OK...it's unlikely that we'll be able to get away without any political discussion taking place in the forums (despite the fact that the forums are for an RPG and there are plenty of other arenas for political discourse) -- so we're going to make a dedicated spot for them to take place.  With rules that will be followed.

 

Before I get into the rules, a little bit about self-policing.  You guys are a good group.  I'm assuming that, political differences aside, you'd like to keep each other around.  So you're going to be the first level of checks that will take place.  This is the ONLY US political discussion thread that is going to be around.  If you see someone start another thread for politics, or if you see another thread head that direction, it's in your best interest to shut it down quickly.  Once I get wind of it, the thread originator (or poster who diverted the thread) will be moderated or banned from the forums (depending on the nature of the post). No arguments, and no discussions.

 

No, I'm not going to sticky this thread. No I'm not going to make a general announcement on the rules.  The rules are largely unchanged from the general rules of the forum -- ensuring that others are up to speed and don't unintentionally violate them is on you.  Talk to them before I do.

 

Now, onto the rules for this thread:

 

1. I will be monitoring this thread heavily. Email notifications, reading along as time allows, etc. I don't give warnings -- if you fail to follow the rules, you will be moderated or banned outright.  If this bothers you, I would suggest NOT participating in this thread.  Find any of the plethora of other areas of the interwebs for your political discussions.

 

2. Lies or half-truths which are determined to be intentionally communicated on your part will not be tolerated.  You present the facts. If you're not sure of the facts, then you don't post.  If you want to post something that you saw and agree with, you will want to make sure you do your due diligence and research it first to ensure that you are not passing along lies and/or half-truths which happen to be in line with your political view. 

 

3. Attacking of other forum members is subject to immediate banning.  Don't like what someone has to say? Great! Post a factually accurate counter point to their argument and make your case.  Discuss the topic, not the poster.

 

4. This thread is meant to be a place where ADULTS can have a SANE, RATIONAL discussion of politics. Posts which are viewed to be in violation of this concept will not be tolerated.  Yes, this is a very general rule -- use your brain and interpret it to the best of your ability. If you feel that this makes it difficult to know where the "line" is and that you may accidentally cross it, then I would strongly advise that you not come anywhere near the line. If this means that you are uncomfortable posting in this thread for fear of crossing an arbitrary line, I would refer you to rule 1.

Thanks. Being out of the country, and given that this forum tends toward less flaming and insanity in the discussions, sometimes I like to read the election discussion that is going on, even if I don't contribute a lot. So thanks for making a thread for it. Beyond that, I've got nothing. I occasionally find myself speculating what super powers the different candidates might have. Obviously Sanders' would be fire related("feel the Burn!"), Clinton, depends on if you accept she's a reptilian overlord or not, not sure on Cruz, Trump undoubtedly has some werd related powers. That's all I got.

Thank you, Dan. Seems like a pretty reasonable set of ground rules to me. This is one of the very few Internet forums where I feel we might actually have a chance of sticking to them.

 

I'm very curious to see whether the Wisconsin caucus on Tuesday -- in which polls suggest Sanders and Cruz have substantial leads over Clinton and Trump, respectively -- will really be the turning point the former's campaigns are hoping (and hyping) for, or another mis-call by the pollsters, or just a bump in the race.

 

This will be the candidates' first test since Trump's "punishment" comment, and Sanders' bird (ahem, alighting on his lectern, I mean). Those things may have no long-term effect, but I've seen other incidents apparently just as small, galvanize or sink a campaign.

OK...it's unlikely that we'll be able to get away without any political discussion taking place in the forums (despite the fact that the forums are for an RPG and there are plenty of other arenas for political discourse) -- so we're going to make a dedicated spot for them to take place.  With rules that will be followed.

 

Before I get into the rules, a little bit about self-policing.  You guys are a good group.  I'm assuming that, political differences aside, you'd like to keep each other around.  So you're going to be the first level of checks that will take place.  This is the ONLY US political discussion thread that is going to be around until after the 2016 election in November.  If you see someone start another thread for politics, or if you see another thread head that direction, it's in your best interest to shut it down quickly.  Once I get wind of it, the thread originator (or poster who diverted the thread) will be moderated or banned from the forums (depending on the nature of the post). No arguments, and no discussions.

