United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Are the GOP rules really rigged against Donald Trump?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/25/are- ... t-donald-trump-commentary.html
Published: Apr 26, 2016
Author: Bruce Abramson Jeff Ballabon
Post Date: 2016-04-26 06:04:05 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 15672
Comments: 108
“It’s not fair!” may be the most pitiful lament in the English language, but Donald Trump seems intent upon adopting it as his battle cry heading into this summer’s Republican convention. The GOP’s poorly designed nominating process includes more than its share of problems, but is it really unfair to Trump? The question does warrant consideration — particularly given Monday morning’s announcement that the Cruz and Kasich campaigns have decided to coordinate their efforts to deny Trump the nomination. Perhaps the unfairness is miscommunication, or worse, deceptive marketing. Nominating processes exist to select a party's standard-bearer. While there may be room to dispute whether "the party" means professional leadership, elected officials, state and county committee members, or registered members, it ought not extend to anyone who decides to participate in a primary or caucus; open primaries invite abuse from voters whose goals may not involve selecting the party's strongest representative. Those with deep ties to the party deserve greater input than those with tenuous or nonexistent connections. Yet Democrats and Republicans alike have chosen to pretend otherwise. America's primary season has the look and feel of an extended general election, from polling places to media coverage. This season, both parties have spread the misconception, both have been caught in the lie, and both have angered many voters whose support they will need in November. While some might see this deception as unfair, however, it has hardly worked against Trump. Trump's connection to the Republican Party is weak and of recent vintage, and he often boasts that many of his supporters are new to the Republican Party. Longstanding Republicans have generally preferred the more traditional candidates. If anything then, Trump is a beneficiary of this misrepresentation rather than its victim. Perhaps the unfairness lies instead with the dizzyingly variable rules converting primary votes into delegates. In a reasonable system, each state would allocate delegates proportionately. As things stand, most states do not. Still, the big losers in this arena have been Marco Rubio and John Kasich; Trump has leveraged about 40 percent of the vote into about 49 percent of the delegates. Perhaps, then, the unfairness lies with the finish line, drawn one delegate beyond the 50 percent mark. It is entirely possible that the first-place finisher — almost certainly Trump — will fail to cross that finish line on the first round. But Americans are quite comfortable with concepts like overtime, or with rules insisting that victory requires a margin of at least two points. Few consider it unfair to award the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or World Series title to a team that failed to boast the best record in regular season play. Here, too, the rules have been clear for decades: if no candidate crosses the finish line in round one, play proceeds into round two, with rules different enough to permit a different outcome. Or perhaps the unfairness stems from the mysterious "Rule 40(b)," limiting consideration to candidates winning majority support from eight state delegations — a hurdle that only Trump and Ted Cruz can clear. Perhaps Trump's complaint is that the rules committee, which meets at the start of each convention, is likely to eliminate Rule 40(b) and open the floor to additional nominees. But Rule 40(b) was a one-time anomaly, designed to minimize Ron Paul's role in the 2012 convention. No one ever expected it to persist. Finally, is it unfair for two of the remaining candidates to collaborate — some might say conspire — against a third? Election law contains many rules about the sorts of coordination permissible in support of a candidate, but relatively few rules about coordination to defeat a candidate. According to the strategy announce this morning, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns have simply agreed to focus their efforts in different states with upcoming primaries. Hard to see anything unfair about that. Regardless, the tactical politicking pales in comparison to the unique advantages Trump's campaign has exploited with his enormous wealth and celebrity-driven free media coverage. Our political system hasn't been fair to Trump? Really? No, the only plausible source of Trump's complaint is that he might not win. Despite having leveraged his marketing prowess to an improbable lead among pledged delegates, he may still fall short, collapsing in the playoffs after a remarkable regular season. At the end of the day, and for all of its flaws, the GOP will have held a fair nominating contest if Trump breaks 1,237 votes on the first ballot to become its nominee. It will have held a fair nominating contest if an inconclusive first round allows Cruz's strategic ground game to soldier across the finish line on the second or third round. And it will have held a fair nominating contest if the delegates pull a name out of a hat to break the deadlock on the forty-second round. In the art of the deal, it's all about closing. "It's not fair!" is a slogan for whiners, not for winners. It is not a battle cry for fierce competitors. It is, as Trump should recognize, the last refuge of pathetic wimps. A pathetic wimp will not make America great again. Nor will a loser who declares victory upon coming close. America deserves a president who can master the complex rules of world leadership and play to win. If Trump wants to be that president, he will have to convince Americans that he possesses that mastery. Bellyaching about a set of rules that have broken to his clear advantage is hardly convincing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
`eth yalad `eth muwth.
A long piece that seeks to justify whatever-the-fuck the powers-that-be want to do. In the Republican Party, they have reached the end of their rope. If they fail to stop Trump, he will win and sweeping reform will come, from him, that will make the primaries be what they appear to be: elections to determine the party's nominee. If they succeed in taking the nomination away from Trump and giving it to one of the losers in the primary race, or to a non-participant, the party will be destroyed at the polls in the general election, as all of the Trump Democrats go home to their party, and millions of Independents and angry Trump Republicans vote Democrat in revenge. Let Trump have his victory fair and square, and he'll win the general. The Republicans will keep the Supreme Court and the Senate and the House. Steal it from him, and the Republicans will lose the Court and the Congress, and Hillary and the Democrats will take sufficient actions (such as federal motor voter, amnesty, etc.) to ensure that the Republicans never win another election. Either way, the Republican Party as it currently stands is a dead man walking. With Trump, it will be reformed by him to stop the practices that are trying to steal the nomination from him. Cheat Trump, and Hillary and the Democrat machine will change the voting process in America sufficiently that it won't matter WHAT the Republicans do, they will be too small a minority, and discredited, and defeated. Business as usual in the GOP is finished.
Why are his head and neck tanned but his body pale? Looks like a photoshop.
Yes for sure 100 percent. That is why the gopher County chair in Colorado is saying there were many errors. Says a do ever is in order. Talks about trump people left off ballot and other irregularities. Anyone who says otherwise is a dumb ass.
Poorly designed. Hardly. It's worked well for the last 20 years, giving us establishment unelectables like Dole, McCain and Romney. It also tried to give us JEB!. What with the primaries front-loaded with "blue" states, open primaries in those states, and "flexible" delegate assignment rules, we got the candidate the establishment wanted. Screw the little people.
That doesn't seem fair. Trump currently has 844 delegates. Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio combined have 862. I think the Trump campaign team finally did the math and know there will at least be a second ballot call at the convention. If Rubio and Kasich delegates go to Cruz, there may be a third and fourth ballot. Trump should be thanking the GOP for its 'beer math' delegate system. It has worked in his favor as he only has 40% of the popular votes compared to his 49% of delegates. Of course the facts is not what most politicians are interested in. So I don't see how people call the process unfair. Trump does not have the majority of delegates right now. He may in the next few days. He may even reach the magic number. However, right now, he does not have the majority of delegates. Three others combined do.
They would if they simply gave the title to some random team that didn't earn it. Or that didn't even play in the regular season.
A very poor photoshop. FYI, not everything on the internet is true.
Are you saying we should have three Presidents?
Bob, rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools and accepted by idiots.
