Trump and the political game

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Did I stutter?

They changed the rules in Colorado, so of course they "worked in his favor," that was kind of the point.

I have no idea where the logic is in that, ask the GOP establishment that question. I sure as hell am not going to defend them and their recent shenanigans.

They changed the Rules well before any of the candidates were running, so your argument holds no water, you might want to actually do some research before you get snarky with people.

Are you sure about that?
When did they change the rules?

You should know, you debated this with Introvert on another thread for quite some time yesterday, sorry not playing this game of obfuscating from the thread with you today, seems you already tried to do that earlier with another poster.

a reply to: Ceeker63

Trump has no interest in learning dirty politics. He's running for the sole reason that if Cruz takes a brokered convention robbing Trump of what he wants, Trump will walk with all his supporters in 50 states and he'll either run as an independent, (that window's closing fast), or his supporters will stay home on election day and Cruz loses and the Democrat nominee wins the general election in November.

Now, having pointed out this rather obvious situation, I'd suggest the answer is that regardless of who wins the White Hut, people in the various states get together and circulate petitions that the person who is elected isn't welcome to visit their state, much as there was a drive to keep Trump outa the UK.

That kind of drive would let the Establishment that controls the parties at the top know in no uncertain words that the "people" of the US reject the outcomes of these crappy, corrupt and criminal elections!

a reply to: Ceeker63

Cruz is not gathering more delegates than trump. It won't happen. Probably at this point it can't. Cruz's only hope is a brokered convention.

a reply to: UKTruth

He does have a chance. MSNBC outlined a path that would bring him to 1240 but he would have to win every state left except three. Those three have very few delegates.

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Did I stutter?

They changed the rules in Colorado, so of course they "worked in his favor," that was kind of the point.

I have no idea where the logic is in that, ask the GOP establishment that question. I sure as hell am not going to defend them and their recent shenanigans.

They changed the Rules well before any of the candidates were running, so your argument holds no water, you might want to actually do some research before you get snarky with people.

Are you sure about that?
When did they change the rules?

You should know, you debated this with Introvert on another thread for quite some time yesterday, sorry not playing this game of obfuscating from the thread with you today, seems you already tried to do that earlier with another poster.

Ok, I just wondered if you knew because you accused someone else of not doing their research.

The rules were change on Friday 21st August 2015 by unanimous decision of the 24-man selection committee.
Trump announced his run on Tuesday June 16th 2015.

In the two months between Trump announcing and the change to the Colorado rules, Trump had risen to a massive lead in the GOP Presidential Nominee polls. He had double the percentage of support in the polls to the second place Jeb Bush, the previous leader of the polls.

What was that your were saying about research?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Regardless of any of that, bottom line here is the GOP is pissing down the backs of half of their voters by stating the voters' don't matter and ramrodding through someone other than the candidate the People are choosing. It's BS.

Then don't vote for GOP candidates and screw the party. Raise enough support for Trump to go third party and have a go at it.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the GOP and/or Trump have lost this election.

As I said many months ago, this election is over and Hillary will be your next president, unless she is in jail...which does not seem likely at this point.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Ceeker63
With all that is happening behind the scene...

Everything you said after this is exactly the slant being pushed by the media, GOP leadership, AND Trump.

None of it even touches on what's actually going on behind the scene.

You just simply recited the media narrative as it's being fed to the voters. What's going on BEHIND the scene is what is being obfuscated by the media narrative.

Then tell us what you think is going on.

I think the GOP is grasping at straws just to try and stay in the game. I'm sure they want some return on their investment.

My personal theory of what’s being obfuscated is this:

We aren’t getting a conservative because the ‘Establishment’ (the wealthy, powerful, corporations, big business, CONGRESS, *insert your definition here*) do not need a conservative to win with the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ — which is led where ever it *needs* to go by our intelligence organizations. That money-making scheme is now perpetual -- whether a democrat or republican is in office.

What the ‘Establishment’ *needs* is a big domestic spending plan. And Bernie has it. Based on our Congress’ spending record, I’d say that republicans and democrats BOTH want a huge spending plan. So, I think BERNIE is the Chosen One.

And if that is the truth, you sure aren’t going to hear it in the media, from the parties, or from the candidates’ marketing campaigns — because this is what’s being obfuscated.

Both parties want $18 trillion in spending because Congress is absolutely corrupt when it comes to spending money and lining the ‘Establishment’s’ various pockets. And I think both parties also like how big government would grow under Bernie. More power + More money = Bernie.

My theory is that the two parties have schemed to make sure a democratic socialist will win, in part, by ensuring the GOP ran a polarizing candidate who would play along (Trump). If he billed himself as an outsider, he could peel away half the republican vote if he ran as an independent (write-in, even) when the GOP arranged a brokered convention, nominated another candidate, and p*ssed off half the party.

