Fortunately, we all know Donald Trump doesn’t operate this way…
This hasn’t come up before in party nominating conventions, because the last time there was a threat of a brokered convention no billionaires were running. Now, however, with Donald Trump likely facing a battle for delegates at the GOP battle looming in Cleveland, the specter has been raised of horribly unethical conduct being nonetheless legal: bribing delegates.
There are federal and state laws prohibiting bribery of elected officials, and laws making paying for votes illegal in elections. No laws seem to restrict what private citizens serving as delegates at their parties’conventions can take in exchange for their votes on a nominating ballot, however. The closest, suggests former Bush administration lawyer Richard Painter at the Legal Ethics Forum, is the “theft of honest services” statute 18 U.S.C. § 1346, and it isn’t close enough. Oh, heck, what is there to worry about? After all, there’s no reason to think the billionaire in the race who is already complaining that the Republican Party is rigging the process against him and that his main opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, is a cheater would stoop to using his copious cash to keep his delegates loyal after the first ballot and to persuade the delegates pledged to other candidates that they should see the virtues of a President Trump, right? I mean, just because that billionaire is the self-proclaimed master of the deal doesn’t mean he would try to buy the nomination. Right? RIGHT???
Who is more ethically reliable than someone working to make Donald Trump President?
Color me unconvinced. This is a situation where counting on the ethics of the participants in the absence of law is foolhardy. The credibility of the democratic process is at stake, and there’s a classic rationalization just waiting to be used to justify the pay-offs: #4. on the Rationalization List, Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.” Justifiably alarmed, Painter insists that Congress has to move quickly to add the bribery of convention delegates to the other forms of bribery our laws prohibit.
“Congress has only a few months to act before the Cleveland convention,” he writes. “The current situation is ripe for abuse. Voters will not tolerate it, but Congress shouldn’t either.”
Fortunately, Congress has shown a proclivity for acting swiftly and decisively when the need is clear.
Is there any way to write about this mess without being sarcastic?
_______________________
Pointer and Source: Legal Ethics Forum
Ethics Alarms 
“After all, there’s no reason to think the billionaire in the race who is already complaining that the Republican Party is rigging the process against him…”
Have I mentioned before how we don’t need a President who whines like a toddler?
By the by, in no world can someone claim a system is rigged against him when less than 40% of the votes (so-far) have netted him 49% of the delegates (so-far)…
He just needs his passy.
“Is there any way to write about this mess without being sarcastic?”
You ask that, when you know I’m reading?!
Considering what is probably being done with delegates in the Democrat Party’s “race,” to further rig the results of that, I would just yawn to hear of Trump bribing Republican delegates. After all (and I’m really, REALLY trying NOT to be sarcastic here!), isn’t “making a deal,” and “paying off” the parties to the deal, EXACTLY how “the establishment” that wants to keep Trump out of power working, to have its way? Oh, NOOOoooo – getting Congress to do what you want NEVER happens like THAT! Getting the Executive Orders you want NEVER happens like THAT!
Sarcasm? What sarcasm?
I firmly believe that the summer party conventions and the subsequent November Presidential election will be just as much of a loose-loose proposition for the future of We The People as the campaigning and the primaries have been. This is the reality version of the Kobayashi Maru.
This would be the perfect time for the Devil himself to appear, perform a couple of genuine miracles for the wanting eyes of the distraught masses of We The People and the genuinely oppressed world populations and run for King of the World promising to solve all the worlds problems and unify the world as one.
My hope for a positive aftermath of this Presidential cycle is diminishing each day; it’s kinda like the y axis of an asymptote approaching zero as the x axis approaches infinity – neither ever reaches it but it feels like absolute zero hope is well within our reach.
Ok, it appears that I’ve had too many Doggie Downers this afternoon; can anyone pass over a few Puppy Uppers?
Dating yourself….
Yup
Why should I believe that only Trump might stoop to bribery?
Even if Cruz himself weren’t involved in an attempt at bribery, there is ample evidence that many of those in the GOP establishment would do anything to keep Trump from getting the nomination that he deserves. Cruz also has the backing of the New World Order crowd also; they would not be averse to bribery.
