Roosevelt was not a particularly good president. A lot of the problems of bloated government we have to deal with today stem from him.
Off topic take it elsewhere. we are trying to complain about Donald potentially inciting mass riots...
I was not the first one to mention roosevelt buttercup, maybe that comment should be directed at someone else. If you felt your vote did not matter violence is a logical response. It has happened at other conventions.
I was not the first one to mention roosevelt buttercup, maybe that comment should be directed at someone else.
The other post started about Trump. We already wasted space around page 20 on the FDR debate and there is no need to drag it up again. How do you feel about your boy trump indirectly calling for riots?
Also riots are a fairly consistent response to a robbed election.
How is it a "robbed election" if he didn't win the election?
The win condition is 1,237 delegates. Unless you have 1,237 delegates, you haven't won. If Trump never gets the majority of delegates, and loses the brokered convention, you cannot claim Trump was robbed of the nomination, because he never won it.
If trump is even 300 delegates ahead of everyone else there is no justification to nominate someone else.
There's perfect justification for nominating someone else: someone else won the majority of delegates.
That's how the process works. If Trump doesn't clinch the nomination with the majority of delegates, then the delegates become free to vote for whomever they want. If that person isn't Trump, then it won't be Trump. You can't claim Trump deserves to win if he doesn't get the vote of the delegates, end of story.
People would be very angry.
People would be very angry if Trump were made the nominee despite not winning the nomination. Their anger, on the other hand, would have justification.
The entire reason we have the 2nd amendment is to put a bullet in tyrannical government.
So now you're threatening armed conflict if Trump doesn't win according to the rules of a Republican primary?
Funny how you have absolutely no problem with the way a Republican primary works when Trump is winning, but if he loses by the rules, it's a "tyrannical government."
Trump slings mud more than I like, but I will take a brash and impulsive fighter FOR the country over a super nifty speaker that is AGAINST the country every single day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Nobody in the race is "against the country". But rebranding political rivals as traitors is yet another common tactic of demagogues, so there's that.
Is the Mexican gvt responsible for controlling its side of the border or not? Whether sin of commission or omission, they are responsible/guilty.
That's not what he said. He said, "the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government." This is false because illegal immigrants are not "the worst elements" (again, by the numbers, they're better elements than the average American) and because they are not "being pushed" (you yourself are now trying to say that the government is only committing sin of omission).
Using violence against those ALREADY using violence against you is logical and good.
That's not what he said. He said that an "obnoxious" "trouble-maker" "should have been roughed up". The person in question was not already using violence against the rally attendees, and Trump's statement does not mention such violence or say anything about self-defense. He said it's okay to strike a man because the man annoys you -- that's it.
Trump advocated going after the accomplices of terrorists, even if it is a wife or some other family member. How do you figure that is controversial?
That's not what he said. He said that "you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families". He says nothing to specify that the families are accomplices. On the contrary, he says we should attack the families because they're what the terrorists "care about". That's textbook collective punishment.
Rubio started the hand size comments, and Trump--as he is wont to do--finished it. Crude, but effective as per the recent poll results. Objective enough?
Rubio didn't start it. Trump's opponents picked up the hand size thing because Trump has been ridiculously sensitive about it for years. He certainly didn't finish it at the debate, and is unlikely ever to finish it while he remains a public figure.
1) Men don't have vaginas. I aced all my science classes in H.S. and college, so you should trust me on that. Also, Trump never finished the sentence in question. Assumptions aint legit.
2) You think Trump will make America worser. I think he will kick tail in a positive way. Perchance you should stop with the name calling.
3) You are making excuses for illegal activity, by inferring it is ok since--allegedly--they are better people than the average American citizen. I don't buy it. But my top reason for supporting a real border is to stop drugs, and human smuggling, and the endemic assault of latinas by criminals, to increase proper medical screening, and also to keep moochers out. And yes, the Mexican gvt is so corrupt that many have given up and flee to America instead. I said omission and commission, but you "forgot" again. Precision maters. Still illegal to enter this, or any other country, without permission.
