Kasich breaks pledge and votes for John McCain

[6andcounting]

The only reason why I even bothered to post this story is to ask why wouldn't he write himself on the ballot.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-john-mccain-endorsement/

Washington (CNN)Ohio Gov. John Kasich voted Monday for 2008 Republican nominee John McCain instead of for 2016 Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Kasich wrote in McCain's name at the top of the ticket, Kasich spokesman Chris Schrimpf said, on his absentee ballot.

Kasich ran against Trump for the Republican nomination, and has been a prominent holdout ever since dropping out of the race in May. He has long promised not to support Trump in November, but he had not previously said who he planned to support instead.

Kasich's vote was first reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
The popular Ohio governor has spent the fall campaigning for down-ballot Republican candidates, and Schrimpf said he had given the maximum contributions to a handful of Senate candidate. He added that Kasich voted the straight Republican ticket, excluding Trump.

Trump has lashed out at Kasich for declining to endorse him after the Republican primary ended. Kasich, like other GOP rivals for the nomination, signed a pledge promising to back the Republican nominee at the primary's conclusion.
"I'm very disappointed in the governor. He signed a pledge, he didn't honor it," Trump told an Ohio radio host last week. "He took a big, he took a big defeat and he has not gotten over it."

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 07:28 AM)6andcounting Wrote: The only reason why I even bothered to post this story is to ask why wouldn't he write himself on the ballot.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-john-mccain-endorsement/

Washington (CNN)Ohio Gov. John Kasich voted Monday for 2008 Republican nominee John McCain instead of for 2016 Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Kasich wrote in McCain's name at the top of the ticket, Kasich spokesman Chris Schrimpf said, on his absentee ballot.

Kasich ran against Trump for the Republican nomination, and has been a prominent holdout ever since dropping out of the race in May. He has long promised not to support Trump in November, but he had not previously said who he planned to support instead.

Kasich's vote was first reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
The popular Ohio governor has spent the fall campaigning for down-ballot Republican candidates, and Schrimpf said he had given the maximum contributions to a handful of Senate candidate. He added that Kasich voted the straight Republican ticket, excluding Trump.

Trump has lashed out at Kasich for declining to endorse him after the Republican primary ended. Kasich, like other GOP rivals for the nomination, signed a pledge promising to back the Republican nominee at the primary's conclusion.
"I'm very disappointed in the governor. He signed a pledge, he didn't honor it," Trump told an Ohio radio host last week. "He took a big, he took a big defeat and he has not gotten over it."

Funny--in the GOP, breaking a pledge becomes a sign of integrity and good judgment.

[Rotobeast]

"If I can't be President, I'm taking my ball and going home !"

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I would have probably voted for Kasich if he had made it past the primaries.

That said, voting for Trump would be absolutely horrible feeling, but if I signed a pledge to do so, I would feel awfully obliged to do so even if I had to force myself.

[BmorePat87]

(11-03-2016, 01:23 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I would have probably voted for Kasich if he had made it past the primaries.

Yea, Jeb and Kasich would have had my vote.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-03-2016, 09:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, Jeb and Kasich would have had my vote.

Even if I liked Jeb (not sure, hadn't bothered to look into him) he would have never gotten my vote.

Can't allow 3 Bush family members to be President, let alone within a 5 President span. If someone has been President, their family should be scratched off the list of possible future Presidents.

Otherwise you could end up with a situation with 4 of your last 5 Presidents having the last name Bush and Clinton.

[BmorePat87]

(11-03-2016, 01:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Even if I liked Jeb (not sure, hadn't bothered to look into him) he would have never gotten my vote.

Can't allow 3 Bush family members to be President, let alone within a 5 President span. If someone has been President, their family should be scratched off the list of possible future Presidents.

Otherwise you could end up with a situation with 4 of your last 5 Presidents having the last name Bush and Clinton.

I get that but it's better than picking the least qualified candidate because of the fact that he has never held an elected office.

Joking about how terrible of a candidate the GOP has aside, Jeb's name isn't a big deal for me. The Bushes have all shown that they are reasonable men who, even if I disagree with some of their policies, I believe they value what this country stands for and have good temperaments.

[fredtoast]

(11-03-2016, 01:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Even if I liked Jeb (not sure, hadn't bothered to look into him) he would have never gotten my vote.