Congress needs to act now, as Mr. Marshal mentions.
P.S. For anyone with that “you are just an idiot with a Trump stamp” ideas… I don’t like Trump. But I would rather see him in the oval office than a guy who has crafted his public image for one purpose since he was a teenager. None of us knows what he really has in mind to do should he be elected. We have never seen the real man; we have only seen the image.
This is tongue in cheek right?
Trump deserves the nomination? How so? Has he gained the requisite # of delegates?
NWO?
Ok. No need to continue this discussion…
He has received millions of more votes than any other contender. That is why he deserves the nomination. I don’t give a damn about the whole delegate scam.
This country is supposed to have a government of, by, and for, the People rather than one of, by, and for, a group of elites that choose who we can vote for to be President.
Is it possible, or even likely, that Trump would be a disaster as President? Yes. But that (an unmitigated failure of a politician) will happen from time to time in a free country. Do you prefer something other than a free country? Be clear about your thinking: you are asking for something other than a free country when you are searching for a loophole to thwart the will of the People.
So less than 50% of the votes is qualification enough for you?
Good. I deserve to be president.
Texagg, do you have more votes than anyone else?
Then I fear your candidacy has no legs, and no legitimacy.
I’m trying to figure out Tom’s standard.
Apparently a non-majority is good enough for him. In which case my one vote for me qualifies.
Come on. There are non-majorities, and there are non-majorities.
There’s a significant difference between first place, 3rd place, and last place. First place generally wins, no matter how many horses are in the race and how close the race was. That’s some serious commonsense.
Last I checked, until someone has a majority, they have a NON-majority. And majority is the standard.
It’s a really simple concept to grasp in our Republic…
By your standard, let’s go back to the start of the race when the Republicans demonstrated their vast superiority in qualified candidates (compared to the dismal options the Democrats have us)… But we’ll bump it up to 20 for easy math…
If the 19 of the candidates had 4.9% of the popular vote each, and the leader had 6.9%, then go ahead and give he nomination to that guy.
You see, this is why we don’t allow plurality wins.
Because at any time, 3rd, 4th and 5th place supporters can rally around 2nd and make him 1st…
Such a simple concept.
What part of “he has received millions of more votes than any other contender” is incorrect? He will have received a plurality by a wide margin.
I do not like Trump, but I do not believe the process should be hijacked in order for the party elites to insert their choice. That is an oligarchical maneuver.
Is plurality the standard?
Or I should ask, is a plurality of only 70% of the states the standard for nomination?
Trump will have received a plurality in the country, as a whole BY A WIDE MARGIN. Your “70 percent of the states” is a red herring, included for no reason other than to cloud the issue.
If you wanted to have a nationwide runoff between Trump and Cruz, I would not be averse to that. You and I both know Trump would defeat Cruz by 15 to 20 points or more. You may want to believe that everyone who did not vote for Trump in the first attempt would vote for Cruz in the second attempt, but that is not true.
It is clear that more rank-and-file Republicans prefer Trump to Cruz. Attempting to circumvent that choice is no different than the bureaucrat who is trying to tell you that you can’t catch rainfall from the gutters of your home because he knows better than you do how it should be used. Is that really the company in which you want to find yourself?
Again you keep making asinine assertions about the validity of pluralities.
Trump may very well get a majority of delegates come the first, 2nd or whateverth vote at the convention.
But until then, asserting he deserves the nomination on a plurality is…quite frankly… Dumb.
And delegate wrangling / coalition forming is NOT circumventing the process.
Making those claims is what I’d call “pre-whining” about an outcome. You know, as you put it…”clouding the issue”
I am not the one making assinine assertions.
If the party elites perform this maneuver for which you hope, you can expect to see Trump run as an independent; you can expect to see many millions of his supporters fleeing the G.O.P. with him; you van expect to see another Clinton taking the White House WITH A PLURALITY. Pluralities don’t matter, right?
1. The party has an obligation not to nominate someone who isn’t fit to be President. It’s really as simple as that. So do the Democrats, but they have apparently chosen to ignore that obligation.