4) Quoting Trump's statements about an "obnoxious" "trouble maker" is not proof one way or the other. What was the protester doing? I don't know. Do you?
5) You support candidates that push the white guilt narrative, and you are bothered by "collective punishment". Precious. Also, Trump later clarified his remarks in a debate, a press conference, and multiple rallies. Your quote of Trump is not the whole story. Persistence bears delicious fruit.
6) Trump's response to Rubio, in r/t the hands of a man that is 5' 2", was a burn spell right to Rubio's handsome face. Again, crude for sure. But Trump did indeed finish it. DJT marches forward, while Rubio is down and out.
Maybe millions and millions of Americans are less concerned with crude style, than what they consider to be reformative substance. Food for thought.
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
I was not the first one to mention roosevelt buttercup, maybe that comment should be directed at someone else.
The other post started about Trump. We already wasted space around page 20 on the FDR debate and there is no need to drag it up again. How do you feel about your boy trump indirectly calling for riots?
Also the in case you didn't notice the attacking of roosevelt is talking about how you can have someone that is cool, calm, reasoned, dignified, likable and still make a cluster everything.
It is fine in my opinion. Our republic wouldn't be a republic anymore, it would be an oligarchy. Violence is ultimately the only way to get rid of something like that. If you deny the person with the most votes you can't even pretend to be a republic anymore. You live in a make believe republic at that point.
Also riots are a fairly consistent response to a robbed election.
How is it a "robbed election" if he didn't win the election?
The win condition is 1,237 delegates. Unless you have 1,237 delegates, you haven't won. If Trump never gets the majority of delegates, and loses the brokered convention, you cannot claim Trump was robbed of the nomination, because he never won it.
If trump is even 300 delegates ahead of everyone else there is no justification to nominate someone else.
There's perfect justification for nominating someone else: someone else won the majority of delegates.
That's how the process works. If Trump doesn't clinch the nomination with the majority of delegates, then the delegates become free to vote for whomever they want. If that person isn't Trump, then it won't be Trump. You can't claim Trump deserves to win if he doesn't get the vote of the delegates, end of story.
People would be very angry.
People would be very angry if Trump were made the nominee despite not winning the nomination. Their anger, on the other hand, would have justification.
The entire reason we have the 2nd amendment is to put a bullet in tyrannical government.
So now you're threatening armed conflict if Trump doesn't win according to the rules of a Republican primary?
Funny how you have absolutely no problem with the way a Republican primary works when Trump is winning, but if he loses by the rules, it's a "tyrannical government."
If that is how the process works it is time for it to be changed. Also the people that voted for trump, then saw him get the most delegates, then have them pick kasich who won one state shouldn't be angry?
Also the in case you didn't notice the attacking of roosevelt is talking about how you can have someone that is cool, calm, reasoned, dignified, likable and still make a cluster everything.
It is fine in my opinion. Our republic wouldn't be a republic anymore, it would be an oligarchy. Violence is ultimately the only way to get rid of something like that. If you deny the person with the most votes you can't even pretend to be a republic anymore. You live in a make believe republic at that point.
Oh, so we haven't been a republic since 2000? Or maybe 1824?
Also riots are a fairly consistent response to a robbed election.
No one rioted after Bush v Gore. If a candidate does not meet the requirement to win the race then people need to deal with it.
Except Gore didn't have an electoral college lead. That would have been like Gore having a 50 electoral college lead and the election going to bush. Also what justification do they have to pick anyone else. Lets pick this guy that didn't run as well, or didn't run at all and tell people they are so much better, huh?
Also the in case you didn't notice the attacking of roosevelt is talking about how you can have someone that is cool, calm, reasoned, dignified, likable and still make a cluster everything.
It is fine in my opinion. Our republic wouldn't be a republic anymore, it would be an oligarchy. Violence is ultimately the only way to get rid of something like that. If you deny the person with the most votes you can't even pretend to be a republic anymore. You live in a make believe republic at that point.
Oh, so we haven't been a republic since 2000? Or maybe 1824?
