• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the gop elite plan to rob donald trump

fmw said:
I should also point out that an even greater majority of voters have voted for someone other than each of the other candidates. That is a false point.
Click to expand...

No, it is an accurate point, as is yours. No one has "the people" backing them, no one has a majority of delegates (yet) backing them, and no one has or will win a majority of Republicans backing them. "The Voters" are not voting for Trump. They are voting at this point for several people.

The Delegates will decide if The Voters don't give someone 1,237 on the first ballot. That's not anyone stealing anything - it's the rules.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and his opinion is based on the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

The Constitution lays out the rules for the Republican Party nominating process? That is news to me. Perhaps you could direct me to that part in the Constitution of the United States that does that.
 
ocean515 said:
Trump will arrive at the Convention with the vast majority of delegates. If he does not receive the party nomination, it will not be because he couldn't close the deal.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. If he can't get to 1,237, whether on the first or subsequent ballots (ie: If he cannot close the deal) then he will not be the nominee. If he can close the deal and get to 1,237, then he will. That is not an assessment or an opinion - it is (under the current rules) a reality.

For someone who spends all their time bragging about how great he is at dealmaking, I'm sure Trump is looking forward for such an opportunity to demonstrate his prowess.
 
ocean515 said:
Trump will arrive at the Convention with the vast majority of delegates. If he does not receive the party nomination, it will not be because he couldn't close the deal. You opinion is noted, but that is all it is.
Click to expand...

If Trump arrives at the convention with a majority of the delegates, he will win. That is the rules. But if he does not have the majority of the delegates, the convention will be contested and he very well may not win. That is also the rules.
 
ocean515 said:
The Constitution lays out the rules for the Republican Party nominating process? That is news to me. Perhaps you could direct me to that part in the Constitution of the United States that does that.
Click to expand...

My bad. It's actually in the Rules of the Republican Party. It's the general election that is in the Constitution.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary. If he can't get to 1,237, whether on the first or subsequent ballots (ie: If he cannot close the deal) then he will not be the nominee. If he can close the deal and get to 1,237, then he will.

For someone who spends all their time bragging about how great he is at dealmaking, I'm sure Trump is looking forward for such an opportunity to demonstrate his prowess.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, if a candidate arrives at the Convention as the clear leader in delegates, and they do not get the nomination, it's because the deal was taken from them by the delegates and party apparatus. That is a fact.

To support such a conclusion, what if none of the candidates who ran in the primary reaches the required number of delegates in subsequent ballots? Obviously the delegates would have to come up with someone else. If they did, this most certainly would indicate the nomination was taken from the leading candidate, and in fact all candidates who ran, and not because the candidates couldn't close the deal. The deal was closed in their faces.

As I have written elsewhere, this would be political suicide for the party.
 
ocean515 said:
Au contraire, if a candidate arrives at the Convention as the clear leader in delegates, and they do not get the nomination, it's because the deal was taken from them by the delegates and party apparatus. That is a fact.

To support such a conclusion, what if none of the candidates who ran in the primary reaches the required number of delegates in subsequent ballots? Obviously the delegates would have to come up with someone else. If they did, this most certainly would indicate the nomination was taken from the leading candidate, and in fact all candidates who ran, and not because the candidates couldn't close the deal. The deal was closed in their faces.

As I have written elsewhere, this would be political suicide for the party.
Click to expand...

On that, you may be right.
Nominating Trump would also be political suicide for the party.

So, its heads the Democrats win, tails the Republicans lose.

Or, if you prefer, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
cpwill said:
That is my own assessment, I don't rely on others to do my thinking for me. I came to that conclusion because I am an informed conservative, not in spite of it. A Trump nomination and (worse) a Trump Presidency would be incredibly destructive to the GOP, to the Conservative Movement, and to the Republic. A Hillary Presidency risks being incredibly destructive to the Republic, but at least will face opposition from a united GOP and conservative movement, which can pick up the pieces. There's no one to pick up the pieces but the socialists after Trump.
Click to expand...

