United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Some consultants want Trump barred from GOP primary debates
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/ ... rred-from-gop-primary-debates/
Published: Jun 19, 2015
Author: ALLAHPUNDIT
Post Date: 2015-06-19 22:36:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 23501
Comments: 69
I get it. With 15 people onstage, the debates will be enough of a circus without having a clown there. But on what grounds would you go about excluding Trump and no one else? And … wouldn’t this backfire tremendously? Let’s think this through. “His involvement in any televised debate will be damaging,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in Texas. “It is my sincere hope that he is blocked from participating.” “He’s a very toxic addition to the field,’’ said Katie Packer Gage, deputy campaign manager of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Mr. Trump so far has been invited to a number of GOP candidate forums, including one sponsored by the conservative website RedState slated for early August in Atlanta. Erick Erickson, the editor in chief of RedState, said he had concerns about including Mr. Trump but extended an invitation. “We invited him yesterday,” Mr. Erickson said. “I like him. … There is a level of the conservative base who like him. My concern is that I don’t want the other candidates to be overshadowed by Trump.” You could bar Trump on grounds that he has no realistic chance to be the nominee, but then you’ve got to bar Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, and, er, Mike Huckabee for starters as well. Obviously you’re not going to bar him on grounds that he hasn’t held public office before. The small-government party would never insist that government experience is the sine qua non of effective leadership. You could try to bar him by raising the polling threshold for inclusion in the debates, an ostensibly neutral filter for serious candidates, but then you’re stuck excluding serious candidates like Bobby Jindal and John Kasich who are also below the cut-off right now. You could, I guess, bar him on personal grounds, that he’s simply too boorish and obnoxious for a gentleman’s debate, but in that case I have two words for you: Chris Christie. More to the point, if you bump Trump he’d call a presser and claim that the GOP excluded him only because they’re terrified he’d win if given a fair chance, the best evidence yet that the system is rigged against true- believin’ conservative populists like the Donald. And some grassroots righties would buy that. I bet he’d get a bump in the polls out of it, and there’s no doubt he’d spend the rest of the campaign attacking the party and its candidates viciously. Truth be told, I think the GOP is afraid of him — not because they think he’d win but because they know the media is at his beck and call and they know there’s a slice of the public that takes him semi-seriously. If Trump were to declare war on the GOP because they’ve affronted his ego or whatever, he could be a soundbite headache for them (and a boon to his friend Hillary) for the rest of the campaign. Mitt Romney didn’t agree to receive Trump’s endorsement in person three years ago because he wanted to be seen with Donald Trump. On the contrary, he did it through gritted teeth because he figured 10 minutes of adorning Trump’s photo op was a less bad outcome than Trump spending the rest of the campaign calling him a loser who’ll destroy the country just because Romney declined to show. Same with the GOP now. I think they’re going to give him a shot at the debates, extremely reluctantly, because it’s the less bad of the two alternatives he’s given them. Which is not to say they’ll go on including him at every debate even if he acts up. A few choice soundbites from Trump about rapists from Mexico at the first event and they’ll tighten up those poll cut-offs right quick for the second. Two thoughts in closing: One: If the dummies at the RNC had embraced my ingenious plan for a series of one-on-one debates, none of this would be a problem. You could safely quarantine the serious candidates like Rubio and Walker and stick Trump with a series of similar longshots, most of whom would be grateful for the exposure in taking on the Donald. Two: Don’t look now but Trump still hasn’t filed the form officially declaring his candidacy with the FEC. That’s an absolute prerequisite to appearing at the debates. He still has 10 days, and I can’t imagine why he’d go to the trouble of announcing his candidacy only to pull the rug out so soon and miss the debates, but Trump skeptics have long suspected that he’d never pull the trigger on disclosing his financial holdings in detail. Maybe … this has all been an elaborate fake-out? That’s probably the GOP’s best hope of resolving this peacefully.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: Stoner (#17)
(Edited)
Why bother with "airtime" when... www.google.com/search?q=Trump+president+YouTube& Note to Partytard parasites: WE don't need you anymore.
We're not used to looking at those type of results. You have to think about what they mean, and learn to read them. Just because they look different, doesn't mean that it's not a good system. It seems like there are too many votes, but it's just a different system. The approval Voting system is TOO good. The Elites don't want the peoples will to prevail. A clown, you say? Well, put him in the debate and let him make a fool of himself in front of 50 million voters. What better way to eliminate him once and for all? Of course, you do take the chance that what Trump says may resonate with those 50 million voters, eliminating everyone else on stage instead. Nah. Don't worry. He's a clown. A clown who managed to build up a net worth of $9 billion.
