You're going to see a whole lot more of this if the RNC forces Cruz into the general election.

*EDIT* For reference, this is a delegate that was removed because he was going to vote for Trump *EDIT*

I don't think any of the candidates are really qualified.

Trump: He's a rascist bigot who is running on a platform of right wing populism, appealing to their xenophobic leanings. His foreign policy position is idiotic at best, terribly damaging at worst. I'm embarrassed that he's gotten this far. But he doesn't give a fuck and that appeals to people for some reason.

Hillary: She's a liar who will say anything to get elected, poo poos information security policies, and is in the back pockets of power brokers. She spends her time fundraising at private events held for rich people, charging $10,000 for the privilege to meet her and buy her influence.

Sanders: He's the democratic equivalent of Ron Paul. Our country has a spending problem. He wants to give everyone 'free' college education, 'free' health care, 'free' everything. It's not free, someone has to pay for it, and that's us, the tax payers. He wants to drastically raise spending at a time when we've raised our debt ceiling three times in a row because we can't stop spending money. We're drowning in debt. The ONLY thing he's got right is the corruption big money has on our political system. If he was elected, he'd be a lame duck president from day one because he's so extreme left that nobody in congress would cooperate with him.

Cruz: Is he seriously a contender? What's his platform? That he's an evangelical christian? Who cares. Next!

You know who I really wish was running? Me. But that's not happening, so runner up is General James Mattis. The guy is a compassionate hard ass with a good head on his shoulders. He'd be better than the current line up of clowns.

You could always vote for Gary johnson in the hopes that the libertarian party hits 5% of the vote and qualifies for federal election money next cycle.

I don't think any of the candidates are really qualified.

Yea I'm pretty much against all of the candidates and I believe there's at least one other guy who agrees with me here.

Hillary: She's a liar who will say anything to get elected, poo poos information security policies, and is in the back pockets of power brokers. She spends her time fundraising at private events held for rich people, charging $10,000 for the privilege to meet her and buy her influence.

Yea I'm no Hilary supporter, but she's got a pretty high chance of taking the nomination. In general, Sanders isn't particularly competitive against her: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/. You'd think Bill Clinton getting in office would be enough, but no, they have to get her into office too. I think it kills the chance for other potentially good candidates to enter the field. That's before we get into trust issues.

Sanders: He's the democratic equivalent of Ron Paul. Our country has a spending problem. He wants to give everyone 'free' college education, 'free' health care, 'free' everything. It's not free, someone has to pay for it, and that's us, the tax payers. He wants to drastically raise spending at a time when we've raised our debt ceiling three times in a row because we can't stop spending money. We're drowning in debt. The ONLY thing he's got right is the corruption big money has on our political system. If he was elected, he'd be a lame duck president from day one because he's so extreme left that nobody in congress would cooperate with him.

I honestly think he'd be the biggest lame duck president in history. What would end up happening is that things wouldn't get done and he'd just start blaming Wall Street for things not getting done. Almost everything comes back to how the rich are destroying everyone, Wall Street is being greedy, etc. There is some truth to it: certainly Wall Street has caused its fair share of problems along with all the other problems and we do have a major problem with super PACs but I simply refuse to believe that every single problem in America can be traced back to the ultra rich somehow. Trump is doing something similar, except he's doing it with Muslims and illegal immigrants. I am a firm believer that the Nordic model cannot be applied to the US because the US is not a Nordic country: it's very different in some very key areas which make a huge difference. There's no such thing as "free": it has to be paid for by somebody.

My biggest issue with Sanders isn't just his policies/political positions/ideologies but rather it's with a subset of his supporters. Some of his supporters are so vindictive and self-righteous that if you disagree with them on even one of their stances they will begin vicious attacks against you. I myself am a centrist, not an extremist. It's really sad to see that people have given up on talking but rather have gone towards extremism. This goes for both Trump/Cruz and for Sanders.

Ultimately Sanders is as much a politician as anyone else, not a saint. Maybe I'm just becoming cynical about politicians. At the end of the day, politicians love to make promises to get into office. That goes for every politician, whether it's Trump, Cruz, Clinton or Sanders.

Yet Sanders is the only electable candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-is-easily_b_8957988.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/20/1488200/-LATEST-POLL-Bernie-Sanders-is-MUCH-more-electable-than-Hillary-Clinton

Poll-after-poll shows he wins against every other candidate, and is the only candidate to do so (which necessarily follows).

