I'm talking simple majority and your talking absolute majority. It doesn't change the point. Unless you want to say that neither of Bill Clinton's elections was democratic.
I'm talking simple majority and your talking absolute majority. It doesn't change the point. Unless you want to say that neither of Bill Clinton's elections was democratic.
I'm talking simple majority and your talking absolute majority. It doesn't change the point. Unless you want to say that neither of Bill Clinton's elections was democratic.
Actually, no presidential election in this country is democratic if you want to get right down to it. We are a republic. Elections aren't a matter of getting the popular vote. It is a matter of winning the Electoral College. The goal is to get the majority of electors.
Which is rather the point. If Trump doesn't gain the majority of delegates, he doesn't win the election, and has no claim that he should win the election. No he shouldn't, because he couldn't get the majority of delegates, which is what winning means.
And all of this bringing up of democracy might have some point if Trump actually had a majority of the Republican party supporting him. He doesn't.
You're trying to find some intellectual justification behind objection by Trump supporters to the possibility of Trump losing in a contested convention. But there isn't any. It's just juvenile whining.
You're trying to find some intellectual reason behind objection by Trump supporters to the possibility of Trump losing in a contested convention. But there isn't one. It's just juvenile whining.
No, I'm telling you the political reality of depriving the nomination to one of the two people who are gathering a combined 70-80% of voter's support. It is you who seem to be the one who is trying to find an intellectual reason to justify nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz, and then claim it is irrational for voters to have any backlash because the "rules" allow for it. The question here isn't the convention rules, the question here is the political fallout of undermining the majority of your voting base.
No, I'm telling you the political reality of depriving the nomination to one of the two people who are gathering a combined 70-80% of voter's support. It is you who seem to be the one who is trying to find an intellectual reason to justify nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz, and then claim it is irrational for voters to have any backlash because the "rules" allow for it. The question here isn't the convention rules, the question here is the political fallout of undermining the majority of your voting base.
In several states those two combined didn't even get 50% of the vote. What do you say to those voters? Once you remember that not all states got the same list of candidates or even the same voting method the delegate count becomes a lot less of a clear indication of who voters really want.
No, I'm telling you the political reality of depriving the nomination to one of the two people who are gathering a combined 70-80% of voter's support.
I don't understand why you're lumping Trump and Cruz together.
The question here isn't the convention rules, the question here is the political fallout of undermining the majority of your voting base.
Oh, now I do. You're lumping them together because that's the only way you can get a majority of the party.
Guess what? You can do that with any candidate! If they pick Trump, Cruz, or Kasich, it would be against the majority of the party. That's how numbers work!
It is you who seem to be the one who is trying to find an intellectual reason to justify nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz,
The intellectual reason being "Kasich gets the vote of 1,237 delegates or more." Y'know, winning.
Also, I was talking about Trump. You're trying to lump Cruz in there like somehow the Trump supporters wouldn't protest him being nominated. Guess what? They don't want Cruz to win either. That's why they're not voting for him.
Honestly it reminds me too much of Elliot Roger and his MRA screeds for me to be entirely comfortable with it, but you do you I guess.
Foul. If we were all associated with criminals and terrorists who profess vaguely the same political views we do, none of us would be free of guilt. Until this guy starts actually speaking violently (like Trump has), you've got no legitimate reason to insinuate that he is violent. Keep it on the plane of facts and ideas. As you've seen, there's more than enough to discredit him there.
I'm talking simple majority and your talking absolute majority. It doesn't change the point. Unless you want to say that neither of Bill Clinton's elections was democratic.
The word you're looking for is "plurality". And by the rules of the Republican National Convention, which were absolutely clear for everyone going into this race, a plurality is not sufficient to win the nomination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They are both anti-establishment. That's why I group them. Also because they are the only two that have a path to the nomination via a majority of the delegates. I think Trump has built a lead that will be hard to assail by Cruz at this point, so likely this conversation pertains to him alone. However, if Cruz were to start steamrolling Trump in the remaining states, we could have a convention in which they have very similar delegate counts. In which case, nominating Cruz over Trump could be seen as acceptable.
