|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I saw a conspiracy about Trump paying people to protest at his rallies.
It would make sense, look at the crowd reactions to protestors being kicked out/assaulted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
US foreign policy is pretty bipartisan, and has largely been so for a long time. The whole left/right wing being pro/anti war is specious. This is especially so when you move beyond rhetoric, and analyse the actions undertaken.
I would look at George W Bush as an outlier, and call out the removal of Saddam as something uniquely "warmongering" in the modern era. Especially in terms of scale.
The Kosovo war under Clinton was done for humanitarian motivations. There was no national strategic interest in being involved. Same with the intervention in Somalia.
Clinton is no more or less a war monger than any other candidate. Sanders would be the only candidate of either party that would be less likely to engage in military actions overseas.
Edited by AzzaMarch: 21/3/2016 09:52:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Imagine a Republican president visiting Cuba.
Wouldn't fit with the right wing ideology of simplism & demonisation....:lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
11.mvfc.11 wrote:TheDecider wrote:11.mvfc.11 wrote:433 wrote:TheDecider wrote:"Trump will conquer the Lizard people!!!111"
- MVFC11, 433, other idiots Shit multi tbh Appropriate for the two of you, then.  God damnit. Why isn't trump promising world war 3 with Russia, like Hilary and Sanders
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
I want either Trump or Sanders in the White House.
|
|
|
|
|
TheDecider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 402,
Visits: 0
|
11.mvfc.11 wrote:433 wrote:TheDecider wrote:"Trump will conquer the Lizard people!!!111"
- MVFC11, 433, other idiots Shit multi tbh Appropriate for the two of you, then.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Joffa wrote:So FDR is a warmonger because he was opposed to the Nazis? no...but he was very good at it FDR was very active in 1930s , he tried repealed the Neutrality Acts , he started builting up US military in 30s, but the US public and U.S. Congress were very much isolationist,,,if it want'ts for FDR , there no way US could have gone from 150,000 men in military, to 14 million in 4 years ...we are all lucky that FDR was a warmonger richard nixon is look at for being a warmonger, but the Vietnam War wasn't his war..the fact nixon get in the white house and try to win the war is normal Edited by adrtho: 20/3/2016 02:46:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
TheDecider wrote:"Trump will conquer the Lizard people!!!111"
- MVFC11, 433, other idiots Shit multi tbh
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
So FDR is a warmonger because he was opposed to the Nazis?
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:adrtho wrote:quickflick wrote:adrtho wrote:tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party adrtho, I agree that more than a few Democrats have been fairly belligerent and/or immoral but gotten away with it because people are too stupid to analyse their actions objectively and instead focus on Republicans. But I think it's very rough to call Wilson, FDR and JFK warmongers. Wilson had no intention of entering the First World War. By the time of 1917, there was widespread public opinion in the States in favour of entering the war because the Germans had sunk the Lusitania. Congress wanted war. The American people wanted war. They were jubilant when it was declared. Apparently, after his address to Congress, Wilson went away and cried. Hardly the actions of a warmonger. The Second World War was actually a kind of war in which there was a moral imperative to fight (unless one is a pacifist like Ghandi and that's a valid and respectable position). Although the Allies were responsible for gross atrocities against German and Japanese civilian populations (disproportionate to war aims), there was an overall need to fight Nazism and Japanese expansionism. It was humanitarian to do so. If our governments had intervened in Rwanda in 1994 it wouldn't have been warmongering. It would have been humanitarian intervention, as with the Second World War. Plus, by the time FDR declared war, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour. Most of America wanted war. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say JFK averted nuclear disaster. sure it is...FDR want to go to war in 1939... Yet again talking shit. In 1939 FDR actually reiterated that the US wouldn't be joining the war effort. When Germany invaded Poland is when he decided to help with manufacturing for the French and British, not send troops in. :lol: that because the US people didn't support it,,,,FDR was active moving US to war, long before Japan attack
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:quickflick wrote:adrtho wrote:tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party adrtho, I agree that more than a few Democrats have been fairly belligerent and/or immoral but gotten away with it because people are too stupid to analyse their actions objectively and instead focus on Republicans. But I think it's very rough to call Wilson, FDR and JFK warmongers. Wilson had no intention of entering the First World War. By the time of 1917, there was widespread public opinion in the States in favour of entering the war because the Germans had sunk the Lusitania. Congress wanted war. The American people wanted war. They were jubilant when it was declared. Apparently, after his address to Congress, Wilson went away and cried. Hardly the actions of a warmonger. The Second World War was actually a kind of war in which there was a moral imperative to fight (unless one is a pacifist like Ghandi and that's a valid and respectable position). Although the Allies were responsible for gross atrocities against German and Japanese civilian populations (disproportionate to war aims), there was an overall need to fight Nazism and Japanese expansionism. It was humanitarian to do so. If our governments had intervened in Rwanda in 1994 it wouldn't have been warmongering. It would have been humanitarian intervention, as with the Second World War. Plus, by the time FDR declared war, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour. Most of America wanted war. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say JFK averted nuclear disaster. sure it is...FDR want to go to war in 1939... Yet again talking shit. In 1939 FDR actually reiterated that the US wouldn't be joining the war effort. When Germany invaded Poland is when he decided to help with manufacturing for the French and British, not send troops in.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:adrtho wrote:tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party adrtho, I agree that more than a few Democrats have been fairly belligerent and/or immoral but gotten away with it because people are too stupid to analyse their actions objectively and instead focus on Republicans. But I think it's very rough to call Wilson, FDR and JFK warmongers. Wilson had no intention of entering the First World War. By the time of 1917, there was widespread public opinion in the States in favour of entering the war because the Germans had sunk the Lusitania. Congress wanted war. The American people wanted war. They were jubilant when it was declared. Apparently, after his address to Congress, Wilson went away and cried. Hardly the actions of a warmonger. The Second World War was actually a kind of war in which there was a moral imperative to fight (unless one is a pacifist like Ghandi and that's a valid and respectable position). Although the Allies were responsible for gross atrocities against German and Japanese civilian populations (disproportionate to war aims), there was an overall need to fight Nazism and Japanese expansionism. It was humanitarian to do so. If our governments had intervened in Rwanda in 1994 it wouldn't have been warmongering. It would have been humanitarian intervention, as with the Second World War. Plus, by the time FDR declared war, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour. Most of America wanted war. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say JFK averted nuclear disaster. sure it is...FDR want to go to war in 1939...
