news which should surprise nobody, Trumps campaign manager has just been charged with assault.
Edit, battery, not assault.

I'm not sure that the video shows battery. I'm happy to leave that determination to the criminal justice system, but judge for yourself below. It doesn't help that Trump's campaign manager is saying he never touched her. Umm...dude, there's a video.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm not sure that the video shows battery. I'm happy to leave that determination to the criminal justice system, but judge for yourself below. It doesn't help that Trump's campaign manager is saying he never touched her. Umm...dude, there's a video.

Spoiler:

If he grabbed her, which is what the video seems to show, it's considered at least simple battery.

Pretty much if you lay your hands on someone in an offensive manner, it's battery.

Gotcha. I guess I never really knew where 'battery' began and ended as a legal term. All I really know know is that battery is here to stay, it cannot be killed, and its found in James Hetfield somewhere (thanks, I'll be here all week).

 jasper76 wrote:
Gotcha. I guess I never really knew where 'battery' began and ended as a legal term. All I really know know is that battery is here to stay, it cannot be killed, and its found in James Hetfield somewhere (thanks, I'll be here all week).

And yet I can never find one when I need it...

 Breotan wrote:
I doubt Cruz would run as an independent candidate. He smart enough to know that he'd only be electing Clinton/Sanders or whoever and that would end his career forever.

While he might very well be willing to spite Trump by throwing the election, he isn't ready to commit career suicide.

He's doing that by not running Independent, as well, and also facing the complete transformation of the Republican Party should Trump win the election. As a "True Conservative" and "Social Conservative", he actually has an enormous amount to lose if Trump wins. I actually think an Independent run could help his career even if his numbers are dismal, so long as he abandons his Presidential ambitions. He'll be able to tout for the rest of his life to his fellow Texans that he was the only one with the balls to stand up to Trump.

That said, I think its unlikely. But we're talking about Ted "Burn the Government to the Ground Over Planned Parenthood" Cruz, so who knows what he's capable of doing on principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Gotcha. I guess I never really knew where 'battery' began and ended as a legal term. All I really know know is that battery is here to stay, it cannot be killed, and its found in James Hetfield somewhere (thanks, I'll be here all week).

And yet I can never find one when I need it...

I can always find one, but its never never ever the size I need


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trump just said the top three functions of the federal government are:

Security
Healthcare
Education

Think about that. This is the front-runner of the Republican Party.

Trump is a fething idiot. Jeeze he's a scary candidate.

Did you watch the Town Hall? Dude is either a moron on foreign affairs, or the people who are advising him are. I thought Kasich was unusually strong. These town halls are alot better than debates IMO. It's hard for someone to fudge knowledge on issues through an entire hour of grilling.

Everyone backed off their pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.....everyone of them.

 jasper76 wrote:
Did you watch the Town Hall? Dude is either a moron on foreign affairs, or the people who are advising him are. I thought Kasich was unusually strong. These town halls are alot better than debates IMO. It's hard for someone to fudge knowledge on issues through an entire hour of grilling.

Everyone backed off their pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.....everyone of them.

Cruz and Kasich were decent.

Trump was a disaster.

I now really hope Cruz trounces him from here on out.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Looking at the delegate charts we see that the popular vote was close throughout, that Hillary Clinton had a large lead in super delegates for the majority of the primary process but that changed at the very end after Obama won a commanding lead in the pledged delegate count. The superdelegates were choosing Hillary right up until the point when Obama won enough pledged delegates to ensure his victory. If Hillary had done better in the later primary contests she likely would have kept the superdelegates and won the nomination. The superdelegates clearly favored Hillary and kept supporting her right up until Obama's win became inevitable and then switched over.

And when superdelegates will switch to back the more popular candidate, that kind of gaks all over the idea that they’re there to stop a more popular candidate beating an insider.

Once again, superdelegates exist because party insiders crave power that they can broker for more power.

Oh, and Ferraro wasn’t making a case for what superdelegates should do out of same kind of superdelegate principles. She was making a case for superdelegates to elect the person she wanted to win.

I think the superdelegates will play a deciding role in the Democratic primary this year because Hillary Clinton has spend decades establishing a base of power and influence within the party whereas Bernie Sanders has spent his time in Congress as an Independent (even though he caucuses with the Democrats on most issues). Superdelegates are party insiders, Clinton is a party insider, Sanders isn't so the advantage goes towards Clinton.