Different process. The parties are nominating candidates for President.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the unfairness lies instead with a state changing the rules during the primary and awarding delegates to whomever they want, without even asking the people. Perhaps. Or perhaps the unfairness lies in a state holding back uncommitted delegates even after the election shows a clear winner. Perhaps. Or perhaps the unfairness lies with two candidates colluding to draw votes from a third. Perhaps. Call all that what you will, but no one would call it "fair".
Then I'll re-phrase. Are you saying we should have three Presidential candidates?
Maybe Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio could run as a "GOP triumvirate" against Clinton.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Exactly. I mean, they have more delegates than Trump, right?
I'll state clearly again. The GOP is in the nomination process for a Presidential candidate. These rules have been in place (Convention rules) for about a half a century or longer.
Well exactly ONE candidate will have to get 1237. And if it goes to a second ballot and beyond, it very well may not be Trump, regardless of his delegate lead going in. He so far has shown zero ability to corral unpledged delegates.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Or within GOP convention rules the three which add up to a majority can come to a decision on a second ballot to cast their support and delegates behind one of the three. The above scenario is NOT a contested convention but the actual process. For example, tomorrow Kasich and Rubio could announce they will drop out and ask their delegates to support either Trump or Cruz. Both won't because they are awaiting a phone call from The Donald to offer the VP slot.
Correct. A Presidential candidate. So why are you combining the delegates from three Presidential candidates?
So Trump walks into the convention with 1150 delegates, the vast majority of the states and the vast majority of the votes and Rubio ends up with the nomination, just what do you think will happen? Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules" and everyone will shrug their shoulders and go home? I mean, that's what you're implying.
Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules" and everyone will shrug their shoulders and go home? I mean, that's what you're implying. No, I don't think that would be good for the GOP at all. I'm just saying it could happen, and it won't be breaking any rules or laws. I believe there are a number of people in the GOP who would cut off their noses to spite their faces rather than see Trump nominated. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
You are in the wrong 'sport.' This is a nomination process and not a general election campaign. For the GOP nomination as long as a candidate continues on the ballot in all state contests they are assured on a first ballot to have those delegates counted at the National GOP Convention. The nomination process is an amalgamation of the 50 states and US territories state GOP conventions culminating in the GOP National Convention. It is not a national democratic election nor is our Electoral system for the general election. Trump will no doubt have a plurality of delegates at the national convention but he will not have (most likely) a majority. If he has a majority of the delegates there will be no second ballot. This process should not be so difficult for Republicans and any American to recognize. If in the general election for President no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes what happens? It goes to the House of Representatives. If you have an issue with that or a President who is elected with over 270 electoral votes but loses the popular vote, then you can keep company with Algore.
Well, as long as no rules or laws were broken then I'm sure all the Trump supporters will unite behind Rubio.
Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules" and everyone will shrug their shoulders and go home? I mean, that's what you're implying. You won't have to worry about such a scenario. Roger Stone speaking for Trump already threatened anyone thinking of changing their mind on a second ballot. The GOP convention process is not as bad as everyone misunderstands it to be. It was designed for the party who is nominating a candidate to have a voice and influence in the process. For example, if a GOP candidate with a plurality of the votes come convention time is indicted of a crime, the party has the mechanism to ensure such a tainted candidate does not get the nomination.
That still doesn't explain why you combined three candidates for the nomination.
How's that been working for them? Perhaps that's why the people are objecting to this "GOP convention process"?
Mark my words: if the Republican Party uses legalistic games and legerdemain to steal the nomination from Donald Trump, the final result will be that you will never again see another Republican President, or Senate, or Supreme Court. The people will never be forget or forgive the Republicans. Adamant, ardent certitude of the rectitude of an unjust, lost cause. Pickett's Charge all over again. It's sad to see.
I wonder what the democrats will do if Hillary is indicted. If Trump comes in with around 1200 or maybe even 1100, I think he'll get the nomination. But if Cruz pulls off Indiana, snags most of the unpledged delegates in PA, then goes out west and does quite well, and comes in only a couple of hundred delegates down, anything could happen. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
You have recounted "how the system works", but you've failed to recognize that in the end when it comes down to it, it DOESN'T work. The country NEVER unites behind the "winner" of a crooked process, the winner NEVER has a mandate. The "winner" has a disastrous presidency, and the other party sweeps to power and changes the ground rules of everything once they get it. That's the end result of this sort of shenanigans every time.
Oh man, this is too effing funny. mister "rules are rules" white actually insisting that "rules don't matter" In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much That would be mister "the-law-is-the-law". Versus your "The law is merely a suggestion."
No - it would be mister "cops are gods" white. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much If Trump comes in with around 1200 or maybe even 1100, I think he'll get the nomination. But if Cruz pulls off Indiana, snags most of the unpledged delegates in PA, then goes out west and does quite well, and comes in only a couple of hundred delegates down, anything could happen. Hillary will not be indicted. Indictment can only come from the Attorney General. The AG works for Obama. Obama will not indict Hillary. It will never, ever happen. If Cruz succeeds at his game of taking delegates in states that voted for Trump because of the corrupt Republican rules, then Trump may be cheated out of the nomination, but that doesn't mean "anything can happen" at all. It merely means that Hillary will certainly be the next President. At this point, the only chance for Republican victory in the Fall is for Republicans to stop pretending that they can steal the election from Trump without committing suicide, unite behind him and try to beat Hillary. He could. Otherwise, you will have Hillary Clinton and a Democrat Supreme Court, that much is certain. And you will probably have a Democrat Senate also. And then the House won't matter. Hillary will do as she pleases by Executive Order, the Supreme Court will ignore legal objections raised by the House, the Senate will not remove her if a Republican House votes for impeachment, and Republican politicians will be prosecuted for every tax code violation, election law violation and bribe they take - and campaign contributions to Republicans will be influence purchasing in the hands of a Hillary Justice Department and Hillary Court. Two years later, once the Supreme Court has found all Republican voter control efforts to be voter suppression, the Democrats will also take the House. We will have one party rule that will be as dominant and move as swiftly as FDR did. The Republican Party will never get back up, but will continue to exist as a zombie party handcuffed to the Right, unable to get itself back up, but also preventing the Right from reorganizing under a new banner. The price of cheating Trump out of the election is the suicide of the Republican Party. It is madness. And the Republicans may just go ahead and do it. The legalistic arguments Republicans are using to convince insiders that stealing the election is ok reminds one of the "All we've got is cotton, and slaves, and arrogance" scene from Gone With the Wind. I'm Rhett Butler here, telling you a very hard truth. There are not enough Hard Right Conservative Republicans to EVER rule this country. You are maybe 20% of the vote. You cannot win without moderates. Moderates, Center Right and Center Left, have gone for Trump. You've got Trump Democrats in huge numbers, like Reagan Democrats, for the first time since Reagan. If the Hard Right of the Party pisses it all away on a pissant like Cruz, the moderates are going to shift to Democrat or Independent, the Republicans are going to lose it all, and with control of the Supreme Court, the Democrats will change the voting laws to enfranchise the immigrants and make fraud easier, and the Republicans will never, EVER recover from that. This time, because of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, for the Republicans to play games and deny the winner, Trump, his victory MEANS the absolute death of conservatism as a political force in America. You need moderate allies, and you will lose every single one of them if you do this.
