2016 Presidential Campaign

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Getting closer to a Trump vs. Hill the Shrill general election in November.

God help us....

Trump would kick her arse!

[johnnylightnin]

Getting closer to a Trump vs. Hill the Shrill general election in November.

God help us....

What we're approaching at light speed is an open convention. It won't be the death sentence many make it out to be. It'll be a TON of media coverage and could be what puts the GOP candidate over the top. Trump will NOT hit 1237...neither will Cruz.

Buckle-up!

[T1]

What we're approaching at light speed is an open convention. It won't be the death sentence many make it out to be. It'll be a TON of media coverage and could be what puts the GOP candidate over the top. Trump will NOT hit 1237...neither will Cruz.

Buckle-up!

I don't like how Trump is telling everyone it's rigged and unfair and he deserves it and if he doesn't get it there will be riots. If he keeps talking this way, he is justifying a war. He needs to say he doesn't like the system, but this has been in place for 150 years and we need to look into changing it. Another reason he doesn't need to be president... doesn't have the temperament for the job.

[johnnylightnin]

If he keeps talking this way, he is justifying a war.

Trump is a talker, not a fighter. Despite some of his more rambunctious fans, the VAST majority of Trump supporters are not anarchists who want "war". They like the guy and think he's a good option...then, whether they say so or not, when someone else is the nominee against Hillary, they'll vote for that person (be it Cruz or someone else).

[RhythmDawg]

I don't like how Trump is telling everyone it's rigged and unfair and he deserves it and if he doesn't get it there will be riots. If he keeps talking this way, he is justifying a war. He needs to say he doesn't like the system, but this has been in place for 150 years and we need to look into changing it. Another reason he doesn't need to be president... doesn't have the temperament for the job.

I'm not defending Trump, but when was the last time you heard him mention riots? Been a while? Outside of that, I have no problem with him saying it's rigged and unfair. In ways, it is. Regarding his belief that he deserves it, he probably believes that. What's wrong with him saying it? Politicians on both sides are saying things that are much worse and less true.

[T1]

I'm not defending Trump, but when was the last time you heard him mention riots? Been a while? Outside of that, I have no problem with him saying it's rigged and unfair. In ways, it is. Regarding his belief that he deserves it, he probably believes that. What's wrong with him saying it? Politicians on both sides are saying things that are much worse and less true.

This is what he said last night after his big win in NY:

"We don't have much of a race anymore. Senator Cruz is mathematically eliminated. We have millions of more votes than Senator Cruz. We have 300 more delegates than Senator Cruz. It's really nice to win the delegates with the votes, you know? Nobody should be given delegates. That's not fair. Even though we can't be beat, nobody should take delegates without votes. The people aren't going to stand for it. It's a rigged system. It's a crooked system. We are going to be going back to the old way, it's called you vote and you win. Nobody can take an election away with the way they are doing it in the Republican Party. Bernie wins, wins, wins, and they say he has no chance. But the Republican system is worse."

He's saying he's won. It's over. Now they are trying to steal it from him. But nobody's changed any rules (this is the old way). Well, Colorado did last year, but it had nothing to do with Trump. "The people aren't going to stand for this" implies his supporters are going to raise hell if they "steal" the nomination from him. It's wreckless and inciteful. He should just say he doesn't like the system and would like to see some reform to where a plurality of votes wins the election. I think that's what he's trying to say, but it comes out inciteful.

[RhythmDawg]

This is what he said last night after his big win in NY:

"We don't have much of a race anymore. Senator Cruz is mathematically eliminated. We have millions of more votes than Senator Cruz. We have 300 more delegates than Senator Cruz. It's really nice to win the delegates with the votes, you know? Nobody should be given delegates. That's not fair. Even though we can't be beat, nobody should take delegates without votes. The people aren't going to stand for it. It's a rigged system. It's a crooked system. We are going to be going back to the old way, it's called you vote and you win. Nobody can take an election away with the way they are doing it in the Republican Party. Bernie wins, wins, wins, and they say he has no chance. But the Republican system is worse."

He's saying he's won. It's over. Now they are trying to steal it from him. But nobody's changed any rules (this is the old way). Well, Colorado did last year, but it had nothing to do with Trump. "The people aren't going to stand for this" implies his supporters are going to raise hell if they "steal" the nomination from him. It's wreckless and inciteful. He should just say he doesn't like the system and would like to see some reform to where a plurality of votes wins the election. I think that's what he's trying to say, but it comes out inciteful.

I heard it when he said it. I agree that it is wreckless and inciteful. Some would call it call it provocative...which is what they like about him. The point is, he didn't say anything about riots. In his defense, they changed the rules in 2012. They will change them pre-convention again this year, and it will be done in such a way as to make a certain outcome more likely.

