You Crazy Americans Part Three

[hatehabsforever]

OK, so bear with me here for a moment. As many of you know, I am a Canadian, so I am not fully up to speed with the political process of the United States of America. So please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Today is Super Tuesday for my neighbors to the south. Eleven (I think) states about to participate in either caucuses or primaries to attempt to select a Republican candidate to represent the party in the Federal Election in November and to go up against Hillary Clinton (presumably) and the Democratic Party. For the purposes of this thread, I am referring only to the Republicans, I realize it is Super Tuesday for the Democrats as well, but I'm pretty certain that that one is pretty much a done deal.

So the process has been ongoing for nearly a year now. 4 states have already participated in either primaries or caucuses. 11 more today. And another bunch to go down over the next couple of weeks. Nearly a dozen televised debates. Incessant campaigning and traveling from state to state. Virtually 24 hour a day coverage on stations such as CNN. A very involved process but that is understandable, as the stakes are pretty large for the USA as well as the rest of the world. And if you believe the polls and pundits, our beloved WWE Hall of Famer Mr. Donald Trump is poised to win the Republican nomination. Decisively. That may be a crazy thought, even a little terrifying actually. But the process will have played itself out, and Trump will have earned the nomination fair and square as so many others before him have done.

So what is being discussed now? A brokered convention, whereby the Republican hierarchy reserves the right to thumb its nose and give a giant middle finger to the general public, the very people who government is intended to represent, who have come out in record numbers to support our spray tanned friend. Let's go through the prolonged process as above. Let's have the people select who they want to represent them in the battle against Clinton in the fall (equally terrifying). But if the people choose someone who they don't want, the Republican Party will try to impose its will upon the people and tell them who their representative will be. To hell with your opinion, your votes, your lining up to see debates, or rallies, etc., To hell with becoming involved in the process and being enthusiastic about it. No, we don't want Trump. We want Rubio. Or Cruz. Or hell, we want Romney, who hasn't even been involved in the process, but (according to some pundits on CNN) could be parachuted into the position even though he hasn't even been involved at all, until some back handed attacks against Trump in the last week or so.

If I were an American especially a Rebublican American, I would be outraged. And I don't think I would ever vote again. I certainly would never participate in the preliminary portion of the process ever again. Look, Trump may not be perfect. Hell, he is probably batshit crazy. But you can't have a process play out over a nearly year period of time, only to attempt to impose your will upon the electorate anyway once all is said and done. I don't know how realistic the notion of a brokered convention is, but the fact that it is even being discussed is laughable.

Isn't it?

 

[FromTheSouth]

When you win a state, a certain number of delegates are given to you. In some states, they are given proportionally based on percentage of votes. A certain minimum number of delegates is required to secure the nomination.

Simply giving the nomination to the candidate who secures the most delegates, regardless of the minimum is forbidden to protect the will of the people. That makes no sense on face, but I can explain.

Imagine that the results of Trump's tax audits come out tomorrow. He has won three states already and wins ten more today. He how has won 13 states and 35% of all delegates. Tomorrow we find out that he has committed tax fraud. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich snatch up all of the remaining delegates, but we get to the convention and Trump still has the most delegates. Instead of running a candidate with no momentum, that the people have turned against, the delegates, after the FIRST ballot, can then choose to vote as they see fit, state by state. The people of New Hampshire are not best served by running Trump because he got off to a best start, so they decide, on a second ballot, to switch their support to Rubio. He gains the delegates and moves closer to a nomination.

 

[hatehabsforever]

OK, so let's assume for the sake of discussion that Donald Trump has not committed any form of tax fraud. Let's assume he is not affiliated with the KKK. Let's assume he has no affiliation with the Mafia or any other organized crime. Let's assume all of the other baseless accusations levied against him turn out to be categorically untrue, yet the Republican hierarchy decide, unilaterally, that he is not the best choice to represent the Republican Party. The powers that be decide he does not represent the values of the Republican Party, that he cannot be successful in the general election, whatever. Would it then be OK to have a contested brokered convention whereby the party brass tramples all over the wishes of the people to select someone that they want themselves?

Thanks for voting. Thanks for becoming so involved and invested in the process. Thank you for giving us your clear and decisive opinion on who you want to represent you in the general election in November. Unfortunately, we don't care about your opinion. We know what's best for you. Go Romney in 2016!

