It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump's Big Plan to Stop a Contested Republican Convention

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

While Trump publicly dismisses talk of a battle in Cleveland, he is quietly assembling a team of seasoned operatives to manage a contested convention. Their strategy, NBC has learned, is to convert delegates in the crucial 40 days between the end of the primaries and the convention - while girding for a floor fight in Cleveland if necessary.

The outreach is already underway.

"We are talking to tons of delegates," says Barry Bennett, a former Ben Carson campaign manager now leading the delegate strategy for Trump.
Revealed: Donald Trump's Big Plan to Stop a Contested Republican Convention


My understanding is if Trump is near the required 1237 delegates, he's going to try to bribe unpledged delegates in various ways. Offering them jobs in his administration, jobs in his upcoming campaign, etc.

Americans, your democracy is being revealed to be:

A GOP conspiracy to stop Trump versus Trump handing out bribes to counter the conspiracy.

Don't believe that? Just look at the evidence (including the article above):

Kasich Rejects a G.O.P. Call to Quit to Block Donald Trump

Washington Post Editorial: GOP must aim for a brokered convention (to defend democracy)

Romney, McCain: Trump a danger for America's future

National Review: The Republican Nomination Will Be Decided at the Convention

Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I'm sorry, but what else is new?

More of the same old crap. Entertaining though isn't it?

They rewrote the rules to out Ron Paul, now they will rewrite the rules to out Trump. Everything is going to plan. Soon the GOP will be utterly irrelevant as a political party, many people's eyes will be opened to the fact that their speech isn't backed by megabucks. Then maybe we can kickstart a bloody and violent revolt.

Can't wait.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

If Trump doesn't win on the first vote he is done. After the first vote delegates can vote for whomever they wish according to the convention rules. Also, the United States is NOT a Democracy it is a representative republic. That is why even if we vote for someone it might not give us the same results as if we went by a popular vote.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I don't think you fully understand the process. This is a group deciding who they want to run for office. They could make a rule that whoever draws the longest straw wins the nomination. It has nothing to do with stealing anything. This is just deciding who they will support as their nominee to run for president. What you are seeing is all the disfunction in republicans and democrats on full display.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

I hope this leads to a political revolution to trash the party system. The election cycle is clearly showing how corrupt the system really is.

From the GOP's side...

-Writing off a candidate as being unelectable before the Primaries even start.

-PAC money used to give an unfair advantage to support the party's preferred candidate, like Jeb Bush.

-Ignoring the people's choice and using what ever means possible to prevent a popular candidate from being their nominee.

-Using the delegate system to allow for a brokered convention.

-Clearly showing how the political party system forces candidates to support a nominee they don't like.

-The hypocrisy of representatives who hated a candidate (Cruz) and now are giving him support.



The liberal Side...

-PAC money used to give an unfair advantage to support the party's preferred candidate, like Hillary Clinton.

-The outrageous amount of money a candidate can receive when they have the support of Wall Street.

-Using Super Delegates to give an unfair advantage in the delegate count for a particular candidate.

-Writing off a candidate as being unelectable before the Primaries even start.

-Rallying support from established representatives for the parties preferred candidate.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

It's a laughing stock.

It really doesn't matter who is to blame anymore.

It's like when somebody is a terrible car owner. They never pay attention to the little things. It still runs right? They just keep driving blissfully ignorant of what the flashing red lights on the dash mean. Then one day the breaks give out, as they spin out of control what goes through their mind? "Chevy sucks, next time I'm buying a Ford." They fail to realize that with a little effort on their part they could make either brand work better for them.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Just another prime example of where the peoples voice don't mean snip*. I thought we were the ones who decided a runners fate? Not so apparently, because even though most of America apparently wants him, they will try to deny us that.

Who says we live in a democracy? Doesn't Russia do the same thing to keep Putin in power? Nah that would be much simpler. America is home of the convoluted.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Profusion

I don't think you fully understand the process. This is a group deciding who they want to run for office. They could make a rule that whoever draws the longest straw wins the nomination. It has nothing to do with stealing anything. This is just deciding who they will support as their nominee to run for president. What you are seeing is all the disfunction in republicans and democrats on full display.


What you're claiming, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that the type of conspiracy we're seeing to stop Trump is endemic in the process? I agree with you 100%. That's why I started the following thread.

Does Bernie Sanders have enough royal blood to be POTUS?


originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Profusion

They could make a rule that whoever draws the longest straw wins the nomination.


That would be illegal:


42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971. Voting rights: ( us-code.vlex.com... ) Which states:

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"

Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!


originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Profusion

It has nothing to do with stealing anything.


