|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 11997515)
I mean, if you were expecting in-depth analysis or hard-hitting commentary, of course you were going to be disappointed.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11997594)
How dare you! My posts are fcking genius, and you should be grateful you get them for free.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11997594)
How dare you! My posts are fcking genius, and you should be grateful you get them for free.
Anyone care to comment on the WSJ article setting forth efforts to change the rules at the Republican convention that would allow all delegates to "vote their conscience" on the first ballot and perhaps deny Trump the nomination? Anti-Donald Trump Forces See Convention Coup as Within Reach - WSJ The "never-Trump" people apparently believe that with the rule change only about 900 delegates would vote with Trump on the first round and thus open it up to a White Knight. Personally I think it's too late, would fuel the sense that the system is rigged, would tear the party apart and ensure Hillary's election. Maybe Mook planted the story. YMMV. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997706)
Agree with the Sultan. We are deeply indebted to Zargof for so generously and freely sharing his genius with us.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997706)
Anyone care to comment on the WSJ article setting forth efforts to change the rules at the Republican convention that would allow all delegates to "vote their conscience" on the first ballot and perhaps deny Trump the nomination? Anti-Donald Trump Forces See Convention Coup as Within Reach - WSJ
The "never-Trump" people apparently believe that with the rule change only about 900 delegates would vote with Trump on the first round and thus open it up to a White Knight. Personally I think it's too late, would fuel the sense that the system is rigged, would tear the party apart and ensure Hillary's election. Maybe Mook planted the story. YMMV. I don't feel that Trump is going to be the nominee proper anyway, myself. Either by his own action, or that of the party, we'll have someone else running under the GOP ticket. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997706)
Agree with the Sultan. We are deeply indebted to Zargof for so generously and freely sharing his genius with us.
Anyone care to comment on the WSJ article setting forth efforts to change the rules at the Republican convention that would allow all delegates to "vote their conscience" on the first ballot and perhaps deny Trump the nomination? Anti-Donald Trump Forces See Convention Coup as Within Reach - WSJ The "never-Trump" people apparently believe that with the rule change only about 900 delegates would vote with Trump on the first round and thus open it up to a White Knight. Personally I think it's too late, would fuel the sense that the system is rigged, would tear the party apart and ensure Hillary's election. Maybe Mook planted the story. YMMV. I think this was where I read it http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...eturns/490271/ |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11997716)
I don't think they have enough supporters to effect such a rule change. Another softer suggestion I saw (can't remember where, don't think it was official) was that nominees should release their tax returns before the first ballot. This both forces Trump to actually release his and allows the delegates to go "woah" as they did a little too late when Romney finally released his.
I think this was where I read it Can the GOP Force Donald Trump to Release His Tax Returns Before It Nominates Him? - The Atlantic Never Trump is never happening at the RNC - POLITICO Another question would be what would Republican voters do if they did some how replace Trump? He won the nomination fair and square. He got the required number of delegates and got the majority (not sure if it was absolute or not) of voters. How can they justify delegitimizing what the voters wishes were? And if they did would the damage to the GOP be worse than what Trump is causing? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11997763)
Another question would be what would Republican voters do if they did some how replace Trump? He won the nomination fair and square. He got the required number of delegates and got the majority (not sure if it was absolute or not) of voters. How can they justify delegitimizing what the voters wishes were? And if they did would the damage to the GOP be worse than what Trump is causing?
The choice isn't any better on the other side, but the Ds always circle the wagons and go for the win. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997796)
Agree with all you say. As a Republican I'd vote for the replacement,
but, changing the rules now would rip the party apart and the Donald would take a large number of his supporters with him. Either he'd run as 3rd party ("they didn't treat him fairly") |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11997805)
There's always the theory that Trump just likes the winning part and doesn't actually want to be the nominee/president. Having won the nomination (yuge victory!) and seeing a landslide loss ahead backs out before getting bloodied, claiming he would have won against Hillary had he stayed in but *unexplained reason* means he can't.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11997805)
There's always the theory that Trump just likes the winning part and doesn't actually want to be the nominee/president. Having won the nomination (yuge victory!) and seeing a landslide loss ahead backs out before getting bloodied, claiming he would have won against Hillary had he stayed in but *unexplained reason* means he can't.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11997805)
No matter who the replacement was? Cruz/Palin 2016!
[Hey, not Cruz/Palin! There are limits.] There's always the theory that Trump just likes the winning part and doesn't actually want to be the nominee/president. Having won the nomination (yuge victory!) and seeing a landslide loss ahead backs out before getting bloodied, claiming he would have won against Hillary had he stayed in but *unexplained reason* means he can't. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997815)
Maybe feels the need to spend more time with his family? One could only hope.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11997819)
Didn't he say he wanted to bone his daughter?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997508)
What's the point? This is not a serious thread. The Trey Gowdy thing is symptomatic of what happens when just about everyone who is not left or centre-left (with the exception of Boiler) has abandoned it for the reason that we don't feel like being abused with ugly ad hominem attacks when we do post.
For a thread with interesting posts and reasoned and cogent analysis, take a look at the Brexit thread. No, sorry, don't go there. Please don't go there. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11997831)
What's your problem? You seem to have come on here specifically to insult me and get me to respond to your drivel. I've tried to be nice to you and give you the benefit of the doubt but you continue to behave like a toddler. If you don't like me or my posts then just don't read them. It's not that difficult.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:49 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.