If a candidate in the general election does not get the majority of the electors then the House of Representatives decides who is President . The founders did not trust direct democracy for good reasons. They feared the populist flim flam man's influence on the masses. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Indictment can only come from the Attorney General. The AG works for Obama. Obama will not indict Hillary. It will never, ever happen. If the FBI recommends indictment, and the AG ignores it, it's going to be hard to explain that away. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Or from the government either.
Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules" and everyone will shrug their shoulders and go home? I mean, that's what you're implying. It wouldn't be the 1st time that happened . Actually ,come to think about it ,Lincoln was not leading going into the convention. William H. Seward lead going into the convention. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Or from the government either. Oh, most DEFINITELY.
The same way a Presidential candidate needs to reach 270 of 538 electoral votes. If one Presidential candidate has 269 electoral votes, and three others have combined 269 electoral votes, what happens? The House of Representatives via state delegation votes who becomes President.
I find it odd people who want a party nomination don't really know the rules of that party. The only way to change the rules as you want to see them is for the RNC to impose a sole state by state nomination process. That goes directly against a plank of the GOP of states rights. So you are really attacking each state that does not measure up to your standard and not the national convention.
Don't worry about petty rules. Hillary is the anointed one and Trump is in her corner - that's all you need to see and watch.
Your ultimate ignorance is again displayed by a commentary on something you know nothing about.
Quit stalking me, you ankle biter.
Rules that change in the middle of the game
The people will never be forget or forgive the Republicans. Adamant, ardent certitude of the rectitude of an unjust, lost cause. Pickett's Charge all over again. It's sad to see. If you are referring to the GOP offering a candidate who did not appear on state ballots and is enshrined outside the normal state by state process, I agree. However if Trump enters without a majority and only a plurality of the delegates the process calls for a second ballot if there is no majority in the first ballot. Each state has their own rules on how a delegate is bound and unbound. It's the process in place and been there for a long time. Trump's team shows they don't understand the process.
As did the 13th amendment.
... to favor the establishment.
The Demoncrat party is a criminal enterprise. So she would be nominated even if indicted and run for president so she can fire everyone in the Justice dept and FBI. We will become a banana republic overnight.
Here's a thought: Assuming the RNC changes the rules after the primary elections in order to rig the convention results, why couldn't selected states and their Governors tell the national GOPe to take a flying leap? States and their municipal subdivisions print the general election ballots and conduct the elections, not the RNC.
Then the GOPe would stop holding primaries, and every state would look like Colorado.
Given the current state of affairs, I don't see much downside.
That's the end result of this sort of shenanigans every time. Would the GOP want a state by state winner takes all popular vote for their nomination? Would they want NY and CA deciding their candidate? That is why the nomination process is what it is right now. Sure there is no consistency state by state for either party in the nomination process. It is not a federal election but a primary of a political party. Some states allow independents and Democrats to vote in GOP primaries. Is that fair when some do not and restrict primaries to registered Republicans? The only way to have a across the board 'fair' popular vote is to restrict only registered Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.
Indeed.
- "Hillary will not be indicted." I agree. - and what little political fallout occurs will be largely ignored by the majority of the general public. - "Trump may be cheated out of the nomination.." That perspective is only one side of the argument. Less than half of politically engaged "registered republicans" will agree, and most everyone else will look upon the GOP shenanigans as an ongoing circus act. - "Hillary will certainly be the next President." While you see Ms. Clinton losing only to Mr. Trump - I believe that this coming January, our fine nation will indeed have it's first Female President, regardless of whom the GOP pushes out into the spotlight. - "...you will have Hillary Clinton and a Democrat Supreme Court, that much is certain. And you will probably have a Democrat Senate also." I think the republicans will regret not confirming a rather moderate justice (Garland) when the newly Democrat controlled Senate is asked to confirm a nominee who is far more progressive. This will be especially apparent when the voter-suppression laws begin to be challenged in the courtrooms of Liberal judges across the country. - "...Hillary will do as she pleases by Executive Order..." Won't be necessary - The republican leadership in the House will adopt a new "bi-partisan" attitude so that they may continue sending the pork to their home districts and at least think they have some relevance..... - "Republican politicians will be prosecuted for every tax code violation, election law violation and bribe they take..." Won't be necessary - See previous remarks. - "There are not enough Hard Right Conservative Republicans to EVER rule this country." Correct. And following this election cycle, the GOP brand will be hard-pressed to have success in any meaningful leadership position. Go Bucks! "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
No, the rules have been in place for at least half a century. Nothing has changed other than the discovery learning the Trump team is encountering. If the GOP nomination process is a surprise to team Trump just think what the general election will be like. If he is nominated (and I think he will be) Trump has a decision point this summer to either take public funding for his campaign or to go all private. I will be interested to see how he decides that.
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
Oh - he's stalking you too? Major Burns has started stalking me in private mail. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I won't put up with it and neither should you.
He (Gatlin) is a nightcrawler. I thought about reporting it, but I would rather deal with the schmuck myself. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Don't try to compliment yourself. The stupidity of your posts merely draws my attention as I scroll by. However, I pay little attention to what you say. But I do enjoy you displaying your ignorance. I simply cannot pass up the opportunity to let you know that.
They are not interested in the party traditions ,rules or positions . The Trump insurgency is an attempt at a hostile takeover of the party . The Dems are drifting even more towards big nanny state socialist Leviathan . Trump may not be sympathetic to socialism per se ;but everything he says points towards the big nanny state ,semi-capitalist Leviathan ,and not a small governemnt constitutional Republic. Any chance of the Republican party being the conservative alternative lost forever .The party will be fragmented ...destined to go the way of the Whigs . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
great point !! "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Yes the state authorities do indeed make the rules . That is why Christie working in collusion with the Trump campaign placed all the favorable ballot spots for Trump supporting delegates. Maybe Cruz and Kasich should whine about a rigged system. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
It's easy. The FBI Director is a political hack, a Bush appointee. Worse, he was on the Whitewater case and was hostile to Clinton since then. He had an axe to grind with Clinton. He acted inappropriately by suggesting prosecution, given the evidence, and for that lack of judgment he was sacked. The Attorney General is the one with the ultimate responsibility for prosecutions. She has monitored the case carefully and examined the evidence, and does not believe that the evidence exists to properly bring a case against Hillary Clinton. Therefore, none has been brought. And that's the end of it. The right wing media scream, but they always scream, because they are partisan and out to get Hillary.
Which the RNC may subvert at the Party's nominating convention, an institution unknown to the Founders and Framers. Perhaps it's time that such subversion is made at the cucks' peril.
This is in error. Nobody has a majority of all delegates at this time. You have overlooked the existence of delegates bound to Carson, Jeb!, et al, (16 total) and all the unbound delegates.