Perot ran third-party. So the vote is not the same.
I'm thinking Trump might be more apt to run 3rd party, than the other mass of (R) candidates, should he lose the primary's. That will split the non libtard vote. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Of all the candidates, he's the most likely to do so. If the stupid party excludes him from the debates, it's likely to hasten that process. Then the gloves come off -- he'll destroy more Republican primary candidates than the Democrats could ever hope to. And he'll continue his "March to Atlanta" in the general election.
Donald Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is denying the reports of hired extras. www.inquisitr.com/2181927...at-campaign-announcement/ Well, did he or didn't he hire some of the audience?
Why do you disagree? When I first encountered Approval Voting, it seemed weird. For many candidates for a single office, "Instant Runoff" voting seems much more intuitive -- everyone order's candidates in the order of most preferred to least preferred, with those winning the least number most preferred (#1) votes being eliminated, with those voters votes then having their votes shifted to their #2 preference, and retallying, continuing the elimination process until only one remains. But an examination of possible vote tallying scenarios shows that under the IRV system, it's possible for the final winner to change depending on the order in which candidates are eliminated -- I.e. A small change in the number of votes distributed between least popular candidates, all of which are eventually eliminated, can shift the vote victory between 2 different more popular candidates. Not only that, but the ballot itself is much more complicated, since voters need to list candidates in a particular order. With Approval voting, the idea is that voters indicate which candidates they "approve" of and which they don't, and the candidate obtaining the most approval of all voters wins. The ballot is simple -- no ordering of candidates is required. In fact the same paper ballots in use today can still be used. Also, there is only one round of vote counting, so tabulating results is far less complicated than IRV. In the case of a primary election, there's no issues with some candidates splitting support of popular ideas, and therefore voters, between multiple candidates who have similar ideas and values, so you don't have the issue of Trump entering the race and possibly handing the nomination to another candidate who may be less likely to win the general election. For 3rd parties, such as the Libertarian Party, people no longer have to be told "A vote for the LP candidate is throwing your vote away" or that it's a vote for the greater of two evils running as an R or D. Third parties (so-called), get to see results that really reflect the popularity (or unpopularity) of their platform as a whole. All considered, Approval Voting is, objectively, a far better system than Plurality Voting in use today. Of all vote systems there are -- and there are a number of different systems in addition to RV and IRV, Plurality Voting is about the worst one there is in gauging the will of the voters, and the reason why is discussed on this thread.
How would I know? You posted the link saying he did. Don't you trust your own link? If not, why are you posting it?
Can't you read Mensa Boy? There is evidence of hired help. Trump's man denied it.
The Inquisitor cited the Hollywood Reporter which cited some ad agency in New York which said there was some evidence that Trump hired people to be at his announcement. Gosh. What could be more rock-solid reporting than that? Did any bona-fide reporter, actually at Trump's announcement, find anyone who was hired to be there? Shit. Why bother? Just start a rumor and let people deny it. That's even better. Then you get the headline, "Trump Denies Hiring People For His Rally". "Trump Denies Beating His Wife." Trump Denies Eating Democrat Babies For Breakfast."
Okay, I get your point. I've seen the MSM headlines and news and Trump is persona non grata.
And he just announced. If (and that's if) Trump starts to climb in the polls, the MSM is going to go apeshit.
Why? Do you think they are being taken too seriously now,and need this buffoon to "goofy them up"? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Can't you read Mensa Boy? There is evidence of hired help. Trump's man denied it. Even Trump has denied it. You don't think he would lie,do you? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No, not at all. But they might gain a good amount of publicity from Trump. Their past candidates had little to no name recognition, and consequently they got not media attention. Trump would gain them name recognition, & media attention. Those factors could help their lower level candidates as well. Si vis pacem, para bellum
The last Four alleged Republican candidates were named Bush,Bush,McLunatic,and Romney. And chances are the next one will be named Bush,too. Find ONE registered Republican that has never heard of them. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
And chances are the next one will be named Bush,too. Find ONE registered Republican that has never heard of them. " Correct you are Pete. BUT, I was referring to past 3 RD PARTY candidates. That was the point of our discussion, starting with my Post # 17. Si vis pacem, para bellum
My apologies. My point is that Trump isn't a 3rd Party candidate,and with his ego I would be shocked if he would accept a 3rd Party nomination. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I've noticed that leftists like You, Hillary and Cher don't like Trump. You all support murdering babies and marrying faggots. Leftist loons stick together.