Trump can take down Hillary easily just by telling everyone how he bought her and made her do his bidding. Her taking bribes is the biggest thorn in her side, and Trump is her worst possible opponent, as he bought her into his wedding etc.

Hillary cannot possibly win. She was/is 43% against Trump, who is 44% (which is within the margin of error), so basically she wouldn’t be pulling enough votes from Sanders to give her any advantage at all, and thus will not be able to stand up against the smear campaign Trump could lodge at her.

Plus, if it came down to Hillary vs. Trump, I would actually vote for Trump.

Why?

To teach America a lesson for its stupidity in the short-term, and to dismantle the republican party in the long-term.

Trump will be so disastrous for America that if it even still exists after his term or impeachment they will hopefully never vote republican again.

L. Spiro

Plus, if it came down to Hillary vs. Trump, I would actually vote for Trump.
Why?
To teach America a lesson for its stupidity in the short-term, and to dismantle the republican party in the long-term.
Trump will be so disastrous for America that if it even still exists after his term or impeachment they will hopefully never vote republican again.

Sad but true. I don't think it is a matter of "vote republican" both parties have been toxic for years.

Considering the jobs of president (military chief; diplomat; treaty negotiator; pardoner; executive for the law; budget submitter; position appointer) none of this batch impress me. Too many executive positions are filled with people stating they will implement changes beyond the law, which means they should have gone for the legislative rather than executive branch.

Imaging them in the role:

Trump as diplomat? Trump negotiating treaties? Heaven help us all. Trump with his volatile personality in charge of the military's arsenal? Please no. As an executive, many groups have shown he would have had more money if he had just invested in the stock market than had built the businesses, most of which failed spectacularly. For international diplomacy I can see Trump starting WW3 more easily than any friendly scenario.

Hillary as a diplomat I can see because she has done it, but the results are quite visible with both occasional successes and more frequent fireballs and wreckage. The family has always been in the center of controversy. As an executive, as a military chief, I don't trust her. She comes with all the baggage of bad things that happened while she was in the white house as first lady: the mass incarceration, the policies that severely hurt minorities, policies that pushed more testing rather than teaching, policies that make it far more difficult for good students to succeed. How much will Bill be in the White House, in the meetings, or be serving has her closest adviser?

Sanders in foreign policy and diplomacy seems to push for separation rather than leadership. He seems to understand the nature of leadership as a mantle that is picked up, but he does not wear it well, nor does he have the charisma to lead the world. He seems to not want to lead, but instead to guide and advise. As a diplomat who intentionally does not really lead, I think he will be sorely challenged against other world leaders but probably would not lose too much ground. He would probably be "safe" with the military, akin to a turtle, which leaves me concerned about power vacuums. While he has ideas (for better or worse) about domestic policy, as the chief executive the attitude backfires. While I can imagine him in control of the military, I cannot see him as a military leader.

Cruz sounds like he wants to be a leader, he wants to do things, but he seems to not understand the nature of leadership. He occasionally does things that take the lead, but it seems that others must pass him the mantle or loan him the power. Like Sanders he seems more likely to criticize others than to put forward his own agenda, more about guiding and advising rather than leading. Similar to Sanders, I can imagine him not losing too much power globally and taking "safe" options. Like Sanders, I can see Cruz being over the military without leading it, I can see Cruz being a participant in global politics but not a leader in it.

I'm hoping that either of the latter two become their party's nominee. Of the four, I think either of the last two is a better option than either of the first two.

Hillary as diplomat is definitely dicey at best. Really what I find the biggest issue about Hillary Clinton is that we are basically getting Bill Clinton part 2. Now love him or hate him, I think we can all agree that there is a point when you really just need to let it go and let other schools of thought/fresh ideas come around.

Sanders in foreign policy and diplomacy seems to push for separation rather than leadership. He seems to understand the nature of leadership as a mantle that is picked up, but he does not wear it well, nor does he have the charisma to lead the world. He seems to not want to lead, but instead to guide and advise. As a diplomat who intentionally does not really lead, I think he will be sorely challenged against other world leaders but probably would not lose too much ground. He would probably be "safe" with the military, akin to a turtle, which leaves me concerned about power vacuums. While he has ideas (for better or worse) about domestic policy, as the chief executive the attitude backfires. While I can imagine him in control of the military, I cannot see him as a military leader.