Republic is a different that a democracy. Also the argument could be made we haven't been. I think that would be a fair point. One only needs to look at the super delegates to see how rigged that election is. The process is pathetic and has been for a while. The reasons for the electoral college are more complicated however. If we went to a straight popular vote it would be a matter of time before smaller states would leave the union. What New York wants is vastly different than what North Dakota wants.
Except Gore didn't have an electoral college lead. That would have been like Gore having a 50 electoral college lead and the election going to bush. Also what justification do they have to pick anyone else. Lets pick this guy that didn't run as well, or didn't run at all and tell people they are so much better, huh?
They are literally the same thing. Gore didn't get the magic number of electoral votes compared to the possibility of Trump not getting the magic number of electoral votes. You are saying he should automatically win because he had the most, but in this race that does not matter. you have to hit that number to secure nomination otherwise you have to win the brokered convention.
Except Gore didn't have an electoral college lead. That would have been like Gore having a 50 electoral college lead and the election going to bush. Also what justification do they have to pick anyone else. Lets pick this guy that didn't run as well, or didn't run at all and tell people they are so much better, huh?
They are literally the same thing. Gore didn't get the magic number of electoral votes compared to the possibility of Trump not getting the magic number of electoral votes. You are saying he should automatically win because he had the most, but in this race that does not matter. you have to hit that number to secure nomination otherwise you have to win the brokered convention.
I just said I think people would have been justified in rioting. If people were that angry with the results they should have rioted.
Except Gore didn't have an electoral college lead. That would have been like Gore having a 50 electoral college lead and the election going to bush. Also what justification do they have to pick anyone else. Lets pick this guy that didn't run as well, or didn't run at all and tell people they are so much better, huh?
Jackson had an electoral college lead in 1824. But the rules are the rules.
Republic is a different that a democracy. Also the argument could be made we haven't been. I think that would be a fair point. One only needs to look at the super delegates to see how rigged that election is. The process is pathetic and has been for a while. The reasons for the electoral college are more complicated however. If we went to a straight popular vote it would be a matter of time before smaller states would leave the union. What New York wants is vastly different than what North Dakota wants.
If we haven't been a republic for almost 200 years, then what are you complaining about?
I just said I think people would have been justified in rioting. If people were that angry with the results they should have rioted.
people are never justified in rioting. Destruction of private property, looting, general chaos? Does that sounds like a good constructive response to you? If they want to protest go for it but rioting is just plain criminality poorly justified by anger.
Trump shapes the narrative once again, and other folks on the Left and Right then react as best they see fit.
If you think "shaping the narrative" is a good indicator of fitness for the presidency, clearly you must have been all over Barack Obama in 2008.
I still have NOT gotten a tingle up my leg for Obama like some of his supporting "journalists" did. It is beyond clear that no matter what, you oppose DJT all the way to the hilt. Did his chauffeur accidentally run over your dog or something? I mean, it seems like you have a personal vendetta against him.
If it is more anxiety/worry than rage, I can prescribe you Buspirone 150mg one tablet by mouth twice daily and refer you to a FANTASTIC counselor if you schedule an appt at my clinic and we agree the rewards outweigh the risks. (I earned that privilege a number of years ago, and I help peeps good, bad and indifferent 4-6 days a week). Happy to help a fellow traveler.
I just said I think people would have been justified in rioting. If people were that angry with the results they should have rioted.
people are never justified in rioting. Destruction of private property, looting, general chaos? Does that sounds like a good constructive response to you? If they want to protest go for it but rioting is just plain criminality poorly justified by anger.
I mean we wouldn't have the united states if people never did anything criminal.
[quote from="Tipsygiggle »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=2066"]
Except Gore didn't have an electoral college lead. That would have been like Gore having a 50 electoral college lead and the election going to bush. Also what justification do they have to pick anyone else. Lets pick this guy that didn't run as well, or didn't run at all and tell people they are so much better, huh?
Republic is a different that a democracy. Also the argument could be made we haven't been. I think that would be a fair point. One only needs to look at the super delegates to see how rigged that election is. The process is pathetic and has been for a while. The reasons for the electoral college are more complicated however. If we went to a straight popular vote it would be a matter of time before smaller states would leave the union. What New York wants is vastly different than what North Dakota wants.
