Actually a more apt logical fallacy is false equivalence

I was a Rubio supporter but he's sinking without a trace, much like my former club, Sydney FC.

I now support Donald Trump.

Also, Zionism!

I understood this meme.

there (by my count) 1409 delegates left to win in republicans race...Trump is on 463 delegates and will need 1237 to win nominatiom,,,so Trup need to win 774 out of 1409 that left (54.9%)

start that are winner take all
Florida 99 delegates
Ohio 66
Arizona 58
Delaware 16
West Virginia 34
Montana 27
New Jersey 51
South Dakota 29

Trump must win Florida.. If Trump lose both Florida and Ohio, then he need to win 62% of all other delegate, and that hard

This campaign has the sense of some kind of fucked up social experiment. A real life "what if" with some of the most crazy, fucked up protagonists you could pick.

There's a lot about the Obama Administration I despise. Namely, foreign policy. In some respects it's more authoritarian, less principled/legal than that of even the Bush Administration. Also just as bad as Bush at antagonising various Muslim populations. But the concept of Trump being President is anathema.

Edited by quickflick: 14/3/2016 06:44:25 AM

Could you please explain how it would be less so under a Republican government, such as Bush?

I find Obama Administration has failed at being authoritarian, it why China and Russia are pushing back, because Obama Administration showed weakens

It probably would be worse, now, with Bush or any Republican candidate. Realpolitik has dominated American foreign policy, probably since Wilson. Perhaps Vietnam might be regarded as an exception in some respects (it being very ideological).

The point is that, after Bush had done terribly- Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo Bay, etc. Obama gains office. Breath of fresh air? Nope. The Obama Administration is responsible for far greater use of drone warfare than Bush's was. That's what I mean.

Obama is responsible for extrajudiciary killings (even of Americans) for punitive (not merely safety) reasons. This is beyond the pale and runs contrary to all traditional liberal American values (values upon which the nation was founded). The number of civilian casualties is disgraceful. It's utterly immoral and contrary to human rights treaties of which the rest of the world have seen fit to become signatories. It's also short-sighted. It simply antagonises various Arab peoples more and acts as a banner for extremists. During the Second World War, MI6 worked out that, although there were any number of opportunities to carry out assassinations of high-ranking Nazi officials, in most cases, it was actually counter-productive.

I honestly cannot take Obama's speeches about gun control inside America's borders seriously while he uses drones as he does outside its borders.

So that's what I despise about Obama.

Do you disagree?

And no, I'm not saying a Republican would have done a better job. I'm just saying Obama has been deplorable in that respect.

It's a bit like saying- oh well the Aborigines should count themselves lucky that the British invaded Australia, not the Dutch or Spanish.

Authoritarian in the M-E. China and Russia are a different kettle of fish. I kind of see where you're coming from. I think the United States needs to be firmer there. But they fear setting off a Third World War.

The thing about both those nations is they prey upon weakness. So, you might be right...

I dislike much of the rhetoric coming out of the Republican camp and Hillary regarding Russia. It seems like they want to be aggressive towards them, when we really should be trying to ally with them to combat terror.

Aren't the Russian's being aggressive towards the US by bombing US backed rebels? Works both ways

The only way to get rid of ISIS will be to get ground troops and hopefully with Syria's muslim neighbours. Id rather we spend all our money going to bombs to building a safe refugee camp for the millions of civilians

But going onto predictions for Tuesday. Trump wins Florida, Illinois and NC. Kasich wins Ohio, Cruz wins Missouri and Rubio drops out.

Clinton wins NC by 30+, Florida by 25, Sanders wins Ohio and Illinois by 5 and Missouri by 20.

Would lose my shit if this actually came true :lol:



-PB

I used to think Idiocracy was a silly joke of a movie. It is becoming ever more prescient!

ALL HAIL PRESIDENT CAMACHO!!!

Regarding the violence, it is not an "either/or".

Yes, protestors have been responsible for some violence, but it can't be denied that Trump supporters have been responsible for violence also.

In fact, that old guy who sucker punched a black protestor being escorted out has now been charged with assault.

Trump has many times made comments about punching protestors out etc that has definitely inflamed tension and encouraged violence. But he also can't be held completely responsible either.

As much as I loathe Trump and everything he represents, he has a right to run his events.

I support the right to protest, but it becomes difficult when protest moves to disruption and trying to shut events down.

Regarding whether the protesters support Bernie or Hillary, who cares? They haven't been sent down there to protest on Bernie/Hillary's behalf.

I'd say they are likely to be Bernie supporters because they are probably college-age kids - his largest base of support.

I do get annoyed with the 'holier-than-thou' comments coming from the Trump camp though. He and his supporters don't have the best record of accommodating conflicting opinions.

But at the end of the day, the first amendment does protect the right of everyone, bigots included, to be able to run events. The people who shut down the Chicago event have not done anything to help defeat Trump at the polls, they have just given him and his supporters ammunition for their martyr syndrome persecution complex.

Trump will win Florida, but he will not win Ohio

lol Trump set to win all but Ohio.

-PB

but that doesn't matter any more...it's will Trump get to 1237 delegates....before Today, Trump need to win 54% of all delegates left to get 1237 delegates

Rubio has officially suspended his campaign.

Assuming now Kasich will be the establishment hope.

That's not as difficult as it sounds - the remaining primaries are largely winner-take-all. So he could win 100% of the delegates of a state with 35-40% of the vote.

so CNN just said that Trump would need to win 60% of all the delegates to get to 1237 delegates...that going to be hard

have to say Cruz will win Arizona , which is a winner take all

it be hard for Trump to get to 1237 delegates

for what i can see, winner take all states
Arizona 58
Delaware 16
Nebraska 36
West Virginia 34
Montana 27
New Jersey 59
South Dakota 29

when you look at Centre of USA, Trump not winning.....Arizona , Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota

60% will be hard

Its not just as simple as stopping Trump getting 1237 delegates though. It is quite complex as to who delegates can vote for. For example:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-15-primaries-ohio-florida-results-presidential-election-2016/

Where do Rubio’s delegates go?

Are they released and free to vote for whomever they choose? Nope, that would be too easy. What happens to a departed candidate’s delegates depends on the delegate’s state, and those details are fuzzy and complicated.

For example, Rubio’s seven now-released delegates from Kentucky must convene in a meeting with bound delegates in which they will vote in a secret ballot to reallocate Rubio’s delegates to another candidate. Some states release delegates to support whomever they choose at the convention (for example, New Hampshire and Tennessee). Other states continue to bind delegates to the withdrawn candidate (Iowa), or they reallocate the delegates among the remaining candidates as if the withdrawn delegate had never qualified (Alaska).

There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.

According to ABC, Rubio had 163 delegates at the time of his withdrawal (our delegate tracker reports a slightly different number) and 23 are still bound to Rubio. What happens to the rest of his delegates will prompt the first large-scale delegate fight of the election season.

If Trump gets close, it is highly likely he will at least pick up SOME delegates in the 2nd round.

This, being disruptive and trying to deny others freedom of speech is not protesting, it's a violation of rights.

CNN just said, they can change the rules

And if he doesn't, why would they make Cruz the nominee if he hasn't polled anywhere near Trumps levels?

-PB

no body really knows what will happen....they can change the rules..

the way i see it is, the people get the right to pick the nominee , as long as that person get more then 1237 delegates...

after this, they can make the rules up as they like :lol:





Edited by adrtho: 16/3/2016 02:40:40 PM

Where does this 1237 number come from?

-PB

it the magic number :p

that the number of delegates need to be nominate

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