 

[FromTheSouth]

No. If none of that happens, he'll likely secure the minimum number of delegates to get the nomination. Delegates are beholden to vote as their state voted in the first ballot. At that point, he wins, bring on Hillary. The brokered convention only happens if no one has secured half plus one of the delegates before the convention.

Jump on Netflix and watch the last two episodes of The West Wing, season 6. It explains how the delegate voting system works at a brokered convention.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The appeal of Donald Trump to so many right wing/conservative voters is that he's a genuine Washington outsider, he doesn't particularly care about political correctness and his brash comments, due in part to his disdain of a good deal of PC values, reflect the feelings of many in a plain spoken way. Donald Trump doesn't behave like a traditional Republican, or politician for that matter, in that he doesn't really have to be beholden to anyone, he's so wealthy that he doesn't need the money of various organizations, lobbyists, etc. and it gives the impression that he's not in anyone's pocket. He doesn't particularly care if he insults minorities because he's counting on the overwhelming majority of white voters to carry him through.

Donald Trump, generally speaking, has behaved more like a liberal for most of his life and that's something that has the Republican establishment in an uproar. Hell, there are some people who believe in the conspiracy theory that Trump is really a liberal plant who's purpose is to rip the Republican Party asunder. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination, he could always run as a third party candidate, and that's another thing that had the right wingers in an uproar. Even though Trump has said he won't run as a third party candidate, there's nothing that can legally stop him from doing so and if that happens then, historically speaking, the Democrats will win the Presidential election.

While I think the theory is more than a tad far fetched, Trump has certainly torn a big rift within the conservative movement. Trump essentially makes the most noise, makes the most outlandish promises and has a lot of people eating out of the palm of his hand. The problem with being such a loud mouth is that it's all but impossible for him to behave so childishly upon taking office because he'll only cause more problems. For instance, he can't really make Mexico pay for building a wall along the border, at least not without going to war and America will almost certainly not go to war so Donald Trump can keep a crazy campaign promise. He can't overturn gay marriage, he can't just wipe out Roe v. Wade, he can't make Mexico pay for the wall, etc. It's all just a shitload of noise that's delivered in a way that most people aren't used to and they like the way the messages is delivered.

One issue I have with him is that he's given no depth whatsoever regarding his strategies for how he'll tackle the nation's problems. Once you get past the sideshow attraction that essentially is Trump's campaign, there's just not a whole helluva lot to see.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Because Trump is a professional con artist. He's a snake oil salesman and has been his entire life. John Oliver's twenty-minute takedown of him might be the greatest takedown he's performed on Last Week Tonight (and if you don't think that matters, I urge you to google the phrase "John Oliver effect").

For those who haven't seen it:

[YOUTUBE]DnpO_RTSNmQ[/YOUTUBE]

The idea of him being a Manchurian candidate is an absurd claim with little to no evidence, outside anecdotes, to support the claim. But he has, in many ways, destroyed the party he's affiliated wth.

Max Boot, one of the GOP's most prominent conservative foreign policy who has advised both the John McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns on foreign affairs, and is currently advising Marco Rubio's on the same, has actually gone on record as saying he'd vote for Hillary Clinton should it come down to Clinton and Trump, and that he thinks the party will fracture should Trump get the nomination:

I would hope that the party would fracture if it nominated a fascist demagogue like Donald Trump. Because in this case, devotion to country is more important than devotion to party. And I think there would be some splintering, though I don't know to what extent.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141308/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-max-boot

I'm a traditional liberal, and I despise the vast majority of what Donald Trump stands for. Ironically, the only thing I actually praise him for is his political incorrectness. I just wish that the American people were more supportive of an anti-PC intellectual. Not just the loudest, most orange, strangely orangutan-looking jackass in the room with a microphone. Someone whose entire persona isn't crafted on the great lie that his economic life wasn't built on the ashes of everything he's ever touched burning to the ground.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I really don't disagree with very much if anything of what you said, IDR. I'm no fan of Trump. I don't necessarily think he is a bigot, a racist, or several other claims being hurled at him. I just don't think he has the knowledge, experience, or judgment to hold such a colossally important position in the grand scheme of things. He is unable or unwilling to answer basic questions, and doesn't have the disposition necessary to function effectively in his role of president of USA.