If we haven't been a republic for almost 200 years, then what are you complaining about?
So I should just do what everyone else does because of precedent?
I mean we wouldn't have the united states if people never did anything criminal.
If you cannot see the difference between forming a new government to throw off the tyranny of an old one and having a mindless mob rampage through several major cities then I don't know what to tell you.
You failed to quote everything Trump said on that topic. Thus, you have chosen to mislead at best.
Trump did say what you quoted, as well as plenty more during at least one debate, one press conference, and multiple rallies.
His amendments came after the backlash. Likely after he realized that what he advocated would be an international crime. Its almost as if he didn't know that killing innocent women and children was immoral. That aside changing his stance after the massive backlash does nothing for me. More evidence of his cheap talk and pandering flip-flopping rhetoric.
And I didn't mislead anything that was the whole quote when it came up with full context given nothing misleading about it. Three times he said we have to kill their families. Very clear, more clear than what a lot of politicians say. You can't expect me to quote the original statement then quote all the backtracking that is a bit silly
Is it wrong that Trump amended his statements after there was backlash?
Yes I know I railed on Romney about "flip-flopping" but this is a phone post.
Is it wrong that Trump amended his statements after there was backlash?
Its not wrong that he changed his statement it is wrong that he had it to begin with. Other candidates would have been crucified for this kind of talk, but since Trump says so much crazy already no one really cared.
I don't understand why Trump offering to pay the legal fees for supporters that remove the protestors is more offensive than the fact that those protestors are there to incite, disrupt and shut down his rallies. Could you make the case that they're equal? Maybe. But if you're going to hand-wave people for undermining the democratic process then you don't have the moral high ground in condemning Trump.
Sucker-punching a guy is not "equal" with misdemeanor trespassing and disturbing the peace. Protesting at a rally is not "undermining the democratic process". You can't be serious.
Nor is sucker-punching a guy equal to chasing a likely Presidential nominee from major U.S. cities with threatening rallies that lead to multiple arrests.
You're cool with this because it starts here, but this might not be where it ends. What if it's Hillary next, because she's not as in-line with the SJWs as Bernie is? It's already been Bernie, though only once, and he handed over the podium... what if next time he actually wants to speak? What then? He's not allowed to because the protestors say otherwise? So again, where does it end? At what point does the criminal disruption of the democratic process become a problem?
You're cool with this because it starts here, but this might not be where it ends. What if it's Hillary next, because she's not as in-line with the SJWs as Bernie is? It's already been Bernie, though only once, and he handed over the podium... what if next time he actually wants to speak? What then? He's not allowed to because the protestors say otherwise? So again, where does it end? At what point does the criminal disruption of the democratic process become a problem?
Sanders could have had the protesters removed at any time. He has every right to do that. Trump has every right to have the protesters removed from his rallies as well. Yes, protesters trying to shut down free speech is a problem. Under normal circumstances I'd be complaining about MoveOn.org and BLM's censorious sanctimony right alongside you -- as you may remember I have in the past. But as long as the law is on the side of the speakers, it's not a big problem. Trump openly advocating mob violence against protesters? Much bigger problem.
I don't think I've ever encountered a literate Trump supporter before, so I am somewhat intrigued by you. Since I have been unable to have my questions answered by other Trump supporters, I would be grateful if you could speak about your expectations of Trump's presidency. Like, what do you realistically believe he would achieve if he got into the Whitehouse?
I believe he will push back HARD against all the billions of dollars of drugs flooding into this country across the southern border. Those harmful drugs are wrecking TONS of lives, and killing quite a few human beings in the process. A wall is just one part of the puzzle needed to stop this scourge. Human trafficking is high back and forth across the border. And a HUGE percentage of the latinas--girls and women--coming across the border are sexually assaulted. And yes, there are lots and lots of criminals--legal and illegal--making a tidy profit at la frontera. R and D politicians have turned a blind eye to these problems for decades. Enough is enough.
I believe Trump will try to destroy ISIS, not contain it.
I believe Trump will renegotiate contracts and trade deals, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of MuriKa.