2. Please stop using the silly “elites” jargon. They are the people hwo run the party. All organizations have leadership.
3. Trump will almost certainly not run to lose, or to be blamed for making Hillary President. That’s a bluff, and always has been.
4. Those voters can flee the Republican party and start the ignorant asshole party if they want.
5. No responsible citizen should be doing anything or advocating anything that increases the chances of Trump being President. I have been accused of being obsessed with discrediting Hillary, and my credentials demonstrating how untrustworthy she is are as good as anyone’s. But I would vote for her over Donald Trump without any regret or doubt.
“3. Trump will almost certainly not run to lose, or to be blamed for making Hillary President. That’s a bluff, and always has been.”
Well, if he indeed is running to destroy the Republican Party or running to ensure a Hillary election, as many cynical individuals believe, then there is EVERY reason for him to run 3rd party or even worse, run an extremely disingenuous “endorsement” campaign for whoever the Republican nominee is, and be as outrageous and offensive as possible in his “support”…
We’ll see…
Don’t forget…narcissist.
What is it you think I ‘hope’ for exactly? You and Charles seem to have some notion about what you think I think. Please, elucidate. I’ve merely informed you how the nominee is selected – by a majority of delegates…not by the “he deserves it because he has a plurality when 70% of the states have voted” method you extol.
And to correct the same error Charles made, that you have made here, Clinton would have to take the White House WITH A MAJORITY of electoral votes…
You can read it in the Constitution if you’d like. If she fails to do so, the House of Representatives will select the President via a MAJORITY vote…
So far, all I see you saying is that “the Republicans better give the nomination to Trump outright, even lacking a majority vote, because otherwise he’ll throw a hissy and run independent”.
I’m not sure that’s a valid argument whether or not Trump would throw a hissy.
[In response to Jack]
“The party has an obligation not to nominate someone who isn’t fit to be President. It’s really as simple as that.”
As I think you know, I agree with you thoroughly about Trump.
However, there are several “simple” statements that have equal claim to validity. Such as:
“the party has an obligation to fairly represent the will of the party members.” Or,
“the party has an obligation to conduct its business openly.”
Actually, wait a minute – to WHOM is this obligation owed? Not to the government. Not to the other party. Not to voters in general.
In fact, political parties are pretty much self-defining. As TexAgg is ironically pointing out, they have the right to concoct any rules they want.
And wait another minute – who is “they” anyway?
To take your ‘simple’ statement that their “obligation” (to whom, unclear) is to NOT nominate someone NOT fit to be President, let’s ask: does that “rule” extend to suicide of the party by circular firing squad?
What if it’s a reasonable proposition that NOT nominating an unfit Trump has a reasonable chance of permanently splintering the party, rather than undergoing an annus horribilis cleansing by fire?
When you say “the party has an obligation,” it’s hard to figure out just what that obligation is, to whom it is owed, what the timeframe of calculation should be, and whether said obligation should trump (pardon the pun) an existential threat to the party.
I don’t like Trump either, but I can’t find my way honestly to an “obligation” not to nominate him, particularly in light of the clear expression of the Republican party’s own plurality of voters. The GOP is at this point, like it or not, more the party of Trump than of anyone else, and attempts by the several minor strains to express moral disapproval are looking more and more like hijacking the will of the people. The GOP people, anyway.
“As TexAgg is ironically pointing out, they have the right to concoct any rules they want.
There’s no irony in me stating the truth, Charles. Get that through your head. I don’t ‘accidentally’ assert things.
You literally have no concept of why a majority of delegates is required do you?
“the party has an obligation to fairly represent the will of the party members.”
“the party has an obligation to conduct its business openly.”
Neither of these are true to the extent that they supersede the parties’ primary duty to the nation and the world.
We have two parties, and their job is to find qualified candidates for President, and other offices. That is the reason they exist. All other considerations and ethical obligations are secondary.
I don’t see why this is hard for you. This is the same as the core principle of representative democracy. An elected representative is not bound to follow the will of his constituency if he believes it is wrong and harmful to the best interests of the people and the nation.
That’s what “Profiles in Courage” was about, you’ll recall.
