Max Peck wrote:Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
has/have whatever.
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
Max Peck wrote:Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
You're trying to fix the wrong word. Look up the definitions for "majority" and "plurality" and then check the percentage of the popular vote Trump received in the primaries to date. The majority (by far?) didn't want Trump, but they couldn't agree on who they did want, so now they're SOL.Rip wrote:has/have whatever.Max Peck wrote:Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
By the time it is over he will have secured more primary votes than any ever has. Polls have shown that a majority think whoever does that should be the candidate. The majority I speak of is in indirect not direct support.Max Peck wrote:You're trying to fix the wrong word. Look up the definitions for "majority" and "plurality" and then check the percentage of the popular vote Trump received in the primaries to date. The majority (by far?) didn't want Trump, but they couldn't agree on who they did want, so now they're SOL.Rip wrote:has/have whatever.Max Peck wrote:Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
Because I'm lazy, I'll just list the popular vote numbers currently given in the respective Wikipedia articles, which appear to be sourced from here and here.RunningMn9 wrote:That's way old data
There's a running total here.Max Peck wrote:Because I'm lazy, I'll just list the popular vote numbers currently given in the respective Wikipedia articles, which appear to be sourced from here and here.RunningMn9 wrote:That's way old data
- Clinton: 12,560,495 (56.20%)
- Trump: 10,717,357 (40.21%)
- Sanders: 9,446,132 (42.26%)
- Cruz: 7,325,796 (27.49%)
- Kasich: 3,764,238 (14.12%)
- Rubio: 3,497,886 (13.12%)
Unless he wins.Zarathud wrote:Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.
As an aside, that is incredibly shitty management. Are they that awful about other things? That's an amazing way to get your qualified people to quit and find a better company to work for.YellowKing wrote: It comes down to the fact I don't mess up very often. That's not bragging - I don't mess up because I have a lot of responsibility and I have to follow very rigorous processes and fail-safes to make sure I don't mess up. So when something does go down on my watch, it's a circus around here.
But fuck-up messes things up all the time. It's expected. So when he screws something up, people shrug their shoulders and say "Well, that's par for the course. Blame's on us for giving him that responsibility."
Then the Republicans become the equivalent of the National Front or UKIP. I question whether a white nationalist party is going to be super successful in the long run, though - the demographics almost guarantee they will be marginalized.Little Raven wrote:Unless he wins.Zarathud wrote:Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.
That would kill them in national elections, but embracing their inner KKK might make them a stronger regional party able to hold onto the House for the foreseeable future.gbasden wrote:Then the Republicans become the equivalent of the National Front or UKIP. I question whether a white nationalist party is going to be super successful in the long run, though - the demographics almost guarantee they will be marginalized.Little Raven wrote:Unless he wins.Zarathud wrote:Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.
You're thinking logically. I'm putting my money on Ben Carson or Jesse Ventura. One is as crazy as Trump, the other is so bad he can't help but make Trump look better.Rip wrote:After much contemplation I have narrowed the list of people I realistically think Trump may tap for a running mate. No particular order at this time.
Sen. Jeff Sessions; Early endorser and has already sent Stephen Miller to aide Trump so makes much sense.
Gen. James Mattis; Strong enough that some had already looked to him to run third party but he declined. Strong leader who is much respected.
Newt Gingrich; No one knows how to play the game any better. If Trump truly wants someone that can navigate the congress, he is as good as any.
If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]
That misses the point. The point is you either come together to support candidates or you don't. There is no exception that will do anything but make a mockery of the original sentiment.hepcat wrote:If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]
p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?
Or it will end with principled politicians refusing to follow someone they wholeheartedly feel is wrong...and rightfully so...rising up and leading a better party in the future.Rip wrote:That misses the point. The point is you either come together to support candidates or you don't. There is no exception that will do anything but make a mockery of the original sentiment.hepcat wrote:If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]
p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?
If they wish to do this fine but the end result is next election if they manage to get a moderate candidate to win the nomination they will find no support from the remainder of the party. If they feel this way they should do the honorable thing and leave the party. I can at least respect that.
The remainder are doing the equivalent of drilling a hole upon the ship which they ride. It won't end well. Especially for them.
That is fine like I said. But the next time they put forward a Romney or McCain they should not expect much support. I would certainly never vote for another candidate like that if they betray Trump this time. Which I am sure makes all you Democrats thrilled but any fool could see it would end any unity the Republican party has ever hoped for. Kinda proves the point they were RINOs all along.hepcat wrote:Or it will end with principled politicians refusing to follow someone they wholeheartedly feel is wrong...and rightfully so...rising up and leading a better party in the future.Rip wrote:That misses the point. The point is you either come together to support candidates or you don't. There is no exception that will do anything but make a mockery of the original sentiment.hepcat wrote:If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]
p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?
