2016 Presidential Campaign

[T1]

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.

I don't think they will. It seems like they are distraught over this and will take the loss to Hillary to prevent a riot in Cleveland. Live to fight another day, hopefully. Hillary sounds like she will govern left of Obama.

[RhythmDawg]

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.

That is all completely true. Trump's descriptions: "It's a rigged system. It's a crooked system." Those are true also. You are just pointing out that, the parties aren't breaking the law by rigging it. They are absolutely allowed to do whatever they want. That's why I'm not complaining about it, and it's also why I'm not bashing Trump for calling it what he thinks it is.

Trump: "It's rigged."
Me: "Of course it is. Duh."

If people don't like it...as I don't...then go independent. Start your own party. Whatever. No one is requiring anyone to vote for a specific candidate. I DO like that Trump is causing many people to become a little more educated (himself included) about the process. Life is about choices. When faced with a choice in November, I will choose to vote for the republican candidate...and not because I like them or agree with them.

[T1]

It's not totally rigged. If it were, Trump would have been out 3 months ago, not leading with a good shot at getting the nomination. In fact, he has won a higher percentage of delegates than the percentage of votes he has earned (due to winner take all states). So that part is rigged in his favor. For example, he won 61% of the New York vote, but got 95% of the state delegates. He's not bitching about that is he?

If he gets 1,237 delegates, he legitimately wins the nomination. Nothing the Republicans can do about it. Fair and square... he won by the rules. If he doesn't get 1,237, a contested convention is also the rules. It is not rigged, but it is more of a representation of our form of government (Republic) than a popular vote is (Democracy).

[RhythmDawg]

It's not totally rigged. If it were, Trump would have been out 3 months ago, not leading with a good shot at getting the nomination. In fact, he has won a higher percentage of delegates than the percentage of votes he has earned (due to winner take all states). So that part is rigged in his favor. For example, he won 61% of the New York vote, but got 95% of the state delegates. He's not bitching about that is he?

If he gets 1,237 delegates, he legitimately wins the nomination. Nothing the Republicans can do about it. Fair and square... he won by the rules. If he doesn't get 1,237, a contested convention is also the rules. It is not rigged, but it is more of a representation of our form of government (Republic) than a popular vote is (Democracy).

yeah I agree with all that.

[T1]

yeah I agree with all that.

Then you should see what I mean about Donald claiming it's over and the only way he can lose is if "they" steal it from him. Nobody should raise hell if the rules are followed. If he doesn't earn a majority of the delegates, he hasn't won. He is using disinformation to incite violence because he doesn't understand the system.

[PawDawg]

Then you should see what I mean about Donald claiming it's over and the only way he can lose is if "they" steal it from him. Nobody should raise hell if the rules are followed. If he doesn't earn a majority of the delegates, he hasn't won. He is using disinformation to incite violence because he doesn't understand the system.

Sounds like the insiders already know the swing votes will not go to Trump. If he does not have the votes going in he will not get them. That's when the real propaganda will begin.

[T1]

Sounds like the insiders already know the swing votes will not go to Trump. If he does not have the votes going in he will not get them. That's when the real propaganda will begin.

This is the propaganda. He knows he wouldn't win a contested convention. He is pressuring the delegates to vote for him so there won't be a riot at the convention. It will probably work.

[RhythmDawg]

Then you should see what I mean about Donald claiming it's over and the only way he can lose is if "they" steal it from him. Nobody should raise hell if the rules are followed. If he doesn't earn a majority of the delegates, he hasn't won. He is using disinformation to incite violence because he doesn't understand the system.

Except that he is an exceptional salesman. He is selling. Many may not consider his tactics ethical (I am in no way suggesting my opinion one way or another). You are criticizing him about playing fairly in a game in which no one plays fairly. I disagree about inciting violence. He may have incited violence at one point, but he is not inciting violence...and that is my opinion, and I acknowledge that you have a different opinion. You also don't have enough information to connect his reasoning for use of those tactics to his understanding of the system, but it is perfectly fine for you to think that.