Can't allow 3 Bush family members to be President, let alone within a 5 President span. If someone has been President, their family should be scratched off the list of possible future Presidents.

Otherwise you could end up with a situation with 4 of your last 5 Presidents having the last name Bush and Clinton.

I don't vote for names.  I vote for qualifications.

Should Brett Boone have been barred from playing MLB just because his father and grandfather also played?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-03-2016, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't vote for names.  I vote for qualifications.

Should Brett Boone have been barred from playing MLB just because his father and grandfather also played?

Yes Fred, because playing professional sports and being elected to lead our entire country (the most powerful country in the world) is pretty much the exact same thing.

Good job contributing to this conversation.

[StoneTheCrow]

Kasich only has his weird knife hands to blame.

[fredtoast]

(11-03-2016, 10:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes Fred, because playing professional sports and being elected to lead our entire country (the most powerful country in the world) is pretty much the exact same thing.

Good job contributing to this conversation.

Well I would like to contribute in a more indepth manner, but you never gave me anything to work with.


The only reason you gave for not wanting these people to be President was their last name.  I'll discuss it more if you explain your position a little better.

It is very common in all types of businesses for children to follow in their parents footsteps and often they are very succesfull.. So I don't know why you are so opposed to people being elected just because of thier last names.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-04-2016, 12:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well I would like to contribute in a more indepth manner, but you never gave me anything to work with.


The only reason you gave for not wanting these people to be President was their last name.  I'll discuss it more if you explain your position a little better.

It is very common in all types of businesses for children to follow in their parents footsteps and often they are very succesfull.. So I don't know why you are so opposed to people being elected just because of thier last names.

Yes, I heard of a type of government where it worked like that. It was called a Monarchy. As I recall, the US didn't much enjoy it. But we have a Constitution now, you might say. Well then that would still be a Constitutional Monarchy.

Or when it's a web of powerful people trading favors and getting each other into power, it's called an Oligarchy.

Neither are what Democracy is supposed to be. You get a third Bush, then soon enough you'll get a fourth Bush and a fifth. You get a second Clinton, and then once she gets old enough, maybe Chelsea runs for President, using her mother and father's wealth, contacts, and favors they developed from both being President to get into power.


It's a situation just best avoided entirely.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2016, 04:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, I heard of a type of government where it worked like that. It was called a Monarchy. As I recall, the US didn't much enjoy it. But we have a Constitution now, you might say. Well then that would still be a Constitutional Monarchy.

Or when it's a web of powerful people trading favors and getting each other into power, it's called an Oligarchy.

Neither are what Democracy is supposed to be. You get a third Bush, then soon enough you'll get a fourth Bush and a fifth. You get a second Clinton, and then once she gets old enough, maybe Chelsea runs for President, using her mother and father's wealth, contacts, and favors they developed from both being President to get into power.


It's a situation just best avoided entirely.

A Democracy involves people electing who they want to govern without the government telling them that some people can not get elected because of their last name.

You really need to go back to school if you think electing the son of a former President is the same as a "monarchy".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

These types of pledges are contributing to the gridlock in Washington.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-06-2016, 01:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A Democracy involves people electing who they want to govern without the government telling them that some people can not get elected because of their last name.

You really need to go back to school if you think electing the son of a former President is the same as a "monarchy".

A Democracy shouldn't be decided by the two people who are capable of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign, and have enough favors and friends high up in order to get them to campaign for you or endorse you.

Oh? You don't have the money to afford a private jet, or the connections to get the President to use Air Force One to fly around the country campaigning? Can't flood the television with ads?

Good luck getting elected then.

In the 2012 Presidential elections, Democrats spent $919.3m and the Republicans spent $885.6m. The government might not tell people they can not get elected because of their last name, but two groups of very powerful and wealthy people make sure you only ever get two choices. That's an Oligarchy.

Sanders tried to challenge it (not even a Sanders supporter) and we saw how that ended. The previous DNC head Kaine became Hillary's VP, the then DNC head (and former Clinton campaign chair) had to resign for rigging to make Clinton win over Sanders (and got a job in less than 24 hours with Clinton again). Then the new DNC head pretty much immediately loses her media job because she was abusing it to help rig for Clinton to win.

Sanders never stood a chance because money and a small circle of powerful people decided he couldn't. That's not Democracy.