Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[nereo]

So... Paul Ryan just declared that "I do not want, nor will I accept the nomination" in the case of a contested convention.

Isn't this exactly what happened before he became Speaker?

This all reminds me of Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar (Act 1, Scene 2):
Casca
I can as well be hanged as tell the manner of it. It was mere foolery. I did not mark it. I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown (yet ’twas not a crown neither, ’twas one of these coronets) and, as I told you, he put it by once—but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again, then he put it by again—but, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time. He put it the third time by. And still, as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar—for he swooned and fell down at it. And for mine own part, I durst not laugh for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.

[MoonShadow]

So... Paul Ryan just declared that "I do not want, nor will I accept the nomination" in the case of a contested convention.

Isn't this exactly what happened before he became Speaker?

Almost word for word, yes.

[Glenstache]

On the topic of Mr. Ted Cruz, here's what Boehner had to say this week:
“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/

There seems to be remarkable consistency in opinion among the people who know him.

[randymarsh]

On the topic of Mr. Ted Cruz, here's what Boehner had to say this week:
“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/

There seems to be remarkable consistency in opinion among the people who know him.

Where was this Boehner when I lived in his district??? I never had a high opinion of him during the Obama years but we've got some common ground on this Cruz topic.

[infogoon]

I enjoyed this quote from the Atlantic article: “Why do people take such an instant dislike to Ted Cruz? It just saves time."

[Jack]

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/

From the same article:

When it came to the Democrat primaries, Boehner asserted his belief that although Bernie Sanders has put up a significant fight, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination over Bernie Sanders. While stating that he disagreed with Sanders on all the issues, the former Speaker also called Sanders a nice guy and the most honest politician in the race.

On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.

Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal.

“Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.

The fact that an insider like Boehner thinks that possibility is reasonably likely is interesting indeed.

It seems to me, though, that (despite how popular Biden allegedly is?) it would backfire by royally pissing off not only the minority of Clinton supporters who actually really like her (as oppose to liking whoever the Democrat establishment candidate is), but also the much larger majority of Sanders supporters (who, at least in part, are driven by their disgust for establishment politics and exactly those sorts of shenanigans).

[Jeremy E.]

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/

From the same article:

When it came to the Democrat primaries, Boehner asserted his belief that although Bernie Sanders has put up a significant fight, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination over Bernie Sanders. While stating that he disagreed with Sanders on all the issues, the former Speaker also called Sanders a nice guy and the most honest politician in the race.

On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.

Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal.

“Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.

The fact that an insider like Boehner thinks that possibility is reasonably likely is interesting indeed.

It seems to me, though, that (despite how popular Biden allegedly is?) it would backfire by royally pissing off not only the minority of Clinton supporters who actually really like her (as oppose to liking whoever the Democrat establishment candidate is), but also the much larger majority of Sanders supporters (who, at least in part, are driven by their disgust for establishment politics and exactly those sorts of shenanigans).

Biden was polling better than Sanders without even running, up until he told everyone there was no chance he would run

[Jack]

Biden was polling better than Sanders without even running, up until he told everyone there was no chance he would run

Nope.

[Allen Farlow]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

[MDM]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.

Yes, in some state's "winner take all" (WTA) doesn't mean exactly that, although Trump did get all the delegates in PA and MD (and Delaware, where it really was WTA).  Latest count (see link below) has Trump with 994 delegates.  There are 502 in the remaining states.  He needs 243 out of those 502....

Based on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html it appears Trump will have enough delegates (3 more than the minimum needed) if he sweeps the winner-take-all primaries.  This does not include any of the other remaining state primaries.

[Jack]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

By chaining herself to the boat anchor that is the Cruz campaign, Carly one again proves herself to be the Queen of the Dumbasses. I guess she was worried that people were starting to forget how fucking incompetently she ran HP, so she had to shore up her stupidity quotient.

[nereo]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.

Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?

[forummm]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.

Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?

Trump's already great with women. I heard him say so.

[forummm]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/the-most-creative-descriptions-of-ted-cruz-so-far/

[nereo]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.

Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?

Trump's already great with women. I heard him say so.

