Octopus Overlords

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

naednek wrote:Everything he said was right, and why do so many people in the US support Drumpf. It's not so hard to figure out that he is a phony self centered ass.

Sepiche wrote:

naednek wrote:Everything he said was right, and why do so many people in the US support Drumpf. It's not so hard to figure out that he is a phony self centered ass.

This is what I've been asking myself since he started getting traction... he's so obviously a blowhard, and yet for whatever reason there's a sizable block of the Republican party that doesn't seem to realize that.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Sepiche wrote:

naednek wrote:Everything he said was right, and why do so many people in the US support Drumpf. It's not so hard to figure out that he is a phony self centered ass.

This is what I've been asking myself since he started getting traction... he's so obviously a blowhard, and yet for whatever reason there's a sizable block of the Republican party that doesn't seem to realize that.

I suspect it's less about supporting Trump, and more about throwing a spanner in the works of politics-as-usual, consequences be damned; better the devil they don't know, than those they do.

Rip wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Sepiche wrote:

naednek wrote:Everything he said was right, and why do so many people in the US support Drumpf. It's not so hard to figure out that he is a phony self centered ass.

This is what I've been asking myself since he started getting traction... he's so obviously a blowhard, and yet for whatever reason there's a sizable block of the Republican party that doesn't seem to realize that.

I suspect it's less about supporting Trump, and more about throwing a spanner in the works of politics-as-usual, consequences be damned; better the devil they don't know, than those they do.

Ding, Ding, Ding.

Mitt Romney, a two time failure at the presidential sweepstakes and the self-appointed guardian of the Republican establishment, stood at a podium in Utah Thursday morning and accused Donald Trump – the same Donald Trump whose support he courted and touted in 2012 – of being “very, very not smart.”

“Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark,” said Romney – apparently without a shred of self-reflection or embarrassment.

Romney accused Trump of changing his positions “over the course of years.” He berated him for referring to himself as “The Donald,” something anyone reading a New York tabloid has known he does for at twenty years. He claimed that “his promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University,” which has been under investigation by the authorities in New York for over a decade.

All of these allegations are indisputably true – and they were indisputably true in 2012, when Romney proudly stood next to Trump and accepted his endorsement.

Romney and the Republican establishment are Dr. Frankenstein and Trump is their monster. They coddled him and not-so-tacitly encouraged him when he – a reality star better known for business bankruptcies and firing C-list celebrities – engaged in thinly xenophobic “searches” for President Obama’s real birth certificate.

Trump suited their political purposes, which were never about a higher national discourse or even about real policy victories. Romney and his cohort were interested only in winning, which is why they encouraged the growth of the Tea Party in 2009 and tolerated John McCain’s selection of a vice-presidential nominee who is simply Trump in beta form.

Did Romney know all this when he stood on stage with Trump in 2012 to accept his endorsement? That question is irrelevant, because it assumes that Romney cared. He did not. The same way John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other leaders of the Republican establishment did not care when they stoked Tea Party flames to attain their congressional majorities.

If these establishment politicians truly believed that Trump could win and that they could control him, they would be endorsing every single thing he says as long as it got him to the White House and allowed them to keep their congressional majorities. Past, after all, is prologue.

Now the same establishment is standing aghast at the prospect of the very forces they cynically exploited nominating a presidential candidate who may belatedly take them all down.

At the height of the French Revolution, ever more-extreme elements began to devour the revolution's leaders for being too soft. Georges Danton, an early revolutionary, was guillotined for not being zealous enough. The Republican establishment is the Georges Danton of this particular revolution.

So who is the phony and the fraud?

Enough wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Defiant wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

It's possible that a very close three way race still manages to give Trump a majority of the electoral votes.

Yes, but that's not how I read Enough's hypothetical.

As a political science major in my undergrad years before pivoting to natural science in grad school, and as someone that has been very involved with politics earlier in life (I ran the student campaign for a US Senate candidate), I certainly understand the electoral system. What I didn't know is that Bloomberg said only if Sanders runs.

El Guapo wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

Actually, I suppose this could wind up being the GOP's longshot. If Trump comes up short of a majority, give the nomination to Rubio via brokered convention and try to appease the Donald. If he runs an independent candidacy anyway, try to deny Hillary (and Trump) a delegate majority, and then have the House elect Rubio.

Which would ultimately lead to a constitutional crisis when the Tea Party refuses to push Rubio over the top and instead insists on the Sphere of Rage.

El Guapo wrote: Actually, what happens if no candidate gets an electoral majority but the House refuses to select a new president before the old President's term expires? This doesn't seem to be clearly addressed by the constitution.

ImLawBoy wrote: Rubio is one of the original Tea Party darlings. I think he'd be fine.