If they wish to do this fine but the end result is next election if they manage to get a moderate candidate to win the nomination they will find no support from the remainder of the party. If they feel this way they should do the honorable thing and leave the party. I can at least respect that.
The remainder are doing the equivalent of drilling a hole upon the ship which they ride. It won't end well. Especially for them.
You want sheep. Some don't. I respect those who are making a stand.
Besides, when has Trump ever shown party loyalty?
"Betray Trump." I love it.Rip wrote:That is fine like I said. But the next time they put forward a Romney or McCain they should not expect much support. I would certainly never vote for another candidate like that if they betray Trump this time. Which I am sure makes all you Democrats thrilled but any fool could see it would end any unity the Republican party has ever hoped for. Kinda proves the point they were RINOs all along.
Or the past. I doubt St. Reagan would be readily accepted into today's Republican party.YellowKing wrote:. The party has changed significantly over time, and will continue to do so. The folks being called RINOs right now may actually be the Republicans of the future who aren't racist backwards bigots.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/d ... tes-222934The hunt for loyal delegates to the national convention — for weeks, a shadow primary that threatened to wrest the Republican nomination away from Donald Trump — appears to have come to an end.
Donald Trump vanquished his rivals at the ballot box and, for the first time, he pulled off the same feat in this weekend's delegate elections, punching tickets for dozens of allies from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota. Ted Cruz, who quit the GOP primary on Tuesday, had skewered Trump in these quiet battles at state and local GOP conventions. But his forces were nowhere to be seen Saturday.
Trump's supporters carried more than half of the 68 delegate elections in the four states holding contests this weekend — and most of the others were party elders who have vowed to support the GOP's nominee, even if they haven't explicitly backed Trump. Trump's campaign also showcased a tighter relationship with party insiders, coordinated with state-party leaders to make sure pro-Trump paraphernalia littered the conventions halls, and banners reading "Defeat Hillary! Vote Trump!" lined the rooms. One banner in South Carolina was even signed by delegates and marked for delivery to Trump's New York headquarters as a memento of his success in the state.
“Our campaign worked closely with conservative and state party leadership across the country to unite our party and select delegates to the Republican National Convention who represent the will of the people, and the record 10.7 million votes cast (and counting) in support of our nominee,” said Brian Jack, delegate management director for Trump, who attended the North Carolina convention.
I am in the process right now of leaving the Republican party. Specifically because I am condemning the party's actions. I'm leaving. And it's all them, not me. I will not be associated with such madness. This is the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt...and now Trump? Fuck that noise.YellowKing wrote:Leaving the party simply condones the party's actions. It says to the party, "I'm leaving, but it's not you - it's me."
I can respect that.RunningMn9 wrote:I am in the process right now of leaving the Republican party. Specifically because I am condemning the party's actions. I'm leaving. And it's all them, not me. I will not be associated with such madness. This is the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt...and now Trump? Fuck that noise.YellowKing wrote:Leaving the party simply condones the party's actions. It says to the party, "I'm leaving, but it's not you - it's me."
Did you think those denouncing Trump were honestly going to get those votes to begin with?Rip wrote:I would challenge any those that Republicans in or running for office that don't plan to support Trump to also tell his supporters that they do not want their votes in their political endeavors. I mean they couldn't possibly want a bunch of racists and bigots voting for them could they?
The thing I don't understand about this is that Trump got that many votes despite the fact that he doesn't match up with the party platform at all. He's an outsider, he's not a social conservative (except in one-line soundbites). Ted Cruz was far more representative of the platform, and he was rejected.Rip wrote:By the parties own measure once he crosses that 1237 delegate line (and he will easily) he IS the nominee and leads the party if you can't support him then you should leave the party.
The Tea Party base is Trump's base, and I can't imagine that there will be any die-hard self-identified TP'ers who refuse to back Trump in November. They might differ on tactics and on a few policies, but Trump is the candidate who promises to break Washington and hurt Liberals. If Tea Partiers can't get a real Cultural Revolution going, they'll at least settle for scorched earth.Kraken wrote:I'm hazy on the relationship between tea partiers and Trumplings. They are not one and the same, yet they seem united by disdain for the party establishment. Is the tea party movement dead, has it been subsumed by Trump, does it claim Trump as its own? I see that tea party darling Sarah Palin is aligning herself with Trump, and I'm not sure what to read into that if it means anything beyond opportunism.
To paraphrase a great legal defense, "That is our crime, it is also our punishment."tgb wrote:To steal a line from Leonard Pitts: Any country that would elect Trump president deserves to have Trump as president.