Yup, he's a winner.  He did great with women, minorities love him - they're begging for him to secure the boarders, he has lovely hands, he's very successful - tremendously successful, he's perfected the art of the deal and he will renegotiate every bad deal (including the ones we don't even have).  I know because he keeps telling me so.

[nereo]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/the-most-creative-descriptions-of-ted-cruz-so-far/

"with 'friends' like these, who needs...."

[Glenstache]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

By chaining herself to the boat anchor that is the Cruz campaign, Carly one again proves herself to be the Queen of the Dumbasses. I guess she was worried that people were starting to forget how fucking incompetently she ran HP, so she had to shore up her stupidity quotient.

Well, there is one group that won't forget that, and won't support her candidacy in any sense:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-04/hewlett-packard-employees-arent-donating-to-carly-fiorinas-campaign

Trevor Noah made a good quip that joining Cruz's campaign at this point is like landing a job at Blockbuster in 2012.

[forummm]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

By chaining herself to the boat anchor that is the Cruz campaign, Carly one again proves herself to be the Queen of the Dumbasses. I guess she was worried that people were starting to forget how fucking incompetently she ran HP, so she had to shore up her stupidity quotient.

Well, there is one group that won't forget that, and won't support her candidacy in any sense:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-04/hewlett-packard-employees-arent-donating-to-carly-fiorinas-campaign

Trevor Noah made a good quip that joining Cruz's campaign at this point is like landing a job at Blockbuster in 2012.

Obligatory Fiorina content from her last campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWlOxhSIKk

(2:20 for highlights)

[Allen Farlow]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.

Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?

And exactly why must Trump pick a woman as his running mate? If I recall, beginning with Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, every presidential candidate who chose a woman for a running mate has lost.

[nereo]

So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.

Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.

Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?

And exactly why must Trump pick a woman as his running mate? If I recall, beginning with Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, every presidential candidate who chose a woman for a running mate has lost.

Where did I say that Trump must pick a woman?  I tend to think he won't.  However, by picking Fiorina, Cruz prevents Trump from doing the same.
Trump is smart enough to know he has to improve his standing among women to win the popular vote - one option that might have helped that is now gone.

Your comment about 'every presidential candidate who chose a woman for a running mate' isn't very informative.  To date there have exactly two women who have run in the general election under a major party: Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro.  That's a pathetically small sample size. Mondale was going against a sitting president with one of the highest approval ratings since WWII regardless of who his running mate was (and he got royally thumped).

[Gone]

Where did I say that Trump must pick a woman?  I tend to think he won't.  However, by picking Fiorina, Cruz prevents Trump from doing the same.
Trump is smart enough to know he has to improve his standing among women to win the popular vote - one option that might have helped that is now gone.

Trump moving to secure more votes from women might not be in his favor. It would make him seem compromising to his core voters. Picking a female running candidate MAY gain Trump a few votes from women who weren't already planning to vote for him, but it likely would have been offset by a larger loss from his core demographic which prefers a male authority unhampered by compromise.

More likely, the plan from the start with Trump is to pair off with someone just as uncompromising as himself and just as outside the field of the typical political brash. The people who want to vote for Trump want to vote for him because he doesn't bend to the standard political system, so his running mate will need to be someone that signals, "This isn't an anchor on Trump." I'm holding out hope for Vince McMahon so the State of the Union Address can be at Wrestlemania 31.

[Jeremy E.]

Where did I say that Trump must pick a woman?  I tend to think he won't.  However, by picking Fiorina, Cruz prevents Trump from doing the same.
Trump is smart enough to know he has to improve his standing among women to win the popular vote - one option that might have helped that is now gone.

Trump moving to secure more votes from women might not be in his favor. It would make him seem compromising to his core voters. Picking a female running candidate MAY gain Trump a few votes from women who weren't already planning to vote for him, but it likely would have been offset by a larger loss from his core demographic which prefers a male authority unhampered by compromise.

More likely, the plan from the start with Trump is to pair off with someone just as uncompromising as himself and just as outside the field of the typical political brash. The people who want to vote for Trump want to vote for him because he doesn't bend to the standard political system, so his running mate will need to be someone that signals, "This isn't an anchor on Trump." I'm holding out hope for Vince McMahon so the State of the Union Address can be at Wrestlemania 31.