[Woof!]

"The people aren't going to stand for this" implies his supporters are going to raise hell if they "steal" the nomination from him. It's wreckless and inciteful. He should just say he doesn't like the system and would like to see some reform to where a plurality of votes wins the election. I think that's what he's trying to say, but it comes out inciteful.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/09/news...ce-riot-armor/

[T1]

They didn't change the most important rule... you have to have a majority of the delegates before you can claim a win. Without a majority of the delegates, the convention is contested. He hasn't won anything until he hits 1,237 bound delegates. Same thing happened in 1860:

1st ballot

Seward: 173.5 delegates (37%)
Lincoln: 102 delegates (22%)
Cameron: 50.5 delegates (11%)
10 Others: 139 delegates (30%)


Contested convention

2nd ballot

Seward: 184.5
Lincoln: 181
Cameron: 2
10 others: 97

3rd ballot

Seward: 180
Lincoln: 231.5
Cameron: 0
10 others: 53

It would be interesting to see if Seward thought "they" were out to get him and the system was rigged against him.

[RhythmDawg]

They didn't change the most important rule... you have to have a majority of the delegates before you can claim a win. Without a majority of the delegates, the convention is contested. He hasn't won anything until he hits 1,237 bound delegates. Same thing happened in 1860:

1st ballot

Seward: 173.5 delegates (37%)
Lincoln: 102 delegates (22%)
Cameron: 50.5 delegates (11%)
10 Others: 139 delegates (30%)


Contested convention

2nd ballot

Seward: 184.5
Lincoln: 181
Cameron: 2
10 others: 97

3rd ballot

Seward: 180
Lincoln: 231.5
Cameron: 0
10 others: 53

It would be interesting to see if Seward thought "they" were out to get him and the system was rigged against him.

He did. Chicanery I believe was the word, among others.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

That looks like a typical Democrat convention or Obama gathering.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I agree with Trump on this one per the GOP. Trump, "It's a rigged system. It's a crooked system". And IMHO the Dem's is just as bad or worse.

[dawg80]

Not saying I agree with either the Repub or the democrap parties and their rules, but, it needs to be pointed out (again) that political parties are private organizations and they can make their own rules. That is true of ALL political parties. In that respect they are no different than the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, or private country clubs, and other such organizations. They establish a charter and vote, among themselves, to set the rules.

Just because candidates to get a political party's nomination are seeking "public" office does not mean the "public" has any real say in it. Now, theoretically, the general election is supposed to be a fair vote, by the "public" to determine the winner. Again, in theory, that is why political parties want to hold primaries, so as to get a measure of what the "public" is likely to do in the general election. Otherwise, any party, Repubs and democraps alike, could just hold their conventions and then present their nominee for the general election. That is what the minor parties do now. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Taxpayer Party, and about a dozen others all determine their nominee at a convention, because they can't afford to conduct a nationwide primary election.

Even this year, both the Repubs and the 'craps could select ANYONE they want at their convention. It's their organization, their rules.....period.

[Soonerdawg]

Not saying I agree with either the Repub or the democrap parties and their rules, but, it needs to be pointed out (again) that political parties are private organizations and they can make their own rules. That is true of ALL political parties. In that respect they are no different than the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, or private country clubs, and other such organizations. They establish a charter and vote, among themselves, to set the rules.

Just because candidates to get a political party's nomination are seeking "public" office does not mean the "public" has any real say in it. Now, theoretically, the general election is supposed to be a fair vote, by the "public" to determine the winner. Again, in theory, that is why political parties want to hold primaries, so as to get a measure of what the "public" is likely to do in the general election. Otherwise, any party, Repubs and democraps alike, could just hold their conventions and then present their nominee for the general election. That is what the minor parties do now. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Taxpayer Party, and about a dozen others all determine their nominee at a convention, because they can't afford to conduct a nationwide primary election.

Even this year, both the Repubs and the 'craps could select ANYONE they want at their convention. It's their organization, their rules.....period.

This post is, as Lisa would say, is "dead on balls accurate." Trump is a businessman and he knows this is truth. But to a populist, truth is of no moment. All that matters is how you can stir up the masses. Trump is a lying sack of shit, yet the Republicans will nominate him, then blame me when I won't vote for him.

[skilldawg]

This post is, as Lisa would say, is "dead on balls accurate." Trump is a businessman and he knows this is truth. But to a populist, truth is of no moment. All that matters is how you can stir up the masses. Trump is a lying sack of shit, yet the Republicans will nominate him, then blame me when I won't vote for him.

Seems like if he is so smart, he would have figured out the rules before he started and then played in accordance with those rules. The most important rule is if you have the greatest number of delegates, you get to write the rules.