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
tsf wrote:more things like her views on society, marriage, corporate governance and hairstyle that make her republican.
Edited by tsf: 19/3/2016 04:38:17 PM hairstyle???? :lol: she move her views left
|
|
|
|
|
TheDecider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 402,
Visits: 0
|
"Trump will conquer the Lizard people!!!111"
- MVFC11, 433, other idiots
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party adrtho, I agree that more than a few Democrats have been fairly belligerent and/or immoral but gotten away with it because people are too stupid to analyse their actions objectively and instead focus on Republicans. But I think it's very rough to call Wilson, FDR and JFK warmongers. Wilson had no intention of entering the First World War. By the time of 1917, there was widespread public opinion in the States in favour of entering the war because the Germans had sunk the Lusitania. Congress wanted war. The American people wanted war. They were jubilant when it was declared. Apparently, after his address to Congress, Wilson went away and cried. Hardly the actions of a warmonger. The Second World War was actually a kind of war in which there was a moral imperative to fight (unless one is a pacifist like Ghandi and that's a valid and respectable position). Although the Allies were responsible for gross atrocities against German and Japanese civilian populations (disproportionate to war aims), there was an overall need to fight Nazism and Japanese expansionism. It was humanitarian to do so. If our governments had intervened in Rwanda in 1994 it wouldn't have been warmongering. It would have been humanitarian intervention, as with the Second World War. Plus, by the time FDR declared war, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour. Most of America wanted war. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say JFK averted nuclear disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
more things like her views on society, marriage, corporate governance and hairstyle that make her republican.
Edited by tsf: 19/3/2016 04:38:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party I didn't say that. Two different sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. no it wouldn't ...not knowing how the USA will act on foreign policy will lead to chaos in Australia ,
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? No I didn't - they aren't subverting the convention system. That is how it is designed. If you can't get an absolute majority of delegates then it is open slather. Remember, this is just a vote as to who represents the party at the general election. The party can do what they want as long as it is in line with their internal rules, which it is.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
also, polls say Trump would lose to both Clinton and Sanders...now polls can be wrong, they more likely to be right
for me Trump is no different to Pauline Hanson...it just on a bigger stage
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:adrtho wrote:433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? again...people get to vote under set rules,,,that rules say that Trump (any other candidates) must get 1237 delegates to become nomination, if no candidates get past 1237 delegates, then the GOP will make up the rules at the as they see fit at the Republican National Convention, and select who ever they want... in Australia, the people don't get a vote on who become ALP or LIb leader , the party does I know that :roll: My point is that the Republican party would be hypocritical to suggest they're "for the American people" if they ignore what the plurality of their constituents have to say. if you know that,,,then why are you suggesting they are hypocritical? this is not the the American people voting...this is the Republican party finding the best person to represent the Republican party for us presidential elections... end of the day, If Trump doesn't get to 1237 delegates, he has not shown enough to say his the Republican party best candidate to win the us presidential elections for the Republican party....n not enough people voted for Trump for the Republican party to say his own best candidate....it is that fucking simple
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Global War Machine Fears Lost Profits if Trump is Elected
[youtube]watch?v=VIJafLvHwN0[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? again...people get to vote under set rules,,,that rules say that Trump (any other candidates) must get 1237 delegates to become nomination, if no candidates get past 1237 delegates, then the GOP will make up the rules at the as they see fit at the Republican National Convention, and select who ever they want... in Australia, the people don't get a vote on who become ALP or LIb leader , the party does I know that :roll: My point is that the Republican party would be hypocritical to suggest they're "for the American people" if they ignore what the plurality of their constituents have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
GDeathe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
For some reason Ron Paul to win in the brokered convention and also Biden wins Democrat nod with Hilary in Jail
Edited by GDeathe: 17/3/2016 08:18:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? again...people get to vote under set rules,,,that rules say that Trump (any other candidates) must get 1237 delegates to become nomination, if no candidates get past 1237 delegates, then the GOP will make up the rules at the as they see fit at the Republican National Convention, and select who ever they want... in Australia, the people don't get a vote on who become ALP or LIb leader , the party does
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump?
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Can a US Supreme Court Justice nomination be blocked indefinitely?
|
|
|
|