This "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.

[LeRainDrop]

Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html

[nereo]

Well - that's half the ticket for the bet between arebelsply and myself...

Parallel question: Who do you think Ted Cruz dislikes more - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

[Malaysia41]

This "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.

... so you're predicting HRC is going to move left if she clinches the nomination? ;).

[Jeremy E.]

This "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.

... so you're predicting HRC is going to move left if she clinches the nomination? ;).

If? She already got the nomination

[forummm]

Couldn't figure out how to embed this...

https://zippy.gfycat.com/IdleCreamyDanishswedishfarmdog.webm

[Roland of Gilead]

Too bad Elon Musk is not eligible to run for president.   I don't even know his political views but I would vote for him over any of the mess we have now.

[nereo]

This "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.

... so you're predicting HRC is going to move left if she clinches the nomination? ;).

If? She already got the nomination

If we're going to play the semantics game, no she doesn't.  Neither does DJT. That doesn't happen until July. It doesn't appear that either will loose the delegate count, but there's always a remote chance they could disqualify themselves... commit a felony, that sort of thing.

[deadlymonkey]

Well - that's half the ticket for the bet between arebelsply and myself...

Parallel question: Who do you think Ted Cruz dislikes more - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

It doesn't matter, he wants to run again in 2020 after he sheds his current skin and grows a new improved model.  If he ties himself to Trump, he might go down with the ship.  I expect him to retreat to the shadows and "focus on the Senate".

[nereo]

Well - that's half the ticket for the bet between arebelsply and myself...

Parallel question: Who do you think Ted Cruz dislikes more - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

It doesn't matter, he wants to run again in 2020 after he sheds his current skin and grows a new improved model.  If he ties himself to Trump, he might go down with the ship.  I expect him to retreat to the shadows and "focus on the Senate".

I think in the short term it does matter. Will he continue to be hostile to Trump be a permanent thorn in his general election campaign, or will he decide that Hillary is even an even worse outcome.  Cruz has tens of millions of voters who supported him; does he try to deliver them towards (or away from) either of the two presumptive nominees?

[Jack]

If? She already got the nomination

I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!

[nereo]

If? She already got the nomination

I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!

Sure, but the nomination process for Democrats is proportional in most cases, which is why Bernie is so far behind in the delegate count. He's won several states by narrow margins, and a few small states by large margins, but is way behind in the popular vote (12.4MM to 9.3MM). Clinton has won 21 states to Sander's 15.

Mathematically Sanders certainly isn't out of the delegate count, but Clinton needs just ~180 more delegates out of over 1,100 remaining.  Sanders will need 80%+ of the vote in the remaining states. Even if Clinton recieves just 45% of the remaining votes she will receive enough pledged delegates (i.e. excluding all the super-delegates). 

[Northwestie]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people are out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

[Kris]

Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html

I called it last June.  My friends thought I was crazy.

I'm ….

proud? 

(Ugh)

[CmFtns]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

[forummm]

If? She already got the nomination

I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!

Sure, but the nomination process for Democrats is proportional in most cases, which is why Bernie is so far behind in the delegate count. He's won several states by narrow margins, and a few small states by large margins, but is way behind in the popular vote (12.4MM to 9.3MM). Clinton has won 21 states to Sander's 15.

Mathematically Sanders certainly isn't out of the delegate count, but Clinton needs just ~180 more delegates out of over 1,100 remaining.  Sanders will need 80%+ of the vote in the remaining states. Even if Clinton recieves just 45% of the remaining votes she will receive enough pledged delegates (i.e. excluding all the super-delegates). 

Interestingly, based on voting results, Sanders has always had a better shot at the nomination than Cruz or anyone else on the GOP side, yet the media always treated the GOP side as though it was really close. Trump's lead over Cruz was 3 times as large (adjusted for the number of delegates on each side).

