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.

 

Ted Cruz: "The Donald Trump campaign doesn't know what they're doing."

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Your statement was clear. You said Trump does not know what he is doing.


As it relates to Cruz's statement, yes.



I was just unsure whether you meant it or whether it was an emotional outburst.


Irrelevant. You yourself admitted it. Was your admission heartfelt, or was it an emotional outburst?



As a general statement it's quite clearly untrue, but I can understand the emotions that could drive Cruz, or you, to say that.


I don't understand the emotion aspect at all. As I said, it is your red herring to distract from Cruz's comment.



The OP is about his broad view, not just Colorado.


True. Colorado is just one example. The OP's source provided another example in Washington. With precedent such as these to inform one's opinion, a statement such as Cruz's is not unfounded or incorrect.



I will use my analogy again - in an exam, would you say a person achieving 95% did not know what they are doing because they got 5% wrong?


Horrible analogy because you cannot equate an exam score to his political performance in this election. You attribute him with a "95%" because you are a Trump supporter and defender. But someone else may give him a much lower percentage, such as 50% or less, and that would be a failed test.



If you take the election as it stands, Trump is so far clear he is acing his exam, whilst Cruz is struggling to get a C-. He gave a good answer on the question of how to exploit the party rules but he's flunked everything else. Trump meanwhile is heading for an A+.


The topic is not how much you can show your love for Trump with horrible grade analogies. The point is that considering his screw-ups during his campaign, Cruz has precedent to make the statement he did.




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyWater
The same people that applauded Cruz and cheered him on and called him a stand up guy just a few short years ago, in reaction to his fighting for the 2nd amendment, standing on the senate floor virtually on his own, once with Rand Paul. Saying what a credit he was to the nation are now calling him a slimeball, crooked politician, creepy guy, and lying Ted.

Why?

Trump!

Whats this say about those peoples honesty and principles, Honestly I watch this, and even though Im Fiorina, Paul supporter, I feel like Ted has more principles and stronger values than Trump and his supporters.

Youre mad because Ted knows what he is doing, and calling it unfair because Trump didnt do his due diligence on what it takes to run. Blame blame slander blame.

You dont have to like the rules to learn them and win.

And you cant blame Cruz for Trumps missteps in the race.

Trump cant figure out how this works, but hes suppose to navigate foreign policy, fix the economy, bring back jobs, build a wall, fix the Tax system

But you dont want him held accountable when he cant even get his own damn campaign on the same page to figure out the election process?

Honestly what the heck is wrong with you Trump supporters, you have positively lost your brains in favor of what amounts to messiah worship


I've heard this notion that Trump can't navigate the delegate rules so he cant run the country. It's just hyperbole that can easily be returned. Cruz can't beat a man who has a year of experience running for office. In fact he's not only losing he is losing big. He picked up zero delegates in NY. What happened to his ground game and his grass roots following he is 'uniting behind his campaign'? He lost 90-0 to Trump. How can he run the country if he can't even win one delegate in NY and is miles behind Trump overall?

Here is his latest effort at uniting in Pennsylvania



He's really pulling them in.

For him to accuse Trump of not knowing what he is doing is somewhat amusing when you look at the actual outcomes.
edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Your statement was clear. You said Trump does not know what he is doing.


As it relates to Cruz's statement, yes.



I was just unsure whether you meant it or whether it was an emotional outburst.


Irrelevant. You yourself admitted it. Was your admission heartfelt, or was it an emotional outburst?



As a general statement it's quite clearly untrue, but I can understand the emotions that could drive Cruz, or you, to say that.


I don't understand the emotion aspect at all. As I said, it is your red herring to distract from Cruz's comment.



The OP is about his broad view, not just Colorado.


True. Colorado is just one example. The OP's source provided another example in Washington. With precedent such as these to inform one's opinion, a statement such as Cruz's is not unfounded or incorrect.



I will use my analogy again - in an exam, would you say a person achieving 95% did not know what they are doing because they got 5% wrong?


Horrible analogy because you cannot equate an exam score to his political performance in this election. You attribute him with a "95%" because you are a Trump supporter and defender. But someone else may give him a much lower percentage, such as 50% or less, and that would be a failed test.



If you take the election as it stands, Trump is so far clear he is acing his exam, whilst Cruz is struggling to get a C-. He gave a good answer on the question of how to exploit the party rules but he's flunked everything else. Trump meanwhile is heading for an A+.


The topic is not how much you can show your love for Trump with horrible grade analogies. The point is that considering his screw-ups during his campaign, Cruz has precedent to make the statement he did.


I am basing my grades on outcome. You know the reality of the situation as opposed to emotions.

Trump is winning on delegates by a long way, he is winning on votes by a long way, he is winning on states won by a long way. He is wiping the floor with Cruz.

I was being kind to Cruz with a C- . Given he can no longer even get to 1237, he flunked the whole exam and ran out of time before he got to the end. Seems like it's him that does not know what he is doing - unless of course you want to bring the emotion back into it.


How would you explain Trump's amazing achievement of easily winning the race against 16 other contestants, many of whom spent fortunes and have years of experience running for elections. Do you really believe it's blind luck and he's bumbling his way through it, or could you be letting your emotion get in the way of logic

edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




I've heard this notion that Trump can't navigate the delegate rules so he cant run the country. It's just hyperbole that can easily be returned


Deflection and obfuscation unfounded by facts, See Colorado and Washington for just a few examples.




Cruz can't beat a man who has a year of experience running for office. In fact he's not only losing he is losing big


True the numbers do show him losing, but hes also gaining ground, that however does not take away from the fact that Trump has been making mistake after mistake and blaming it on Cruz instead of the Truth , which is his own campaigns missteps.

This to me says more about Trumps support base not seeing him for what he is than anything else.




For him to accuse Trump of not knowing what he is doing is somewhat amusing when you look at the actual outcomes.


Again the plentiful examples say otherwise, and again it says more about his base than it does about his ability.

One can fake many a things, or get lucky, that does not mean they know what they are doing.

I can say one thing about Trump , he does know how to target the lowest common denominator, and tap into hate, anger and rage to accomplish his goals and get people out there to support him.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyWater
a reply to: UKTruth




I've heard this notion that Trump can't navigate the delegate rules so he cant run the country. It's just hyperbole that can easily be returned


Deflection and obfuscation unfounded by facts, See Colorado and Washington for just a few examples.




Cruz can't beat a man who has a year of experience running for office. In fact he's not only losing he is losing big


True the numbers do show him losing, but hes also gaining ground, that however does not take away from the fact that Trump has been making mistake after mistake and blaming it on Cruz instead of the Truth , which is his own campaigns missteps.

This to me says more about Trumps support base not seeing him for what he is than anything else.




For him to accuse Trump of not knowing what he is doing is somewhat amusing when you look at the actual outcomes.


Again the plentiful examples say otherwise, and again it says more about his base than it does about his ability.

One can fake many a things, or get lucky, that does not mean they know what they are doing.

I can say one thing about Trump , he does know how to target the lowest common denominator, and tap into hate, anger and rage to accomplish his goals and get people out there to support him.



Like I said, see NY for an example of how Cruz completely messed up. First with his clumsy NY values comment and then failing to get a single delegate. He badly misunderstood the importance of the NY primary when he made his comment or he just doesn't have the political acumen to understand the impact of what he said. I could just as easily say it means he wouldn't know how to be a President. It's easy to combat hyperbole with hyperbole.

As for gaining ground, he was but no not so after New York. He is as far behind now as he was going into Wisconsin.
The gap is going to widen after next Tuesday, where the odds are Trump is going to sweep all 5 states.

The debate is over in terms of who won the most delegates, states and votes. Trump has won an historic victory in those regards.
In the face of these facts, Cruz talking about lemonade stands just makes him sound like a sore loser.

All that is left for Cruz is to accept 2nd place and hope he can persuade enough delegates to turn their backs on the people who voted in their states on a 2nd convention ballot. That's IF he can hold Trump below 1237.

edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



I am basing my grades on outcome. You know the reality of the situation as opposed to emotions.


What outcome? Has he won 95% of the delegates? 95% of states? It appears that number was just pulled out of your ass, not based on outcomes. Emotions do tend to lead people to exaggerate when they are fully invested in other people. So I can see why you would exaggerate.



Trump is winning on delegates by a long way, he is winning on votes by a long way, he is winning on states won by a long way. He is wiping the floor with Cruz. I was being kind to Cruz with a C- . Given he can no longer even get to 1237, he flunked the whole exam and ran out of time before he got to the end. Seems like it's him that does not know what he is doing - unless of course you want to bring the emotion back into it.

How would you explain Trump's amazing achievement of easily winning the race against 16 other contestants, many of whom spent fortunes and have years of experience running for elections. Do you really believe it's blind luck and he's bumbling his way through it, or could you be letting your emotion get in the way of logic


I don't care about any of that. The topic is that Cruz has precedent to go off of when making such statements. We've established that and the debate is now pointless.

If you want to continue to wrap yourself in Trump idolatry and ramble on about his awesomeness, go ahead, but without me. My point has been made, verified and now I will move along.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




Like I said, see NY for an example of how Cruz completely messed up. First with his clumsy NY values comment and then failing to get a single delegate. He badly misunderstood the importance of the NY primary when he made his comment or he just doesn't have the political acumen to understand the impact of what he said. I could just as easily say it means he wouldn't know how to be a President. It's easy to combat hyperbole with hyperbole.


So you equate Cruz making some comments that, admittedly probably shouldnt be directed in that manner, or said at all, to Trumps campaign sending information to a part of the US on the complete opposite end of the country as his target, and not knowing the regulations and actions necessary to campaign in a particular state?

Sorry , I dont even think thats a valid comparison, one is being irresponsible with his language, and another is a man completely ignorant of the election process, who , by the way , is running for president.

Funny how Trump supporters turn on Cruz for his rhetoric but laude Trump for being "Not PC" and telling it like it is.




The debate is over in terms of who won the most delegates, states and votes. Trump has won an historic victory in those regards. In the face of these facts, Cruz talking about lemonade stands just makes him sound like a sore loser.


Except hes still not wrong , and the facts prove that, Trump and his campaign dont know how the process works.

I know I know, letes not let facts get in the way of good ol Messiah worship.

I do find it interesting how vested you are in Trump though , in ever thread here, being from the UK, I find that quite an enigma.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I am basing my grades on outcome. You know the reality of the situation as opposed to emotions.


What outcome? Has he won 95% of the delegates? 95% of states? It appears that number was just pulled out of your ass, not based on outcomes. Emotions do tend to lead people to exaggerate when they are fully invested in other people. So I can see why you would exaggerate.



Trump is winning on delegates by a long way, he is winning on votes by a long way, he is winning on states won by a long way. He is wiping the floor with Cruz. I was being kind to Cruz with a C- . Given he can no longer even get to 1237, he flunked the whole exam and ran out of time before he got to the end. Seems like it's him that does not know what he is doing - unless of course you want to bring the emotion back into it.

How would you explain Trump's amazing achievement of easily winning the race against 16 other contestants, many of whom spent fortunes and have years of experience running for elections. Do you really believe it's blind luck and he's bumbling his way through it, or could you be letting your emotion get in the way of logic


I don't care about any of that. The topic is that Cruz has precedent to go off of when making such statements. We've established that and the debate is now pointless.

If you want to continue to wrap yourself in Trump idolatry and ramble on about his awesomeness, go ahead, but without me. My point has been made, verified and now I will move along.


That's not the topic at all, but I am used to you changing topics to suit an argument.
The topic discussed Cruz accusing Trump's campaign of not knowing what they are doing and posing a question as to whether using childish language like 'couldn't run a lemonade stand' was appropriate.

You introduced Colorado as an example, but have dodged the more general point.

I know you don't care that Trump is winning easily - it undermines your emotional argument that he doesn't know what he is doing. If we focused on it you would have to admit he has run an amazingly successful campaign and does indeed know what he is doing. This would be too much for you to deal with emotionally I suspect.

When someone wins so comprehensively, you embarrass yourself by claiming that person doesn't know what they are doing. It makes you sound like a child lashing out because they cant have any sweets.

That's just a reality that you can't escape, no matter how much you wriggle and deflect.
edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyWater
a reply to: UKTruth




Like I said, see NY for an example of how Cruz completely messed up. First with his clumsy NY values comment and then failing to get a single delegate. He badly misunderstood the importance of the NY primary when he made his comment or he just doesn't have the political acumen to understand the impact of what he said. I could just as easily say it means he wouldn't know how to be a President. It's easy to combat hyperbole with hyperbole.


So you equate Cruz making some comments that, admittedly probably shouldnt be directed in that manner, or said at all, to Trumps campaign sending information to a part of the US on the complete opposite end of the country as his target, and not knowing the regulations and actions necessary to campaign in a particular state?

Sorry , I dont even think thats a valid comparison, one is being irresponsible with his language, and another is a man completely ignorant of the election process, who , by the way , is running for president.

Funny how Trump supporters turn on Cruz for his rhetoric but laude Trump for being "Not PC" and telling it like it is.




The debate is over in terms of who won the most delegates, states and votes. Trump has won an historic victory in those regards. In the face of these facts, Cruz talking about lemonade stands just makes him sound like a sore loser.


Except hes still not wrong , and the facts prove that, Trump and his campaign dont know how the process works.

I know I know, letes not let facts get in the way of good ol Messiah worship.

I do find it interesting how vested you are in Trump though , in ever thread here, being from the UK, I find that quite an enigma.


For a president I would suggest that being irresponsible with language is far more dangerous than his campaign staff sending an email to a wrong state. I seriously doubt it was sent by Trump himself. Mistake, sure. Big mistake - hardly.

In all campaigns mistakes are made. Using them to generalise an entire person or campaign as 'not knowing what they are doing' or 'couldn't run a lemonade stand' is the very definition of hyperbole. This kind of language is entirely driven by emotional response.

The facts are that Trump does know enough to be winning easily. That's inescapable. It's not a debate, it's just the reality.

As for me being from the UK and an enigma, well this election is important to many beyond the borders of the USA for obvious reasons. That coupled with a genuine interest in the political process keeps me involved.

There is an underlying dynamic at play here too that has significant implications for the whole western world - 2016 US elections are just but one strand of what is really going on all over the west right now.


edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



That's not the topic at all, but I am used to you changing topics to suit an argument.


The title of the thread is: "Ted Cruz: "The Donald Trump campaign doesn't know what they're doing.""

That is the point I have been debating. You've tried to argue a "more general point" rather than the topic in the OP.



You introduced Colorado as an example, but have dodged the more general point.


No I didn't. The source in the OP did. Did you read it?



I know you don't care that Trump is winning easily - it undermines your emotional argument that he doesn't know what he is doing.


Because it's not the topic of the OP. Again, emotion has nothing to do with it. It's the same pigeon tactic you use to introduce your red herrings.



That's just a reality that you can't escape, no matter how much you wriggle and deflect.


I never denied that Trump was winning. That is obvious. It's irrelevant to the point at hand. You have conceded on the point at hand and shown that there is a foundation to support Cruz's comments, no matter how much you try to deflect yourself with odd claims of emotions and stacks of red herrings.

At this point your argument is simply embarrassing.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



That's not the topic at all, but I am used to you changing topics to suit an argument.


The title of the thread is: "Ted Cruz: "The Donald Trump campaign doesn't know what they're doing.""

That is the point I have been debating. You've tried to argue a "more general point" rather than the topic in the OP.



You introduced Colorado as an example, but have dodged the more general point.


No I didn't. The source in the OP did. Did you read it?



I know you don't care that Trump is winning easily - it undermines your emotional argument that he doesn't know what he is doing.


Because it's not the topic of the OP. Again, emotion has nothing to do with it. It's the same pigeon tactic you use to introduce your red herrings.



That's just a reality that you can't escape, no matter how much you wriggle and deflect.


I never denied that Trump was winning. That is obvious. It's irrelevant to the point at hand. You have conceded on the point at hand and shown that there is a foundation to support Cruz's comments, no matter how much you try to deflect yourself with odd claims of emotions and stacks of red herrings.

At this point your argument is simply embarrassing.


Read the opening post - even the statement about the lemonade stand is included. Cruz has been continually saying that Trump's campaign does not know what they are doing and hurling insults. Its a general point, hence the general discussion about whether he is right to say so. Therefore the outcomes are important. Overall, Trump winning easily tells you he understands what he needs to do and he is successfully doing it, regardless of the childish comments the people he is beating throw around.

Your argument, and Cruz's, is an emotional one based on the mistakes Trump has made, whilst ignoring the master strokes evident all through his campaign that have enabled him to see off 16 other candidates.

If you now want to retreat from the discussion by reducing the debate to the title of the thread and ignore the context of the first post:

"Ted Cruz: "The Donald Trump campaign doesn't know what they're doing."

Then we can close off by agreeing that, yes, Cruz said that. Pretty easy really.

If you want to debate whether it's true or justifiable then you have to take his whole campaign into context, not just his mistakes. So far you have not. You have dodged.

edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




Ted Cruz: "The Donald Trump campaign doesn't know what they're doing."


He has yet begun to complain...wait til the RNC's Rule 40 works for the Don.


Which brings us to Trump's other silver bullet: Rule 40. This "temporary" rule, established at the 2012 convention, states that only candidates who have won a majority of delegates from eight states may run for President at the convention. Right now, only Donald Trump is close to that requirement. He has won the majority in six states. Ted Cruz has won a majority in three states. He could conceivably win five more by summer. No other candidate comes close. Translation: This rule makes the "never Trump" convention plan even more unlikely.


www.nbcnews.com...

Karma may just be biting them in the rear...thanks to Ron Paul.

I hope Cruz keeps the crying up, as it only shows the real person he is.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Profusion




Ted Cruz: "The Donald Trump campaign doesn't know what they're doing."


He has yet begun to complain...wait til the RNC's Rule 40 works for the Don.


Which brings us to Trump's other silver bullet: Rule 40. This "temporary" rule, established at the 2012 convention, states that only candidates who have won a majority of delegates from eight states may run for President at the convention. Right now, only Donald Trump is close to that requirement. He has won the majority in six states. Ted Cruz has won a majority in three states. He could conceivably win five more by summer. No other candidate comes close. Translation: This rule makes the "never Trump" convention plan even more unlikely.


www.nbcnews.com...

Karma may just be biting them in the rear...thanks to Ron Paul.

I hope Cruz keeps the crying up, as it only shows the real person he is.



i think that was back in March. Trump is well past the minimum 8 needed and Cruz has taken the majority of delegates in 7 states so far. He's very likely to get to 8.

The bigger news is that Cruz, with the help of the GOP, is winning delegate nominations into delegate positions that are bound to Trump. This means they will swap on the second round to Cruz, however more importantly (and something not discussed often) is that these delegates can also support any rules changes that Cruz wants even before the 1st ballot. For example the convention could change the round 1 winning threshold to 1500 delegates instead of 1237, they could vote to unseat Trump delegates from round 1, etc... Even if Trump gets to 1237, there is the possibility that Cruz will try to use these delegates to still swing the nomination away from the voters.

Given how badly he has been beaten by Trump, it's his only play. I think this is also why Trump is majoring on the system being rigged. He is waking people up in time for the convention to put the pressure on.
edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Your argument, and Cruz's, is an emotional one based on the mistakes Trump has made


Can't speak for Cruz, but my argument has been based on the facts. There have been cases in which it appears that Trump's ignorance, or his staff, has given them some problems. Cruz would be correct in his statement that they did not know what they were doing in those cases. They were highlighted in the OP's source. That is the point I've been arguing this entire time and you have conceded on that.

The emotion aspect is nothing more than you injecting a red herring to distract from the topic at hand and try to invoke an emotional response. Hasn't worked so far and it will not. It's embarrassing that you continue to try when nothing I have posted is reminiscent of an emotional response. If there has been any emotion in this thread it is in the pro-Trump nonsense you continue to spew. You're emotionally invested in Trump.

Kinda creepy, but it is what it is.



If you want to debate whether it's true or justifiable then you have to take his whole campaign into context, not just his mistakes. So far you have not. You have dodged.


I actually commented on that. No dodge needed. But you want to deflect from the specific area I was talking about to distract from the reality of it. Hence the ridiculous claims of emotion, red herrings and attempts to change the focus of my particular comments.

Now I'm tired of going in circles, reading your deflections, red herrings and loony infatuation with emotions, so I am going to go on my way. You've conceded on the point I was making and that is all that matters.

Good night, sir/maam.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Your argument, and Cruz's, is an emotional one based on the mistakes Trump has made


Can't speak for Cruz, but my argument has been based on the facts. There have been cases in which it appears that Trump's ignorance, or his staff, has given them some problems. Cruz would be correct in his statement that they did not know what they were doing in those cases. They were highlighted in the OP's source. That is the point I've been arguing this entire time and you have conceded on that.

The emotion aspect is nothing more than you injecting a red herring to distract from the topic at hand and try to invoke an emotional response. Hasn't worked so far and it will not. It's embarrassing that you continue to try when nothing I have posted is reminiscent of an emotional response. If there has been any emotion in this thread it is in the pro-Trump nonsense you continue to spew. You're emotionally invested in Trump.

Kinda creepy, but it is what it is.



If you want to debate whether it's true or justifiable then you have to take his whole campaign into context, not just his mistakes. So far you have not. You have dodged.


I actually commented on that. No dodge needed. But you want to deflect from the specific area I was talking about to distract from the reality of it. Hence the ridiculous claims of emotion, red herrings and attempts to change the focus of my particular comments.

Now I'm tired of going in circles, reading your deflections, red herrings and loony infatuation with emotions, so I am going to go on my way. You've conceded on the point I was making and that is all that matters.

Good night, sir/maam.


Another failure to engage in the actual debate.

It's really simple.

Cruz is stating that the Trump campaign does not know what it is doing.
To assess whether that is true one must look at all the facts - both the mistakes Trump has made and his successes.

It's not really any more complicated than that and you simply won't get me to back down on the point that the whole campaign needs to be assessed in order to objectively answer that question.

To answer the question by looking at mistakes only is cognitive bias at it's finest.
Drivers of cognitive bias include emotional and moral motivation, which you are suffering from.

Unless you actually engage and start objectively weighing up the plus points and minus points of Trump's campaign, then your opinion is one sided and you are not addressing the question. That makes your conclusions worthless. When you can find it within yourself to be objective then you might actually start making a valuable contribution to the discussion on Trump and his campaign.

Here is a simple question for you that will reveal a lot.

Can you list the things Trump has done (or his campaign team have done) that show examples that either he or his campaign do know what they are doing?
edit on 20/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

The Entire U.S. Federal Government Needs NEW BLOOD . The People must use their Legal Right of Voting to get Rid of All the Career Politicians and Suspected Criminals who presently work there . That is the Only way to change things in Washington for the Betterment of American Citizens as a whole . We Have the Power of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on Our Side . Their Power derives from US . It's Time for the People to CHANGE Things .

God Bless America !



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




however more importantly (and something not discussed often) is that these delegates can also support any rules changes that Cruz wants even before the 1st ballot.


If they try and pull this away from Trump I think the RNC will be seeing a revolt.


Jeff Berkowitz, who worked three conventions as an RNC official, says there would be a revolt if the convention rules are changed simply to stop Trump.


I will say when Donald gets help he doesn't play games...


Behind the scenes, Trump has already retained GOP insiders with a grasp on how the rules shape the convention. His campaign counsel, Don McGahn, is a former Federal Election Commissioner who spent almost 10 years as general counsel to the GOP's House re-election committee. He is a partner in the political law practice at the same firm as Ben Ginsberg, Jones Day.


www.nbcnews.com...

He is preparing for a fight...one I truly believe he will win.

I believe if they actually do get the nomination away from Trump, you can bet there will be an uproar about it...with some in the Republican Party right up in the mix. This election is finally letting the voters see the real candidates and how they have to resort to ridiculous ways to deal with Trump.

I know Trump has done some ridiculous things, but with him it's expected.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: UKTruth




however more importantly (and something not discussed often) is that these delegates can also support any rules changes that Cruz wants even before the 1st ballot.


If they try and pull this away from Trump I think the RNC will be seeing a revolt.


Jeff Berkowitz, who worked three conventions as an RNC official, says there would be a revolt if the convention rules are changed simply to stop Trump.


I will say when Donald gets help he doesn't play games...


Behind the scenes, Trump has already retained GOP insiders with a grasp on how the rules shape the convention. His campaign counsel, Don McGahn, is a former Federal Election Commissioner who spent almost 10 years as general counsel to the GOP's House re-election committee. He is a partner in the political law practice at the same firm as Ben Ginsberg, Jones Day.


www.nbcnews.com...

He is preparing for a fight...one I truly believe he will win.

I believe if they actually do get the nomination away from Trump, you can bet there will be an uproar about it...with some in the Republican Party right up in the mix. This election is finally letting the voters see the real candidates and how they have to resort to ridiculous ways to deal with Trump.

I know Trump has done some ridiculous things, but with him it's expected.


Agreed, I think the GOP will be ripped apart if Trump is not the nominee. after New York no other candidate can get to 1237 so the party should now be uniting behind him and preparing for the general election. If it were an establishment insider in the lead that is exactly what would be happening.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Since when does a "campaign" actually refer to a person?

Actual evidence for an Idiocracy, we passed the circumstantial evidence threshold with walls paid by mexicans last month. Funny election year times!




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Nah, my head is just fine.

We are talking about Cruz, right? The guy with zero lifelong friends and nothing but enemies in Congress?

If he gets the nomination, he'll pull 18-20% of the republican die-hards, a third of Trump's GOP supporters, and zero democrats or independents. he will be beat in a landslide against Hillary or Bernie, and that's saying something.

Basically the Dems sew up all the blue states, and all of the purple states, leaving Cruz with the support of only the most die-hard red states. In a stunning loss, the Dems take 69% of available delegates.

This isn't much of a problem, honestly, so long as the Dems run Hillary. If they run Bernie, and he gets a significant number of Dem or independent House and Senate challengers to adopt his platform (all or in part), they take back the majority in the Senate, possibly even a supermajority. The Republican party never recovers, and by 2024, are headed towards serious footnote-in-the-history-books status.

The only chance the GOP has is to run Trump, let him soak up a bunch of us angry Dems and independents, and with the strong support of Pro-Trump sitting or challenging congresspeople, he runs the table like Bernie.

I hope they choose wisely.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join