The rules are ridiculous. They are byzantine, and designed to absolutely ensure that insiders maintain control of the party. Essentially, the primary system is a mask for a quasi-soviet-style control system, in which the will of the party bosses is enforced. With Trump, the mask is ripped off and the ridiculous, byzantine and ultimately corrupt rules set is exposed. So now the sole question is whether these "rules" will be "respected". It's the same thing we saw in Florida, with the count, and recount, and recount - a process controlled by Democrats that was perfectly legal, following all of the procedures and rules and regulations, and that would have continued until Gore was declared the winner. The Supreme Court stepped in from beyond and above the process and said "No", ending the recounts and picking the President. But here, there's no Supreme Court to step in. Here, the Florida court and the local election officials can count and recount and recount to their heart's content until, ilico presto!, they find the votes they need to make Gore President, or Cruz nominee. It's obviously crooked. Here, the crookedness is on naked display, but there's no Supreme Court to stop it. There are the people voting in five MORE states today, giving five MORE victories to Trump. At the end of this all, 40 states and several territories will have gone to Trump, nearly all of the primary votes, and a few sparsely-populated states caucuses will have been rolled for Cruz, just like Obama did it back in 2008, except he also won primaries. So, Trump will have been the overwhelming choice of the voters, but the partisan insiders are going to pretend that - PSHAW, you think that VOTES matter? Bwahahahaha. And they'll make a positively Prussian...or Miami Dade County Election Board...argument for arcane rules and procedures that conveniently just happen to override the will of the people. The Supreme Court stopped that in Florida, but nothing will stop it in the GOP convention but common sense. If the Republicans don't get ahold of themselves, they will reject the winner, Trump, and delegitimize democracy and the Republican primary in one fell swoop. And that will hand the White House, Senate and Supreme Court to Hillary Clinton. It's all completely foreseeable. The Republican Establishment is showing TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome. They're going to commit suicide as a party in order to stop Trump. From the accounts of those who are resuscitated or otherwise miraculously survive their attempts, in general the moment that suicides jump or step in front of the bus, they regret it and want to live, but it's too late. The Republicans still have time to stop this madness. Trump is going to win five more states resoundingly today, demonstrating broad-based support and a big crossover vote. He's going to show the electorate that will come out to defeat Hillary Clinton, if he's the candidate. The Establishment can get a clue and pull back from civil war, or they can go to civil war. And hand the election to Hillary.
Hey, thanks for the message. I appreciate it. I am not much of a partisan. I used to be a hardcore Republican, but the Republicans lost my trust years ago. Now I am independent. My philosophic and moral positions cut across the party lines, and some are opposed by both parties. I tend to see things on a strategic level, and see how they work through given correlations of forces and balances of power. So when I see the Republicans making these strange rules-and-process arguments about why it's ok for them to ignore the votes in the primary and rely on arcane rules (to get the result they want) my memory has been jogged...I've seen this film before. Oh yeah, those were the arguments that the Democrats used to keep doing recounts in Florida. We saw the Democrats keep "finding" votes here and there, and we see the Republican Party doing this with the delegates. A candidate wins the primary, but he doesn't get to select the delegates to vote for him? Oh no! There's an opaque process that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it's "obvious" that it should be that way? Actually, it's unconscionable that it should be this way if it's going to mean ignoring the result of 38 primaries And it's nuts. It guarantees that the opposition will win. Likewise, "Better Hillary than Trump". Really? Alright then, in that same spirit, I say "Better Hillary than any Republicans EXCEPT Trump!" That's what the crossover Democrats who are voting for Trump will all say. I recognize that people often get so stubborn that they HAVE TO commit suicide because they cannot back down or admit to themselves they're wrong. Which means, as a strategic thinker, that it's time to work out what the financial, real estate and commodity markets will do with a Clinton election.
A minor change: ---- Seriously, if that old bag was elected, I doubt we'd go to civil war over it, -- but we'd sure have a lot of civil disobedience as a result.. I'd bet she couldn't get much of her agenda through Congress.
The Republican Party could insist upon that rule. They don't.
Trump's "team" got out played by the grass roots Tea Party folks in Colorado. Now they want a do-over after figuring out they have to SHOW UP. What's to be expected from folks Trump brags about never participating in the system before? Boohoo for them.
They don't. They did in the Colorado caucus. Name not on the registered voter list? Pound sand.
Screw the people out of Trump by your convoluted rules, enjoy Hillary Clinton and a lifetime of Democrat rule.
1. Google "where is my Colorado caucus precinct" If that's too convoluted for you to figure out then stay home and watch Gilligan's Island.
Then the people will realize they have been deceived and changes will be forced. That sort of happened in 1976, although Reagan also tried to game the system too. Reagan was eventually nominated and elected. Rules are rules. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
I like the idea better of federal law that rams primaries down the throat of every state, and forces the delegates to be bound to whom the state selects. We are one country, and we should have one reasonable, transparent and predictable system for choosing our leaders. The parties have made it hard, and are about the steal the nomination from our choice. We the People should overthrow the command of the process by the parties using law, just like we did when we took away the power of the parties to pick Senators and wrote into the Constitution that that power belongs to us. The parties brought the direct election of Senators onto themselves by corruption. They are fast bringing federal control over primaries onto themselves by their corruption also. After all, federal dollars are spent on Presidential elections. Therefore, we the people, whose dollars are being spent, have the right to impose election law on the parties through Congress AND WE WILL if this shit continues. If Trump gets past all of this corruption and wins the White House, electoral reform will come in like a hurricane, and you can bet HE is not going to hold hearings on how corrupt the process is. He's already experienced, and he will use his power to sweep it away. And that will be a good thing. Closed or open primaries, that can be left to the states. Caucuses? Too corrupt. States should have primaries. Unbound delegates? No. The people should chose the delegates, based on whom they vote. The parties take federal money, they can be regulated by the law. And obviously they need to be. Don't want a federal takeover of primary elections in the interest of fairness and a republican form of government - then back down and let the winner of the primaries be the nominee. Simple. Sane. And it breaks the enemy in a way that he can't regroup.
Yep. Stamp Act. Fugitive Slave Act. Natural Born Citizenship. States pick Senators. Filibusters. Rules are rules. And rules are broken routinely. When you break the rules , or enforce them, in a way that harms the wrong gorilla, you get your arms torn off and the gorilla makes NEW rules, through the process of domination by force. That's what the Republicans are bringing upon themselves by their corrupt manipulation of rules to try to deny the runaway frontrunner that the people have chosen the nomination. When he gets it anyway, he will change the rules, with power. If he doesn't, then Hillary will set the rules, and she'll just shoot Republicans who get out of line. So that will be that. Either way, standing on the rules when you don't have the power to back them is dumb. "Here lies John Gray. He died defending his right-of-way."
That might work if the political parties were federal entities. They are not.
This year's corruption in the Republican Party demonstrates why they must be made so. The parties cannot be trusted to honestly manage the process by which the Presidential candidates are chosen. Therefore the law shall step in and impose rules, just like in every other industry. Donald Trump has an exceptionally strong motivation to gut this current charade of a process and make it obey standard rules of fairness, transparency and honesty. So once he's elected, I hope he will make election law reform an important objective.