 

No, I'm not going to sticky this thread. No I'm not going to make a general announcement on the rules.  The rules are largely unchanged from the general rules of the forum -- ensuring that others are up to speed and don't unintentionally violate them is on you.  Talk to them before I do.

 

Now, onto the rules for this thread:

 

1. I will be monitoring this thread heavily. Email notifications, reading along as time allows, etc. I don't give warnings -- if you fail to follow the rules, you will be moderated or banned outright.  If this bothers you, I would suggest NOT participating in this thread.  Find any of the plethora of other areas of the interwebs for your political discussions.

 

2. Lies or half-truths which are determined to be intentionally communicated on your part will not be tolerated.  You present the facts. If you're not sure of the facts, then you don't post.  If you want to post something that you saw and agree with, you will want to make sure you do your due diligence and research it first to ensure that you are not passing along lies and/or half-truths which happen to be in line with your political view. 

 

3. Attacking of other forum members is subject to immediate banning.  Don't like what someone has to say? Great! Post a factually accurate counter point to their argument and make your case.  Discuss the topic, not the poster.

 

4. This thread is meant to be a place where ADULTS can have a SANE, RATIONAL discussion of politics. Posts which are viewed to be in violation of this concept will not be tolerated.  Yes, this is a very general rule -- use your brain and interpret it to the best of your ability. If you feel that this makes it difficult to know where the "line" is and that you may accidentally cross it, then I would strongly advise that you not come anywhere near the line. If this means that you are uncomfortable posting in this thread for fear of crossing an arbitrary line, I would refer you to rule 1.

Quick question: Where do you come down on hypotheticals? The classic "If this happens what do you think the effect will be?" kind of question? By their very nature they would not be fact based but there are some topics that could make for a lively, friendly discussion when it comes to hypothetical questions. Just wanted to check before posting one as I've no wish to run afoul of the rules. Thanks.

I'm starting to wonder if Trump has finally "jumped the shark" this past week, with his fumbling on the abortion question, retweeting an unflattering pic of Heidi Cruz, standing by his campaign manager's rough handling of a reporter, and ill-informed responses on foreign policy in interviews with the Washington Post and New York Times. He's poised to lose Wisconsin next week, the anti-Trump forces appear to be finally gelling, and his support among women is at an all-time low. At this point he'd have to win, IIRC, around 80 to 90 % of the white male vote to win the general if his numbers with other groups don't improve...and at this point he's not even getting 50% of white males!

Quick question: Where do you come down on hypotheticals? The classic "If this happens what do you think the effect will be?" kind of question? By their very nature they would not be fact based but there are some topics that could make for a lively, friendly discussion when it comes to hypothetical questions. Just wanted to check before posting one as I've no wish to run afoul of the rules. Thanks.

See rule 4.

It does seem like Trump has finally crossed lines that register with the abortion stance that even most pro-life advocates frown on, and then a very clumsy step back stumble.  I don't think the wives scuffle with Cruz really hurt him much. I'm not going to take anything in any state for granted until the voting is done. Still, it does seem the Anti-Trump faction of the GOP is trying  to seize the moment.

 

Sanders winning WI would be ideal. Clinton's campaign has been denying the Sanders another debate because of his 'tone'. Which I admit, rings hollow to me as it does  to many but I maybe biased. His tone of loud old man with a righteous drive to set things right has been pretty darn consistent. Mostly I think her campaign handlers know that the more tv debates he gets, the more folks see him and get to know him. Barring a major misstep, exposure is good for Bernie and doesn't gain Clinton much.

Bernie has a very steep climb to the nomination, even with a sizable win in WI. He'd need an upset win in NY, and then to hold serve on the 26th in the five states voting that day. May has only 4 contests, so it would then come down to California on June 7th. For those who think Bernie is dragging this out too much, I'd point out that Hillary didn't concede until 3 days after the last primary in 2008.

