The GOP's Third Party Option

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Sheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mary_bobo said:
Me, personally, think it would help Hillary. At this point in time, third parties always help the Dems. Third parties will only be viable when they start at the grass roots and build from there. I don’t think you can start at the top and hope to get the big prize.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you are right MB. I think the Republican’s best shot is to unite behind one candidate, even if it is a candidate that some find unacceptable.

Honestly, I’m a believer in the votes of the people being final and not meddled with - a late entry 3rd party candidate seems like a whole lot of meddling and that strikes me as completely unfair.
 
Little_Sheep said:
Yeah, I think you are right MB. I think the Republican’s best shot is to unite behind one candidate, even if it is a candidate that some find unacceptable.

Honestly, I’m a believer in the votes of the people being final and not meddled with - a late entry 3rd party candidate seems like a whole lot of meddling and that strikes me as completely unfair.
Click to expand...
The rules allow it, so it’s not “meddling.”

ICXC NIKA
 
jtauke said:
We care so much about unborn life, but once they’re born, all bets are off, and torture is on the table.

It’s just sad that people think they’re locked into supporting either.
Click to expand...
This is complete rubbish.
Please back up the idea that pro-life people treat their children as garbage once they are born, or back off such a ludicrous claim.
 
Peter_J said:
Are you worried that, if Trump doesn’t win the GOP nomination, his supporters will make sure that Clinton wins the general?
Click to expand...
I think Trump has managed to stir up a lot of people who are disgusted with the establishment, both Democratic and GOP. If he doesn’t get the nomination some may just stay home, most of his GOP supporters will vote for Cruz with clothespin firmly affixed to their noses. A lot of his support in the open primaries came from Democrats and independents who crossed over and it will be interesting to see what they do.
 
jtauke said:
I’ve reworded my original statement. Point is, we shouldn’t have to pick between two terrible candidates, simply because they’re the only ones left standing from major parties.
Click to expand...
But they aren’t.

They’re alone in the spotlight for (I’m guessing) a four day period here. But then the media will have to remember that DJT hasn’t won the nomination yet.
SuperLuigi said:
They won’t necessarily have to rewrite the rules for Cruz. He could win this on a second ballot if Trump doesn’t hit 1237.
Click to expand...
👍

Trump’s idea that he should get the nomination automatically is baloney.
 
I like Cruz. I also liked Rubio. But if it comes down to Hilary vs. Trump, you better believe I’ll pinch my nose real hard and vote Trump. And here’s why. The Supreme Court. The next president will appoint as many as four Supreme Court Justices. That would in all likelihood affect the remainder of my life. Yes, abortion is extremely important to me. But so is the Second Amendment. And you all know the drill. Hillary Rodham Clinton = Liberal Activist Judges. We don’t really know what we’ll get with Trump. OTOH, I do no full well what I’ll get with Clinton…and that my friends, scares the living daylights out of me!!! :bigyikes:

Peace, Mark
 
GEddie said:
Look, I know you admire Hillary, and although I don’t, I respect that.

Thanks for the comparison to Shakespeare :). Writing like him is, like a bilocational body, one of my impossible dreams.

I really don’t think there is any place for nuance or delicacy in the current election cycle. This is electoral populism in its roughest form.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter.
 
SuperLuigi said:
They won’t necessarily have to rewrite the rules for Cruz. He could win this on a second ballot if Trump doesn’t hit 1237.
Click to expand...
Second and third ballots are very much a part of the rules. Winning on the second or third ballot by candidates without a plurality on the first is just part of the history of conventions.

It is shameful that suggestions of violence have been justified for not giving the person with the plurality of the vote entering into the convention. It is even more shameful that people have brought into the idea that violence would somehow be understandable, as if precedence for a second ballot win does not already exist.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Second and third ballots are very much a part of the rules. Winning on the second or third ballot by candidates without a plurality on the first is just part of the history of conventions.
Click to expand...
You’re quite right. But the first ballot has a significant influence on how people view the candidate, and thus his chances of winning the general election. The candidate who eventually gets the majority of delegates (in whichever ballot) is better off if he also got a plurality, or at least was close to having one, in the first ballot.
Darryl1958 said:
It is shameful that suggestions of violence have been justified for not giving the person with the plurality of the vote entering into the convention. It is even more shameful that people have brought into the idea that violence would somehow be understandable, as if precedence for a second ballot win does not already exist.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I totally understand why some people have problems with Trump but the Supreme Court is at stake here and this third party talk among some conservatives is not too good in my opinion, but Trump’s words and deeds have helped to create this divide. Hillary Clinton should be stopped and a third party conservative wouldn’t help to do that.

But Trump is not the Republican nominee yet, Ted Cruz could beat him.
 
While a third party, or those not voting, might help Clinton get elected, that is a factor that should have been weighed by the voters before rallying around someone on the edge like Trump. The opposition to him was well known before the first ballot. Blaming people who vote for third parties, in accordance with their conscience, is a dodge of the responsibility for putting up such an unlikable, polarizing and immoral candidate. If the vote is splintered, and Clinton wins, those supporting Trump will have to shoulder part of the responsibility, as will Trump himself.
 
pnewton said:
While a third party, or those not voting, might help Clinton get elected, that is a factor that should have been weighed by the voters before rallying around someone on the edge like Trump. The opposition to him was well known before the first ballot. Blaming people who vote for third parties, in accordance with their conscience, is a dodge of the responsibility for putting up such an unlikable, polarizing and immoral candidate. If the vote is splintered, and Clinton wins, those supporting Trump will have to shoulder part of the responsibility, as will Trump himself.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
pnewton said:
While a third party, or those not voting, might help Clinton get elected, that is a factor that should have been weighed by the voters before rallying around someone on the edge like Trump. The opposition to him was well known before the first ballot. Blaming people who vote for third parties, in accordance with their conscience, is a dodge of the responsibility for putting up such an unlikable, polarizing and immoral candidate. If the vote is splintered, and Clinton wins, those supporting Trump will have to shoulder part of the responsibility, as will Trump himself.
Click to expand...
Maybe; but the Democratic platform is surely, straight-forward immorality, where is the dodge and crirticism for them?
 
Path_Finder said:
where is the dodge and crirticism for them?
Click to expand...
It would make not sense for them to try and dodge responsibility for something that they want (a Democrat in the White House). I do not criticize them *here *because they are not the topic here.
 
Darryl1958 said:
This is complete rubbish.
Please back up the idea that pro-life people treat their children as garbage once they are born, or back off such a ludicrous claim.
Click to expand...
No. What’s ludicrous is people claiming to be pro-life when they’re cool with torture and the death penalty.

My statement never mentioned mistreatment of children, so I uhhh…don’t know where you’re going with that. :confused:
 
pnewton said:
It would make not sense for them to try and dodge responsibility for something that they want (a Democrat in the White House). I do not criticize them *here *because they are not the topic here.
Click to expand...
Likewise, that Mr. Trump cares about veterans and cares about Americans that are victimized by those with no right to be in our country, I find to be a moral position.
 
Path_Finder said:
Likewise, that Mr. Trump cares about veterans and cares about Americans that are victimized by those with no right to be in our country, I find to be a moral position.
Click to expand...
There is a little good in the worst of us, and a little bad in the best of us. Or, to put it another way, “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.” You deem him to be a moral man. I judge morality by the difficult choices, the ones that cost us, not the easy ones. Veterans and puppies are easy to support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top