I believe Trump will nominate a conservative justice.
I believe Trump is the most likely candidate to "save" Medicare. VERY tough task, no doubt.
I believe Trump will leave Planned Parenthood alone.
I believe Trump will replace Obamacare with something better.
I believe Trump will improve the economy for blue collar citizens, regardless of race or gender or culture.
I could be wrong on every single item. But I am confident DJT is the cream of the current crop. Mediocrity at the max is NOT Trump's plan.
Thanks, dox.
Hmm. HolyJello, I think your expectations of Trump are a little far-fetched. This is primarily for 4 reasons:
1. Dishonesty: Trump is statistically among the most dishonest candidates in the race. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html. Take any speech of his and fact check it yourself: you will find he often confuses his mouth for his anus. In fact, in his book The Art of the Deal, Trump speaks voluminously about ruthlessly exploiting people's hopes and dreams in order to secure "good deals". What makes you think he isn't doing the same to you?
2. Flip-floppery: If you look at his 30 year political history, you will see that he has traditionally supported Democrats, and flip-flopped on every major political issue, including the Iraq War, which he holds up as an example of his "tremendous judgement". What's more, many of his flip-flops have occurred within the current campaign (e.g. killing terrorist's families, paying legal fees of thugs). There is even an indication that Trump confided to the NYT that his Unique Selling Point -- his intent to build a wall between Mexico -- may be bullshizzle. A good look at his political history strongly suggests that the views he currently holds are a simple instance of electioneering.
3. Naivety: Trump is a political dunce. In particular, he seems to have no knowledge of how federal laws are passed, or of the complexities of foreign policy (particularly the Middle East). This is well-evidenced by his answers to such questions, where rather than say anything of substance, he simply says "We're gonna win" or "We'll smash 'em", or "I know how to make good deals," and then changes the subject. Furthermore, he habitually says bone-headed things like "torture works" (even though the CIA has admitted that torture doesn't work). Let's take another one of your points. You mentioned that Trump will straighten out China, and ensure US jobs go to US citizens. What Trump doesn't seem to know (or isn't telling you) is that if harsh tariffs are imposed on the Chinese, they will simply stop co-operating and start competing with US industry on the Intl markets, easily undercutting it and putting US companies out of business. This will lead to even more job losses. Trump may well have an answer to this problem, but so far he hasn't said a single thing that suggests he cares or is even aware of it.
4. Isolation: It's no secret that almost everyone in the establishment hates Trump. Obviously, this is why many common people love him. But think about this: If the lobbyists, the Senate and the Supreme Court refuse to play ball with him (which, given his antagonism, is likely their intention), how is he going to pass any laws? Even many Republicans have vowed to oppose him! And no, despite popular belief, Trump can't rely on Executive Orders, as they still require the complicity of Congress, and have a limited jurisdiction. You would have to be severely naive to believe he has a chance of deporting 11 million immigrants, or of building a wall along the south border. In fact, given how he has antagonised pretty much everyone in the establishment, it's hard to believe he would succeed in getting any laws passed at all.
In short, Trump is lying about what he wants to achieve, and even if he's not, he's not got the know-how to achieve it, and even if he has, he's antagonised too much of the establishment to make it happen.
Having said that, I should add that I would love to see Trump as president, but that's only because what I look for in a president is entertainment.
I really like your entertainment point, and that is the silver lining in this whole altercation.
Edit:
I will respond to your first 4 points within 1-2 days. Nearly an 11 hour shift today, and at least that many hours tomorrow.
My "entertainment" comment above was an attempt to say that looking for the positives will be needed no matter who wins.
3) You are making excuses for illegal activity, by inferring it is ok since--allegedly--they are better people than the average American citizen.
Where am I making excuses for illegal activity? I'm saying that illegal immigrants are better than the average American citizen because, statistically, they don't commit as much illegal activity. Yes, obviously they have committed one illegal act by definition, but Trump is talking about them committing other illegal acts, like drug dealing and rape.
I said omission and commission, but you "forgot" again.
