PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on June 08, 2016, 03:26:45 PM
-
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” it continues. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282782-trump-asked-for-meaningful-climate-change-policy-in-2009
-
Wait. OK.
This is my shocked face.
-
it's not hard to guess that JeffDG would post something critical of the donald.
-
it's not hard to guess that JeffDG would post something critical of the donald.
If he didn't say such dumbshit things on a daily or hourly basis, I'd have nothing to post, would I?
-
If he didn't say such dumbshit things on a daily or hourly basis, I'd have nothing to post, would I?
Well, that's true.
But I notice you never say anything about Hillary. I wonder why that is?
-
Well, that's true.
But I notice you never say anything about Hillary. I wonder why that is?
That's obvious.
-
And once again the focus shifts to Jeff and not Trump's very recent history as a leftist.
-
Well, that's true.
But I notice you never say anything about Hillary. I wonder why that is?
Nobody here is advocating voting for Hillary, so why waste the electrons?
-
And once again the focus shifts to Jeff and not Trump's very recent history as a leftist.
Deflection and ad hominem, basically aping Trump himself.
-
Trump won, Cruz was crushed. You'll have Hillary, Trump or Johnson to vote for or no one. Pick one and move the fuck on.
-
I think it's useful that posts about Trump's inconsistencies, half truths, flip flops and lies get posted. There may be people reading this forum that aren't active posters. That is very common. Of those people, there may be some that haven't really made up their mind about Trump yet and everybody sees his bombastic stuff in the MSM, but it's good to show the other side as well.
-
If he didn't say such dumbshit things on a daily or hourly basis, I'd have nothing to post, would I?
You never posted anything before the donald became a candidate?
-
You never posted anything before the donald became a candidate?
What is with this "the Donald" thing??
-
Trump won, Cruz was crushed. You'll have Hillary, Trump or Johnson to vote for or no one. Pick one and move the fuck on.
None of the Above.
-
What is with this "the Donald" thing??
I don't quite remember exactly when and where I started to use it.
some time ago, I saw the donald being referred to ... I think some people were trying to push the concept that he only needs a first name.
In any case, it's an appropriate match to the doormat.
-
None of the Above.
You may choose "none of the above", but "one of the above" will win and be President.
Which one do you think it will be?
I do realize there is a movement afoot to replace Trump at the Convention with someone else. That will be interesting, but I don't believe it will actually happen. And if it does, I doubt the new nominee would have a real chance, so we are back to one of the original three.
-
Nixon?
-
I don't quite remember exactly when and where I started to use it.
some time ago, I saw the donald being referred to ... I think some people were trying to push the concept that he only needs a first name.
In any case, it's an appropriate match to the doormat.
I think the Douche bag is a better fit. The Douche Bag vs. the Doormat. That about sums it up. I'll vote Gary Johnson before either of these. There have to be millions of us praying for a September surprise candidate.
-
I do realize there is a movement afoot to replace Trump at the Convention with someone else. That will be interesting, but I don't believe it will actually happen. And if it does, I doubt the new nominee would have a real chance, so we are back to one of the original three.
Replacing Trump is a bad idea since it will hand the election to Hilary. Though if it does happen it may be the catalyst to end the RNC, which may not be a bad thing as long as the correct people emerge from the ashes.
-
Replacing Trump is a bad idea since it will hand the election to Hilary. Though if it does happen it may be the catalyst to end the RNC, which may not be a bad thing as long as the correct people emerge from the ashes.
I'm not sure how nominating the donald doesn't hand the election to the doormat.
-
I'm not sure how nominating the donald doesn't hand the election to the doormat.
Even if you are right, the key part is that Donald earned the votes to run against her.
-
Even if you are right, the key part is that Donald earned the votes to run against her.
you said that replacing the donald would hand the election to the doormat. my fear is that nominating the donald already handed the election to the corrupt doormat. The key part being we won't be any worse off replacing the donald on the GOP ticket.
(I'm making absolutely no claim that the donald didn't win the nomination)
-
you said that replacing the donald would hand the election to the doormat. my fear is that nominating the donald already handed the election to the corrupt doormat. The key part being we won't be any worse off replacing the donald on the GOP ticket.
(I'm making absolutely no claim that the donald didn't win the nomination)
If we allow them to just ignore the legal vote of the people, then we will be far worse off.
-
I think the Douche bag is a better fit. The Douche Bag vs. the Doormat. That about sums it up. I'll vote Gary Johnson before either of these. There have to be millions of us praying for a September surprise candidate.
Or a life-ending meteor.
-
Or a life-ending meteor.