Anyway, the numbers also work this way: GOP nominates someone random who hasn't even been in the race (I realistically cannot see Kaisch getting the nod; the guy is a joke) like Paul Ryan or Romney and then their numbers don't add up (because the base stays home again, as with Romney) and they lose the general. Then the numbers don't add up again that Establishment people in Congress get primaried or just lose to Democrats. That's how the numbers work.
They are both anti-establishment. That's why I group them.
Except the Trump supporters aren't threatening to protest based on Cruz not getting the nomination, are they? They're threatening to protest Trump not getting the nomination. This includes Cruz getting the nomination, so it makes absolutely no sense to lump them together.
Also because they are the only two that have a path to the nomination via a majority of the delegates.
By the first vote. You may have heard of a brokered convention?
However, if Cruz were to start steamrolling Trump in the remaining states, we could have a convention in which they have very similar delegate counts. In which case, nominating Cruz over Trump could be seen as acceptable.
It's acceptable regardless. The brokered convention does not require the delegates to be bound by the way their states voted.
Anyway, the numbers also work this way: GOP nominates someone random who hasn't even been in the race (I realistically cannot see Kaisch getting the nod; the guy is a joke) like Paul Ryan or Romney and then their numbers don't add up (because the base stays home again, as with Romney) and they lose the general.
Uh, no, because Paul Ryan himself has told people to stop talking about nominating him, and that it should be one of the three. And it won't be Romney either.
See, you're just typing things without taking the time to think about them.
I presumed you were keeping up on events in America during the last decade or two. Guess I can share the highlights, but my 1 hour and 40 minute commute is about to begin. Might not get to this for 1-2 days. By then you will probably have researched the last 10+ years of events in MuriKa, and already cracked the case.
Have a bright day, either way.
I am very well informed on current events and I am most definitely not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to justify the blight that is Donald Trump's metamorphosis into a politician.
Then u should be able to quickly list many ways that the GOP has betrayed its base in the last 10+ years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Do you even know why Cruz and Trump had that conversation?
Because a third party group put out a very sexy pic of Trump's wife in an attempt to smear him in the eyes of Mormon conservative Utah voters... A great example of Trump both not doing any research and jumping straight to the nuclear option of responses, certainly not the caliber of level-headedness I seek in a president.
"Nuclear option of responses" is tweeting a side by side pic of Heidi and Melania each wearing normal clothing? Seems direct and fairly tame to me. Cruz's self righteous reply was quite the act. If Cruz does not want scores of millions in value from superPACs, he should have followed Trump's lead. Also, Cruz can't have it both ways.
Then u should be able to quickly list many ways that the GOP has betrayed its base in the last 10+ years.
I already told you I won't be going on your wild goose chase. If you have a specific issue you want to discuss bring it forward otherwise I'm not going to indulge this pointless vagueness.
...
Uh, no, because Paul Ryan himself has told people to stop talking about nominating him, and that it should be one of the three. And it won't be Romney either.
Yes, because politicians have never been known to lie. Yes, Romney is clearly all in on a particular candidate. I mean he did Robocalls for Rubio in Florida. I mean, Kaisch in Ohio. Wait, I mean Cruz in Arizona. He cleary doesn't want to go to a convention and position himself as the party saviour.
I presumed you were keeping up on events in America during the last decade or two. Guess I can share the highlights, but my 1 hour and 40 minute commute is about to begin. Might not get to this for 1-2 days. By then you will probably have researched the last 10+ years of events in MuriKa, and already cracked the case.
Have a bright day, either way.
I am very well informed on current events and I am most definitely not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to justify the blight that is Donald Trump's metamorphosis into a politician.
Then u should be able to quickly list many ways that the GOP has betrayed its base in the last 10+ years.
You could stop dodging the question and just say, specifically, what event or events you're referring to.
"Nuclear option of responses" is tweeting a side by side pic of Heidi and Melania? Seems direct and fairly tame to me. Cruz's self righteous reply was quite the act. If Cruz does not want scores of millions in value from superPACs, he should have followed Trump's lead. Also, Cruz can't have it both ways.
Without even confirming if it was from Cruz he went straight to "lets find the worst picture of his wife and make her look like a *****" in this situation that is the nuclear option. Pretty over reactive and hotheaded. How can you defend someone like that. I mean I hate Cruz a lot but for goodness sake leave the man's wife out of this.