Stop making me defend Trump.

[PawDawg]

The world is disorderly and needs its leading nation to take charge and scare it back into decency. Donald Trump fits the bill. Other formidable figures, including Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, have performed a similar service in the past. But each president is unique and cast in his own mold. Trump is a man of excess - and today a man of excess is what is needed.

Paul Johnson

[T1]

Except that he is an exceptional salesman. He is selling. Many may not consider his tactics ethical (I am in no way suggesting my opinion one way or another). You are criticizing him about playing fairly in a game in which no one plays fairly. I disagree about inciting violence. He may have incited violence at one point, but he is not inciting violence...and that is my opinion, and I acknowledge that you have a different opinion. You also don't have enough information to connect his reasoning for use of those tactics to his understanding of the system, but it is perfectly fine for you to think that.

Stop making me defend Trump.

You don't have to defend him. We just have a difference in opinion. If I were a Trump supporter, he would have me mad as hell that "they" are trying to steal this election from him. I don't have time to go to Cleveland and riot, and Republicans aren't generally rioters. However, his base is an angry base to start with. He is a protest or rebellion vote against "them." If "they" steal this election from him (according to him), there are going to be some pissed off low-info Bubbas that may act out in some way. If it happens, I blame Donald Trump for inciting it. If it doesn't happen, great. A decent human, a true leader, and a good presidential candidate would be explaining the system to his supporters and what could possibly happen according to the rules of the party. (imo)

[T1]

He is vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and outrageous.

Paul Johnson

[RhythmDawg]

You don't have to defend him. We just have a difference in opinion. If I were a Trump supporter, he would have me mad as hell that "they" are trying to steal this election from him. I don't have time to go to Cleveland and riot, and Republicans aren't generally rioters. However, his base is an angry base to start with. He is a protest or rebellion vote against "them." If "they" steal this election from him (according to him), there are going to be some pissed off low-info Bubbas that may act out in some way. If it happens, I blame Donald Trump for inciting it. If it doesn't happen, great. A decent human, a true leader, and a good presidential candidate would be explaining the system to his supporters and what could possibly happen according to the rules of the party. (imo)

I agree with all that too! Except that I won't blame Trump for the choices and actions of others. Just like I don't blame democrats for all the people they brainwash either. They are all playing the game, by the rules in place. I just don't see "they might riot" being equal to telling people to riot...because it isn't the same...and he hasn't told anyone to riot. Nor has he told anyone to punch anyone in the face. He said he personally would like to punch a protester in the face. Heck, I'd like to punch some people on this board in the face...but don't you go doing it!

[T1]

I agree with all that too! Except that I won't blame Trump for the choices and actions of others. Just like I don't blame democrats for all the people they brainwash either. They are all playing the game, by the rules in place. I just don't see "they might riot" being equal to telling people to riot...because it isn't the same...and he hasn't told anyone to riot. Nor has he told anyone to punch anyone in the face. He said he personally would like to punch a protester in the face. Heck, I'd like to punch some people on this board in the face...but don't you go doing it!

He actually did. (well, not in the face specifically)

[RhythmDawg]

He actually did. (well, not in the face specifically)

Ha I missed that. Technically though, if someone threw a tomato and that person got the crap knocked out of them, one could argue they were defending people. You never know what could be inside that tomato.

[Woof!]

I agree with all that too! Except that I won't blame Trump for the choices and actions of others. Just like I don't blame democrats for all the people they brainwash either. They are all playing the game, by the rules in place. I just don't see "they might riot" being equal to telling people to riot...because it isn't the same...and he hasn't told anyone to riot. Nor has he told anyone to punch anyone in the face. He said he personally would like to punch a protester in the face. Heck, I'd like to punch some people on this board in the face...but don't you go doing it!

Uh, wrong. Using that logic if Trump says "people have every right to choose to riot at the convention and cause injury to others" is okay because he still hasn't told anyone to riot.