You are, in the end, making the argument that the party is bound to nominate someone it knows will do harm to the nation, the culture and quite possible the world. You are saying that the plurality of voters should overrule common sense, responsibility, duty and the survival instinct. You are saying that a party is right and good that nominates Trump, Hitler, Bozo the Clown, Jack the Ripper or Mo Mo the Worm man despite knowing that he will cause death, chaos, revolution or havoc, because they got a plurality of the votes in local primaries.
Nominations are not elections, they are processes that ideally identify the best and most effective candidate. Usually that means that the votes give us this information, but it is not an election. In this case, the process showed us that Marco Rubio was an empty suit, for example. It has also shown us that Donald Trump is neither competent, qualified, nor viable. The system worked.
Now the GOP’s job is to find someone better.
“You are, in the end, making the argument that the party is bound to nominate someone it knows will do harm to the nation, the culture and quite possible the world.”
Though there is no overt proof of such, nor do I craft my responses to him as though this were true, I have a subtle suspicion that Charles would love nothing more than Trump being the nominee, precisely BECAUSE of the damage he will do to the Republican party.
From Wikipedia:
“The popular vote in an American presidential election was first fully recorded and reported in the election of 1824.[1] Since then, 16 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.”
So I guess a plurality is good enough to win a Presidential election.
Not to mention: a plurality, not a majority, of voter-eligible citizens actually register to vote.
And a plurality, not a majority, of registered voters typically turn out to vote.
So I guess a plurality is good enough for the entire voting process, from registration to ballot-casting.
So – just what is it about the smoke-filled-room crafted “rules” developed by completely the extra-governmental entities called political parties that makes you think majority rule has some claim on our moral judgment?
‘Cause I sure as hell don’t see it. And if enough fools share your view in Cleveland, then as Tom noted, you’ll see Hillary legally elected – by a plurality. The 17th in our nation’s history.
But at least you’ll be able to claim you weren’t beaten by a majority.
“So I guess a plurality is good enough to win a Presidential election.”
No it isn’t. What a truly silly thing to say.
Charles, how is the President elected?
I’m going to give you some source material to assist your answer:
The italicized bit is amended by the followiing:
Ok. I’ll let you formulate your answer, but I will give you a hint in the form of my next question to you:
Charles, since we know a plurality of voters is not what elects Presidents, lets go ahead and pretend, in fantasy land, that it does. Why on earth would the constitutional rules governing the election of the President during the general election bind the individual parties to follow the same process during the Primaries?
Why?
You’re analogy is useless even if we ignore that you were completely wrong to begin with.
“Not to mention: a plurality, not a majority, of voter-eligible citizens actually register to vote.”
Point? Voter-eligible citizens don’t pick electors… Voters do. Oh, and guess what? It’s the MAJORITY of voters who pick the electors…not a plurality.
Wrong again, Charles! 0 for 2.
“And a plurality, not a majority, of registered voters typically turn out to vote.”
In summary, 0 for 3. Again, a majority of actual voters decide, not a impotent list of people who COULD vote.
“So I guess a plurality is good enough for the entire voting process, from registration to ballot-casting.”
Guess all you want… your train of logic is hopelessly flawed. So this assertion lands you at 0 for 4.
Or should we keep it 0 for 3 since this conclusion is really just a composite failure of the previous 3 failures on your part?
————————————————————–
“So – just what is it about the smoke-filled-room crafted “rules” developed by completely the extra-governmental entities called political parties that makes you think majority rule has some claim on our moral judgment?”
What the hell are you talking about? You’re beginning to sound desperate and hysterical here. I’m not sure what you think I’ve asserted other than the Republican nominee is chosen by a majority of delegates at the convention…not a plurality, like you and Tom have been ignorantly asserting it ought to be…
“‘Cause I sure as hell don’t see it. And if enough fools share your view in Cleveland, then as Tom noted, you’ll see Hillary legally elected – by a plurality. The 17th in our nation’s history.”
What view do you have in your head that is ‘mine’. A strawman perhaps? Because all I’ve mentioned is reality…which, again, is that a majority of delegates selects the nominee…not a plurality.