Just how would a Hillary Presidency be less destructive than Trump's such that the GOP opposition can pick up the pieces after her?
Why couldn't a GOP Congress direct Trump away from what you see as something other than Conservative without leaving pieces that have to be picked up?
Think of the stark differences between the 2.

Is 4 years of Obama II something you're willing to chance?
I have to say, I haven't heard this kind of thing from anyone besides Beck and he's become quite the raging nutball.
 
Dittohead not! said:
My bad. It's actually in the Rules of the Republican Party. It's the general election that is in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Rule number 1 of the Republican Party is: Identify all possible options. Number 2 is: Select the absolutely dumbest one of those options. Number 3: Act on it.

Number 4: Stand around looking stupid when things don't work out. Number 5: Blame a republican. Number 6: Start over again with rule 1.

Laugh if you want, but it works every time. The GOP establishment remains in power because nobody else wants to look that stupid.
 
ocean515 said:
Au contraire, if a candidate arrives at the Convention as the clear leader in delegates, and they do not get the nomination, it's because the deal was taken from them by the delegates and party apparatus. That is a fact.

To support such a conclusion, what if none of the candidates who ran in the primary reaches the required number of delegates in subsequent ballots? Obviously the delegates would have to come up with someone else. If they did, this most certainly would indicate the nomination was taken from the leading candidate, and in fact all candidates who ran, and not because the candidates couldn't close the deal. The deal was closed in their faces.

As I have written elsewhere, this would be political suicide for the party.
Click to expand...

You confuse fact with opinion. No one has anything to be taken away from them until they reach a majority of delegates, which is 1237. If you have 1236 pledge delegates when you get to convention, you have not won, and therefore nothing was taken from them if they do not get the nomination. If you want to win, you have to reach 1237, and until you reach 1237, the nomination is not yours. Those are facts.

If you do not have possession of something, it cannot be taken away from you. That is a fact. No one has possession of the nomination until they win it. That is a fact. Therefore, if a candidate does not reach 1237 delegates, they cannot have the nomination taken from them, as they never possessed it. That is a fact.
 
bubbabgone said:
Just how would a Hillary Presidency be less destructive than Trump's such that the GOP opposition can pick up the pieces after her?
Click to expand...

Because the GOP and the conservative movement would be able to unite against Hillary's liberal authoritarianism. They wouldn't be able to do so against Trump's.

Why couldn't a GOP Congress direct Trump away from what you see as something other than Conservative without leaving pieces that have to be picked up?
Click to expand...

No - Trump would have just won a Presidential election by running over everyone, and would have zero reason to change the way he has done business for decades. Trump will do his best to reshape the party in his own image - that of militant nationalism, liberal authoritarianism, and know-nothingism. He would seek to impose his will upon the party, and split it between those who are willing to submit to liberal authoritarianism, and those who are not. The result would be a civil war within the Republican Party and Conservative movement, and we will spend the next 4 years tearing at each other. Imagine four years of this primary, with Democrats spending the entire time looking like the non-insane adults in the room. Then we go into 2020, where we have to defend the 2014 Senate gains that gave us the Senate. It will be a blow-out, not least because each Republican running will be fighting off other Republicans and the Democrat, who will have unified the other half of the electorate behind them. Furthermore, the data pretty strongly states that Trump will shift Hispanics into the Democrat party as solidly as African Americans are now, meaning that the GOP wouldn't be competitive in a national election for a generation. Trump will set the conservative movement back by decades.

Is 4 years of Obama II something you're willing to chance?
Click to expand...

The last four years have featured general gridlock. I will take that over Trump, absolutely.

I have to say, I haven't heard this kind of thing from anyone besides Beck and he's become quite the raging nutball.
Click to expand...

Then I would recommend you pay more attention to the conservative movement outside of FOX. Start by checking out the authors in National Review's Against Trump, or searching for #NeverTrump.