That's just it though. People are seeing these primaries (and primaries in the past) as nothing more than a charade where you really have no real choice over your candidates since they have to be approved by the Beltway. This has been the first election in a very long time where establishment candidates greatly connected to Washington have failed miserably. We can see that in Jeb!, Rubio, and others in the GOP all dropping out of the race. People want candidates that represent average Joes and not Washington insiders. Whether those candidates are good or bad is up for debate, but the point of the matter still remains: a significant number of people truly believe they are being screwed by DC.
The thing is though the primary is not a democratic process and it has an extremely low turnout so the people that do vote are a tiny portion of the voting base.
All Trump would have to do is convince his supporters to simply stay home and refuse to vote if he lost the nomination as an act of protest. Or he could even tell people just vote Democrat to spite the GOP. Even if only half of Trump supporters followed through on such a thing it would still cost the GOP dearly. All those non-votes would translate into GOP hemorrhaging House seats, Senate seats, and governor's offices. The GOP would also lose countless seats in state legislatures. State and local politics are where the GOP is at its strongest and if a lot of would-be GOPers stay at home it would be a crushing blow to the party.
Congressional districts are gerrymandered to the point that very few districts are anything near a close race so I don't see Trump having much effect on that front. I find it hard to believe that many hardcore republicans would intentionally swap parties out of spite.
I purchased, and continue to proudly wear, a defund the GOP t-shirt several years ago. This election proves that many millions of American citizens are part of the insurgency against the totalitarian Rs and Ds. We must overthrow one of the corrupt parties before we can begin overthrowing the other. Bernie Sanders is correct when he talks about all the crony capitalism. He is correct that HRC is part of the status quo. Respect to Bernie, but I don't think he can break past the machine of the Left. I believe that Donald Trump--the Deadpool of MuriKan politics--is our best option at moving the insurgency forward. Playing with fire for sure, but millions of us have already cast the die. And millions more will do so in the coming months, in spite of Beck's prophecies and HuffPos ridiculous lies and fear mongering.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
You're trying to find some intellectual reason behind objection by Trump supporters to the possibility of Trump losing in a contested convention. But there isn't one. It's just juvenile whining.
No, I'm telling you the political reality of depriving the nomination to one of the two people who are gathering a combined 70-80% of voter's support. It is you who seem to be the one who is trying to find an intellectual reason to justify nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz, and then claim it is irrational for voters to have any backlash because the "rules" allow for it. The question here isn't the convention rules, the question here is the political fallout of undermining the majority of your voting base.
60% of people didn't vote for Trump, but if we include Cruz (lol) suddenly we cover 80% of the electorate!
You understand that the second choice for Trump supporters isn't Cruz, and vice versa right?
All Trump would have to do is convince his supporters to simply stay home and refuse to vote if he lost the nomination as an act of protest. Or he could even tell people just vote Democrat to spite the GOP. Even if only half of Trump supporters followed through on such a thing it would still cost the GOP dearly.
It would cost the GOP dearly if Trump were the nominee. They would lose the election and alienate major swaths of their base, as well as severely damage their reputation in this country and abroad.
No, setting aside the moral issues of supporting a Trump candidacy, setting aside the dangers of kowtowing to an angry mob who threatens to hijack an election with threats of force and sabotage, there's nothing smart about taking a certain loss over a potential loss. No matter how much spin you apply, making Trump candidate is not the smart play.
I simply don't have any faith that the corrupt GOP suddenly cares about America. None. Zilch. Believe if u want. I stopped worshipping their golden calf years ago. No matter how much they spin things, reality is true. Take the red pill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
All Trump would have to do is convince his supporters to simply stay home and refuse to vote if he lost the nomination as an act of protest. Or he could even tell people just vote Democrat to spite the GOP. Even if only half of Trump supporters followed through on such a thing it would still cost the GOP dearly.
It would cost the GOP dearly if Trump were the nominee. They would lose the election and alienate major swaths of their base, as well as severely damage their reputation in this country and abroad.
