|
|
Post by jbelle on Apr 4, 2016 5:00:03 GMT
I wouldn't stay home and NOT vote, because that's just a vote for the opposing party. This. But I'm not in line for any manipulation of the system at all no matter who is or isn't the candidate. Nor I. Besides, there is no reason to stay home when you can always vote for whomever you want with a write in vote. This may be the year of the write in candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 4, 2016 5:58:40 GMT
I'm a Democrat, but I have no problem with the party establishment (either party) stepping in to fix what the primary voters broke if need be. I said this a while back and got jumped all over.  The people can sometimes fall under the spell of a dangerous demagogue (see: Adolf Hitler). Someone has a moral obligation to stop that crap. Whatever the Republican Party can do to remove the specter of a Trump presidency, I will be very grateful to them. Primary voting, choosing delegates, nominating a candidate to represent the party ... these are not activities protected by the Constitution. You still get to vote for whomever you want for president. Stop confusing the issue like that. Mitt Romney is starting to look better and better these days, isn't he?  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 1, 2024 19:17:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2016 11:31:33 GMT
Honest question: why? Because don't forget it's possible for one - or more than one - seat to come open during the next presidency. If you're hoping for a Democratic president to fill the currently available seat, why wouldn't you want the next president to be a Democrat as well, to continue that pattern? Or is it just that if the current seat isn't filled you'll vote Democratic just to make a point about the Senate doing their jobs instead of obstructing? yes to the pissed off at the senate. Also because I think not confirming is stupid because I don't think the Republican is going to win and we are going to get someone even more liberal rather than a left leaning centrist I had this question in another thread, and I think I sort of know the answer, but I'm not really sure. Wouldn't Garland's nomination still be viable after November's election? In other words, if the Republicans hold the Senate, couldn't they still begin hearings for him after the election and before the new president takes office? If so, we don't have to wait to see if a more liberal judge is nominated, we go with the devil we know, so to speak. |
|
mvavw
Full Member
Posts: 344
Jun 25, 2014 20:21:43 GMT
|
Post by mvavw on Apr 4, 2016 12:09:53 GMT
I will definitely not stay home. As of now, I plan to vote for Trump. While there are things that I don't like about him, there are more things that I do like about him and I think that he's the best person for the job. Interestingly, when I took the ISideWith poll, I came in at 85% Trump and % 84 Cruz. My biggest areas of disagreement as always are social issues. I will most likely end up voting Republican, but can see going third party or write in if I'm really unhappy with who they choose. I would not vote for Clinton or Sanders. (Though, of the two, I'd choose Sanders.)
As far as what I think about the party choosing a different candidate, if Trump (or Cruz) gets the 1237, they should absolutely get the nomination. If neither reaches the magic number, my opinion is that either the frontrunner should get the nomination (my preference) or it should be someone who has not been part of the primary process for this election. My reasoning is that the people have spoken about all of the current candidates. If they wanted any of them to get the nomination, they would have voted for them. Time to look elsewhere for talent. I realize that they can pick whoever they want, but one of the things that appeals to me about Trump is that he's not an establishment candidate. We need non career politicians running this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by momofkandn on Apr 4, 2016 12:25:50 GMT
I usually vote republican in presidential races but haven't seen a candidate I've been excited about in a really long time. This year is the worst. I lean independent because I am also socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If the Republican Party would drop abortion and gay marriage from their platform, they would have my full support. As it is, I will probably vote for Gary Johnson. I can't vote for either Trump or Cruz.
I don't care what happens at the convention. If the party decides to nominate someone other than the front runners, I would reconsider depending on the person and might vote for them in the general. I agree with others though. The nominee is the will of the party, not the people. The GOP is free to do whatever they want regardless of the primary results.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Apr 4, 2016 13:37:48 GMT
... That said, it would depend on who the Republicans put forth whether I would vote for them or not. Currently, if the SCOTUS seat is still open, I will vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is. If the seat is filled, then I could vote Republican if the right candidate emerged. This is where I sit. The Reps have a chance of getting my vote if they do not block approval of the SCOTUS seat. If they block it and it's still open in November, then I will vote Dem. Honest question: why? Because don't forget it's possible for one - or more than one - seat to come open during the next presidency. If you're hoping for a Democratic president to fill the currently available seat, why wouldn't you want the next president to be a Democrat as well, to continue that pattern? Or is it just that if the current seat isn't filled you'll vote Democratic just to make a point about the Senate doing their jobs instead of obstructing? I want the SC justice chosen by someone more liberal than any candidate the current Republican party will nominate. I have no problem with a moderate Rep. In fact, I'd prefer one to the current Dem choices. Currently, however, there are no moderate Reps in the running, nor do I think would the current Rep Party nominate one. Look who they saddled the rather-moderate-but-still-too-liberal-for-the-Repulican-Party John McCain with back in 2008. |
|