Actually you said "omission or commission". A disjunction. True when either of the disjuncts is true. And since "commission" is false, only "omission" remains.
4) Quoting Trump's statements about an "obnoxious" "trouble maker" is not proof one way or the other. What was the protester doing? I don't know. Do you?
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. And Trump didn't even claim the protester was guilty. If Trump had said something like, "This guy was violent, so my supporters had a right to defend themselves", we'd be having a different conversation. But that's not what he said. He endorsed violence irrespective of the protester instigating it.
Also, Trump later clarified his remarks in a debate, a press conference, and multiple rallies. Your quote of Trump is not the whole story.
Yeah, if somebody advocates a war crime and then backs off from it later, I'm still going to hold him in lower regard than everybody else who's never advocated a war crime at all. And if Trump was not advocating collective punishment, why were you insinuating that collective punishment is acceptable just above?
Maybe millions and millions of Americans are less concerned with crude style, than what they consider to be reformative substance. Food for thought.
I've known that millions and millions of Americans are perversely attracted to crudity ever since the reality TV craze began. Now the king of reality TV is running for office and they're voting for him. They're not looking for substance in his campaign any more than they were looking for it on his show. They're looking for entertainment. You're looking for entertainment. Your posts are all empty, fannish excitement and fun until someone actually challenges you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You mean like the deal that got Trump Chris Christie's endorsement? When your man literally wrote the book on the art of the deal, it's a little surprising for you to suggest dealmaking in a disparaging tone.
You mean like the deal that got Trump Chris Christie's endorsement? When your man literally wrote the book on the art of the deal, it's a little surprising for you to suggest dealmaking in a disparaging tone.
It is fascinating that u assumed I typed that in a disparaging tone.
As a pragmatist, I expect backroom deals. It is part of the process. If deal is good, that is groovy. But if the deal is Iranesque, I be opposing from dawn till dusk.
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
So what Trump is saying here should worry everyone, because he's basically threatening mob violence.
This is pretty irresponsible for Trump to say. Everyone already knows he has trouble keeping his supporters civil and now this. Even if he is right about the possibility of violence existing he should not have brought into people's minds. Now many of his supporters will see it as validation to riot if Trump does not get nominated despite what Trump may say to discourage it moving forward.
Are riots all the same? D riots are probably way different than R riots. But hard to think of any R riots in my lifetime. Btw, Do u always oppose riots?
The CNN article linked above did NOT deduce that violence was being threatened.
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
If that is how the process works it is time for it to be changed.
What, requiring Donald Trump to get a majority of the delegates before declaring him the winner? Why should that need to be changed?
Also the people that voted for trump, then saw him get the most delegates, then have them pick kasich who won one state shouldn't be angry?
It doesn't matter if he got the most delegates. He didn't get a majority. Trump can't say, "Well, I have a minority of delegates, but my minority is larger than the others, therefore I win!" because that's stupid. He needs to get a majority to win. If he doesn't, then he doesn't win, and he can't just declare himself the winner when he didn't win and expect everyone else to honor that.
If Trump can't convince the delegates to vote for him, he can't be president. End of story.
And that this indignation amongst Trump supporters is pure hypocrisy goes without saying, because I doubt any of you would have any problems with the delegates that are bound to vote for Cruz or Kasich voting for Trump in the brokered convention, and yet here you are complaining that the same might happen to Trump.
So China is "concerned" about a Trump presidency? I'll steal a line from Bernie Sanders: Good they should be. Their days of Taking advantage of trade deals that screw over the American people will come to an end when Trump takes the presidency.
Mexico thinks Trump is bad? They can go to hell. I'm not even gonna cry crocodile tears that a government that provided guidebooks and comics on how to cross into this country illegally is upset that my candidate will enforce immigration law.
Curious what will happen to the price of small manufactured goods in America when they are no longer made for dirt cheap oversees? What will happen to the price of produce when farmers can no longer put out cheap crops from exploiting immigrant labor? Trump wants to pass the price of this change onto the consumer. Make no mistake if Trump starts economic warfare then the American middle and lower classes will be the ones footing the bill.