No, superdelegates play a role when no candidate claims an outright majority of pledged delegates. In theory superdelegates could then pick their own insider… but when that happened in 2008 they still went with the outsider who won more votes.

But they probably won’t play a role this year simply because Clinton has a big enough lead. If things change massively then maybe they’ll come in to it, maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Um... I think Cruz ALWAYS had some backbone, as he's been that proverbial "stick in the mud" in the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

Cruz has backbone, no doubt about that. It’s his motivation that’s the issue. In the senate he sure was a ‘stick in the mud’, but if you can find a purpose for any of that obstructionism beyond a personal political strategy of securing the rightwing base for himself, I’ll send you a dollar.

When he forced the government shutdown there was no purpose beyond gaining media attention and raising his own national profile. When running for the nomination, he initially went buddy buddy with Trump, hoping to shake out the other candidates and leave him with the only one v one he could win – Cruz v Trump. When Trump grew too strong before the field had fully narrowed, he jumped on the stop Trump thing, hoping to have the rest of the party form around him as the Trump alternative. But that didn’t work out, while Trump has been pegged back enough that he probably won’t get the nomination, Kasich is still in the field and just as likely to take a contested convention nomination as he is, so now he’s turned to attack Kasich.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, they did. Doesn't speak well for their collective integrity, at least in my opinion (they all knew what Trump was at the time). I don't now what they could have said that would have been popular, but the pursuit of popularity is not a fundamental aspect of integrity.

They were also worried about giving Trump an excuse to run as a third party. Back then people still thought Trump as the candidate was outlandish, the biggest concern was him running as a third party candidate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I doubt Cruz would run as an independent candidate. He smart enough to know that he'd only be electing Clinton/Sanders or whoever and that would end his career forever.

Yep. Has anyone sitting in congress as part of a major party ever run as a third party? It'd mean throwing away anything you could achieve as a senator/representative, in order to have a glory run in a race that you'll never win. No-one is going to make the choice to sink their career and their party allegiances for that.

On the flip side, there's never been a candidate elected when about half his own party hates him, so I guess we shouldn't throw out the option. But if a third party was to run just as a spoiler, wouldn't it make more sense to be Jeb!, or someone else who won't be throwing away an elected office?

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Um... I think Cruz ALWAYS had some backbone, as he's been that proverbial "stick in the mud" in the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

Cruz has backbone, no doubt about that. It’s his motivation that’s the issue. In the senate he sure was a ‘stick in the mud’, but if you can find a purpose for any of that obstructionism beyond a personal political strategy of securing the rightwing base for himself, I’ll send you a dollar.

When he forced the government shutdown there was no purpose beyond gaining media attention and raising his own national profile.

You may think he's a jackass for the things he pulled during his Senate tenure. But, at least he had the integrity to run by promising to play hardball and actually do it. The government shutdown was an attempt to gain attention to what he wanted to showcase, but alas, he couldn't overcome the media/Democrat broadside.

He is a stickler for "the rule of law", given his background. So, at least he's got that going for him as a potential President.

When running for the nomination, he initially went buddy buddy with Trump, hoping to shake out the other candidates and leave him with the only one v one he could win – Cruz v Trump.

Everyone did. So, this is a weird criticism as I'm sure they thought in the back of their mind that Trump wouldn't last this long. It was a calculated gamble, not an implicit endorsement.

When Trump grew too strong before the field had fully narrowed, he jumped on the stop Trump thing, hoping to have the rest of the party form around him as the Trump alternative.

Remains to be seen if Cruz's strategy pans out... many political insiders has noted that Cruz has a well-run campaign... as evidenced by understanding the party rules to gain additional delegates in Lousianna and Colorado.

But that didn’t work out, while Trump has been pegged back enough that he probably won’t get the nomination, Kasich is still in the field and just as likely to take a contested convention nomination as he is, so now he’s turned to attack Kasich.

We'll see.

The key thing to watch out for is if the GOP Convention Rules Committee adjusts the rules on gaining the nomination on 1st ballot.

Right now, rule #40 is still in effect:

Only Cruz and Trump satisfies rule 40.

Now, this committee will have at least three cracks at possible changing this.

So, as it stands, if no one gets 1237 delegates on the 1st ballot in July... then, it's a 'Contested Convention' and the delegates are free-agents to vote between Cruz and Trump.