“But at least you’ll be able to claim you weren’t beaten by a majority.”
You really are nuts aren’t you?
To amend this for your edification, though it doesn’t change the fact that it’s inapplicable to how the parties run things, during the national election, if there are multiple candidates, most states will award their Electors to the candidate with a plurality.
So in that instance, plurality wins. Other than that, your assertions have been all wrong.
And to reiterate, completely non-analogous to how the Republican party selects it’s nominee.
Texagg, you seem to be hung up on this idea that ” a majority of delegates selects the nominee…not a plurality” is somehow meaningful. And Jack is adding ideas about the “purpose” or the “role” or “obligation” of a political party.
Let me offer some plain realpolitik commonsense, in this case from Sean Spicer, the RNC’s communications director and strategist, as quoted in US News and World Report, interviewed by a former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush.
The article is titled “You can’t change rules that don’t exist yet.”
The basic point is that there are no rules. They get re-invented every four years. And, as he puts it, “while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. “It’s like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president,” he says.” Meaning, it’s not.
The article continues: “In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: “The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time,” Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don’t exist yet – and won’t until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about “changing the rules” don’t really understand the process, he says. It’s a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.”
“That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they’d like.”
In other words: you can talk all you want about majority rules, and purposes of parties, but the main objective of the party is to continue the existence of the party. And the main objective of the candidates is to wrangle delegates who’ll vote for the candidates. Any high and mighty purpose of the parties comes about by accident, in the same way that Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand works despite the selfish intent of all individual economic players. The Founding Fathers knew this; they were extremely cynical about parties, basically trusting that they could be played off against each other.
Parties are as nakedly political as organizations can be. They exist to perpetuate their own existence by winning elections – period. The process of nominating a presidential candidate is an exercise in pure power – nothing high-minded about it.
I look at Ted Cruz’s effort to wrangle every last delegate he can by finagling every state delegation’s rules (this year’s rules, that is) and note that he calls it “playing by the rules.” Baloney. He hasn’t got the media that Trump has, so he chooses hand to hand combat in the weeds.
Trump, by contrast, is winning by mass communications and bombast. Neither of them has any claim to being more “honorable” than the other; each would do anything they can, within legal bounds, to get the election; and remember the rules are all in flux, so enough about “the rules are…”
In Trump’s case, I have no doubt that if he continues to have a plurality and not a majority, that he will huff and puff and try to blow the Republican house down. And because as Jack says, he’s a narcissist not a civic-minded citizen, he is not about to be dissuaded by your gentle reading of Roberts Rules or Order, or of the RNC’s rules. He has not hesitated to use power politics to date, why should he stop in Cleveland?
So the REAL question facing “the party” – meaning, the set of delegates who will have been wrangled in 2016 to attend the event – has very little to do with rules, and everything to do with how they will respond in the face of a power play from the leader – Mr Trump.
If they insist on “the rules” at the possible cost of a third party run, they can blame Trump all they want, but the practical result would probably be Hillary in the White House. That’s called Realpolitik, and it has nothing to do with the rules per se, but with the political response of the AnyoneButTrump movement to the present political situation.
As to your continued speculation on my motivations, I’ve said before and I’ll say again (sigh) I would strongly prefer to see a Democrat in the White House, but I have no desire to see the demise of a two-party system.
Trump is no Ross Perot; he represents a far deeper movement, part Tea Party and part disaffected lower-middle class (overlap, yes). That movement is stronger than any other movement under the dangerously stretched GOP tent at this moment. If it isn’t given the respect it has been demanding by the minorities lined up against it, it will not just fester for another four years, it’ll explode in ways that will do long-term damage to the GOP.
The choice in Cleveland will very possibly be a choice between the lesser of two perceived evils:
a. Undergoing a defeat a la Goldwater, McGovern or Dukakis, re-emerging with a chastened wing of the party two or four years later,
or
b. Cobbling together a still-unidentified “white knight,” pissing off the Trumpistas enough to go found a modern Bull Moose party, not only giving the election to Hillary but causing severe internal problems for the party (and thus for the nation) for another 4 – 12 years as the battle continues.