Mini Super Tuesday: 2/3 of GOP Non-Trump Supporters Say They'd Vote for 3rd Party in Election

There are quite a lot of us that take a look at this would-be authoritarian liberal who verbally abuses women, who bullies and viciously attacks anyone who gets in his way, whose movement is at least proto-fascist, and say "Nope."
 
bubbabgone said:
Just how would a Hillary Presidency be less destructive than Trump's such that the GOP opposition can pick up the pieces after her?
Why couldn't a GOP Congress direct Trump away from what you see as something other than Conservative without leaving pieces that have to be picked up?
Think of the stark differences between the 2.

Is 4 years of Obama II something you're willing to chance?
I have to say, I haven't heard this kind of thing from anyone besides Beck and he's become quite the raging nutball.
Click to expand...

What if the GOP loses the Senate? There won't be enough people to pick up the pieces - that's how we got Obamacare, if you recall. The GOP better get their act together and do it fairly! Disenfranchising millions of voters is NOT the way to go, IMO. In an odd way, Trump has shown the country just how our votes don't really matter, and I'm uncomfortable knowing that because I live here, dammit! I'm not ready to live with the repercussions that could impact our entire political system and way of life because of a group that hates to lose the power they've garnered over the years! :thumbdown:

Leaving now for a short trip to NC - back later today....
 
polgara said:
What if the GOP loses the Senate? There won't be enough people to pick up the pieces - that's how we got Obamacare, if you recall. The GOP better get their act together and do it fairly! Disenfranchising millions of voters is NOT the way to go, IMO. In an odd way, Trump has shown the country just how our votes don't really matter, and I'm uncomfortable knowing that because I live here, dammit! I'm not ready to live with the repercussions that could impact our entire political system and way of life because of a group that hates to lose the power they've garnered over the years! :thumbdown:

Leaving now for a short trip to NC - back later today....
Click to expand...

If the GOP loses the senate, it will be by 1 or 2 senators. It takes 60 to do anything meaningful, and a democratic president would not have that without some support from republicans. And the house is not going to flip, it will remain in republican control. One of the concerns cpwill and others have is that Trump at the top of the GOP ticket would potentially make the senate going democratic more likely, and cost some seats in the house.
 
Redress said:
If Trump arrives at the convention with a majority of the delegates, he will win. That is the rules. But if he does not have the majority of the delegates, the convention will be contested and he very well may not win. That is also the rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. What does that have to do with the point?
 
Dittohead not! said:
On that, you may be right.
Nominating Trump would also be political suicide for the party.

So, its heads the Democrats win, tails the Republicans lose.

Or, if you prefer, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Click to expand...

If it means suicide for the Republican Party to nominate Trump, it may be that certain members of said party would be welcomed to carry out the possibility.
 
Redress said:
You confuse fact with opinion. No one has anything to be taken away from them until they reach a majority of delegates, which is 1237. If you have 1236 pledge delegates when you get to convention, you have not won, and therefore nothing was taken from them if they do not get the nomination. If you want to win, you have to reach 1237, and until you reach 1237, the nomination is not yours. Those are facts.

If you do not have possession of something, it cannot be taken away from you. That is a fact. No one has possession of the nomination until they win it. That is a fact. Therefore, if a candidate does not reach 1237 delegates, they cannot have the nomination taken from them, as they never possessed it. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion.
 
cpwill said:
No, it is an accurate point, as is yours. No one has "the people" backing them, no one has a majority of delegates (yet) backing them, and no one has or will win a majority of Republicans backing them. "The Voters" are not voting for Trump. They are voting at this point for several people.

The Delegates will decide if The Voters don't give someone 1,237 on the first ballot. That's not anyone stealing anything - it's the rules.
Click to expand...

The rules vary state to state, but generally after the first ballot if there is no winner many of the delegates will be free to swap the allegiance. I believe this will be how Trump is denied, he is a sore loser and will go 3rd party, despite the RNC promise he made, bet my next pay check.
 
Redress said:
You confuse fact with opinion. No one has anything to be taken away from them until they reach a majority of delegates, which is 1237. If you have 1236 pledge delegates when you get to convention, you have not won, and therefore nothing was taken from them if they do not get the nomination. If you want to win, you have to reach 1237, and until you reach 1237, the nomination is not yours. Those are facts.