Since the beginning, the Cruz campaign actually stacked the state delegates whom are favorable to Cruz. So if we have a "Contested Convention", we're going to see Cruz nominated.

However, if the committee changes the rule (toss out #40)... then, any of the candidates who were on the ballot, but dropped out... could be selected. Hello Walker/Perry!

Or, if the committee just calvin-balled it, they could just throw out all of the rules and open it up to any GOP party member. Like... Mitt Romney.

Mitt could then 'rescue' the party and run a "See... I told ya so" campaign. (okay, okay... I'll lay off the booze).

 whembly wrote:
You may think he's a jackass for the things he pulled during his Senate tenure. But, at least he had the integrity to run by promising to play hardball and actually do it. The government shutdown was an attempt to gain attention to what he wanted to showcase, but alas, he couldn't overcome the media/Democrat broadside.

If you believe there was a political objective to Cruz’s government shutdown, then you’re more of a die hard true believer than actual working members of the Republican party.

This is from an unnamed senator in a Politico piece on that entirely directionless government shutdown;
““It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn’t have a strategy – he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was, I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-097753

And here’s Josh Holmes, former Chief of Staff to Mitch McConnell;
“It’s not what he’s trying to accomplish or what he says he’s trying to accomplish that bothers people, it’s that he’s consistently sacrificed the mutual goals of many for his personal enhancement.”

Everyone did. So, this is a weird criticism as I'm sure they thought in the back of their mind that Trump wouldn't last this long. It was a calculated gamble, not an implicit endorsement.

We can criticise every single Republican in the field for failing to take on Trump, but maybe it’s best to keep to Cruz at this point.

Anyhow, the point is not that Cruz made a calculated gamble, we all know that. The point is that everything Cruz has done has been a gamble, with the end objective of enhancing his own position.

The talk now where he’s hinting at not supporting Trump if he wins the nomination, that’s not a sudden decision to be principled. It’s just the next calculation, this time to threaten the party with a certain loss in the general unless they form under him in the convention.

We'll see.

The key thing to watch out for is if the GOP Convention Rules Committee adjusts the rules on gaining the nomination on 1st ballot.

Maybe, remember most Cruz’s best states have come and gone, the remainder favour Kasich. Not saying Kasich will catch him in delegates, but there’s a good chance he’ll narrow the lead and reach the convention with lots of talk about ‘momentum’. And remember Kasich is the one guy in the Republican field with a positive popularity, and the one guy who regularly beats Clinton in polls.

Now, this committee will have at least three cracks at possible changing this.

There’s a lot of things they could do, but they’ll be loathe to do anything that could potentially split the party, or make it seem like the party is making up new rules to avoid nominating the candidate chosen by the voters. That doesn’t mean they won’t stop Trump, but it does mean they’ll make sure everything looks above board and procedural as they go along. I can see Trump missing 1,237, and then the party selling the next step as ‘every delegate has a right to choose who they see as the best fit per party rules’… while they apply enormous pressure on each delegate to move to their preferred candidate.

That strategy means they won’t be able to start changing convention rules, because that’d make it look really bad.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm not sure that the video shows battery. I'm happy to leave that determination to the criminal justice system, but judge for yourself below. It doesn't help that Trump's campaign manager is saying he never touched her. Umm...dude, there's a video.

It's probably battery. That said, I think poorly of the woman for actually pressing charges.

He grabbed her and moved her out of the way.

Yes, she had marks on her arm afterwards.

Big deal.

He obviously wasn't trying to harm her. He just wanted her out of Trump's face.

Should he have done it? Probably not.

Is it really big enough of a deal to file charges over?

No.

Traditio wrote:
It's probably battery. That said, I think poorly of the woman for actually pressing charges.

I agree that it's a very minor incident. When the video first came out I had to watch it a few times to figure out exactly where it was supposed to have taken place.

You're wrong that she's somehow responsible for 'pressing charges'. She made a complaint, that's all. The state chooses whether to pursue criminal charges or not, and they've decided this warrants a charge.

sebster wrote:I agree that it's a very minor incident. When the video first came out I had to watch it a few times to figure out exactly where it was supposed to have taken place.

You're wrong that she's somehow responsible for 'pressing charges'. She made a complaint, that's all. The state chooses whether to pursue criminal charges or not, and they've decided this warrants a charge.

Then she's responsible for filing the complaint.

And I'm not sure that you're right about the pressing charges thing. Yes, the State can decide to press/pursue criminal charges. That said, at least in some places, in cases like this, the police will ask: "Do you want to press charges?"