Nothing will happen. The fear and paranoia of "omg the prices will increase" is bogus. Our prices didn't decrease with "Free Trade" and the only thing that happened was Executive CEO pay increased. Competition will still exist. What you're doing here is fear mongering.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was not the first one to mention roosevelt buttercup, maybe that comment should be directed at someone else. If you felt your vote did not matter violence is a logical response. It has happened at other conventions.
The win condition is 1,237 delegates. Unless you have 1,237 delegates, you haven't won. If Trump never gets the majority of delegates, and loses the brokered convention, you cannot claim Trump was robbed of the nomination, because he never won it.
There's perfect justification for nominating someone else: someone else won the majority of delegates.
That's how the process works. If Trump doesn't clinch the nomination with the majority of delegates, then the delegates become free to vote for whomever they want. If that person isn't Trump, then it won't be Trump. You can't claim Trump deserves to win if he doesn't get the vote of the delegates, end of story.
People would be very angry if Trump were made the nominee despite not winning the nomination. Their anger, on the other hand, would have justification.
So now you're threatening armed conflict if Trump doesn't win according to the rules of a Republican primary?
Funny how you have absolutely no problem with the way a Republican primary works when Trump is winning, but if he loses by the rules, it's a "tyrannical government."
2) You think Trump will make America worser. I think he will kick tail in a positive way. Perchance you should stop with the name calling.
3) You are making excuses for illegal activity, by inferring it is ok since--allegedly--they are better people than the average American citizen. I don't buy it. But my top reason for supporting a real border is to stop drugs, and human smuggling, and the endemic assault of latinas by criminals, to increase proper medical screening, and also to keep moochers out. And yes, the Mexican gvt is so corrupt that many have given up and flee to America instead. I said omission and commission, but you "forgot" again. Precision maters. Still illegal to enter this, or any other country, without permission.
4) Quoting Trump's statements about an "obnoxious" "trouble maker" is not proof one way or the other. What was the protester doing? I don't know. Do you?
5) You support candidates that push the white guilt narrative, and you are bothered by "collective punishment". Precious. Also, Trump later clarified his remarks in a debate, a press conference, and multiple rallies. Your quote of Trump is not the whole story. Persistence bears delicious fruit.
6) Trump's response to Rubio, in r/t the hands of a man that is 5' 2", was a burn spell right to Rubio's handsome face. Again, crude for sure. But Trump did indeed finish it. DJT marches forward, while Rubio is down and out.
Maybe millions and millions of Americans are less concerned with crude style, than what they consider to be reformative substance. Food for thought.
Also the in case you didn't notice the attacking of roosevelt is talking about how you can have someone that is cool, calm, reasoned, dignified, likable and still make a cluster everything.
It is fine in my opinion. Our republic wouldn't be a republic anymore, it would be an oligarchy. Violence is ultimately the only way to get rid of something like that. If you deny the person with the most votes you can't even pretend to be a republic anymore. You live in a make believe republic at that point.
If that is how the process works it is time for it to be changed. Also the people that voted for trump, then saw him get the most delegates, then have them pick kasich who won one state shouldn't be angry?
A few posts back you called me buttercup, it is probably best you not start getting mad about name calling now.
Oh, so we haven't been a republic since 2000? Or maybe 1824?
Except Gore didn't have an electoral college lead. That would have been like Gore having a 50 electoral college lead and the election going to bush. Also what justification do they have to pick anyone else. Lets pick this guy that didn't run as well, or didn't run at all and tell people they are so much better, huh?
Republic is a different that a democracy. Also the argument could be made we haven't been. I think that would be a fair point. One only needs to look at the super delegates to see how rigged that election is. The process is pathetic and has been for a while. The reasons for the electoral college are more complicated however. If we went to a straight popular vote it would be a matter of time before smaller states would leave the union. What New York wants is vastly different than what North Dakota wants.
He called you a buttercup as well. Gotta be you are cutest little button of a statist, that is why.
I just said I think people would have been justified in rioting. If people were that angry with the results they should have rioted.
Jackson had an electoral college lead in 1824. But the rules are the rules.
If we haven't been a republic for almost 200 years, then what are you complaining about?