Comey isn't ,and has never been a political hack . He served under Bush and yet refused to sign off on the legality of the NSA surveillance program . He also appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the Plame CIA leak investigation. Both Comey and Loretta Lynch were US prosecutors in NY Comey in the southern district.Lynch in the eastern district. Now if Comey recommends legal action against Evita ,after the time and resources (including 150 agents ) involved in the investigation....and Lynch does not take that action ,there will be a crisis in the Justice Dept that will ,make Nixon's Saturday Night massacre look tame. There will be a revolt in the FBI ;and agents who have been mum up until now will tell all. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
or the cry baby can run as an independent like Teddy Roosevelt did . Either way he's going to destroy the GOP ...either from within or outside. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
If his boss the President and the AG tell him that there is no case, and he goes public to fight his boss and the AG, he's a political hack. That's what Obama and the Democrat leadership will say. That's what the New York Times and Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and CNN and ABC and NBC will say. And while Trump may stand with him, the #NeverTrumpers will be there denigrating Trump for everything - the media will pick up on the denigration and publish that, showing Trump as a hack himself. The meme that will be victorious will be Obama's. Comey will go down as a political hack.
So?
True. But when he does so, from within, from the Oval Office, it will be to rebuild it anew as something better, something with greater appeal to the people of America. It will no longer be the political arm of the billionaire club, but be the nationalist, working class wing of American politics.
Unless Evita is indicted ,I don't see Trump winning. He can't out lib the libs ,and he is alienating a good section of the Republican base.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Obama can only fire Comey by directing Lynch to do so .He can also be removed by congressional impeachment ;or the emperor can ask him to resign (that aint happening ) . If they fired him to cover for Evita , after he recommended charges then there will be a constitutional crisis . Comey is already chaffed after the idiot in chief injected his opinion into the ongoing investigation . Then Comey had to endure a session with Congress assuring them that the emperor's opinion is irrelevant . Comey has a reputation as a straight shooter . I'm telling you that if the emperor tries to force his hand there will be hell to pay. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Evita won't be indicted, and I see Trump demolishing her just as he did Jeb, and Kasich, Cruz and Rubio and Fiorina, for a combination of the same reasons. First, he's a much more successful man than she is a successful woman. He took a million and made $7 billion. She was a doormat for Bill Clinton and rose on his coattails. Second, she's incompetent. Trump took out Fiorna on this. Third, she's an enabler. She sought to destroy women her husband raped. Fourth, Trump is ebullient. Hillary sounds like every divorced man's ex- wife. Fifth, Trump is likable by many, in his way, Hillary isn't. When it's just him versus her, his personality will win out. Six, her ideas are tired, old, conventional and don't address immigration or war - she wants to continue the policies that have given Trump his huge margin of victory. Trump will beat Hillary by a significant margin in the General Election. When it's just those two, he will look Presidential, and she'll look like the shifty criminal she is. I think Trump will dominate Hillary, and his coattails will keep the House and Senate Republican. And then - mirabile dictu - I think Trump actually WILL change trade agreements to make them fair, start to build the wall, deport illegals, and made a deal with Russia. So I think things look pretty good after Indiana. I also think that by the time the Indiana vote comes around, enough of the billionaires behind the party will have come to terms with a Trump nomination, and will have begun to cut the support to Cruz and Kasich. Before Indiana votes, some "unpledged" delegates, particularly from Pennsylvania, will be nudged to pledge to "the winner of our state", and Trump's delegate count will be seen to rise. Inevitability will be set in, Indianans will choose the stronger horse rather than a weak and fading horse, and it will be over. Indiana is good ground for Trump.
He's not going to "force his hand". He's already laid the groundwork for accusing Comey of being a hack. If Comey recommends charges, it will be instantly dismissed as political, and he'll be dismissed. Congress can only complain, and it's a political season. They can't do anything but bitch, and nobody listens to the other side's partisanship in a political season.
Seems the process as stands is still in favor of a Trump nomination of the first ballot. By Real Clear Politics Trump has 954 or so delegates. He's 283 or so shy of the 1237 or so. 502 delegates have yet to be named (states remaining) and 172 of them are 'winner take all' from CA. Most of the other contests left are also winner take all. Given most are either deep blue Democrat states and purple states, Trump will IMO be the nominee without contest.
Perhaps. I think that the hidden process is much more in Trump's favor. T Boone Pickens came out for Trump. The billionaires are moving, and as that happens, these "unpledged" delegates are going to start pledging, for Trump not Cruz. I think this will start to happen before Indiana, because the billionaires want this thing over, now that it's clear Trump won. Get it over, focus on Hillary. Pragmatically, that means that the current bad process will probably survive. Trump never campaigned on changing the internal rigging of the GOP. He figured that he would be the nominee if he ran away with the primaries, and was probably as surprised as anybody at the degree of corruption and nastiness. If the corruption and nastiness continue, that may well mean that reform of the primary process becomes a plank of his platform. But if the billionaires come in line and bring the party in line, Trump's already got four big platform changes: Wall and deport, renegotiated trade agreements with China - or else tariffs, make a deal with Russia, and saving universal health insurance through competition. Those are all Big Things that will require a lot of effort. If he gets what he wants out of the nomination process in the end, he may decide not to fight that battle.
The nastiness will continue, primary reform will not.. May be platform, but actual changes? -- After election? The wall might get through congress, -- don't hold your breath on anything else. Trump will fight a lot of battles, but win few, imo. Let's hope he can get some reasonable constitutionalists on the SCOTUS..
What is your biggest fear of what Trump would do? I like him but have doubts too.
They are almost one in the same . They even share the same address in Delaware . They are both big government statists. They share many of the same policies . You really can't tell one from the other if you listen to what they say . For all their complaining about the system ,both have greatly profited from a system they claim is rigged and unfair . They are both big pay for play people in practice despite their rhetoric to the contrary . For the life of me I don't understand how Trump supporters believe he will do anything meaningful to change a system he plays so well in by his own admission. Third, she's an enabler. She sought to destroy women her husband raped. "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,'' Trump told New York magazine in a 2002 profile of Epstein written three years before Epstein began to be investigated. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I'm not. Look at our Constitution - you know it well - and think about the positions Trump has struck. First: The Wall. It's ALREADY law. Trump can break ground and start building it without Congress using money already allocated for fence maintenance and discretionary spending. Congress would have to work hard to STOP him from building it, partly by the military, partly by the INS, by the Army Corps. Here, there, everywhere. You START building it, and there are immense cheers, and effects, and manipulated crime statistics to show how good it's working, and the pressure on a GOP Congress to keep going becomes really easy to accede to. Especially with Trump saying "On! On!" See, if you DON'T want to really build a wall, you do what Congress did when they passed the Wall Legislation. Make it full blown set-piece. Require integrated plans, studies, hold lots of hearings, and then insist on getting funding for the whole thing set aside. If you WANT to build it, you start building it using existing legislation and local initiative, and you point to the good effects and popularity that come at once, and then Congress follows you. SECOND: A deal with Russia. The President conducts foreign policy. The Senate is needed to ratify treaties, but Congress has no role in executive agreements. Congresional approval and funding is needed to send troops IN, but the President on his own authority can pull troops OUT of anywhere. Congress has no Constitutional power to PREVENT an American President from redeploying forces away from Russia's borders and to the USA...say, to build practice fortifcations and do drills along the Mexican Border. People can get real mad that the President has changed the US National Strategy, but he is the Commander-in-Chief and he has the authority, granted by the Constitution, to do just exactly that. If the President of the United States decides that the US is going to militarily cooperate with Russia, share intelligence on terrorists, and redeploy US forces far back from the Russian Border, he orders it and it is done, and the next review of that is on his re-election. Congress cannot countermand his military orders, and as those orders CUT costs instead of require MORE money, the power of the purse can't be brought to bear. If Trump decides that the US is going to ally with Russia for 4 years, then the US will be allied with Russia for four years, and there is no power under the US Constitution that can stop him, NO MATTER WHAT Congress thinks, or the CIA and military for that matter. Likewise trade deals. Sure, Trump can't impose tarriffs, but he can take all sorts of executive diecisions that simply BLOCK China trade and start to WRECK the fortunes of some well heeled people. And the President can make Executive Agreements with any foreign nation. These agreements don't have the status of Treaty, but it's like a gap appointment to a Supreme Court position or to a cabinet position. The official may not be permanent, but until the President leaves office or Congress approves him, that gap appointment or Executive Agreement stays in place and functions exactly as a ratified treaty or approved nominee does. In the past, when Republican Presidents have been blocked by Democrat Congresses, they have turned to foreign and military policy, because in those spheres Congress is essentially powerless, and the President has the power to make decisions and commit, or withdraw, forces with very limited ability of Congress to interfere. A Democrat Congress did everything in its power to stop Reagan from toppling the Sandinistas. Reagan won, because the truth is, the President's power to conduct foreign policy and to set military strategy overwhelms the very weak powers of Congress to interfere. All three of Trump's primary policy positions are foreign policy and military strategy related. He can call Vladimir Putin the day he's elected, fly to Moscow the next day, agree with Russia to a Ukranian settlement and to a Palestinian Settlement (if they both want to), and then fly back and start imposing it the next day, and there is literally nothing that anybody can do but twist his mouth in outrage. Trump's choice of policies fall squarely within Executive prerogative. And if that prerogative is tested, Trump's nominee will be the swing vote on the Supreme Court -and who on the Supreme Court now is going to oppose Trump's constitutional executive authority to conduct foreign policy when the policy is peace and cooperation with Russia, because some bellicose GOP Senators don't like it? Trump's choice of battles are all areas where he has great power as President. His big domestic policy initiative - bringing down state barriers to the health insurance market, to make it one big national market, will require support of STATE legislatures, mainly. as well as Congress. SAVE Obamacare by reducing costs. The Democrats will go for that. So will the Kasichs and Christies,who have already accepted Obamacare Medicaid funds for their people. The Republicans were not able to stop a Democrat from implementing Obamacare. They'll be even weaker when trying to resist a popular Republican President. Actually, Trump can get his way on Russia, on the Wall, on trade , on Muslim immigration very fast, and will win over time on bringing down state regulation of health insurance to reduce costs. He can stand as a neutral arbiter between Israel and Palestine if he chooses to, and he will choose to. All these things happen, and he's already a successful President, doing great sweeping things that are within his power. Then he can tackle the tax laws. It's hard for a Republican Congress to resist a popular and successful Republican President. Trump will get his agenda if he's elected.
I listen to what they say. Hillary essentially wants a to press forward with the Cold War on Russia. Trump wants to ally with the Russians against the Muslim terrorists, and get the US forces out of Europe. That's a VERY different position. Hillary supports Israel down the line. The Jewish vote is big to her. Trump is going to stand as neutral arbiter between Palestine and Israel, to get a two-state solution and a peace agreement. That's not Hillary. Trump is going to build a wall and deport. Hillary's not going to do any of that. Trump is going to cut off Muslim immigration. Hillary calls him a Nazi for that, practically. Trump is going to tear up the trade agreements that Hillary negotiated with China and get something fairer for the US, or impose tariffs. Hillary says nothing of the kind. Trump wants to bring down state regulation barriers to make a national insurance market, bringing down costs and saving Obamacare. Hillary wants to save Obamacare too, but she has no such plan. They're very different people. Yes, of course, Trump is going to ignore Republican yahoos who want stupid things like the abolition of Social Security and infantile crap. In that, he and Hillary agree and so does Ronald Reagan and every other thinking person. Hillary and Trump are like night and day on his key policies. He's not interested in bothering gays. So what?
Not too big on that state's rights issue ehh Comrade. Figures.
Have the Reality TeeVee Star pretend he knows what he's talking about and then create a giant Cluster Frack - like he did with Trump Mortgage, except this time with the global economy and other people's children serving in the military. Oops.
You're right. States rights are no shield for evil. When they are used that way, which seems to be the case most of the time the argument is raised (Slavery, segregation, corrupt elections...) then states rights have to be cut back further and further, to address those things. Want to keep full states rights? Then stop being evil. If you won't, then your state line is not going to prevent the necessary reform. States do not have the "right" to be evil. If they try to assert their "rights" that way, they lose the rights. Simple as that.
I see no connection with the jewish vote and support for Israel. Most Jews are Democrats and are what the Paultards would consider "good Jews" or "real jews" and don't even believe Israel has the right to exist. The few American jews who do support Israel aren't likely to vote for Hillary anyway. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Most Jews are Democrats and are what the Paultards would consider "good Jews" or "real jews" and don't even believe Israel has the right to exist. The few American jews who do support Israel aren't likely to vote for Hillary anyway. I guess I should have been more explicit. There are not enough Jews to make a difference in any elections but Florida and New York. It's not their votes that matter, it's Jewish money and power, particularly media power, that matters. 75% of it aligns with the Democrats every time.
Fallible and uninspired Useful Idiots have assumed dominion over the faith and states of others. Go back to the Paraguay Jesuit Reductions, Comrade.
Go back to the Paraguay Jesuit Reductions, Comrade. "Paraguay Jesuit Reductions"? WHAT? It's like a Mad Lib.
They are rigged against me by nullifying my vote.
I like him but have doubts too. For me it's not a matter of what 'would do.' My concern is his amateur approach to the GOP nomination process. Candidates need strong and experienced campaign teams to navigate the necessary and in some cases tricky minutia. I think Trump knows this now, but will he make the necessary adjustments. Good leaders make in-stride adjustments and bold decisions. We know he can make bold decisions but can he eat a bit of his ego to make adjustments and admit certain approaches did not work or were the choices. Only leaders with that type of dynamic attitude can be competitive in Presidential political campaigning. So my biggest concern with Trump as the GOP nominee is I don't believe his campaign team is ready for the general election and I don't think he sees the need to make changes. I could be wrong and very well may be proven wrong and I hope I am wrong, because Hitlery is a disaster. So my biggest fear is he can't beat Hitlery.