It's a long shot for Sanders now. But that 12 million to 9 million votes thing is highly misleading. It counts caucus votes (which always have much lower turnout) as equal to primary votes (which are much easier to get). Delegate counts are the more accurate measure. And Clinton is winning there. But neither candidate will get enough for a majority based on pledged delegates. The superdelegates will decide the nomination, which is a really stupid system for a lot of reasons.

The open question at this point is will Clinton be indicted before the convention? If she were just an average citizen she would definitely be indicted (you don't have a dozen FBI agents investigating you without getting indicted). But maybe she gets out of it because she is powerful. Comey (who is a Republican) could also delay until after the convention for an indictment to really screw the Democrats. I don't have any idea whether she's actually guilty of anything--but it's much easier to get an indictment than to actually get a conviction.

Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html

I called it last June.  My friends thought I was crazy.

I'm ….

proud? 

(Ugh)

I don't remember if I predicted it. But I did say on this forum that he was the best choice on that side. I have mixed feelings about Kasich, but he's the only other option that wouldn't necessarily be a disaster. I think Trump could easily be a disaster, but he could also be not so terrible. You really have no idea what he's going to do.

I think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.

[deadlymonkey]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation.  Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no.  The Presidency does have a lot of other powers.  He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions.  As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.

I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations.  I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.

[MoonShadow]

Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?

I called him as POTUS in November of 2015.

[nereo]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation.  Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no.  The Presidency does have a lot of other powers.  He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions.  As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.

I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations.  I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.

Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution.  The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.

[MoonShadow]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation.  Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no.  The Presidency does have a lot of other powers.  He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions.  As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.

I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations.  I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.

Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution. The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.

And this is why Hillary is the poor choice.  She has actually voted in favor of wars.  Trump hasn't done that yet.

[CmFtns]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation.  Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no.  The Presidency does have a lot of other powers.  He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions.  As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.

I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations.  I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.

I don't think trump is stupid enough to just go willy nilly making random threats or decisions on the spot... Do you not think he will have advisers on top of advisers helping him understand the ramifications of any action he takes?

From watching him talk in various debates and interviews I have come away with the impression that he sees all these problems, doesn't know exactly how to solve them all but he will find a guy for that, a guy who knows what he's doing and can advise him, who is an expert at whatever the topic is rather than a politician or lobbyist. I am inherently not against the concept of finding the right person for the job rather the person who gave you the most money.

[CmFtns]

I believe the president of the untied states should the 0.0001%, the most fantastic, brilliant, perfect people this country has to offer and I don't think trump or anyone else fills this role and I do not particularly like trump.

I just don't seem to share the same hatred as everyone else here and when I look at all the other jokes that are presented in the races this year he doesn't seem any worse... I wanted to play the other side of the argument for a minute and see what people had to say.

[nereo]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation.  Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no.  The Presidency does have a lot of other powers.  He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions.  As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.

I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations.  I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.

Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution. The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.

And this is why Hillary is the poor choice.  She has actually voted in favor of wars.  Trump hasn't done that yet.

That's a bit of a bizarre distinction - Trump hasn't voted for anything, ever in a governmental capacity. But he has talked about building a wall, rounding up 11MM undocumented immigrants, starting a forced registry of Muslims, closing mosques, bombing the crap out of the Islamic state, initiating a trade war with China, etc. etc.

[GuitarStv]

Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations.  Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military. 

But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency.  Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.

All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy

He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation.  Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no.  The Presidency does have a lot of other powers.  He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions.  As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.

I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations.  I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.

Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution. The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.

And this is why Hillary is the poor choice.  She has actually voted in favor of wars.  Trump hasn't done that yet.

That's a bit of a bizarre distinction - Trump hasn't voted for anything, ever in a governmental capacity. But he has talked about building a wall, rounding up 11MM undocumented immigrants, starting a forced registry of Muslims, closing mosques, bombing the crap out of the Islamic state, initiating a trade war with China, etc. etc.

Trump supporters understand and accept that he lies constantly about everything.  This lets them reason that whatever behavior they want to see is the most likely behavior he'll have in office.  He's a political Rorschach test.