It’s a tough one to handicap, but I’d give a slight edge to outcome a): Trump gets the nomination, goes down in flames, the mainstream GOP tells the Trumpistas “I told you so,” buys them off and sends them back into the corner, slightly mollified and slightly chastened, but still Republican. Hillary under this scenario is much more vulnerable in 4 years than if the fight continues within the GOP, a la scenario b.
Not your best work.
Certainly one of your longest winded non-responses to date.
Is the nominee determined by a majority of delegates or not?
“Since then, 16 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the POPULAR vote.”
As long as we insist on retaining the facade of having a federal system, the popular vote isn’t worth spit. The American People don’t elect the President, the States do. Bringing up the popular vote is a misleading nonsequitor
Don’t deny charles the use of misleading nonsequitors…
Tom, your viewpoint is going to get a helluva lot of support in Cleveland in a few months. I for one wouldn’t bet against it.
By the way, the attitude exemplified here by your final two lines in this previous comment, is exactly why the N.W.O. is alive, well, and growing ever stronger.
N.W.O. deniers retreat into the preconceived notions implanted into them by their masters, rather than to examine a situation, circumstance, or event, as a free and independent agent, using logical rationale and scientific rigor, in order to arrive at a reasoned answer. I cannot and do not claim to know the truth of all things, but I sure as hell know that a pile of dung isn’t a bouquet of daisies.
So lack of proof is proof?
It is ironic that you wish to deny that conspiracies exist, while you simultaneously want the G.O.P. to conspire to rob Trump.
There is plenty of proof that some conspiracy theories are true. You believe that the “liberal media” has conspired to get Hillary this opportunity don’t you? You just have to pull your head out of the sand, slave, to see that many things you are told are lies.
Don’t ask me to explain any further than this: start by asking yourself who benefits from any thing that happens. If the real beneficiary is not the one who you are told acted, then you need to investigate whether you have been told the truth.
“while you simultaneously want the G.O.P. to conspire to rob Trump.”
Where’d I say that?
In additional asserting cleary incorrect procedure for nominating candidates now you create strawmen.
Your wonders will not cease.
“It is ironic that you wish to deny that conspiracies exist”
Hasty generalization.
My disagreement over the likelihood of a vast worldwide cabal doesn’t constitute a denial of conspiracies elsewhere.
Anything else?
What about the Illuminati? Will Dan Brown’s next novel be about a Presidential convention?
I don’t get it. Is it that the global community has gotten too big and complex to reconcile on a human scale? I mean, of course there are conspiracies. And no doubt there are guys who would love a new world order… but there is simply too much complexity and too many conflicting mega-cultures for a cabal of wealthy people to meet in secret and guide the affairs of the world.
They are pretty powerful as it is…they could do it openly. But they don’t. Because they can’t.
By the way, what would anyone rob Trump of?
Certainly not the nomination as he hasn’t met the requisite majority of delegates needed for nomination.
Tex, isn’t this whole theme just the result of everyone forgetting 1) how contested conventions work and 2) that nobody assumed that coming into a contested convention with the most delegates ensured anything? Having studied past conventions, I find this “it will be unfair if Trump has the most delegates and doesn’t get the nomination’ whining naive, ignorant or disingenuous. Do they think its like a scavenger hunt?
This is why a live convention is needed. Everyone gets together, argues, talks, goes into “smoke-filled rooms” and picks a President.
It is whining. It is pre-excuse making.
That’s just your 1st paragraph.
Should I continue the exegetical shredding of this?
1. Nobody deserves to be nominated for President if they have shown themselves to be unqualified for the office. Like Trump.
2. I fear Cruz, but the U.S. has done all right with Presidents who were plotting to win the job from a young age: FDR, LBJ, Clinton. Far from the bottom of the barrel.
3. I will take my chances with a black box than someone who has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he lacks the stability, temperament, judgement, dignity and judgement to be President. I’d place the odds on Trump not to be an existential disaster at 100% against: it’s a sure thing. Cruz? Maybe 50 to 1. At least he’s smart: that’s something. Hillary? About the same. Bernie? 200 to 1.