Vote SMOD 2016!
-
<---------------
-
If we allow them to just ignore the legal vote of the people, then we will be far worse off.
I'm not suggesting that legal votes get ignored. Can you not imagine a legal way to have a different nominee than the donald?
-
I'm not suggesting that legal votes get ignored. Can you not imagine a legal way to have a different nominee than the donald?
Maybe I am being dense.
Yes, I can imagine a legal way to have a different nominee, although I don't know of one.
But legal or not, if they just take the results of months of campaigning and millions of votes and throw them out and do whatever the "leaders" decide, then we are going to have a real problem. I would be saying that even if I supported Cruz. I would even be saying that if they did it to Hillary.
-
Maybe I am being dense.
Yes, I can imagine a legal way to have a different nominee, although I don't know of one.
But legal or not, if they just take the results of months of campaigning and millions of votes and throw them out and do whatever the "leaders" decide, then we are going to have a real problem. I would be saying that even if I supported Cruz. I would even be saying that if they did it to Hillary.
We are talking past each other. No one is being dense (well, maybe I'm dense because I can't seem to clearly explain my point - you keep talk about throwing out votes and I believe that can't be the only way to replace the donald)
-
I'm not suggesting that legal votes get ignored. Can you not imagine a legal way to have a different nominee than the donald?
Yes. I'm going to describe this, but am not advocating it.
Put simply, the delegates can work their will at the convention.
First, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws "binding" delegates to a candidate are not valid. The simple fact is that the delegates are private citizens, and the Republican National Convention and the Republican Party are private entities. For a state to say "You must vote for John Smith" would be the state dictating how an individual chooses to govern a private organization.
In Cousins v. Wigoda, a dispute over delegates to the 1972 Democratic Convention, the Court ruled:
The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. If the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to National Political Party Conventions were left to state law “each of the fifty states could establish the qualifications of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable result.” Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerted enterprise engaged in the vital process of choosing Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates— a process which usually involves coalitions cutting across state lines.
Then the matter turns to the rules of the convention, which are under the authority of the delegates themselves.
First, remember that the delegates are not bound to follow the 2012 rules whatsoever. But to reduce the "what-if", let's assume the 2016 convention adopts en bloc the 2012 rules with no changes. There are an infinite number of changes the delegates could make to make the selection of "Not Trump" simple and easy for them to do.
Now, the Convention can bind delegates to follow the will of the electorate. However, the last time a Republican convention explicitly required delegates to follow the results of the primaries was 1976.
One of the key rules is Rule 40(d) which requires a nominee to receive "a majority of votes entitled to be cast at the convention". That means abstentions don't count. 1,237 is the magic number. If Trump were to receive 1,236 on the first ballot, Ted Cruz (for ease of math) 1,000 and 238 abstentions, it would need to go to a second ballot. Even if it was 1,236-1,238 abstentions, it would necessitate a second ballot.
This is important as a result of Rule 16(a)(2) which directs the Secretary of the convention to not count any vote that is cast for "any person other than the candidate to whom he or she is bound". However, it does not permit the Secretary to count that vote for the person to whom he or she is bound, making someone "bound" to Trump voting for Rubio for instance, an abstention.
After the first ballot, most delegates are no longer bound under Rule 16(a)(2). Some, such as my state of TN, are bound for 2 ballots. Some states, don't ask me which, are bound in perpetuity.
So...if a sufficient number of Trump bound delegates abstain on the first/second ballots that he fails to achieve an majority, the convention would be free to work its will and select another candidate.
Some simple rule changes, for example removing Rule 16(a)(2) for example, would leave the convention open from the start.
Now, here's the interesting problem for Trump...he didn't bother with delegate selection for the most part. Many "Trump Bound" delegates are not Trump supporters, but local party officials who are going to the convention and their state vote binds them to Trump. Can enough be convinced to abstain on the first few ballots? Probably not, but it is possible, and legal.
So, you may be asking: Why is this possible? What purpose does it serve for the convention to have the freedom to ignore the voters?
Let me posit a reason:
1) Timing: A significant amount of time will have passed between when the voters voted and when the decision is finalized. Say that a week before the convention, Trump is found in a hotel room with a dead girl and is arrested and indicted for murder? (Remember the old axiom, never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy). The convention delegates would be able to take this new information into account and select another candidate
-
But legal or not, if they just take the results of months of campaigning and millions of votes and throw them out and do whatever the "leaders" decide, then we are going to have a real problem. I would be saying that even if I supported Cruz. I would even be saying that if they did it to Hillary.
It's not the leaders who decide, it's the delegates.