But all of that aside, my point and my question is still the same. If the voters select him, if at the end of all the campaigning, town halls, caucuses, primaries, etc., the voting public makes an "informed " decision and select him as their choice of nominee, how can the Republican Party unilaterally discount the will of the people and impose their selection upon them. You (crazy) Americans have had several months to determine that he is a con artist, a snake oil salesman, whatever. But if a decisive convincing majority decide (inexplicably) that he is who they want, how can their wishes simply be cast aside by the whims of the select few? If I were a Republican American and that were to happen, I don't think I would participate in the process ever again. Why bother if my choice doesn't count anyway?

Can you even imagine the outrage when he wins the nomination and announces to the world his choice of vice presidential candidate, Vincent Kennedy McMahon?

 

[Bagpipes]

Can you even imagine the outrage when he wins the nomination and announces to the world his choice of vice presidential candidate, Vincent Kennedy McMahon?

Brilliant. First order of business: 2 out of 3 falls, No DQ, special weapons of mass destruction on a pole match Putin vs. Ivanka. A war for the ages, indeed.

People take politics way too seriously.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I really don't disagree with very much if anything of what you said, IDR. I'm no fan of Trump. I don't necessarily think he is a bigot, a racist, or several other claims being hurled at him. I just don't think he has the knowledge, experience, or judgment to hold such a colossally important position in the grand scheme of things. He is unable or unwilling to answer basic questions, and doesn't have the disposition necessary to function effectively in his role of president of USA.

But all of that aside, my point and my question is still the same. If the voters select him, if at the end of all the campaigning, town halls, caucuses, primaries, etc., the voting public makes an "informed " decision and select him as their choice of nominee, how can the Republican Party unilaterally discount the will of the people and impose their selection upon them. You (crazy) Americans have had several months to determine that he is a con artist, a snake oil salesman, whatever. But if a decisive convincing majority decide (inexplicably) that he is who they want, how can their wishes simply be cast aside by the whims of the select few? If I were a Republican American and that were to happen, I don't think I would participate in the process ever again. Why bother if my choice doesn't count anyway?

Can you even imagine the outrage when he wins the nomination and announces to the world his choice of vice presidential candidate, Vincent Kennedy McMahon?

Oh, he’s absolutely a bigot. But probably not a racist. In order to be a racist, you have to actually support the agenda of race superiority, which he's never done. Or at the very least, denounce entire races of people, which he has not done.

In order to be a bigot you simply have to say bigoted things, like "Mexicans — they're rapists", and whatever nonsense he's said of Muslims, the Pope, etc.

The term racist loses it's meaning when it gets applied to anyone who says things you disagree with. It's important to not do this, and to be more surgical when applying terms like "bigot", "racist" and "xenophobe". They all mean different things. They're not interchangeable parts. Even if they tend to apply only to a small group of backward-thinking people, like Trump.

Calling everyone a racist when you disagree with what they say is a regressive tactic designed to shout down politically incorrect speech, which is, ironically enough, the only thing I actually praise Donald Trump for.

But I agree — he has neither the knowledge, experience, judgement, nuance, intelligence, tact, acumen or really anything else you can think of to run a country. Let alone one as vitally important to world relations as the U.S. I agree with Max Boot, the GOP foreign policy advisor I mentioned in my last post when he said:

That's something I think Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio understand. It's clear that Donald Trump doesn't understand the first thing about it. In fact, Donald Trump would destroy American foreign policy and the international system as it's been built up since World War II.

Donald Trump does not have a serious foreign policy thought in his head. He has no ideas, he only has impulses — and those impulses change every 30 seconds.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141308/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-max-boot

Worse than an isolationist like Rand Paul ever could have, too. Because Trump is a mouth-breathing braggart. It’s no wonder he admires authoritarians like Vladimir Putin — he’s one himself.

Brilliant. First order of business: 2 out of 3 falls, No DQ, special weapons of mass destruction on a pole match Putin vs. Ivanka. A war for the ages, indeed.

People take politics way too seriously.

Becuase they are a serious matter that seriously affect the world.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Because Trump is a professional con artist. He's a snake oil salesman and has been his entire life. John Oliver's twenty-minute takedown of him might be the greatest takedown he's performed on Last Week Tonight (and if you don't think that matters, I urge you to google the phrase "John Oliver effect").

For those who haven't seen it:

[YOUTUBE]DnpO_RTSNmQ[/YOUTUBE]

The idea of him being a Manchurian candidate is an absurd claim with little to no evidence, outside anecdotes, to support the claim. But he has, in many ways, destroyed the party he's affiliated wth.