Do they now. There have been 42 elections or caucuses so far, including in the US territories. Among them, Trump has won 27, amassing 995 delegates. Cruz has won 9, including his home state. He has 567 delegates. It has not been close. It has been a blowout. It didn't BECOME a blowout when Trump started to play the backroom delegate game. After Iowa, Trump took the lead and never, ever lost it - not in the elections, not in the polls. He's above 50% now, and has closed to within 3 points of Hillary for the general. Truth is, Republican operatives who have always sided with the Establishment don't like some of Trump's stances, and have been consistently working in the backrooms trying to stop him. And the truth is they have failed. They have failed not because Trump picked up their game and came to them hat in hand. Nope. They failed because they have lost in election after election, and the people have defied them everywhere - North, South, West, East, Midwest, and just kept handing Trump more and more delegates. People back the stronger horse, and politicians and billionaires are speaking for him now. This is NOT because Trump has changed up and gone with his hat in his hand. It's because the smart ones have awoken and realize that Trump has the People, and with the people he is going to win with them or without them. If he wins without them, he will owe them nothing but pain. The party Establishment has not forced a deal upon Trump. He has not opened his eyes and changed everything. They have come to realize that they have to come to Trump if they want to have any role left after the election. That's the truth. Sure, Trump hired Manafort, and he's sweeping up delegates in the backrooms now. In Pennsylvania, where there are 75 delegates but only 14 pledged, Trump won all across the state, and of the remaining supposedly "unbound" delegates, over half have themselves stepped forward and bound THEMSELVES to Trump. This is not because Trump has suddenly changed his game. No matter how much Republican Establishment types want to make it about the party, or about making Trump ultimately bend the knee to them, it has been the other way around. Trump conquered the party, the people went with Trump, and the party - to save itself from self-destruction - has surrendered and are following him. Note well his foreign policy speech yesterday. Did he give anything ANYTHING to the traditional Republican positions, to the platform as it has been? Did he soften ANYTHING? No he did not. The Republican Party's position in the election is that of its head, the Presidential candidate. The position used to be closet amnesty. Now it's a wall and deportation. It used to be Muslim sheiks welcome. Now it's going to be "No more until we get it sorted." It used to be "Free Trade!" Now it's going to be renegotiated deals, tarriffs and job protection. It used to be "Kill Obamacare!" Now it's "universal health insurance, with regulatory changes to make it more efficient. It used to be "Israel first and foremost!" Now it's "Even-handed broker of peace." It used to be "New Cold War against the Russians!" Now it's "Partnership with Putin". It used to be "No abortion, no exception...nudge wink." Now it's Exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother - really. Trump and the People have a different agenda than the Republican insiders. And Trump and the People have taken over the GOP and changed it. Some insiders wanted to fight to the death to keep control. But more want a place in the new regime. Trump has not come to them. They have fallen in line behind Trump. Sure, Trump has gotten more savvy about how he says things. And sure, he's using Manafort to ease his passage. But he's not compromising on anything. His policies are all the same as when he first controversially declared each one of them. He hasn't bent the knee or the neck. What he has done is broken the balls of every single candidate and Establishment structure and insider who has stood in his way. For the general election, Trump knows it's a different fight. He knows he needs to be much more presidential, and he already is. He also knows that the Establishment types who would give him advice have been losing elections for years, and do not understand the American voters as well as he does. All of their platitudes have been destroyed on the battlefield of elections by Trump. He knows more about how to get elected against Titanic odds than Karl Rove. And he's amassed as many votes as Reagan did in the process. Hillary is like Jeb, but with fewer accomplishments. He's going to beat her like a drum, install four Scalias on the Supreme Court, build a Wall, make peace with Russia, and fundamentally transform everything. And in the process his court will probably end up saving most babies from abortion too. Then maybe we can have the massive federal funding for orphanages and schools and child raising for the raising of the children of rape and incest when the final laws are changed, under another President. For now, all of that will have to do. And even if the Republican Establishment still partly hates all of it, that is what is GOING to be, because Trump conquered the party and will be its new master, ruler, and policy setter. Some will leave the party. More will join it. People back the strong horse, and Trump is the Shadowfax of politics.
www.google.com/#q=manafort +yanukovych Friend of Trump's, friend of "ours", or both?
No, the only plausible source of Trump's complaint is that he might not win. Despite having leveraged his marketing prowess to an improbable lead among pledged delegates, he may still fall short, collapsing in the playoffs after a remarkable regular season.
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
explain this cruzites
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#4. To: BobCeleste (#2)
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#6. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
"The GOP’s poorly designed nominating process includes more than its share of problems, but is it really unfair to Trump?"
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Trump has leveraged about 40 percent of the vote into about 49 percent of the delegates.
#8. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
"Few consider it unfair to award the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or World Series title to a team that failed to boast the best record in regular season play."
#9. To: BobCeleste (#2)
explain this cruzites
#10. To: redleghunter (#7)
"Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio combined have 862."
#11. To: redleghunter, BobCeleste (#9)
FYI, not everything on the internet is true.
#12. To: misterwhite (#10)
Are you saying we should have three Presidents?
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
"Perhaps the unfairness lies instead with the dizzyingly variable rules ...
#14. To: redleghunter (#12)
"Different process. The parties are nominating candidates for President."
#15. To: misterwhite (#10)
#16. To: no gnu taxes (#15)
"Maybe Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio could run as a "GOP triumvirate" against Clinton."
#17. To: misterwhite (#14)
Then I'll re-phrase. Are you saying we should have three Presidential candidates?
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#15)
Maybe Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio could run as a "GOP triumvirate" against Clinton.
#20. To: redleghunter (#17)
"The GOP is in the nomination process for a Presidential candidate."
#21. To: no gnu taxes (#18)
"And if it goes to a second ballot and beyond, it very well may not be Trump"
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
So Trump walks into the convention with 1150 delegates, the vast majority of the states and the vast majority of the votes and Rubio ends up with the nomination, just what do you think will happen?
#23. To: misterwhite (#20)
Correct. A Presidential candidate. So why are you combining the delegates from three Presidential candidates?
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#22)
(Edited)
"I'm just saying it could happen, and it won't be breaking any ru rules or laws."
#25. To: misterwhite (#21)
So Trump walks into the convention with 1150 delegates, the vast majority of the states and the vast majority of the votes and Rubio ends up with the nomination, just what do you think will happen?
#26. To: redleghunter (#23)
#27. To: redleghunter (#25)
"It was designed for the party who is nominating a candidate to have a voice and influence in the process."
#28. To: redleghunter (#7)
So I don't see how people call the process unfair.
#29. To: redleghunter (#25)
For example, if a GOP candidate with a plurality of the votes come convention time is indicted of a crime, the party has the mechanism to ensure such a tainted candidate does not get the nomination.
#30. To: redleghunter (#23)
This process should not be so difficult for Republicans and any American to recognize. If in the general election for President no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes what happens? It goes to the House of Representatives.
#31. To: misterwhite (#21)
Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#32. To: Deckard (#31)
(Edited)
"mister "rules are rules" white actually insisting that "rules do don't matter"
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
That would be mister "the-law-is-the-law".
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: no gnu taxes (#29)
(Edited)
I wonder what the democrats will do if Hillary is indicted.
#35. To: misterwhite, redleghunter (#10)
Are you saying we should have three Presidents?
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Hillary will not be indicted.
#37. To: Gatlin (#11)
FYI, not everything on the internet is true.
#38. To: misterwhite, redleghunter (#21)
So Trump walks into the convention with 1150 delegates, the vast majority of the states and the vast majority of the votes and Rubio ends up with the nomination, just what do you think will happen?
#39. To: U don't know me (#37)
FYI, not everything on the internet is true.
In fact, even less from the government.
#40. To: misterwhite (#26)
That still doesn't explain why you combined three candidates for the nomination.
#41. To: misterwhite (#27)
How's that been working for them? Perhaps that's why the people are objecting to this "GOP convention process"?
#42. To: redleghunter (#41)
#43. To: Fred Mertz (#42)
#44. To: Gatlin (#43)
#45. To: misterwhite (#21)
Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules"
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
Mark my words: if the Republican Party uses legalistic games and legerdemain to steal the nomination from Donald Trump, the final result will be that you will never again see another Republican President, or Senate, or Supreme Court.