If she either called the cops and filed a complaint, or if she said "yes, I want to file charges," then I think less of her.

He grabbed her arm and moved her out of the way. He didn't punch her in the ovaries.

Traditio wrote:
Then she's responsible for filing the complaint.

Yes, but you're missing the point. If you want to say 'bad lady reporter' and that's it, then you do that. It's really boring and irrelevant to everything, though.

Thing is, people file complaints all the time. Call the police, go to a station or have an officer come to your house, cop writes a police report and so on. Lots of these are total nonsense, way more nonsense than what this woman claimed. Hell, some of the complaints are outright lies. The system is geared to handle that. It's why police review claims before actually going ahead with charges, and it's why prosecutors review before actually dragging the case through the courts.

So the question is why this case went further than that. Is it true that police will go this far any case in which grabbing an arm leaves a bruise? Or did her profile and media connections put pressure to make it go further? Or is there a political interest here, trying to hurt the Trump campaign?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but they are interesting questions, because we went further than 'bad lady reporter' and looked at what actually happened.

Traditio wrote:

sebster wrote:I agree that it's a very minor incident. When the video first came out I had to watch it a few times to figure out exactly where it was supposed to have taken place.

You're wrong that she's somehow responsible for 'pressing charges'. She made a complaint, that's all. The state chooses whether to pursue criminal charges or not, and they've decided this warrants a charge.

Then she's responsible for filing the complaint.

And I'm not sure that you're right about the pressing charges thing. Yes, the State can decide to press/pursue criminal charges. That said, at least in some places, in cases like this, the police will ask: "Do you want to press charges?"

If she either called the cops and filed a complaint, or if she said "yes, I want to file charges," then I think less of her.

He grabbed her arm and moved her out of the way. He didn't punch her in the ovaries.

It was still battery and it was still illegal, regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot just grab somebody aggressively and move them however you want whenever you want. That is not how it works here.

Blame the victim if you want, but he honestly should have known better and he is the one at fault here, not her.

Dreadwinter wrote:It was still battery and it was still illegal, regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot just grab somebody aggressively and move them however you want whenever you want. That is not how it works here.

Blame the victim if you want, but he honestly should have known better and he is the one at fault here, not her.

I fully admit all of these points.

That said, it's still obviously a very minor offense for which the reporter should not have felt a need to press charges.

I grant that it's a perfectly "legitimate" case.

I simply assert that it's a trivial case which should not have merited police intervention.

There was no substantial injury. There was no intent to commit injury. All that she lost was "face."

Again, it's not like he punched her in the ovaries (though, given the charges, he might as well have)! [At least that would make a good news story: female reporter goes up to Donald Trump; campaign manager punches her in the ovaries!]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Thing is, people file complaints all the time. Call the police, go to a station or have an officer come to your house, cop writes a police report and so on. Lots of these are total nonsense, way more nonsense than what this woman claimed. Hell, some of the complaints are outright lies. The system is geared to handle that. It's why police review claims before actually going ahead with charges, and it's why prosecutors review before actually dragging the case through the courts.

So the question is why this case went further than that. Is it true that police will go this far any case in which grabbing an arm leaves a bruise? Or did her profile and media connections put pressure to make it go further? Or is there a political interest here, trying to hurt the Trump campaign?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but they are interesting questions, because we went further than 'bad lady reporter' and looked at what actually happened.

What seems to me the most probable answer, sebster, is that the police "went this far" because what the man did is technically illegal. It is against the law to grab somebody's arm like that and force them to move in those circumstances. That's illegal. That's battery. There's no question about it.

The woman can't say "I want to press charges" and the cops just laugh her off. The law technically says she's right.

Doesn't change the fact that she shouldn't have felt the need to press charges in the first place.

All your protestations to the contrary, I really do suspect that it really does come down to "bad lady reporter."

I doubt that there's anything more to it. She's just butt hurt, and the law is technically on her side.

Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"

 Goliath wrote:
Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"

Did you watch the video?

Again, I grant that she was bruised where he grabbed her. But so what?

Maybe she just bruises easily.

Again, watch the video. It's obvious that he was not intending to cause the female reporter harm. His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.

At any rate, I don't consider minor bruising "actually hurt." What kind of doctor bills have you ever accrued for minor bruises?

As I said: she's just butt hurt.