Max Boot, one of the GOP's most prominent conservative foreign policy who has advised both the John McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns on foreign affairs, and is currently advising Marco Rubio's on the same, has actually gone on record as saying he'd vote for Hillary Clinton should it come down to Clinton and Trump, and that he thinks the party will fracture should Trump get the nomination:



http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141308/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-max-boot

I'm a traditional liberal, and I despise the vast majority of what Donald Trump stands for. Ironically, the only thing I actually praise him for is his political incorrectness. I just wish that the American people were more supportive of an anti-PC intellectual. Not just the loudest, most orange, strangely orangutan-looking jackass in the room with a microphone. Someone whose entire persona isn't crafted on the great lie that his economic life wasn't built on the ashes of everything he's ever touched burning to the ground.

This is the best thing that I've ever read on the forums. If I could rep this post daily I would. Everyone needs to rep it.

So this isn't spam, the OP has a point. What's the point of even voting when there are policies in place that could theoretically reduce the majority vote to nothing such as a brokered convention or the Electoral College. They're supposed to vote for whichever way the majority of the people they're representing votes for, however, there are proceedings in place that allows them to vote whichever way they want. Never understood that.

 

[FromTheSouth]

This is the best thing that I've ever read on the forums. If I could rep this post daily I would. Everyone needs to rep it.

So this isn't spam, the OP has a point. What's the point of even voting when there are policies in place that could theoretically reduce the majority vote to nothing such as a brokered convention or the Electoral College. They're supposed to vote for whichever way the majority of the people they're representing votes for, however, there are proceedings in place that allows them to vote whichever way they want. Never understood that.

The charter of the Republican party requires a majority of the vote.
What you're referring to is a plurality. A plurality is how Bill Clinton won two terms. He never got 50% of the vote. To win nomination within a party, you must win a majority of the delegates, which is more than 50%. The first ballot requires all delegates to vote how their state did. If this does not lead to a majority, but simply a pluarality, then the delegates are released to vote as they please until a deal is "brokered" to get one candidate a majority.

 

[hatehabsforever]

So the Trump phenomenon marches forward, and Republicans (if not Americans in general) are growing increasingly apprehensive. Frankly I can't say that I blame them, as arguably the best shot at preventing him from occupying the White House is Hillary freakin' Clinton. So even though it is six months or more too late, the anti-Trump movement is in full force. Which of course will guarantee another Clinton becoming President, and will decimate the Republican Party either way.

The presumption these days is that Donald Trump will likely end up with the greatest number of pledged delegates, but will fall slightly short of the magic number of 1237. In fact, accomplishing this result has become the goal of the very Republicans that the voting population is rebelling against. How do they intend to accomplish their goal? Perhaps a unity party whereby Cruz and Kasich coalesce to form a consolidated force against Trump (and I'm pretty sure I just saw a pig fly past my living room window). A third party candidate to oppose Trump? Even parachuting someone such as Ryan or Romney or whoever else, who haven't even been involved in the process, into the picture.

Trump supporters are outraged. If he gets the greatest number of votes, comfortably, but falls short of 1237, the will of the people should be respected and he should become Clinton's unsuccessful opponent in November.

But the anti-Trump contingent say otherwise. There's no bending or breaking of the rules here. If he falls short of 1237, it goes to a vote at the contested convention. He doesn't win on the first ballot, then the delegates are freed up to do as they please, and Trump can be pinned 1-2-3 in the middle of the ring which will be the contested convention. It's simply the rules, the way it has always been done. It's got nothing specifically to do with Trump.

Which made me wonder. Hypothetically, had things played out a little differently, and had he not turned out to be an inconsistent flip flopping dud, let's play out a hypothetical scenario. Marco Rubio gets 1100 delegates. Trump gets 800. Cruz, Kasich and company split the rest. Would we even be having a discussion of someone other than the choice of the voting electorate even be in the discussion? Would Rubio get the endorsement of the party, and the process be over for all intents and purposes? And how would people be reacting if Trump were trying to fandangle the process by emerging victorious from a contested convention, even though he was second choice.

You cannot change the rules simply because you don't like the results. If Trump has won by far the greatest number of delegates, the greatest number of states, the greatest number of votes, he should be the guy. Maybe he is bat shit crazy. Maybe he will lose the election. Maybe he is an embarrassment. Maybe he is either poison or a bullet (which apparently no longer matters). But if he wins fair and square, why is this even a discussion?

And don't even get me started on the whole Supreme Court nomination schtick. Maybe if I get a little more time and energy, that's a a topic for Part Four.

You crazy Americans