#47. To: redleghunter (#41)
"That goes directly against a plank of the GOP of states rights."
#48. To: Roscoe (#45)
Rules that change in the middle of the game ...
#49. To: no gnu taxes (#29)
I wonder what the democrats will do if Hillary is indicted.
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
... to favor the establishment.
#51. To: Roscoe (#50)
(Edited)
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
Then the GOPe would stop holding primaries, and every state would look like Colorado.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
You have recounted "how the system works", but you've failed to recognize that in the end when it comes down to it, it DOESN'T work. The country NEVER unites behind the "winner" of a crooked process, the winner NEVER has a mandate. The "winner" has a disastrous presidency, and the other party sweeps to power and changes the ground rules of everything once they get it.
#54. To: tomder55 (#35)
They feared the populist flim flam man's influence on the masses.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Hello Vic, I've been reading your thoughts for months.....and thought I'd comment, FWIW, and IMHO.
#56. To: Roscoe (#45)
Rules that change in the middle of the game
#57. To: redleghunter (#56)
No, the rules have been in place for at least half a century.
#58. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
(Edited)
Quit stalking me, you ankle biter.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#59. To: Deckard (#58)
#60. To: Fred Mertz (#59)
I won't put up with it and neither should you.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#61. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
Quit stalking me, you ankle biter.
#62. To: redleghunter, misterwhite (#41)
The only way to change the rules as you want to see them is for the RNC to impose a sole state by state nomination process. That goes directly against a plank of the GOP of states rights. So you are really attacking each state that does not measure up to your standard and not the national convention
#63. To: redleghunter (#56)
Trump has a decision point this summer to either take public funding for his campaign or to go all private. I will be interested to see how he decides that.
#64. To: Roscoe, misterwhite, redleghunter (#50)
Here's a thought: Assuming the RNC changes the rules after the primary elections in order to rig the convention results, why couldn't selected states and their Governors tell the national GOPe to take a flying leap? States and their municipal subdivisions print the general election ballots and conduct the elections, not the RNC.
#65. To: no gnu taxes (#36)
If the FBI recommends indictment, and the AG ignores it, it's going to be hard to explain that away.
#66. To: tomder55 (#64)
Yes the state authorities do indeed make the rules
#67. To: redleghunter, no gnu taxes (#7)
So I don't see how people call the process unfair. Trump does not have the majority of delegates right now. He may in the next few days. He may even reach the magic number. However, right now, he does not have the majority of delegates. Three others combined do.
#68. To: redleghunter (#41)
I find it odd people who want a party nomination don't really know the rules of that party.
#69. To: Jameson (#55)
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
The Establishment can get a clue and pull back from civil war, or they can go to civil war. And hand the election to Hillary.
The Establishment can get a clue and pull back from civil war, or they can go to civil war, and hand the election to Hillary.
#71. To: redleghunter (#53)
The only way to have a across the board 'fair' popular vote is to restrict only registered Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.
#72. To: redleghunter (#7)
(Edited)
So I don't see how people call the process unfair.
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
The Republican Party could insist upon that rule.
#74. To: VxH (#73)
They did in the Colorado caucus. Name not on the registered voter list? Pound sand.
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
(Edited)
Screw the people out of Trump by your convoluted rules
2. Walk down the street to the local H.S.
3. Find the class room where your neighborhood caucus precinct is meeting.
4. Raise your hand, or not, when asked "who volunteers to be a delegate?".
5. Write your choices among the volunteers on a scrap of paper.
5a Have a straw poll (Cruz 22, Trump 6)
6. Selected delegates go to the state convention and select state delegates from amongst themselves.
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
The rules are ridiculous. They are byzantine, and designed to absolutely ensure that insiders maintain control of the party.
#77. To: VxH (#75)
If that's too convoluted for you to figure out then stay home and watch Gilligan's Island.
#78. To: no gnu taxes (#76)
(Edited)
Rules are rules.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
I like the idea better of federal law that rams primaries down the throat of every state, and forces the delegates to be bound to whom the state selects.
#80. To: redleghunter (#79)
That might work if the political parties were federal entities. They are not.
#81. To: Vicomte13, no gnu taxes (#65)
#82. To: Roscoe (#66)
Which the RNC may subvert at the Party's nominating convention, an institution unknown to the Founders and Framers. Perhaps it's time that such subversion is made at the cucks' peril.
#83. To: tomder55 (#81)
Comey isn't ,and has never been a political hack .
#84. To: tomder55 (#82)
Either way he's going to destroy the GOP
#85. To: tomder55 (#82)
Either way he's going to destroy the GOP ...either from within or outside.
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
If his boss the President and the AG tell him that there is no case, and he goes public to fight his boss and the AG, he's a political hack.
#88. To: tomder55 (#86)
Unless Evita is indicted ,I don't see Trump winning. He can't out lib the libs ,and he is alienating a good section of the Republican base.
#89. To: tomder55 (#87)
Comey has a reputation as a straight shooter . I'm telling you that if the emperor tries to force his hand there will be hell to pay.
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
This year's corruption in the Republican Party demonstrates why they must be made so. The parties cannot be trusted to honestly manage the process by which the Presidential candidates are chosen.
#91. To: redleghunter (#90)
Seems the process as stands is still in favor of a Trump nomination of the first ballot
#92. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#91)
If the corruption and nastiness continue, that may well mean that reform of the primary process becomes a plank of his platform.
But if the billionaires come in line and bring the party in line, Trump's already got four big platform changes: Wall and deport, renegotiated trade agreements with China - or else tariffs, make a deal with Russia, and saving universal health insurance through competition.
Those are all Big Things that will require a lot of effort. If he gets what he wants out of the nomination process in the end, he may decide not to fight that battle.
#93. To: redleghunter (#90)
Trump will IMO be the nominee without contest.
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
Six, her ideas are tired, old, conventional and don't address immigration or war - she wants to continue the policies that have given Trump his huge margin of victory.
#95. To: tpaine (#92)
May be platform, but actual changes? -- After election? The wall might get through congress, -- don't hold your breath on anything else.
#96. To: tomder55 (#94)
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
I like the idea better of federal law that rams primaries down the throat of every state,
#98. To: A K A Stone (#93)
(Edited)
What is your biggest fear of what Trump would do?
http://www.google.com/#q=Trump+Mortgage+%22Who+knows+more+ab out+financing+than+me%22
#99. To: VxH (#97)
Not too big on that state's rights issue ehh Comrade.
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#96)
Hillary supports Israel down the line. The Jewish vote is big to her.
#101. To: no gnu taxes (#100)
Hillary supports Israel down the line. The Jewish vote is big to her. I see no connection with the jewish vote and support for Israel.
#102. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
(Edited)
#103. To: VxH (#102)
Fallible and uninspired Useful Idiots have assumed dominion over the faith and states of others.
#104. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#105. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#93)
What is your biggest fear of what Trump would do?
#106. To: redleghunter (#105)
My concern is his amateur approach to the GOP nomination process. Candidates need strong and experienced campaign teams to navigate the necessary and in some cases tricky minutia.
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#103)
(Edited)
WHAT?
#108. To: redleghunter (#105)
Candidates need strong and experienced campaign teams
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]