Cheer up,Pebbles. One day you can come out of the closet and marry the man of your dreams. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Rules for Leftards #10). I have to denigrate others so I can feel good about myself!!www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27927 Cz your rules for leftards has exposed sneaky to be a left wing peter.
" My point is that Trump isn't a 3rd Party candidate" True, he is not. That is why I suggested that a 3rd Party court him. " with his ego I would be shocked if he would accept a 3rd Party nomination. " I agree. But for the 3rd Party, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Never know. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sneakypete is no left winger, pal.
You're so stupid sometimes Buck. Fags pretending to be married is an Obama Hillary left wing position. If you're taking it up the ass you would probably disagree. Bernie Sanders is a left wing loon commie. Sneaky the peter Supports this left wing loon. You may think it is ok to kill babies like sneaky the peter does. But that would just mean you are a left wing loon also. You may think that Pete is conservative because he says he supports gun rights. Well gang bangers in Chicago like guns too and they aren't on the right. They are on the left like Sneaky the peter. A clown that you have shown yourself to be isn't taken to seriously. You're not only a clown. You're just also timid and afraid. Kind of girly like Anthony the Weiner. You are afraid to say who you support. Because we will laugh and make fun of the stupid people you think are capable of solving any of our problems. You're just a talker. You sat on the border and got drunk and watched the illegals cross. You just don't want Trump to be successful because he just might build that fence. You also hate it that he is against the trad bill. You also probably want more Mexican rapists to cross the border. Ok I'm exaggeratin there but you can be really dumb at times. Really dumb.
I can't speak for SneakyPete, pal. I can tell you my opinion about Sneakypete, however. He is infinitely more conservative (conservative defined as based on principles and ethics and moral conduct) than you have ever offered in your posts. He has a distinctive honour code of not bullshitting; he makes some of the finest humour under the Sun and you don't get it. You can take your Bernie Sanders schtick and shove it ... if pete suggested such a thing, it was in humour as the GOP/DEM party don't offer much of a choice.
Sanders married his current wife, Jane, in May of 1988 and the next day left for their “romantic honeymoon” to Yaroslavl, in the then-Soviet Union. Sneaky the left wing Peter was quite serious. I actually like Pete. That is why I am trying to show him his ignorance so he can shift course.
He is to the left of me on every position. At best tied on a couple.
Are you stating that you are creating purposeful and meaningful, significant considerations towards Pete with the expressed intent that he can shift his perspective towards yours? Stone, you are fuckin' nutz.
I doubt that you understand what "left" or "right" from a political perspective is about. Please explain the difference of: "left" and "right" here and now.
No. Not until you tell me this. Does the left or right support Sanders? Is queer marriage supported by the left or the right. Is abortion supported by the left or the right. On these positions is Pete Right or Left. If you fail to answer any of these questions. I wont answer yours. If you get any answers wrong. I won't answer any of your questions.
That's rich, isn't your habit to disrupt any forum if the other posters don't shift their perspective towards yours? Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
OKAY, I ask a question for clarification about your considerations of "left" or "right" and you, in turn issue an ultimatum: No. Not until you tell me this. I shall take a moment or two to humour you, so I shall comply. Within the broad interpretation of contemporary politics, the political spectrum is defined as "left" to "right." In America, that "left to "right" political spectrum is defined by the DEM/GOP dynamics, which do not represent my opinions. Bernie Sanders is about as left as you can go. I do not support Bernie other than a joke. Both DEM/GOP parties support queer marriage. I don't. My reasons are simple, too: marriage is not a government sanction; marriage is a highly personal relationship distant and removed from government sanctions. Both DEM/GOP parties support abortion. I don't. He is an Independent just as I am. The two major political parties have left all of us to scramble for a new political party and process about this nation.
Buck I like you. I like your humor mostly. I think you're a patriot. But you're also kind of a clown. That is ok it's good to joke. You also didn't answer the questions correctly.
What's the matter? Are you suggesting that I am a forum troll? How can that be when I post completely positive and objective statements?