No, setting aside the moral issues of supporting a Trump candidacy, setting aside the dangers of kowtowing to an angry mob who threatens to hijack an election with threats of force and sabotage, there's nothing smart about taking a certain loss over a potential loss. No matter how much spin you apply, making Trump candidate is not the smart play.
I simply don't have any faith that the corrupt GOP suddenly cares about America. None. Zilch. Believe if u want. I stopped worshipping their golden calf years ago. No matter how much they spin things, reality is true. Take the red pill.
The fact of the matter is the the primary system is not a democratic one. The rules are different for each state. With that in mind it is really hard to say with a straight face that someone who got a bunch of delegates from winner take all states accurately represents the voice of those states.
Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama come to mind... Or are u admitting none of them accurately represents we the people? (Especially the last two).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Then u should be able to quickly list many ways that the GOP has betrayed its base in the last 10+ years.
I already told you I won't be going on your wild goose chase. If you have a specific issue you want to discuss bring it forward otherwise I'm not going to indulge this pointless vagueness.
Kasich is pure establishment. So yes, he is failsauce for anyone that prefers liberty.
GOP is a limp noodle when it comes to opposing their buds, the Dems. Spending out of control. Obamacare wrecking the country. Horrible trade deals. Moronic deal with bloodthirsty Iran. Borders neglected, so drugs and criminals and disease are pouring in. Gvt criminally negligent in r/t our vets. Police state increasing. Unconstitutional surveillance is the norm. In short, the totalitarians are on the rise.
Escape the matrix.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
You're trying to find some intellectual reason behind objection by Trump supporters to the possibility of Trump losing in a contested convention. But there isn't one. It's just juvenile whining.
No, I'm telling you the political reality of depriving the nomination to one of the two people who are gathering a combined 70-80% of voter's support. It is you who seem to be the one who is trying to find an intellectual reason to justify nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz, and then claim it is irrational for voters to have any backlash because the "rules" allow for it. The question here isn't the convention rules, the question here is the political fallout of undermining the majority of your voting base.
60% of people didn't vote for Trump, but if we include Cruz (lol) suddenly we cover 80% of the electorate!
You understand that the second choice for Trump supporters isn't Cruz, and vice versa right?
"Nuclear option of responses" is tweeting a side by side pic of Heidi and Melania each wearing normal clothing? Seems direct and fairly tame to me.
Now you're defending Trump insulting the appearance of his rival's wife? Is there anything this guy could do that would get you to realize he's a pig?
I will vote for any pig that might be able to overthrow the tyrants in the US gvt.
I know Donpool is the anti-hero, but mostly cause the other politicians are MUCH worse.
I get why peeps are afraid of Donpool, I just don't understand why most of these same folks passionately support other corrupt politicians that happily embrace crony capitalism here and horrific wars in country after country far away. GW Bush lied about Iraq. HRC voted for it. Obama has a peace prize, even though he has bragged about being good at killing. Tons of current R politicians are at least as corrupt as Obama. Disgusting.
Trump has many, many weaknesses, but he might not be a 100% corrupt doorknob. Maybe.
Edit:
Bernie has my respect, but socialism is one bridge too far. He is authentic and vibrant and fights against the status quo with boldness. He is the Colossus of American politics, as it were. And I wish him all the best.
I will vote for any pig that might be able to overthrow the tyrants in the US gvt.
I know Donpool is the anti-hero, but mostly cause the other politicians are MUCH worse.
I get why peeps are afraid of Donpool, I just don't understand why most of these same folks passionately support other corrupt politicians that happily embrace crony capitalism here and horrific wars in country after country far away. GW Bush lied about Iraq. HRC voted for it. Obama has a peace prize, even though he has bragged about being good at killing. Tons of current R politicians are at least as corrupt as Obama. Disgusting.
Trump has many, many weaknesses, but he might not be a 100% corrupt doorknob. Maybe.
Please define corruption. It's not enough to assume that Trump is above corruption just because Trump claims it so. The man literally proposed a tax plan that would benefit himself more than the working class he's suppose to be saving.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Which is rather the point. If Trump doesn't gain the majority of delegates, he doesn't win the election, and has no claim that he should win the election. No he shouldn't, because he couldn't get the majority of delegates, which is what winning means.