The path for Cruz is to win WI and as many states as possible, and to try to team up with Kasich to hold Trump under 50% in the remaining contests. If they do that, Trump comes in to Cleveland maybe 100+ delegates short, and Cruz will have a respectable number that's closer to 1000 than 900. I don't believe Kasich has a viable path, because I don't think he can persuade enough delegates to jump to him. Cruz is more likely to get Trump-jumpers on a 2nd and 3rd ballot.

Well, I make no effort to hide my preference for Bernie, but yes, he has a hard difficult slog ahead even now.

 

Oh, speaking of delegates, it would appear the Tennessee GOP has intrigues going that could "steal" away delegates from Trump if it goes past two calls

Article at Politico here

Well, I make no effort to hide my preference for Bernie, but yes, he has a hard difficult slog ahead even now.

 

Oh, speaking of delegates, it would appear the Tennessee GOP has intrigues going that could "steal" away delegates from Trump if it goes past two calls

Article at Politico here

The GOP is in quite a bind on all this. They need those Trump votes, whoever the end candidate is, and backroom deals, or even the specter of them, is going to be a huge problem for them in convincing Trump voters to vote with them.

Delegates for the national conventions are usually chosen from a pool of volunteers who have worked in the local party, and often have some ambitions to move into office themselves. They are bound to vote for their assigned candidate for at least the first round (Tennessee's are bound for the first two, according to the article), and are generally unlikely to violate that, if they want to stay within the good graces of the party*. Trump's problem is that he's been wildly successful at the big game, but has generally not spent the money or the time to build up the local resources needed to put his people forward as delegates. And that means that what's happening in Tennessee will most likely happen again in other states as they finalize their national delegates. Trump's only hope at this point is that he reaches the 1237 delegate number, and it isn't a brokered convention.

 

 

 

*Voting a different way than a delegate was bound happens, but it usually leads to consequences for the delegate. In 2012, Ron Paul's organization in Nevada managed to get a number of their supporters assigned to the delegate pool (22 out of 25), and most broke the binding in the first round of voting.

Trump needs to continue performing strongly through the rest of the primaries. If he falters and loses support, it becomes that much easier to deny him the nomination at the convention.

Delegates for the national conventions are usually chosen from a pool of volunteers who have worked in the local party, and often have some ambitions to move into office themselves. They are bound to vote for their assigned candidate for at least the first round (Tennessee's are bound for the first two, according to the article), and are generally unlikely to violate that, if they want to stay within the good graces of the party*. Trump's problem is that he's been wildly successful at the big game, but has generally not spent the money or the time to build up the local resources needed to put his people forward as delegates. And that means that what's happening in Tennessee will most likely happen again in other states as they finalize their national delegates. Trump's only hope at this point is that he reaches the 1237 delegate number, and it isn't a brokered convention.

 

 

 

*Voting a different way than a delegate was bound happens, but it usually leads to consequences for the delegate. In 2012, Ron Paul's organization in Nevada managed to get a number of their supporters assigned to the delegate pool (22 out of 25), and most broke the binding in the first round of voting.

I think the problem here, for the party, is substantial. Trump has, essentially, absconded with the 'righteous anger' crowd, cutting into Tea Party elements and turning all the other candidates into 'establishment shills' if they win the nomination through party machinations. Which will severely undercut their presidential runs if Trump does not accept a loss and urge his supporters back into the party fold.

 

GOP elections, for a long time, have depended on the idea of 'restoring America', it's hard to sell that idea if the winning candidate wins by being seen as part of the problem.

 

The early loss of Jeb Bush was a big hit. They are now totally without a viable candidate anywhere near the center right. Mobilizing their numbers while not mobilizing in fear their opponent's potential voters was important. The fact that Trump is probably closer to the center, socially, than Cruz, does not bode well for them.

 

The fact that they clearly have no better idea on whether Trump is actually genuine in a word he says will not help their position either, imo.

One can easily imagine Trump going 3rd party if he feels "cheated" of Delegates, promises or no promises

One can easily imagine Trump going 3rd party if he feels "cheated" of Delegates, promises or no promises

"Sore loser" laws and early filing deadlines mean Trump can't get on the ballot in many states, so he'd have to be a write-in candidate in some of them. I can't imagine anyone voting for him as a 3rd party candidate is then going to pull the lever down ballot for Republican congressional and senate candidates, which would be catastrophic for the GOP.