I'm claiming that there's a conspiracy to subvert the will of the electorate and that bribes will probably be used to gain delegates. A lot of people would call those things stealing. I'm just calling them "conspiracy" and "bribery." Using the dictionary definitions of those words, that's what we're seeing.

The thing that you're leaving out of your analysis is the public relations angle. Sure, the GOP could make all delegates unbound right from the start of the convention. But, that would be the worst thing possible from a PR standpoint. And, that's no small issue.

If the GOP loses its support among the masses, it will become "utterly irrelevant" as someone in this thread already posted.

You seem to be arguing that conspiracies and bribery don't matter because they're just part of the system and how things have always been done. I can see that argument being valid from the system's point of view.

However, in the USA, political parties must have consent of the governed in order to exist. If they lose that consent, they do become "utterly irrelevant."
edit on 26-3-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
After the first vote delegates can vote for whomever they wish according to the convention rules.


From what I understand not all of them can. I believe they need to get to six votes before all delegates are unbound.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Metallicus
After the first vote delegates can vote for whomever they wish according to the convention rules.


From what I understand not all of them can. I believe they need to get to six votes before all delegates are unbound.




The problem, Haugland says, is that key parts of Rules 13-to-25 directly conflict with Rules 26-to-42. For example, Rule 16 “bind the state delegation” to the results of their “proportional or winner take all” votes. But Rule 38 says “no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound” by what it terms a “unit vote,” which means “a delegation… casts its entire vote as a unit.” Thus, to Haugland, the RNC can’t force states to implement winner take all rules, and can’t force delegates to surrender their votes to a state delegation.

...

“The only rules that matter are 26-to-42, which preserves the rights of the delegates to choose the nominee,” Haugland said. “The votes in the primary elections mean nothing except custom… With Robert’s Rules, when a custom and rule conflict, the custom falls away.”

...

“The only thing that matters is what the Rules Committee adopts” once the convention begins, he said. “This is the greatest hoax ever.”
Can GOP Party Bosses Rig the Rules to Keep Trump from Winning? You Bet!


I started a thread about that article:

Republican National Committee member on nomination process: “This is the greatest hoax ever.”

This is a really good summation:


originally posted by: ugie1028

What does this all mean?

Based on federal law (check the Cornell link for the full article) Since the RNC is nominating a candidate to a federal position... federal law presides over the GOP rules/laws therefore nullifying the rule that delegates are bound to the winner of the primary states.

In other words DELEGATES who are seated in Tampa can vote for whoever they want on the first round. They cannot be forced or coerced in any-way-shape or form.

Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I would argue the GOP will not become irrelevant. The party may fracture further but there is enough money to keep both sides of the split relevant for quite some time. We may be able to pull the tick off but the unseen head will be left behind to infect the process further.

Of course I am quite jaded and believe or representatives have followed the dark side for way too long to be fixed. Bread and circuses that we have these days are too hard of a sirens call dazing too many people to reality.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
trump is winning 40 % of the gop vote only....he will never win the white house sop who he bribes isnt important...



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
If the RNC goes against the will of the people, people will leave the party, they will lose the white house to hillary, and republicans will never win anything again.

I hope that Trump runs as an Independent if they stop him.

The RNC finally has a popular candidate bringing in voters, yet they try to stop him because they don't control him.
edit on 3/26/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Terminal1
I would argue the GOP will not become irrelevant.


"If the GOP loses its support among the masses, it will become 'utterly irrelevant' as someone in this thread already posted."

That was my comment from earlier in the thread. It's easy for me to imagine that. As it is now, the Democrats have about a 75% chance of winning the next presidential election according to bookmakers:

www.oddschecker.com...

If the Trump situation blows up in the GOP's faces, they could end up never winning a presidential election again, very easily IMHO.

It looks like Republicans are going to lose control of the Senate after the next election (about a 65% chance):

Will Republicans maintain a Senate majority after the next election?

I'm making a slippery slope argument here but...

How much longer before the GOP loses control of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court...FOREVER?

With no chance of ever getting control of any of them back?

I see a one-party state in the US' future...

Do even democrats really want that? No checks and balances at all? It will be a total dictatorship, I think it's a frightening prospect.
edit on 26-3-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I'm going to start calling Cleveland, "Thunderdome".

Get Tina Turner to host it.

I'll get a saxophone.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The problem is the way the GOP operates. Actually both parties are guilty but more so on the GOP side. Notice how during the debates the candidates tell people, "Don't vote for that guy because he is terrible and will lead the US to its doom!" then as soon as they are out of the process they throw their support behind the guy they just hated on?