Defiant wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Actually, what happens if no candidate gets an electoral majority but the House refuses to select a new president before the old President's term expires? This doesn't seem to be clearly addressed by the constitution.

IANAL, but I believe at that point the constitution becomes nullified and we become part of the British Empire again and start speaking in a cool accent.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Defiant wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

It's possible that a very close three way race still manages to give Trump a majority of the electoral votes.

Yes, but that's not how I read Enough's hypothetical.

As a political science major in my undergrad years before pivoting to natural science in grad school, and as someone that has been very involved with politics earlier in life (I ran the student campaign for a US Senate candidate), I certainly understand the electoral system. What I didn't know is that Bloomberg said only if Sanders runs.

I wasn't trying to impugn your Constitutional knowledge - I just thought I should clear that up, since it wasn't obvious based on what you said in your original post. Had you posted your full CV and demonstrated your knowledge of the electoral process with your original post, I never would have posted such a rude and impertinent reply. I humbly apologize, and will try to keep your credentials in mind whenever I respond to any of your future posts. If you have a link to your knowledge and experiences handy, I'll be sure to bookmark it and consult in the future.

( , if it wasn't obvious.)

El Guapo wrote:

IANAL, but I believe at that point the constitution becomes nullified and we become part of the British Empire again and start speaking in a cool accent.

What a topping idea, old chap

Trump wrote: He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said, 'Mitt, drop to your knees.' He would have dropped to his knees. He was begging. He was begging me.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

Kraken wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

To the outgoing or the incoming Congress?

Kraken wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

To the outgoing or the incoming Congress?

If neither candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, then the newly elected House of Representatives will select the President and the newly elected Senate will select the Vice President. (The new congress is sworn in just before the Electoral College votes are counted.) Obviously, there is no guarantee that there won’t be a surprise when the votes are counted – just because on election night, we all did the math and came up with 269 doesn’t mean that all 538 electors voted for whom they were supposed to.

The Senate picks, by simple majority, the Vice President. The outgoing Vice President does not get a tie-breaking vote, so if the Senate is exactly 50-50 (again, a distinct possibility), then they may find themselves unable to pick a Vice President as well.

If neither the Senate nor the House are able to pick, then the order of succession is followed and the Speaker of the House would act as President until either the House was able to pick a President or the Senate was able to pick a Vice President. So in that scenario, we would have President Boehner or President Pelosi until the midterm election

Another hitch is that the House can pick from the three people who received the highest number of votes in the electoral college. So, knowing that the tie was coming and knowing that nobody has a majority of the state congressional delegations, it is possible that a compromise candidate could be arranged in some kind of backroom deal who receives ZERO votes in the popular vote, one vote in the electoral college, and then is voted President by the House of Representatives.

El Guapo wrote:

Defiant wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Actually, what happens if no candidate gets an electoral majority but the House refuses to select a new president before the old President's term expires? This doesn't seem to be clearly addressed by the constitution.

IANAL, but I believe at that point the constitution becomes nullified and we become part of the British Empire again and start speaking in a cool accent.

I could get on board with that.

Enough wrote:As a political science major in my undergrad years before pivoting to natural science in grad school, and as someone that has been very involved with politics earlier in life (I ran the student campaign for a US Senate candidate), I certainly understand the electoral system. What I didn't know is that Bloomberg said only if Sanders runs.

The Times reports that Bloomberg has “instructed advisers to draw up plans for a potential independent campaign in this year’s presidential race,” likely as he sat at a stately breakfast table piled high with international newspapers and exotic fruits. (And a giant bowl of salt.) Why now, less than a year away from the election? According to the Times, it’s because he’s experiencing a lot of emotions about the current candidate field. He’s “galled” by Donald Trump’s “dominance of the Republican field,” and “troubled” by both Clinton’s “stumbles” and “the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” Rather than sit idly by at said breakfast table, Bloomberg’s considering inserting himself into the race, and apparently is giving himself a March deadline to make a final decision. According to Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and former Democratic National Committee chairman, Bloomberg’s bid all depends on whether America finds itself facing a Sanders-versus-Trump-or Cruz-situation. If Clinton wins the nomination, Bloomberg’s out, as it’d be a “suicide mission,” says Rendell.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Sepiche wrote:

naednek wrote:Everything he said was right, and why do so many people in the US support Drumpf. It's not so hard to figure out that he is a phony self centered ass.

This is what I've been asking myself since he started getting traction... he's so obviously a blowhard, and yet for whatever reason there's a sizable block of the Republican party that doesn't seem to realize that.

I suspect it's less about supporting Trump, and more about throwing a spanner in the works of politics-as-usual, consequences be damned; better the devil they don't know, than those they do.