If the matter of the Democrats is still in question when Oregon gets their say, I would vote for Sanders. But in the General Election I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, especially if Trump is the GOP nominee. Trump's candidacy and what it has encouraged makes me sick to the soul.

 

Of course, Portland is solidly blue and has enough population that between them and Eugene they can essentially decide things for the rest of the state. The local conservative semi-weekly had a cover story about the low profile Trump supporters are keeping in Portland as if that was a bad thing.

Canadian official opposition tries to get Prime Minister to denounce Trump as a 'fascist'

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-s-mulcair-thinks-trudeau-should-denounce-trump-1.2841067

 

Yes, Mr Mulcaire.  Nothing bad could come of bad mouthing the next potential president of your largest trading partner - especially if your allegations end up being 'true'. That's exactly how international diplomacy works.

 

I know he's just saying it so Canadians remember that his party still exists and to look personally strong before the leadership convention that will in all likelihood see him replaced - but it looks childish and if he'd ended up PM I doubt he'd be saying it at all.

 

This is what Trudeau has said and frankly it's all ANY foreign power has a right to say:

 

"I have great faith in the American people and look forward to working with whoever gets elected in November," said Trudeau, who did not mention the Republican candidate by name.

"As we approach November and as we move beyond into the next administration there will be some lessons learned that I hope get learned," he continued. "But like I said, I have tremendous confidence in what Abraham Lincoln referred to as the 'better angels of our nature."

And to add insult to injury, Thomas Mulcair's party, the NDP, isn't even the Canadian official opposition any more. The Conservative Party holds that position as of the last federal election.

 

To be fair, during his recent state visit to Washington, Prime Minister Trudeau did make a few oblique comments criticizing some attitudes which could be attributed to particular candidates, but never naming a person or party.

 

I shudder to think what might come out of President Trump's mouth if the situation is reversed and he visits Canada.

One can easily imagine Trump going 3rd party if he feels "cheated" of Delegates, promises or no promises

 

He's already backed out of the RNC loyalty pledge during CNN's Town Hall on Tuesday.

The real question is - if he did run as an independent and (somehow) win the general election will both sides try and appease him so he doesn't use a presidential veto on everything in sight or would they largely ignore him and wait with baited breath to see if he does follow through on any of his campaign stances, such as issuing an illegal order to the military or deporting lawful citizens without  cause, so they can impeach him and get it over with?

He's already backed out of the RNC loyalty pledge during CNN's Town Hall on Tuesday.

What's this?

CES

What's this?

CES

 

Well, to be fair, it looks like all of the candidates backed away from it:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-nominee-pledge/index.html

Trump and Cruz do have a point. The gop has tried to stop Trump from winning states, and Cruz would have problems at home if he supported Trump over his wife. i think Kasich is the only one I haven't heard bad things about and the Journal says a lot of people favor him, even though he isn't winning much. The paper was like Hillary with a -11, Trump with a -35, Cruz with a -19, Bernie a + 12 I think, and Kasich with a + 15.

 

I could be wrong about the specific numbers, but Trump was disapproved by the most and he got the worst week column over the gaffe with his take on the abortion law.

CES 

The real question is - if he did run as an independent and (somehow) win the general election...

Not a hypothetical we have to worry about. He won't pick up any significant number of Democrat votes, every Republican woman will vote for the party nominated candidate; all he'll do is split the Rep vote, ensuring the Democrat candidate gets the Oval Office. I simplify, but the Republicans simply don't have enough (any?) of a lead in the Electoral College to beat the Democrats with their vote divided at all. Trump as the anointed Republican Party candidate is another matter, but I still think he's pissed off enough non-Primary voters that he'll be a liability in the final run for the White House.

It is technically not illegal to purchase convention delegate votes: http://www.kitv.com/story/31633427/could-republican-convention-delegates-be-bought-legally-maybe

 

The GOP convention could seriously be worthy of pay per view. There might as well be a trial by combat provision.