Trump carries

[hollohas]

He's such a tool. Literally, everything that doesn't go his way, he says is unfair. He's exactly what we've all been saying is wrong with with the country...he's an entitled, whinny asshole.

And furthermore, he knows nothing about this process. If he doesn't get the magic number, he will lose, and not because the establishment "stole" it from him. He will lose on a 2nd vote because he's done exactly NOTHING to secure delegates. Like it or not, we live in a representative form of government, and that includes the election process and always has.

If he doesn't get the required delegates, the only way to get more is to have a 2nd vote and the only way for a 2nd vote to work is to let delegates change their vote. That's the rules and that's how it works. He's doing zero to secure them, so some will switch. That's not a stolen election...that's simply the way the process works.

I'm so sick of this guy.

Now, if the GOP changes the rules to allow Kasich or someone else to be included in the 2nd vote even though they don't have the required minimum delegates, THAT would be a stolen election.

But if the 2nd vote only includes Trump and Cruz because they are the only candidates with the required delegates and Cruz wins, that's simply due process and nothing more.

[davsel]

And you see no problem with the candidate who has by far the most popular votes not getting the nomination?
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he isn't getting screwed by the system (RNC/GOPe)

[hollohas]

And you see no problem with the candidate who has by far the most popular votes not getting the nomination?
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he isn't getting screwed by the system (RNC/GOPe)

It may not be right, but that's how the electoral college works. It has changed a bit since it was devised in 1787, but the fundamentals are the same...the presidential election is not a popular vote and never has been. The way each state selects them has changed over the years, but our President has always been selected by "representatives".

It's what we do with the general election and it's what we do with the primary. Perhaps that may change one day, perhaps this election will be the catalyst, but as of right now, that's how it works.

[RblDiver]

And you see no problem with the candidate who has by far the most popular votes not getting the nomination?
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he isn't getting screwed by the system (RNC/GOPe)

Question: Imagine we're going into the convention with 10 candidates. Eight of them have 10% of the vote, one has 9%, and the last has 11%. Should the last guy get the nod because he has the most votes?

[davsel]

Question: Imagine we're going into the convention with 10 candidates. Eight of them have 10% of the vote, one has 9%, and the last has 11%. Should the last guy get the nod because he has the most votes?

I'm not going to speculate on the results of a hypothetical involving unrealistic factors.

Imagine we're going into the convention with 3 candidates. one has 60% of the vote, one has 30%, and the last has 10%. Yes, the first guy should get the nomination.

[RblDiver]

I'm not going to speculate on the results of a hypothetical involving unrealistic factors.

Imagine we're going into the convention with 3 candidates. one has 60% of the vote, one has 30%, and the last has 10%. Yes, the first guy should get the nomination.

New York City has 8.55 million people. Colorado has 5.5 million. Do you want one single city to have more weight than an entire state?

Also, that "I'm not going to speculate on the results of a hypothetical involving unrealistic factors" shows how weak your argument is. The rules are there for a reason. You have to set a cutoff. In this case, the cutoff is 50% of the delegates, period, full stop. You don't have 50? You don't win. Period, full stop.

[davsel]

Yes, that is the way it works, but has nothing to do with the electoral college when it comes to selecting nominees. The RNC and DNC make, change, and ignore their own rules.
Bernie is in the same boat.

Hopefully people will wake up and see how rigged the system has become - bought and payed for.
But I doubt it.

[hollohas]

...but has nothing to do with the electoral college when it comes to selecting nominees.

You're right and I wasn't very clear. I was using the electoral college as an example of how the nomination system is setup. If functions much the same way, "representatives" do the selecting.

If a remeber correctly, more than a couple folks at the constitutional convention expressed their worry about the potential for corruption when using an electoral college/representative election process.

Hell, up until 1913, we didn't even elect United States Senators by popular vote. Prior to that even they were elected by representatives (which at that point were actual elected representatives in the form of the state legislatures).

[davsel]

Yep - the 17th Amendment corrupted our Senate and should be repealed.

Professional politicians always find a way to stay in power.

[hollohas]

PIERS MORGAN prefers Trump over Cruz...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-means-it.html

Some highlights.

Cruz

... Cruz who is equally loathed by colleagues on both sides of the Senate for his abrasive ‘outsider’ onslaughts against pretty much everything federal government stands for...

His astonishing, and scary, ambition manifested itself publicly in 2013 when he threw one of the great tantrums in U.S. political history over Obamacare and successfully managed to shut down the government for 16 days. A self-aggrandising stunt which temporarily put 800,000 Americans out of work and cost the U.S. economy $22 billion...

...Cruz is not, as many believe Trump to be, just pandering to the hard-line Conservative right in America, he IS the hard-line Conservative right in America; a brutally ideological zealot who wants to drag his country kicking and screaming back to the very dark days of bigoted fear and hatred of government....

Hated by both sides of the Senate? Check.

Hatred of federal goverment? Check.

Actually tried to stop Obamacare? Check.

Wants to return us to a Constitutional government? Check.

He repeatedly claims that more guns mean less crime, despite all statistical evidence to the contrary. In fact, he's so gun-mad, even by Republican standards, that he makes breakfast for his family by wrapping pieces of bacon around a machine gun.

He denies the very existence of man-made climate change.

Supports guns? Check.
Not a tree hugger? Check.

But Trump, at his heart, is a businessman.

He’s spent his life doing deals, often taking extreme starting positions – whether he’s buying buildings or golf courses, or haggling over a TV show salary - to secure leverage and then negotiating back to a more reasonable place.

He’s been adopting the exact same strategy in this presidential race – to great effect.

The presidency is just another deal to Trump, albeit the biggest of his life.

To win the White House, he has to first win the Republican nomination, and he’s calculated that the best way to do that is to hammer away with tough-sounding messages on hot button Conservative issues like Islamic terrorism, immigration and abortion.

It’s undeniably made him sound at times both racist and sexist, neither of which I have ever heard him be in the ten years we’ve been friends.

But I suspect everything he’s been saying is negotiable, from his Mexican wall to short term Muslim ban.

And Trump? EVERYTHING is negotiable.

Whether you love or loathe Trump, ask yourself which is the more dangerous potential leader for America right now: a ‘deeply principled’ right wing evangelist lunatic who means exactly what he says, or a pragmatic extrovert businessman with a big mouth whose whole career has been built on compromise?

It physically pains me to say this, but Peirs is right. Cruz is a deeply principled conservative who means what he says and Trump has no principles and will compromise anything.

Liberals hate Cruz more than they hate Trump. I have had many personally tell me as much. If there were no other reasons, this one alone would be enough for me to support Cruz. But there are other reasons, the most important of which are the guy is a principled conservative that believes in small government and is extremely pro gun. That, to me is far more important than supporting an unpredictable yet entertaining blow hard for no other reason than the guy is making a mockery of the screwed up election process.