M
mary_bobo
Guest
That squeaky door is hurting himself i.e. 70% disapproval by polls. Do you really, really think he can be elected, really?
- Status
G
grotto
Guest
He should be able to be elected, really. The crux of the problem with the American electorate this time is a matter of trust. All through political history - politicians have used shady tricks/crooked/lying/run out of town on a rail, etc. Some history has been more corrupt like Tammany Hall, Boss Tweed, machine politics, Chicago Mayor Daley, people paid to vote with money or whiskey, dead people’s names used, voting twice, stuffing the ballot box, loosing boxes of votes, counting “chad” votes, not including military absentee votes, … (a long time and today we are supposed to accept that “its always been this way!”
If the American people are going to be subdued and allow the “new math” to count the votes (by using “delegates” - (and a detailed explanation of who and how they became a
“delegate” in determining who has the most PEOPLE voted votes) then everyone LOOSES!
The present POTUS exits on Jan 20, 2017 and the Speaker of the House should be the temporary POTUS while an honest / no shenanigans vote by the people is taken.
NO Super Delegates on the Democratic Party side that determined a “chosen by the machine politics” and “no bait and switch delegates” - “no one for you, two for me votes”
and “no pulling somebody out of a backroom”. by the Republicans.
G
grotto
Guest
Was an adjustment made by the GOP this afternoon regarding the number of delegates other than the 1237 Trump would need to avoid a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or Fifth Third Ballot?
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
No I dont think so. One of the GOP officials said trump may be able to win with less delegates but only if he can convince some unbound delegates to go with him. So the threshold stays the same.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
These 54 People Could Determine the Republican Nomination
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/pennsylvania_s_delegates_could_decide_donald_trump_s_fate.html
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/pennsylvania_s_delegates_could_decide_donald_trump_s_fate.html
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Both parties have rules in place to ensure that the insider gets the nomination. Both parties contain corruption, unfortunately.
If Trump does not secure the GOP domination, at least he will have exposed the corruption in politics and shown Washington insiders that the US is sick of it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, I don’t think we can be so sure the GOP process has all that much corruption in it. Neither Trump nor Cruz was the “insider” favorite. In fact, they’re practically the “anti-establishment” candidates. Now, on a more local level, it can be reasonably said that some state parties might have rigged the rules to favor one candidate or another; the ones with the caucuses or the county, district and state party conventions. But it’s pretty hard to “rig” an election in which the people actually vote.
Back when I was a Democrat activist, I worked with local, district and state conventions and, yes, they’re not hard to rig at all. Party bigwigs control them. Caucuses can be “swarmed” and often are. McGovern was the first to really do that effectively, and he sure did. His people “swarmed” the caucuses and got him the nomination, but he got massacred in the general because he didn’t really have much popular support.
That’s why more states now have voter primaries than used to be the case. Not many have conventions anymore. Caucuses are probably the least reliable of the prevalent methods. That’s what Obama did to Hillary Clinton in 2008 in Nevada. He “swarmed” the caucus with SIEU people and even hired people. That’s why Bill Clinton went on such a tirade about the Nevada caucuses. That was the beginning of the end for her.
But when it comes to actual voter primaries, about the only thing you can do is “get out the vote”, and it’s hard to do. You have to know who the people are on at least a county basis who favor your candidate. You do that with polling. Then you call them on election day, give them rides, go to their homes, give them coffee, donuts, whatever you have to do to get out the vote. You hold election parties. And you have to have poll checkers at every polling station to see who still has to be brought in. There’s more to it than just that, but that’s the nub of it.
That’s why the primaries that are least subject to rigging are the primaries in which people actually vote. You see, the other candidates’ activists are doing the very same thing.
As a consequence, a lot of the “get out the vote” work has gone by the wayside, and now media advertising has taken the place of a lot of it.
So, when it comes to “insider” stuff, the ones with the party conventions are the most vulnerable to rigging. Caucus states are next. But popular vote primaries are as close to straight as the system gets.
That’s why Trump went on such tirades himself. Colorado was a convention state and that’s why he complains that it was “rigged”. That’s why he keeps talking about how he has two million more votes or whatever it is. He isn’t at all articulate about it, and it’s still “playing by the rules”. He is more popular than Cruz by voter head count, but Cruz has better “engineering” going when “engineering” matters most.