GreenGoo wrote:Rip has espoused that position for awhile, but in the Vogue article I read, where the writer went into the heart of Trumpland (don't recall where, the greatest percentage of trump supporters place) the people he interviewed did not express that opinion. At least not overtly. It could be argued that they are doing that (spanner in the gears) without realizing that's what they are doing and that's where their motivation comes from, but it wasn't an overt decision. I came away from that article with a couple of realizations:

a) The writer was kind of a self important douche not from what he said, but the way he said it.
b) People, real people, think Trump is a good idea. That he seems like he'd make a good president.

I was flabbergasted. I can almost rationalize the stance that Rip has taken. What I can't rationalize that people are picking him for non-ironic reasons. That out of the current Republican field, Trump is the best choice for president of the USofA. Not in a "Hold my nose and vote" kinda way, but in a "Damn, I like his thinking and he's successful and smart so he's got my vote" kind of way.

Instead of despising these people for picking a complete con-artist, it just made me sad. I didn't hate them and I didn't pity them, I was just sad.

So my take away from the article was less that the average republican was anti-establishment/sending a message and more Trump is the right man for the job. That has changed how I view Trump's popularity and the election in general.

1. Roughly half of the general population is of below average intelligence; and
2. Trump was probably never more sincere than when he said "I love the poorly educated."

GreenGoo wrote: So my take away from the article was less that the average republican was anti-establishment/sending a message and more Trump is the right man for the job. That has changed how I view Trump's popularity and the election in general.

GreenGoo wrote: So my take away from the article was less that the average republican was anti-establishment/sending a message and more Trump is the right man for the job.

Defiant wrote:They just really like Trump.

Max Peck wrote: You need to remember a couple of things:

1. Roughly half of the general population is of below average intelligence; and
2. Trump was probably never more sincere than when he said "I love the poorly educated."

Jeff V wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: So my take away from the article was less that the average republican was anti-establishment/sending a message and more Trump is the right man for the job. That has changed how I view Trump's popularity and the election in general.

I still haven't seen anyone with a modicum of intelligence explain why Trump is a good idea.

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote:They just really like Trump.

Or they really hate the other choices

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Rip has espoused that position for awhile, but in the Vogue article I read, where the writer went into the heart of Trumpland (don't recall where, the greatest percentage of trump supporters place) the people he interviewed did not express that opinion. At least not overtly. It could be argued that they are doing that (spanner in the gears) without realizing that's what they are doing and that's where their motivation comes from, but it wasn't an overt decision. I came away from that article with a couple of realizations:

a) The writer was kind of a self important douche not from what he said, but the way he said it.
b) People, real people, think Trump is a good idea. That he seems like he'd make a good president.

I was flabbergasted. I can almost rationalize the stance that Rip has taken. What I can't rationalize that people are picking him for non-ironic reasons. That out of the current Republican field, Trump is the best choice for president of the USofA. Not in a "Hold my nose and vote" kinda way, but in a "Damn, I like his thinking and he's successful and smart so he's got my vote" kind of way.

Instead of despising these people for picking a complete con-artist, it just made me sad. I didn't hate them and I didn't pity them, I was just sad.

So my take away from the article was less that the average republican was anti-establishment/sending a message and more Trump is the right man for the job. That has changed how I view Trump's popularity and the election in general.

You need to remember a couple of things:

1. Roughly half of the general population is of below average intelligence; and
2. Trump was probably never more sincere than when he said "I love the poorly educated."

Rip wrote:

Max Peck wrote: You need to remember a couple of things:

1. Roughly half of the general population is of below average intelligence; and
2. Trump was probably never more sincere than when he said "I love the poorly educated."

education!=intelligence

GreenGoo wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote:They just really like Trump.

Or they really hate the other choices

No. That's the whole point. They (a certain percentage) support Trump because Trump is a good idea (to them). It's crazy, but seems to be true.

Defiant wrote:They like him because 1) cult of personality/his attitude and 2) It's the economy, stupid.

Mostly 1, but some 2.

Jeff V wrote: 2 has been discredited, at least with what we know

Defiant wrote:

Jeff V wrote: 2 has been discredited, at least with what we know

By who? He's rich, dude, he's a buisness man. He's a YUGE success. HE IS TEH BEST FOR TEH ECONOMY. Those saying he's not a success are commie pinko liars.

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Jeff V wrote: 2 has been discredited, at least with what we know

By who? He's rich, dude, he's a buisness man. He's a YUGE success. HE IS TEH BEST FOR TEH ECONOMY. Those saying he's not a success are commie pinko liars.

Oh, about everyone with a brain! If he did nothing with his starting fortune, he'd have three times more money than he has. He basically took a $13B fortune and created a $4 billion fortune. And in the wake left a bunch of bankrupt companies.

Oh shit, I hope you didn't have plane tickets for Trump Airlines!