If you do not have possession of something, it cannot be taken away from you. That is a fact. No one has possession of the nomination until they win it. That is a fact. Therefore, if a candidate does not reach 1237 delegates, they cannot have the nomination taken from them, as they never possessed it. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that we may find ourselves explaining this a lot, in the coming couple of months, to people who refuse to accept it.
 
yankintx said:
The rules vary state to state, but generally after the first ballot if there is no winner many of the delegates will be free to swap the allegiance. I believe this will be how Trump is denied, he is a sore loser and will go 3rd party, despite the RNC promise he made, bet my next pay check.
Click to expand...

No. After the first ballot, 5 % of the pledge delegates are released. If no one gets to 1237, then for the next ballot, 57 % of pledge delegates are released, and so on until some one reached 1237. See: http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/1/1052/1552/USA-ELECTION-DELEGATES.jpg

USA-ELECTION-DELEGATES.jpg
 
humbolt said:
Rule number 1 of the Republican Party is: Identify all possible options. Number 2 is: Select the absolutely dumbest one of those options. Number 3: Act on it.

Number 4: Stand around looking stupid when things don't work out. Number 5: Blame a republican. Number 6: Start over again with rule 1.

Laugh if you want, but it works every time. The GOP establishment remains in power because nobody else wants to look that stupid.
Click to expand...

Given the rise of Donald Trump, your rules #1, 2, and 3 just might be real.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Given the rise of Donald Trump, your rules #1, 2, and 3 just might be real.
Click to expand...

This election is theirs to lose. It has been since they took power in congress back in 2014. The record since then is dead flat, and their constant positioning for this election during that period may cost them that very election they so eagerly sought.
 
Redress said:
No. After the first ballot, 5 % of the pledge delegates are released. If no one gets to 1237, then for the next ballot, 57 % of pledge delegates are released, and so on until some one reached 1237. See: http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/1/1052/1552/USA-ELECTION-DELEGATES.jpg

USA-ELECTION-DELEGATES.jpg
Click to expand...

I used the word "many" as 57% is a majority released for the second. Were are you coming up with only 5% of the delegates? Unless I missing something, which is possible as I am puffing on some legal weed.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
This election is theirs to lose. It has been since they took power in congress back in 2014. The record since then is dead flat, and their constant positioning for this election during that period may cost them that very election they so eagerly sought.
Click to expand...
Precisely what did you expect them to accomplish, with a President who refused to work with others?

The result of divided government is gridlock. If you have a problem with that, then, respectfully, your beef is with James Madison, not the 2014 Congress.
 
cpwill said:
Precisely what did you expect them to accomplish, with a President who refused to work with others?

The result of divided government is gridlock. If you have a problem with that, then, respectfully, your beef is with James Madison, not the 2014 Congress.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect them to accomplish a damn thing. I did expect them to make a more sustained and serious effort to stop Obama. Politics is largely perception, and I expected them to come out and say exactly what it was they stopped, and why that was a good thing. I expected there should be media and cameras around when they made such announcements so that the public would understand what they've done, and why. These bozos couldn't seem to manage that, and it's an essential thing. Despite all that Trump might be that we dislike, he has shown the GOP establishment how to deal with the media, and it's a lesson they sorely need.
 
humbolt said:
I didn't expect them to accomplish a damn thing. I did expect them to make a more sustained and serious effort to stop Obama.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, they succeeded. We've had gridlock the last two years.

Politics is largely perception, and I expected them to come out and say exactly what it was they stopped, and why that was a good thing. I expected there should be media and cameras around when they made such announcements so that the public would understand what they've done, and why.
Click to expand...

:lamo you expected the MSM to cooperate? It's not the GOP's fault if you didn't bother to listen to them, dude.

These bozos couldn't seem to manage that, and it's an essential thing. Despite all that Trump might be that we dislike, he has shown the GOP establishment how to deal with the media, and it's a lesson they sorely need.
Click to expand...

So... The GOP accomplished what you wanted them to, but didn't act like assclowns on television. You demand more assclownery.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom