Some conservatives are still moving to stop Trump at the GOP convention

[cabse5]

OMG. Right. Trump. The big anti-corruption crusader! A man who knows NOTHING about public policy or program administration, who has a long, long record of corruption and bankruptcies and can't give a straightforward honest answer to the most simple question if his life depended on it. He's going to be your noble champion against corruption! What could go wrong!?!

Rhetoric much?

 

[jpn]

He's not my answer to anything nor would I vote for him. I'm trying to explain his popularity. Apparently I didn't explain it well enough for you. People who do vote can vote for the person you describe or a nasty, unlikeable, incompetent criminal. Take your pick. I'm embarrassed for our country.

Criminal!?! WTF? Oh, right! Hillary Clinton murdered Vincent Foster! No, really!!! And then there was Troopergate! And Travelgate! And White Water! And, and, and, BENGHAZI!!! And emails! And not a shred of criminal action in any of these mad conservative witch hunts, but still, Vincent Foster! Murderer!!! And Benghazi!!! And global warming is a myth! And tax cuts on the already rich bring certain economic boon times while tax hikes on the rich spell certain economic doom!!!

Man. What drones we have in this country. So easily steered. :beam:

 

[fmw]

Criminal!?! WTF? Oh, right! Hillary Clinton murdered Vincent Foster! No, really!!! And then there was Troopergate! And Travelgate! And White Water! And, and, and, BENGHAZI!!! And emails! And not a shred of criminal action in any of these mad conservative witch hunts, but still, Vincent Foster! Murderer!!! And Benghazi!!! And global warming is a myth! And tax cuts on the already rich bring certain economic boon times while tax hikes on the rich spell certain economic doom!!!

Man. What drones we have in this country. So easily steered. :beam:

Calm down. Politicians are cretins. I'm surprised you haven't learned that yet. I insulted Hillary, not you. Why did you insult me?

 

[jpn]

Calm down. Politicians are cretins. I'm surprised you haven't learned that yet. I insulted Hillary, not you. Why did you insult me?

Because to claim that Hillary Clinton is a "criminal" is irresponsible. Unsubstantiated slander like that during an election with much at stake deserves insults and derision in response.

 

[SocialD]

Because, when you don't get your own way, try to change the rules. But I have to admit, this is a good move for the party. Trump in no way represents the GOP. And, since he is not really a Republican, then why not attempt to replace him with a Republican. Actually, I can see the logic behind this, but it would be a very dangerous move, and pretty much put an end to GOP presidential aspirations for a generation, if successful.

Article is here.[/QUOTE

The point is the GOP hasn't been representing many of their constituents. its the fault of the party leadership, the GOP good ole boys etc.. that Trump has done so well in the race in the first place.
So the party needs to change, not put their head in the sand and manipulate things so they can continue to suck.

 

[ludin]

From my understanding all delegates on the 1st ballot have to vote by the way their primaries went.
so if trump doesn't get the nomination on the first ballot there could be an issue.

after the first ballot if he fails to get it then the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want as president nominee.
that could lead to some bigger issues later.

however that would only happen if trump fails to get the needed required number for the party.

currently trump has an unofficial total of 1167 he needs 1237 delegates to win.

he is basically 70 delegates away with 6 primaries to go.

and like 350-400 or so delegates left. if he wins the majority over the 1237
there is little other than some blatant rule changing done to make him lose.

if that happens you will see a crap storm in the GOP. it will make the sanders campaign look like a camp fire.

 

[fmw]

Because to claim that Hillary Clinton is a "criminal" is irresponsible. Unsubstantiated slander like that during an election with much at stake deserves insults and derision in response.

I view her as a criminal and more distasteful than most. Actually I view many politicians as criminals. The difference is that they have political power unlike you and me, so they don't have the same consequences. You need to understand the meaning of slander and I don't view elections as having much at stake since they don't actually fix anything. They just move the political power around.

 

[Roadvirus]

however that would only happen if trump fails to get the needed required number for the party.

currently trump has an unofficial total of 1167 he needs 1237 delegates to win.

he is basically 70 delegates away with 6 primaries to go.

After last night's win in Washington, he's now at 1209 delegates with 28 needed with 5 primaries left.

 

[jpn]

I view her as a criminal and more distasteful than most. Actually I view many politicians as criminals. The difference is that they have political power unlike you and me, so they don't have the same consequences. You need to understand the meaning of slander and I don't view elections as having much at stake since they don't actually fix anything. They just move the political power around.

Oh, really? So whether Democrats or Republicans are in power makes no difference?
Right now 20 million Americans have health insurance due to Obamacare. If McCain/Palin had won in 2008, do you think they would have made sure that those 20 million Americans have health insurance?

 

[90sGuy]

If Ted Cruz and John Kasich couldn't stop Trump during the primaries when they teamed up, I don't see how conservatives could stop Trump at the convention considering that he is the only GOP candidate now.

 

[Casper]

Because, when you don't get your own way, try to change the rules. But I have to admit, this is a good move for the party. Trump in no way represents the GOP. And, since he is not really a Republican, then why not attempt to replace him with a Republican. Actually, I can see the logic behind this, but it would be a very dangerous move, and pretty much put an end to GOP presidential aspirations for a generation, if successful.

Article is here.

Glad to see CONSERVATIVES fighting to keep a life long Liberal from representing them, good to know some still hold to their values and expect the same in return from those that represent them.

 

[Casper]

If Ted Cruz and John Kasich couldn't stop Trump during the primaries when they teamed up, I don't see how conservatives could stop Trump at the convention considering that he is the only GOP candidate now.

They probably won't, but they hurt him in the General election.

 

[fmw]

Oh, really? So whether Democrats or Republicans are in power makes no difference?

I think political criminality is alive and well in both parties.

Right now 20 million Americans have health insurance due to Obamacare. If McCain/Palin had won in 2008, do you think they would have made sure that those 20 million Americans have health insurance?

I don't know. And I don't know that poor people who had the government pay for their health insurance are any better off than they were prior to Obamacare. The hospitals are probably better off. Before, the poor had free health care thanks to the medical industry.

But what would that have to do with Hillary's criminality or lack thereof or the 2008 election? You just wanted throw out something political for grins?

 

[jpn]

I don't know. And I don't know that poor people who had the government pay for their health insurance are any better off than they were prior to Obamacare. The hospitals are probably better off. Before, the poor had free health care thanks to the medical industry.
But what would that have to do with Hillary's criminality or lack thereof or the 2008 election? You just wanted throw out something political for grins?

You don't know that 20 million Americans now have health insurance as a direct consequence of Obamacare? Huh.

Did I want to throw out something political for grins? No, I was responding to this statement of yours: "You need to understand the meaning of slander and I don't view elections as having much at stake since they don't actually fix anything."

Okay, here's a small example of what's at stake in elections:

Diabetes Cases Surge in States That Expanded Medicaid
A new study offers insight into how the Affordable Care Act has affected diagnoses of a prevalent chronic disease
States that chose to expand Medicaid for low-income Americans under President Barack Obama's health care law have seen a surge in diabetes diagnoses, a new study shows, particularly during the disease's earlier stages when changes in lifestyle can have a significant impact on a person's later health.

So people who live in the states that elected to accepts the Medicaid expansion (mostly Democratic Party-run states) who have diabetes are now getting treated for it, while the poor suckers who live in states where the majority of voters vote Republican, aren't.

Patients with newly identified diabetes in expansion (blue) and nonexpansion (red) states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d1b122-cf20-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html
Diabetes and the Affordable Care Act
https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2016/01/20/life-with-diabetes-is-sweeter-thanks-to-obamacare/
How Obamacare is Changing Diabetic Healthcare

I view elections as having a lot at stake.

 

[Gaztopian]

I'm tired of this denialism. The man who swiftly won the republican nomination isn't republican? give me a break; that's just republicans in disbelief of how base and unprincipled they are.

For a country that makes a fetish of democracy and proclaims itself the world's foremost purveyor of it, both parties are doing everything in their power to eliminate popular choice, which is so ironic.

 

[fmw]

You don't know that 20 million Americans now have health insurance as a direct consequence of Obamacare? Huh.

I don't know how many didn't have it before. I don't know how many can afford the deductibles. I don't know how many are better off than they were prior to Obamacare. So a broad statement like that doesn't mean as much to me as it does to you.

[qute]Did I want to throw out something political for grins? No, I was responding to this statement of yours: "You need to understand the meaning of slander and I don't view elections as having much at stake since they don't actually fix anything." [/quote]

I gathered that but wondered what it had to do with my statement.

 

[fmw]

I'm tired of this denialism. The man who swiftly won the republican nomination isn't republican? give me a break; that's just republicans in disbelief of how base and unprincipled they are.

For a country that makes a fetish of democracy and proclaims itself the world's foremost purveyor of it, both parties are doing everything in their power to eliminate popular choice, which is so ironic.

No it is just corruption and politics is soaked in it from head to toe.

 

[jpn]

I don't know how many didn't have it before.

Hiding from realty can be a real strain. This will make it even tougher for you:

 

[jpn]

No it is just corruption and politics is soaked in it from head to toe.

There's a real difference between the parties. To deny the difference is simply naïve. Examples:

For example, any Democrat would, if elected, seek to maintain the basic U.S. social insurance programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — in essentially their current form, while also preserving and extending the Affordable Care Act. Any Republican would seek to destroy Obamacare, make deep cuts in Medicaid, and probably try to convert Medicare into a voucher system.

Any Democrat would retain the tax hikes on high-income Americans that went into effect in 2013, and possibly seek more. Any Republican would try to cut taxes on the wealthy — House Republicans plan to vote next week to repeal the estate tax — while slashing programs that aid low-income families.

Any Democrat would try to preserve the 2010 financial reform, which has recently been looking much more effective than critics suggested. Any Republican would seek to roll it back, eliminating both consumer protection and the extra regulation applied to large, “systemically important” financial institutions.

And any Democrat would try to move forward on climate policy, through executive action if necessary, while any Republican — whether or not he is an outright climate-science denialist — would block efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[fmw]

There's a real difference between the parties. To deny the difference is simply naïve. Examples:

I'd say you are half right. Trump - a republican - says he would do what you say democrats would do in your first two examples.

 

[fmw]

Hiding from realty can be a real strain. This will make it even tougher for you:

I do enjoy those government projections and guesses. So government bought some insurance for some people and therefore there are more insured people. Hard to imagine. It is like magic. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to mismanage something else. There seems to be no end to it. One day I will have to fill out a federal form to buy a tube of toothpaste.

 

[Ntharotep]

Because, when you don't get your own way, try to change the rules. But I have to admit, this is a good move for the party. Trump in no way represents the GOP. And, since he is not really a Republican, then why not attempt to replace him with a Republican. Actually, I can see the logic behind this, but it would be a very dangerous move, and pretty much put an end to GOP presidential aspirations for a generation, if successful.

Article is here.

The reason of why not is because it is political suicide.
A new GOP candidate will only lesson Trump's votes and make Clinton the next president out of the gate.
Unless the GOP thinks Clinton is closer to the party traditions then it is a smart move.