(04-10-2016 12:43 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:07 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:05 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:02 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  If trump supporters started rioting in Cleveland and brought all that violence, what would you call them?

...but that wont happen...and you know that.

Well, even donnie boy himself said "there will be violence." So yeah....it would happen.

Forgive me for having more confidence in the sanity of the public than that. Even his supporters know he is pretty much full of schit. They just are pissed off and he is their sounding board.

his supporters are statistically the uneducated and all the dude does is promote violence. It's gonna get ugly if they shut him out. But they should because Hillary would wipe the floor with that clown.

Gonna be like a white man's Ferguson. #trumplivesmatter

(04-09-2016 10:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a manipulated argument.

There are all sorts of people who voted for candidates who are no longer running. If nobody reaches 1237, They and their delegates deserve a chance to be heard.

The only candidate that suspended a campaign but won delegates that I'm aware of is rubio. If a candidate is short of 1237, but has more delegates than the rest of the candidates combined, then if that candidate loses the nomination then it's thwarting the will of the people. It's clear that establishment prefer someone besides Trump or Cruz.

I'm not going to do the math, but Kasich has 130 delegates. In Iowa, Cruz got 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3, Paul 1, Bush 1, Fiorina 1, Kasich 1 and Huckabee 1. That means that of their 30 delegates, only 16 of them 'still count', and even within that 16, NOBODY earned a majority of them. What about the other 14? That's just one example.

Sure, the establishment prefers someone other than trump, because he doesn't have a majority even among Republicans, he has a very unfavorable rating... Cruz also doesn't have a majority, but his 'unfavorable' rating is less. I'd agree that it would be a weird situation if neither Cruz NOR Trump got the nomination, because that would mean that both Cruz AND Trump delegates 'switched'.... But clearly the 130 Kasich delegates should have a voice, as should the smaller number of Rubio and Carson and Paul etc delegates. Those delegates would be enough to put either Trup OR Cruz over the top.... and of course, it probably depends on whom they get as their VP.

Surely you'd expect that if it were Trump Kasich (or Cruz Kasich) that Kasich's delegates would likely support that ticket over one that DIDN'T include their choice? Maybe not, but likely. Rubio et al should get a say as well. Of course, if someone gets 51%, then it doesn't matter how their votes would change, does it?

The concept of a 3+ person race requiring someone get 51% on the first ballot or there be a run-off between the top two has been a staple of our democracy for generations... precisely BECAUSE it represents the will of the majority of the people... This is no different. Even if this ends up at only two, it wasn't only two for MANY states.

I'd note that not just the establishment don't favor cruz or trump. Lots of people obviously prefer kasich or rubio or paul or Carson etc etc. Who is their second choice?

Make sure I say this again... If it ISN"T cruz or trump, then there will be a lot of explaining to do... because that would mean LARGE numbers of delegates whom were selected for trump or cruz changed their votes. Not a few percent, but closer to half or more.

There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

(04-09-2016 10:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a manipulated argument.

There are all sorts of people who voted for candidates who are no longer running. If nobody reaches 1237, They and their delegates deserve a chance to be heard. This isn't some new 'anti Trump' rule, but it has been the rile for a long time. Those who want to forget that rule are the ones trying to 'cheat' the system.

I'm not in favor of the system, but my solution involves getting rid of the two party system altogether. How is it any less 'wrong' to change the rules to nominate Trump than it is to nominate Cruz or anyone else?

If Trump is so popular, he will be nominated. Unfortunately his popularity is strong, but so is his unpopularity... and that is something he has embraced. Too bad his supporters don't.

The only candidate that suspended a campaign but won delegates that I'm aware of is rubio. If a candidate is short of 1237, but has more delegates than the rest of the candidates combined, then if that candidate loses the nomination then it's thwarting the will of the people. It's clear that establishment prefer someone besides Trump or Cruz.

Its thwarting the will of the people if someone who does not get 1237 gets the nomination simply because he was a plurality. The will of the people was that the person was NOT to be the nominee.

Therefore, you have to allow the candidates to attempt to get a majority of the delegates at the convention.

There is a strategy and game plan that has to be developed and implemented in order to become a nominee. The first strategy is to get to 1237 on the first ballot. That usually happens. If it doesnt happen, you have to have a game plan for phase II. Trump's problem is that he had no game plan for phase II, neither did he have a game plan for the delegate selection process.

Hiring Manafort was a good move for Trump. But he should have hired him 12 months ago and did what he said needed to be done. I dont want to hear any Trump whining if he fails to get the nomination because he failed to get 1237 delegates, because he failed to do what he needed to do to win.

Right now, Cruz is out-working Trump. If Trump wants to win, he needs to shut his pie-hole and get to work and listen to the man he just brought in, and then do what that man says. I'm going to be in no mood to listen to Trump bitching if he fails to get the nomination, because he left a lot of things undone. He would have failed to do what he needed to do. I dont like failures and incompetent people, but I hate incompetent people who whine even less.

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

The establishment has never treated a front runner this way. Let the process happen. #nevertrump is unacceptable!

(04-10-2016 05:14 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

The establishment has never treated a front runner this way. Let the process happen. #nevertrump is unacceptable!

#draftthreedollarbill?