And all of this bringing up of democracy might have some point if Trump actually had a majority of the Republican party supporting him. He doesn't.
You're trying to find some intellectual justification behind objection by Trump supporters to the possibility of Trump losing in a contested convention. But there isn't any. It's just juvenile whining.
No, I'm telling you the political reality of depriving the nomination to one of the two people who are gathering a combined 70-80% of voter's support. It is you who seem to be the one who is trying to find an intellectual reason to justify nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz, and then claim it is irrational for voters to have any backlash because the "rules" allow for it. The question here isn't the convention rules, the question here is the political fallout of undermining the majority of your voting base.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Oh, now I do. You're lumping them together because that's the only way you can get a majority of the party.
Guess what? You can do that with any candidate! If they pick Trump, Cruz, or Kasich, it would be against the majority of the party. That's how numbers work!
The intellectual reason being "Kasich gets the vote of 1,237 delegates or more." Y'know, winning.
Also, I was talking about Trump. You're trying to lump Cruz in there like somehow the Trump supporters wouldn't protest him being nominated. Guess what? They don't want Cruz to win either. That's why they're not voting for him.
The word you're looking for is "plurality". And by the rules of the Republican National Convention, which were absolutely clear for everyone going into this race, a plurality is not sufficient to win the nomination.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Anyway, the numbers also work this way: GOP nominates someone random who hasn't even been in the race (I realistically cannot see Kaisch getting the nod; the guy is a joke) like Paul Ryan or Romney and then their numbers don't add up (because the base stays home again, as with Romney) and they lose the general. Then the numbers don't add up again that Establishment people in Congress get primaried or just lose to Democrats. That's how the numbers work.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
By the first vote. You may have heard of a brokered convention?
It's acceptable regardless. The brokered convention does not require the delegates to be bound by the way their states voted.
Uh, no, because Paul Ryan himself has told people to stop talking about nominating him, and that it should be one of the three. And it won't be Romney either.
See, you're just typing things without taking the time to think about them.
I already told you I won't be going on your wild goose chase. If you have a specific issue you want to discuss bring it forward otherwise I'm not going to indulge this pointless vagueness.
Yes, because politicians have never been known to lie. Yes, Romney is clearly all in on a particular candidate. I mean he did Robocalls for Rubio in Florida. I mean, Kaisch in Ohio. Wait, I mean Cruz in Arizona. He cleary doesn't want to go to a convention and position himself as the party saviour.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
60% of people didn't vote for Trump, but if we include Cruz (lol) suddenly we cover 80% of the electorate!
You understand that the second choice for Trump supporters isn't Cruz, and vice versa right?
This is a pro Trump argument?
GOP is a limp noodle when it comes to opposing their buds, the Dems. Spending out of control. Obamacare wrecking the country. Horrible trade deals. Moronic deal with bloodthirsty Iran. Borders neglected, so drugs and criminals and disease are pouring in. Gvt criminally negligent in r/t our vets. Police state increasing. Unconstitutional surveillance is the norm. In short, the totalitarians are on the rise.
Escape the matrix.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/03/24/never-trump-fails-again-poll-says-cruz-and-kasich-supporters-pick-trump-as-second-choice-320733
Many older polls have had very similar results too, FYI.
I know Donpool is the anti-hero, but mostly cause the other politicians are MUCH worse.
I get why peeps are afraid of Donpool, I just don't understand why most of these same folks passionately support other corrupt politicians that happily embrace crony capitalism here and horrific wars in country after country far away. GW Bush lied about Iraq. HRC voted for it. Obama has a peace prize, even though he has bragged about being good at killing. Tons of current R politicians are at least as corrupt as Obama. Disgusting.
Trump has many, many weaknesses, but he might not be a 100% corrupt doorknob. Maybe.
Edit:
Bernie has my respect, but socialism is one bridge too far. He is authentic and vibrant and fights against the status quo with boldness. He is the Colossus of American politics, as it were. And I wish him all the best.
Please define corruption. It's not enough to assume that Trump is above corruption just because Trump claims it so. The man literally proposed a tax plan that would benefit himself more than the working class he's suppose to be saving.