If it is more anxiety/worry than rage, I can prescribe you Buspirone 150mg one tablet by mouth twice daily and refer you to a FANTASTIC counselor if you schedule an appt at my clinic and we agree the rewards outweigh the risks. (I earned that privilege a number of years ago, and I help peeps good, bad and indifferent 4-6 days a week). Happy to help a fellow traveler.
I mean we wouldn't have the united states if people never did anything criminal.
If we haven't been a republic for almost 200 years, then what are you complaining about?
So I should just do what everyone else does because of precedent?
Is it wrong that Trump amended his statements after there was backlash?
Yes I know I railed on Romney about "flip-flopping" but this is a phone post.
Nor is sucker-punching a guy equal to chasing a likely Presidential nominee from major U.S. cities with threatening rallies that lead to multiple arrests.
You're cool with this because it starts here, but this might not be where it ends. What if it's Hillary next, because she's not as in-line with the SJWs as Bernie is? It's already been Bernie, though only once, and he handed over the podium... what if next time he actually wants to speak? What then? He's not allowed to because the protestors say otherwise? So again, where does it end? At what point does the criminal disruption of the democratic process become a problem?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Edit:
I will respond to your first 4 points within 1-2 days. Nearly an 11 hour shift today, and at least that many hours tomorrow.
My "entertainment" comment above was an attempt to say that looking for the positives will be needed no matter who wins.
So name calling is only okay when Trump does it?
Where am I making excuses for illegal activity? I'm saying that illegal immigrants are better than the average American citizen because, statistically, they don't commit as much illegal activity. Yes, obviously they have committed one illegal act by definition, but Trump is talking about them committing other illegal acts, like drug dealing and rape.
Actually you said "omission or commission". A disjunction. True when either of the disjuncts is true. And since "commission" is false, only "omission" remains.
So start being precise. Use the correct number of Ts in a word, for instance.
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. And Trump didn't even claim the protester was guilty. If Trump had said something like, "This guy was violent, so my supporters had a right to defend themselves", we'd be having a different conversation. But that's not what he said. He endorsed violence irrespective of the protester instigating it.
Which candidate do you think I support? And what does the "white guilt" narrative have to do with anti-terrorist strategy, anyway?
Do you expect me to be embarrassed at being "bothered by" a war crime?
Yeah, if somebody advocates a war crime and then backs off from it later, I'm still going to hold him in lower regard than everybody else who's never advocated a war crime at all. And if Trump was not advocating collective punishment, why were you insinuating that collective punishment is acceptable just above?
And yet I can still download a browser extension that replaces "Donald Trump" with "a man with small hands". This is not going away, dude.
I've known that millions and millions of Americans are perversely attracted to crudity ever since the reality TV craze began. Now the king of reality TV is running for office and they're voting for him. They're not looking for substance in his campaign any more than they were looking for it on his show. They're looking for entertainment. You're looking for entertainment. Your posts are all empty, fannish excitement and fun until someone actually challenges you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As a pragmatist, I expect backroom deals. It is part of the process. If deal is good, that is groovy. But if the deal is Iranesque, I be opposing from dawn till dusk.
The CNN article linked above did NOT deduce that violence was being threatened.
It doesn't matter if he got the most delegates. He didn't get a majority. Trump can't say, "Well, I have a minority of delegates, but my minority is larger than the others, therefore I win!" because that's stupid. He needs to get a majority to win. If he doesn't, then he doesn't win, and he can't just declare himself the winner when he didn't win and expect everyone else to honor that.
If Trump can't convince the delegates to vote for him, he can't be president. End of story.
And that this indignation amongst Trump supporters is pure hypocrisy goes without saying, because I doubt any of you would have any problems with the delegates that are bound to vote for Cruz or Kasich voting for Trump in the brokered convention, and yet here you are complaining that the same might happen to Trump.
Nothing will happen. The fear and paranoia of "omg the prices will increase" is bogus. Our prices didn't decrease with "Free Trade" and the only thing that happened was Executive CEO pay increased. Competition will still exist. What you're doing here is fear mongering.