Observer

You're a Trump supporter. Nice to have you here. Being bad at a debate does not mean he's bad at reaching his indented Apprentice/Khardashian audience. Trump knows jack about governing. He knows jack about foreign policy. He knows jack about the economy. But he's a low rent insult machine and that appeals to 40% of Republicans. Too bad Triumph the Insult Comic Dog wasn't running on the Republican ticket.

Cruz and Clinton would be a fine debate. Both are good in that setting. Cruz has no path to president--he's too far right and could not win the swing states.

Plenty of people on this board defended him.

More lies and theater around the OJ case. What a shock.

I hope to god that there's a documentarian on this. A documentary about this debacle from the inside would be fun to watch. The Romney campaign documentary was fun--and that was for Mitt "Mr. Excitement" Romney.

Trump remains the most dangerous person in this race. Even way more so than Hillary. I started the entire process with Rubio as my first choice but in no small thanks to Christie who I also liked until he lined up behind Trump, Rubio's weaknesses have been exposed. I still like him but my faith in him to be president is shaken. Kasich is the most palatable of those still left on stage but he's got no shot except to join in as spoiler to Trump. And while I agree with you that Cruz stands with his principles, even those I disagree with, his inflexibility make him a crappy leader. Obama proved what gets done when you can't talk to the other side...and Cruz isn't even liked in his own party's leadership. I don't need that lesson again.

Resets us to pre-Obamacare and allows some interstate competition, which many claim will be the panacea to cure the ills of healthcare, which is nonsense. It's a good idea but just an iterative one. As someone said above, I've seen worse plans but this one is not all that creative.

I took that website poll about who would I vote for or whatever it's called and Cruz came in second for me after the Libertarian guy. That's no shock because what Cruz says often aligns with my core ideology. But ideology only gets you so far. Cruz's main problem is not his ideology but his execution. He has shown that he's completely inflexible when it comes to getting things done. He advocated sending America into default just a few years ago. He wanted to throw the economy off a cliff to prove his point. He does things like that over and over again. That does not work in a two party system and that's why his Congressional Republicans don't like him. Maybe it's unfortunate that the world won't bend to my (and his where they overlap) ideals, but it's the world we live in and it's important to deal with that reality. I have a hard time supporting Evangelicals, so that bugs me too, but I can vote for them and have, if you count LDS as Evangelical. All that and there's no denying that he's also creepy as f$%^.

Yes. Primaries are not a required part of getting on the ballot.

My international friends are aghast at what's happening. The most common thing I hear is "You are supposed to be the world leader." And they are not being sarcastic. They are truly concerned because they expect the US to provide a role model in some ways.

Johnny Carson is more relevant to this election than Ben.

You do realize that guys like Boehner have no choice in a two party system but to work with the other side right? The Ted Cruz's of the world accomplish nothing. Nada. Boehner had a budget on the table that his own party saw as a betrayal but would have fixed the debt, social security, and a lot of the US's long term financial woes. Obama infamously "moved the goal posts" on that deal and sunk it, but Boehner made a deal like that possible by offering certain concessions. Maybe Boehner is not the best guy--I'm happy to give you that. But the far right idealist (or far left) doesn't get things done in the two party system. It's OK to hold the ideals--but at a practical level, politicians need to meet the other side in the middle somewhere.

This is a Trump thread. He lies moment to moment.

Isn't everything that comes out of Trumps mouth a crock? The guy lies when his mouth is moving. His positions, to the extent he can explain them, are moving targets. I wish he was even smart but he's not. Have you heard a press conference where he didn't talk about how his properties (this one, that one) are the nicest in the world? Trump cares about one thing: Trump. Even Hillary cares a little more about the rest of us than Trump (by a hair).

Lots of any demographic will vote for either candidate. Trump's gender gap issue is one that the Republicans have had for a while. Women vote D and they will vote D even more in a Trump election cycle. Clinton is not a charmer (!) but she also doesn't insult women.

If it's Trump vs. Clinton, Clinton will win by a minimum of 5%. Trump won't have a chance. In a debate, she will eat him up and spit him out. Women will not vote for Trump. It won't even be close. The best Donald will do is insult her cankles. No Republican should want that election. Clinton will destroy him.

The question at this point really is: Can Tiger pull it together for one more 3-4year run and win 5 majors in a short span to beat Jack? Doesn't look like that's possible. Incredible--at one point, he seemed a shoe in to beat the Golden Bear.

Trump's supporters don't vote for logical consistency, they vote for soundbytes. Just listen to the audience reaction. It's nauseating. When he was defending hiring illegal immigrants "because no one else would take the job," I almost threw my TV through the window. WTF are the Republicans doing? Trump makes Obama look like Einstein.

Are you making an argument in my favor here? We have a voluminous US Code and CFRs that grew out of our Constitution, as well as a fountain of case law. The Senate procedure stemmed from this simple document as well. But I'll say it again, "advise and consent" is in the document. If the Senate gets a nominee (whatever poor soul gets that "honor"), they should do their job. Creating a new procedure that amounts to "We will not do what the Constituion tells us to do" is a dangerous game. Not as dangerous as undeclared wars and a million other abuses of power that usually stem from an overreaching President but still bad, and likely to cost the Republicans, but not more than running Trump as their guy.

Your post makes me question everything I wrote. So this is your version of "Bush bad." I have long pilloried the Dem Senate for not approving judicial nominees, regardless of party affiliation. But that's not the issue on the table. Constitution too much for you to handle? Obama is a tool for many reasons, none of which are relevant to what the Senate is doing.

People thought Hillary supporters wouldn't vote for Obama. The Sanders supporters will line up right behind Hillary. I have no idea what we independents will do. I can't possibly vote for Trump--he's absolutely frightening. At least Hillary is just 4 more years of a version of Obama. That's predictably bad.

It's awful in that she's awful, but most of her supporters supported her all along. The majority of Republicans reviled Trump just a few months ago.

"I know you are but what am I" does not solve problems. The current issue in this thread is squarely on the Republicans. And sure, Biden said this and other Dems are asses. None of that is relevant to this issue right now. It's a sentence. It doesn't require a deep textual analysis to get to the bottom of it. The President and Senate have a job to do. If the Senate looks at each candidate and with their "advise and consent" power chooses to shoot them down, they are at least doing their job. What they've chosen to do instead, before a candidate is even nominated, is ignore their Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" on the president's nominee. It's a step far even for these jokers. You can defend this based on procedure but that's a fool's argument. Both of us know that what's happening here is horrible governance and the Senate is dodging its responsibility for political gain (or loss as the case will be). If we get down to 0 Supreme Court Justices as each one dies off and the Senate plays 20 years of procedural pocket pool, does procedure still trump the Constitution? Hold these jerkoffs to a higher standard, or at least a standard that is "do your f%^&ing job."

Like I have said in two posts, the Senate can vote down the nominee. But they can't just not do their Constitutional duty and refuse to "advise and consent/not consent." This procedural preschool they are doing is blatantly not doing what the Constitution mandates, and is not holding up some minor spending bill but the nominaiton of a Supreme Court Justice. This is going to be a huge backfire. Actually the Senate has to "advise and consent" on the President's nomination. Doing nothing is what they are choosing to do but that's not an option given under the Constitution. It's an interesting place for the party of strict construction.* *when convenient