(04-10-2016 05:14 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

The establishment has never treated a front runner this way. Let the process happen. #nevertrump is unacceptable!

Segments of the party have always opposed the leader.

(04-10-2016 05:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 05:14 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

The establishment has never treated a front runner this way. Let the process happen. #nevertrump is unacceptable!

#draftthreedollarbill?

Your rep is still very very low.

(04-10-2016 06:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 05:14 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

The establishment has never treated a front runner this way. Let the process happen. #nevertrump is unacceptable!

Segments of the party have always opposed the leader.

Sure but this is coming from leadership.

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

I agree. There is threshold established for a first ballot nomination for a reason. If he fails to achieve that threshold? All bets are off. Tough cookies.

(04-11-2016 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

I agree. There is threshold established for a first ballot nomination for a reason. If he fails to achieve that threshold? All bets are off. Tough cookies.

I usually agree with ya, but explain how that makes sense (not arguing whether you like Trump...I already know that one)

the process doesn't make sense....all it does is provide power to a few....

if that works for you, then so be it....it doesn't in mine...

(04-11-2016 05:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

I agree. There is threshold established for a first ballot nomination for a reason. If he fails to achieve that threshold? All bets are off. Tough cookies.

I usually agree with ya, but explain how that makes sense (not arguing whether you like Trump...I already know that one)

the process doesn't make sense....all it does is provide power to a few....

if that works for you, then so be it....it doesn't in mine...

So you want to just ditch the pre-established rules at the convention? I understand some folks are going to be upset..but..I thought conservatives believed in playing by the rules instead of making them up as they go along. If you tee it up and hit it out of bounds...you have to go back to the tee. You don't get to place the ball where it went out of bounds. Rules are rules. If we are not going to play by the rules we need to establish and agree to that.... BEFORE we tee off...not during the round.

(04-09-2016 07:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  We heard a lot of opining about how roughly a 3rd of the GOP party members will opt out of the election if Trump is the nominee. So the wisdom would state that blocking Trump from becoming the nominee is the right play by the leadership. Not so fast...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKCN0X60B3

Quote:A third of Republican voters who support Donald Trump could turn their backs on their party in November's presidential election if he is denied the nomination in a contested convention, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The results are bad news for Trump's rivals as well as party elites opposed to the real estate billionaire, suggesting that an alternative Republican nominee for the Nov. 8 presidential race would have a tougher road against the Democrats.

"If it’s a close election, this is devastating news" for the Republicans, said Donald Green, an expert on election turnout at Columbia University.

I know that if the GOP leadership ignores the votes in the primaries, then I will NOT vote for any GOP nominee at all. I'll vote Libertarian.

Just make sure Hillary can't get the right to be a candidate by the FBI investigation and it's not an issue come November as Bernie will never win a national election.

(04-11-2016 06:38 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Just make sure Hillary can't get the right to be a candidate by the FBI investigation and it's not an issue come November as Bernie will never win a national election.

That's what people thought about Obama 8 years ago. I'd take my chances with Hillary right now over the array of possibilities if she is out.

(04-11-2016 06:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was a story the other day with a headline, "How can anyone "steal" something Trump hasn't earned?"

For it to be yours you have to get 51%. Trump is used to government and eminent domain taking whatever he wants.

I agree. There is threshold established for a first ballot nomination for a reason. If he fails to achieve that threshold? All bets are off. Tough cookies.

I usually agree with ya, but explain how that makes sense (not arguing whether you like Trump...I already know that one)

the process doesn't make sense....all it does is provide power to a few....

if that works for you, then so be it....it doesn't in mine...

So you want to just ditch the pre-established rules at the convention? I understand some folks are going to be upset..but..I thought conservatives believed in playing by the rules instead of making them up as they go along. If you tee it up and hit it out of bounds...you have to go back to the tee. You don't get to place the ball where it went out of bounds. Rules are rules. If we are not going to play by the rules we need to establish and agree to that.... BEFORE we tee off...not during the round.

That's the thing, the rules haven't been created yet. Remember that 8 state rule that kept Ron Paul off the ballot 4 years ago? That will be gone this cycle. They are making new rules as they go along.

WSJ had an interesting editorial that basically said that Cruz' new strategy is to woo the Republicans that he established his campaign to fight against.

Quote:...Mr. Cruz’s chance to become President hinges on the so-called Republican establishment that he calls “the Washington cartel.” ...a GOP “surrender caucus” that supposedly sold out or didn’t fight hard enough.

Campaigning is a b!tch.

(04-11-2016 06:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:38 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Just make sure Hillary can't get the right to be a candidate by the FBI investigation and it's not an issue come November as Bernie will never win a national election.

That's what people thought about Obama 8 years ago. I'd take my chances with Hillary right now over the array of possibilities if she is out.

Yup.

Hillary is horrible but Bernie would destroy America.

(04-11-2016 12:18 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:38 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Just make sure Hillary can't get the right to be a candidate by the FBI investigation and it's not an issue come November as Bernie will never win a national election.

That's what people thought about Obama 8 years ago. I'd take my chances with Hillary right now over the array of possibilities if she is out.

Yup.

Hillary is horrible but Bernie would destroy America.

Hillary won't make America great again though.