Good. I am completely independent of the horseshit that is freely tossed between the GOP/DEMs. If you want to waste your tyme on that stuff, go ahead. It is your forum.
I just spit out my Koffee... in laffter and your noze is growing. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
This is good news. I want you to choke & gurgle on your own phlegm, too. Be a good retiree and die.
When you grow a set... then you won't have to sit around and wait for fate. lol Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Fate? You want to chat about "fate?" Look at what you did to yourself ... retired after 20 years of a dead end job working "publick service" escorting little elementary kids across the street. Yeah, an authority figure that you were with your fat belly hangin' out of your bright green street walker cross guard uniform. And that bucket o' doughnuts by your 9-5 lawnchair was a kicker to boot 'bout "fate."
Why don't you marry him then?
Comments (59 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTrump will probably buy plenty of airtime
#19. To: A K A Stone, used to getting screwed, Stockholm Syndrom, Pinguinite, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#14)
I saw those results at LP. I politely disagree.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#20. To: A K A Stone (#0)
"With 15 people onstage, the debates will be enough of a circus without having a clown there."
#21. To: Vinny (#15)
"A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump same as a vote for Perot was a vote for Perot."
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
(Edited)
Perot ran third-party. So the vote is not the same.
#23. To: GrandIsland (#22)
"I'm thinking Trump might me more apt to run 3rd party, than the other mass of (R) candidates, should he lose the primary's."
#24. To: misterwhite (#23)
One of the main themes of Trump’s speech was his enormous wealth. Certainly filling a room with hired extras at $50 a head is one way to prove it. Unfortunately for the Apprentice host, the practice of filling venues with paid supporters is called astroturfing, and it’s not considered in good taste.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#14)
I saw those results at LP. I politely disagree.
#26. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
"Well, did he or didn't he hire some of the audience?"
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
Don't you trust your own link?
#28. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
"There is evidence of hired help. Trump's man denied it."
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
#30. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
"I've seen the MSM headlines and news and Trump is persona non grata"
#31. To: Stoner (#17)
Some of the third parties would be wise to court Trump to run on their ticket.
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
Don't you trust your own link?
#33. To: sneakypete (#31)
" Why? Do you think they are being taken too seriously now,and need this buffoon to "goofy them up"? "
#34. To: Stoner (#33)
Their past candidates had little to no name recognition,
#35. To: sneakypete (#34)
" The last Four alleged Republican candidates were named Bush,Bush,McLunatic,and Romney.
#36. To: Stoner (#35)
BUT, I was referring to past 3 RD PARTY candidates. That was the point of our discussion, starting with my Post # 17.
#37. To: sneakypete (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
You all support murdering babies and marrying faggots.
#39. To: sneakypete, cz82 (#38)
One day you can come out of the closet and marry the man of your dreams.
#40. To: sneakypete (#36)
#41. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete, CZ82 (#39)
Stone sez: Cz your rules for leftards has exposed sneaky to be a left wing peter.
#42. To: buckeroo (#41)
#43. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#42)
#44. To: buckeroo, sneakypete (#43)
You can take your Bernie Sanders schtick and shove it ... if pete suggested such a thing, it was in humour
#45. To: buckeroo (#43)
He is infinitely more conservative (conservative defined as based on principles and ethics and moral conduct) than you have ever offered in your posts.
#46. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#44)
That is why I am trying to show him his ignorance so he can shift course.
#47. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#45)
He is to the left of me on every position.
#48. To: buckeroo (#47)
Please explain the difference of: "left" and "right" here and now.
#49. To: buckeroo (#46)
(Edited)
Are you stating that you are creating purposeful and meaningful, significant considerations towards Pete with the expressed intent that he can shift his perspective towards yours?
#50. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#48)
Does the left or right support Sanders?
Is queer marriage supported by the left or the right.
Is abortion supported by the left or the right.
On these positions is Pete Right or Left.
#51. To: buckeroo (#50)
#52. To: GrandIsland (#49)
... isn't your habit to disrupt any forum
#53. To: A K A Stone (#51)
You also didn't answer the questions correctly.
#54. To: buckeroo (#52)
What's the matter? Are you suggesting that I am a forum troll? How can that be when I post completely positive and objective statements?
#55. To: GrandIsland (#54)
#56. To: buckeroo (#55)
Be a good retiree and die.
#57. To: GrandIsland (#56)
#58. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#44)
I actually like Pete.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]