Sanders hasn't been too extensive on his foreign policy. That's not to say that he has no foreign policy or is very poor at it, he just hasn't campaigned much about it (his campaign's focus has always been domestic issues). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Sanders wants for less US involvement in a lot of foreign affairs? Again, I'd be curious to know what it was. Most of his campaigning has to do with domestic issues, being critical of current problems. Honestly he's just not a foreign affairs type guy and that's what he'd reflect as president. And again, someone who labels himself as a revolutionary, etc. isn't exactly an ideal diplomat. He'd probably just not do much on the global stage, which can be a bad thing depending on what happens.

Cruz sounds like he wants to be a leader, he wants to do things, but he seems to not understand the nature of leadership. He occasionally does things that take the lead, but it seems that others must pass him the mantle or loan him the power. Like Sanders he seems more likely to criticize others than to put forward his own agenda, more about guiding and advising rather than leading. Similar to Sanders, I can imagine him not losing too much power globally and taking "safe" options. Like Sanders, I can see Cruz being over the military without leading it, I can see Cruz being a participant in global politics but not a leader in it.

Cruz is another whack job in terms of domestic policies. As far as foreign policies go, he's probably going to go for the Republican platform and try to implement those. He'd be another problem.

I'm hoping that either of the latter two become their party's nominee. Of the four, I think either of the last two is a better option than either of the first two.

Cruz in many ways is far worse than Trump, because he actually believes a lot of the stupidity he spews so I'd rather not have that lunatic for nominee. If push come to shove and I had to choose between Sanders or Cruz/Trump, I'd probably begrudgingly pick Sanders. Same goes for Clinton vs Cruz/Trump, I'd probably begrudgingly pick Clinton.

1, they never get elected
2. they never stop being head of state (and that means hundreds and hundreds of years - head of state for life)
3. they are tax payer funded for life (official duties, non-official, personal life included), yet all they do is walk/travel around smiling, shaking people's hands, and doing some fake stuff through charities

Slightly going off topic, but:

1. Elective Monarchy is a thing.

2. Monarchs have abdicated the throne in favour of someone they deemed far more fit for the task several times in the past century or so.

3. Most Monarchs are also landowners, and own a hell of a lot of it in their nation (Some even beyond their nation), and in the case of the UK they actually give several times more to the nation than what the nation pays them in return.

Monarchs also have the advantage of not having to pander to voters on petty issues every 3-5 years to ensure they stay where they are. Given the politics of the past century around the globe, I would almost feel more comfortable living under a parliamentary Monarchy that was far far stronger than the one I currently live under, as it would mean more actually could get done long term rather than flushing millions down the drain when one party cancels all the contracts and deals the party before them made in a petty attempt to be 'right'.

Hillary as diplomat is definitely dicey at best. Really what I find the biggest issue about Hillary Clinton is that we are basically getting Bill Clinton part 2. Now love him or hate him, I think we can all agree that there is a point when you really just need to let it go and let other schools of thought/fresh ideas come around.

Absolutely; let's not go back to that awful time in the 90s with unemployment at under 4%, stable inflation and an actual surplus in the budget. :P

Cruz in many ways is far worse than Trump, because he actually believes a lot of the stupidity he spews so I'd rather not have that lunatic for nominee.

This is actually true. Trump might be an idiot, a racist, a misogynist and all round asshole, but Cruz is that and he's a zealot too.

If America had any kind of sane political system (instead of the archaic, corrupt nonsense you're currently saddled with) you could have a reasonable choice between Clinton and Sanders (and if anyone believes they are on the same side of the political spectrum, I advise you to go see the rest of the world).

Sanders: He's the democratic equivalent of Ron Paul. Our country has a spending problem. He wants to give everyone 'free' college education, 'free' health care, 'free' everything. It's not free, someone has to pay for it, and that's us, the tax payers. He wants to drastically raise spending at a time when we've raised our debt ceiling three times in a row because we can't stop spending money. We're drowning in debt. The ONLY thing he's got right is the corruption big money has on our political system. If he was elected, he'd be a lame duck president from day one because he's so extreme left that nobody in congress would cooperate with him.

How is it that the richest nation on earth is drowning in debt, even without providing for basic things like education and healthcare (yes, of course it's not free, but the idea is that such things are provided even for people who can't afford them). Honest question - what's the money being spent on?