A
anon67074017
Guest
I am okay with Paul Ryan stating that he will not accept the GOP nomination. I do not trust him that much. He owns stock in The Walt Disney Company, which is quite liberal. He has also received campaign contributions from Disney. I don’t think someone who is partnered with one of the most liberal corporations in America should be the GOP nominee.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ryan isn’t running, and he isn’t going to run. So it’s moot.
I own stock in Conoco Phillips. Does that mean I’m causing global warming? It’s pretty hard to invest in anything without there being something negative one could say about it.
On the other hand, one could put one’s money in a CD and get 1/2% interest on it. But then, do we know for sure the bank hasn’t wrongly foreclosed on someone, or loaned money to somebody who couldn’t afford it? After all, the banks pay 1/2% or 1 1/2% and charge 4% interest. Isn’t that usury according to some?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m hopeful that people aren’t falling for this kind of “stuff”. We’re seeing pretty much unprecedented attacks against the GOP, and yet you try to justify them by pointing to problems on *both *sides of the aisle. It’s such sickening hypocrisy.
A
anon67074017
Guest
You are not directly causing global warming by owning that stock. I am just pointing out that Congressman Ryan partners with a corporation that hates conservative values. I don’t know enough about financial stuff to answer your other questions.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
I completely agree with you, Lily.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you, queenofheartscv.
P
powerofk
Guest
Lots of people own stock in companies that they don’t agree with. There’s several reasons for this - many people own stocks through mutual funds, pension plans, index funds. In this case, they often don’t have much control over which stocks they own, and often end up with stocks in companies that have policies they don’t agree with (unfortunately, word gets out that they have stock in such-and-such a company). In fact, many politicians own what are called “blind mutual funds” - in which they have no power (and often no direct knowledge) about what stocks they own. Often, actually, the public finds out what stocks are held by that politician before the politician does!
Another reason why someone might own stock in a company he/she doesn’t agree with is the held opinion (no matter how flaud) that he/she might have the opportunity - especially if there are enough like-minded investors - to move the company in a different direction.
So I wouldn’t condemn Ryan for holding stock in Disney (btw, Walt Disney is probably rolling in his grave at the direction of the company he started; Disney himself was quite conservative and a life-long Republican. This current direction at Disney dates primarily from the late 1980s, and for about the first decade was covert - playing through hidden subliminal messages in the so-called “Disney Renaissance” movies; overt “Progressive” messaging at Disney didn’t start until the GWB administration), like I wouldn’t condemn Hillary for owning stock in ExxonMobil.
But I digress. Honestly, if the GOP ends up not agreeing on any of the current candidates still running and needs to find a compromise candidate, I would say they should start looking at a retired general or admiral. Generals/admirals are almost always “outsiders” in politics - they generally stay out of the fray; they have experience listening to people and giving orders; they have experience working with foreign powers. Obviously, most of their personal views on things aren’t well known because they’re required to keep them to themselves, but there have to be some out there that are willing to take a public stand on our culture war issues. And as there are female and minority generals/admirals out there, maybe one of them can be tapped to blunt Hillary.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/wow-anti-trump-rnc-delegate-says-shell-vote-hillary-trump-video/
Rina is a RNC delegate heading to the convention. She said she would vote for hillary before voting for trump.
Trump had to sign a pledge to not break from the party and yet this kind of person is allowed to be a convention delegate?
This is playing by the rules? This is not rigged?
Rina is a RNC delegate heading to the convention. She said she would vote for hillary before voting for trump.
Trump had to sign a pledge to not break from the party and yet this kind of person is allowed to be a convention delegate?
This is playing by the rules? This is not rigged?
A
anon67074017
Guest
I like the idea of a retired general or admiral being the nominee. They would court the military vote for the GOP. It would especially be useful against Sanders. Sanders would want plenty of loyal soldiers to fight for him. If a lot of the soldiers vote for the GOP candidate, the same soldiers would be less likely to be willing to serve under Sanders.
G
Good_Tidings
Guest
But they like Sanders because he is willing to take care of them once they get home. It’s a big deal.
A
anon67074017
Guest
I guess he is like “Father Bernie” to them.
J
jcwit
Guest
Rules are rules, right? But that does not mean the rules are right. We have rules regarding Gay rights, does that make the rule right? We have rules regarding Abortion, does that make the rules right?
The rules the GOP have in place are all screw up, to say the least!
The rules the GOP have in place are all screw up, to say the least!
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The person chosen should be the best person to lead the country, not the best to “court” votes.
- Status