But they could only be sure that democrats would win with a MANDATE to spend, spend, spend, if the GOP candidate lacked all charisma. So, they ran 16 watered-down candidates and none of them had the enthusiasm of GOP voters (except Trump — but he is polarizing to the party). Cruz will win roughly half the conservative vote in the general election, Trump will win the other half, and democrats will win by the largest margin possible.

And the DNC also schemed by running Hillary — with her anchor of an email scandal and all the rest of her unpopular baggage (and no one else to seriously compete with Bernie). And they are *feigning* like Hillary is the Chosen One — even though I can’t imagine why they would ever bank on her to win it all with her *supposedly* unpredictable email scandal dominating the headlines. But that email scandal has kept Bernie from having to sling mud. It’s to Bernie’s benefit that it’s an issue. Bernie, in contrast to Hillary and Trump, has been run as an ‘outsider,’ too. He will emerge the nominee, looking like a grassroots underdog and smelling like a rose compared to Hillary…and compared to Trump and Cruz.

And when Bernie wins the general election, no one will be the wiser. The voters on both sides will think they beat the Establishment.

But I think they are being taken for a ride with smoke and mirrors.

If anyone thinks that Bernie’s $18 trillion spending plan will go to help Americans, they have no basis to believe it. Congress doesn’t do that sort of thing when they spend money.

So, this is my wild theory based on what I think the evidence and record indicates…if you throw out the media narrative completely, that is.

ETA: And with the GOP in shambles, Bernie will win a second term in 2020.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea officially, but there are also unofficial requirements. If you can't work with the establishment, don't expect to accomplish anything.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So, this is my wild theory based on what I think the evidence and record indicates…if you throw out the media narrative completely, that is.

Thanks, we're in somewhat agreement. But certainly "war" as big business is the underlying factor; that's a given. That kind of power is almost mystical , with no regard to anything or anyone; only to the gods of greed and death.

a reply to: UKTruth

The RNC is saying the rules were changed at the very beginning and that Trump knew them going in.
You have different info.
I'm thinking you may be correct.
Ill research myself.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

The RNC is saying the rules were changed at the very beginning and that Trump knew them going in.

Trump announced before the change was made.

From the Denver Post: 25th August 2015

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era. The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote. The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.

"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.

The Democratic Party still will hold a presidential straw poll March 1 — a Super Tuesday vote in a key swing state that is attracting attention from top-tier candidates.

For Republicans, no declared winner means the caucus will lack much of its hype. The presidential campaigns still may try to win delegate slots for their supporters, but experts say the move makes it less likely that candidates will visit Colorado to court voters.

The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum's victory in 2012 caucus.

So the party's move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a boost if they won the state.

State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll. The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with party rules. "If we do a binding presidential preference poll, we would then pledge our delegates ... and the candidates we bind them to may not be in the race by the time we get to the convention," House said in an interview Tuesday.

Source: Denver Post

Trump announced his run on 16th June 2015, two months earlier.

Can you post the source from the RNC that said Trump knew going in - would be interesting to contact them to understand what they meant.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MrSpad
Trying limit long term damage to the Party is the only goal they have

Here's a clue: Disenfranchising half of your voter base isn't a smart way to do that. The GOP is quickly becoming DNC Lite.

That happens no matter what they do. Leave Trump in and polling says 10 to 30% of the GOP will vote for the DNC with another 10 to 30% staying home. Take Trump out and 33% say they will stay home. So GOP wise no matter what they do they have the same problem within the party. It is with the Independents and Democrats that the GOP (being the smaller party) needs to cross over to win elections. Among them Trump is disliked at record levels over 70%. The GOP worry is how long the stigma of Trump would remain on the party even after Trump. The DNC would forever make him the face of the party for the next decade. I do not see an easy answer for the GOP. No matter what the do this election is going to be a disaster. With Trump the numbers are the worst but, they do not get much better with Cruz or a new candidate.

a reply to: UKTruth

I saw your data. I'm going to confirm it but I think you're correct.

a reply to: UKTruth

Still don't you think he knew before Saturday?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Still don't you think he knew before Saturday?

I think he's too slap dash and unprepared to have known much about the detail or the implication.
His campaign has been completely all over the place.

a reply to: MrSpad

They could split the party and have core values survive. The very conservative become the T-party rather the tea party and the new republicans can redefine themselves as traditional without being too conservative. There are a lot of republicans who don't believe in God. Some who are pro choice and I bet some who want to see crimes involving guns reduced in their hometowns. New Republicans. Closer to center than right...

a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe he thought it meant he could ignore them?

a reply to: UKTruth

an "outrage trigger" lol

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Not relevant enough to warrant a response with the possibility to derail the original point of the thread.
What you said could have easily turned the whole thread into a pointless argument.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe he thought it meant he could ignore them?

What I actually think has happened is that Trump had some knowledge of it when it happened in August (or maybe a bit later). Up until quite recently he has been winning so easily, he probably thought it did not matter. The set back in Wisconsin and the realisation that he probably won't get to 1237 has meant that it has hurt him more than he thought it would - hence the complaints now.