Same thing with the supporters who tend to support ANYONE that is not the opposing party. Straight ticket voters and all.

It is a mess. I am guilty too. This election cycle I would write in The Shadow before Cruz or Clinton.

I agree that a one party system is scarey to think about but I think the GOP will split further instead of becoming irrelevant. If the GOP splits further they will still have well enough power to hold enough seats on the House and Senate to be relevant. With enough commonality with the other side of the GOP split to throw spanners into a democrat agenda from the White House.

Again a mess.
edit on 26-3-2016 by Terminal1 because: Typo



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Text

Text
a reply to: Profusion


Judging by the responses, the GOP is already in dire straits. Too much has come to light in the last few months, either confirming the mess our political system is in or an epiphany for those-like myself- who didn't see the depths of it.

Massive change is going to occur no matter the nominee for President ends up being.

A couple of factors not mentioned is the GOP Establishment, itself. Do they remain myopic and suffer the consequences even more OR do they, being astute and adroit politicians, lick their fingers and assess which way the wind is blowing and adjust accordingly?

Do they shrug and rope-a-dope the way they did for Reagan, whom the 'Rockefeller' Republicans loathed
? The same crowd is referred to the 'Establishment' these days. Let Trump take the nomination, thereby avoiding an immediate third party scenario, and use the party to block, impede and otherwise ensure Trump's Presidency is an abject failure? Then state, "See? We knew better who should be the nominee. This is a representative system, we know the game, let us decide who the nominee should be". Cough ,cough.

Another factor is it's safe to assume that not all the Elected Republicans like the way the game is being played and have succumbed to the party whip/campaign financing mechanism even though they may loathe it? Also, being adroit politicians, do they 'come out of the closet' and endorse Trump if they feel the party leaders are going to lose this battle. Same applies for the delegates. Not all like the way the game is being played either. Many freed up from the rules may just go with Trump for no other reason that breaking the chains on their views and choices...

One has to assume not the elected Republicans are in the Establishment camp nor support it.

Just a thought...

P.S. a Brokered convention isn't a given. They 'may' just let it play out...

edit on 26-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
You know the parties did not start this bit where primary voting had any control over delegates until the 1970s. Before that when they had voting it was more of a poll and had no control on delegates and for most of our history the parties just chose candidates with no voting. I wonder if the might consider going back to that. After all these are groups choosing who will represent them, they can chose however they like.

With Trump and the GOP of course they are going to make a move against him. Most GOP voters voted for somebody else and as those people have dropped out none of their supporter have gone to Trump. He still has the same 30 to 40% of the GOP vote. So if your the GOP your first problem is most of the Party does not support him, and in fact hates him. Then you look at those general election numbers where right now Trump is so far behind that the last time a candidate polled this low is was Mondale in 1984 when Reagan took 49 of 50 states. Adding to that the women's vote has turned heavily against him. You can only insult women so many times before they see a trend.

If your the GOP and Trump is your candidate you have to prepare to lose the Senate and most state and local races and see Clinton enter the White House with a huge mandate. You might not win putting somebody else in but, you at least would cut your losses in the Senate, state and local elections. It really is just trying to control how big of disaster this election is going to be for you.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Text
a reply to: MrSpad

I'd love to see your 'rosy' assessment of the Democrat side. Tell me Hillary isn't at least equally hated as any Republican option.

Sanders is getting the shaft on your side and points out that neither camp is worth much. Seeing your in the same camp as the pundits-which haven't accurately predicted a sunset, never mind a federal election result-it's hard to give much credit to your views.


A more 'honest' assessment is no one know how this is going to play out....including you..


edit on 26-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Text
a reply to: MrSpad

I'd love to see your 'rosy' assessment of the Democrat side. Tell me Hillary isn't at least equally hated as any Republican option.

Sanders is getting the shaft on your side and points out that neither camp is worth much. Seeing your in the same camp as the pundits-which haven't accurately predicted a sunset, never mind a federal election result-it's hard to give much credit to your views.


A more 'honest' assessment is no one know how this is going to play out....including you..



You can feel free to compare polling between Trump and Clinton. Clinton is disliked slightly less than Cruz however both of them come nowhere near Trumps terrible numbers. And how the hell is Sanders on my side? I am not in either of those silly parties. You can chose to believe as you wish. Ignore all the poll numbers that tell us exactly how this will play out. Do you think all the people who hate Trump and are willing to vote for anybody but, him are suddenly going to embrace him? His numbers have been getting worse and worse. This is not rocket science.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join