[CheapskateWife]

"The Republic has survived bozo presidents in the past; there is no reason to believe the Republic won't survive another" - CheapskateWife's very wise Dad

[Gin1984]

If? She already got the nomination

I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!

Sure, but the nomination process for Democrats is proportional in most cases, which is why Bernie is so far behind in the delegate count. He's won several states by narrow margins, and a few small states by large margins, but is way behind in the popular vote (12.4MM to 9.3MM). Clinton has won 21 states to Sander's 15.

Mathematically Sanders certainly isn't out of the delegate count, but Clinton needs just ~180 more delegates out of over 1,100 remaining.  Sanders will need 80%+ of the vote in the remaining states. Even if Clinton recieves just 45% of the remaining votes she will receive enough pledged delegates (i.e. excluding all the super-delegates). 

Interestingly, based on voting results, Sanders has always had a better shot at the nomination than Cruz or anyone else on the GOP side, yet the media always treated the GOP side as though it was really close. Trump's lead over Cruz was 3 times as large (adjusted for the number of delegates on each side).

It's a long shot for Sanders now. But that 12 million to 9 million votes thing is highly misleading. It counts caucus votes (which always have much lower turnout) as equal to primary votes (which are much easier to get). Delegate counts are the more accurate measure. And Clinton is winning there. But neither candidate will get enough for a majority based on pledged delegates. The superdelegates will decide the nomination, which is a really stupid system for a lot of reasons.

The open question at this point is will Clinton be indicted before the convention? If she were just an average citizen she would definitely be indicted (you don't have a dozen FBI agents investigating you without getting indicted). But maybe she gets out of it because she is powerful. Comey (who is a Republican) could also delay until after the convention for an indictment to really screw the Democrats. I don't have any idea whether she's actually guilty of anything--but it's much easier to get an indictment than to actually get a conviction.

Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html

I called it last June.  My friends thought I was crazy.

I'm ….

proud? 

(Ugh)

I don't remember if I predicted it. But I did say on this forum that he was the best choice on that side. I have mixed feelings about Kasich, but he's the only other option that wouldn't necessarily be a disaster. I think Trump could easily be a disaster, but he could also be not so terrible. You really have no idea what he's going to do.

I think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.

I really would not your reasoning for that.

[Jeremy E.]

If? She already got the nomination

I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!

Sanders has won like half the states, half of the lowest population lowest delegate states. He also has lost the nomination.

[Jeremy E.]

For those of you saying Trump will be president, you are delusional. Clinton is far more likely to be president, so at best you can say Trump has a small chance of being president.
Before getting into Swing States, Clinton already has an advantage because the "democratic states" provide 217 electoral votes whereas the "republican states" provide only 191.
Of the Swing states, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and New Hampshire, Trump is only expected to win North Carolina, and Florida is a toss up. That means Clinton is expected to win 9.5 out of 11 swing states, on top of already being ahead in electoral votes from non-swing states. Trump is very likely to lose.

[forummm]

I think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.

I really would not your reasoning for that.

Due to the typo, I'm not sure what you meant. But if you are asking for my reasoning, it's this. First, Sanders is already beating Trump in the head-to-head polling by 13 points, which is huge. He's even ahead in a bunch of really conservative states. Sanders does amazingly well with independents, whereas Trump's appeal is largely to the very conservative base. And Sanders neutralizes a lot of the things that people find appealing in Trump vs other GOP. So people like it that Trump isn't bought, that he's more independent, that he's not a standard politician, etc. Sanders has all those qualities, whereas Clinton is the prototypical opposite. Sanders has a lot of excellent wedge points he can make to drive distinctions between him and Trump (like economic issues, wall street issues, favoritism of the very wealthy, etc). And Clinton really can't do that since she has all the same unpopular problems (she and Bill have made ~$150 million giving speeches, often to banks). And Clinton is really vulnerable to being indicted, and to having a huge scandal erupt over the Clinton Foundation fundraising. There were many times where people, businesses, and foreign countries made donations to the foundation that coincided with official actions that the government took. It would be really easy to argue that she did favors after getting the cash. Sanders has no scandals. He also has really high favorability ratings (Trump and Clinton have the 2 worst for any nominees in history). Etc.