This guy I see out my window now walking his dog? The odds on him being less than a disaster are better than any of them.
Charles, Charles, Charles. You absolutely giddy glee is showing. Stop rooting so hard for chaos at the Republican convention and Trump’s ascendancy to the nomination so (you think) Hillary can waltz back in to the White House. It’s just too transparent.
Regarding the possibility of Trump paying cash bribes to delegates: not terribly likely. Trump only deals in other people’s money (recall the acronym OPM from the ’80s- you know, the decade which spawned The Trumpster). He’ll have to get a bank loan to finance the bribes. If the loan request says, “Purpose of Loan: To bribe delegates at the Republican Convention,” I doubt it will be approved. Do you really think any banker would want an auditor to see that? And if he says the loan is for a non-existent real estate project Trump will actually do rather than simply license his name to for a fee, he’d open himself to being charged with bank and wire fraud.
The only people making the “Trump is terrible but the GOP is cheating if it doesn’t nominate him or at least the one who has the second most delegates” are Trump supporters, Ted Cruz, and Hillary fans, who are so addled that the assume she couldn’t lose to Trump even though she nearly blew the competition with Sanders. The Democrats are especially hypocritical here, since the super-delegate scheme allows them to do exactly what they are saying the GOP shouldn’t do, just in a sneakier and less transparent way.
Of course, I wouldn’t presume to guess which of those three groups Charles belongs to…
None of the above.
I’ll repeat it again: I’m no fan of Cruz, Trump or Ryan, but I am a fan of the existing two-party system, and I think it is at risk.
The fact that my least-disliked option is Hillary shouldn’t prevent others from being able to assess a simple political argument: I predict chaos if the Cleveland convention tries to go other-than-Trump.
Anyone want to predict otherwise? A nice clean happy group of GOPers coming out of Cleveland all lined up together having nominated – wait, WHO? Jack has already predicted there’s “no way” that either Trump or Hillary will get their respective nominations. I guess we’ll all see what happens and collect on the various ‘bets’ in just a few months.
Wait a minute—that wasn’t your argument. I predict chaos. Chaos in 1968 didn’t destroy the Democratic Party or even drive young idealists out of it. Humphrey almost won. are you saying that, as I think you are, the the Republicans should nominate a man they know—know, know, know— isn’t fit to lead because they are afraid of protests and threats of violence? You think the the process should be driven by extortion, threats and fear by Trumps thugs?
If any party let that determine its decision, that party is worthless and untrustworthy, and should go out of business, and the sooner the better.
No, I do not think “the process should be driven by extortion, threats and fear by Trumps thugs.”
I do think the process should be driven by a healthy respect for the dominant wing of the party as reflected in primary votes to date – the Trumpsters.
Why is that even a controversial statement? If turnabout phrasing is fair play, are you suggesting that the dominant wing of the party is a bunch of extortionist thugs?
Why is it controversial to say that people who have forfeited any right to respect by acting like children, bullies, ignoramuses, fools and asshole deserve “healthy respect”? Do mobs deserve respect? If Congress overwhelmingly voted to make the national language Swedish and polls showed the nation was 95% in favor of it, would a competent President be bound not to veto?
Trump supporters deserve no respect. None. They cannot articulate a single coherent reason why the man should be President. I’ve asked. I’ve begged. I’ve argued. I’ve been on websites have made me take a shower after debating with some of the readers there. He lies, they ignore it. He’s cowardly, they still say he has guts. They are angry and want to burn down the country, both parties and the world. You call that worthy of respect? Have you taken leave of your mind?
You think there’s a threat of violence in Cleveland? Wait til you see the violence, national and international, Trump would spark.
It would be irresponsible and close to treason for the GOP to allow Trump to run. It would trade respect for the nation, the founders, democracy, decency, responsible governance and our traditions and culture for respect for the disreputable.
I don’t think Trump will bribe the delegates. I think he will threaten and extort them, as this fits in more with his MO.
Great point. Plus, he’s cheap. Threats and extortion are inexpensive.
At times like this, I am driven to say it stilll: I miss tgt.
Charles, deery, and chris seem to do a good job providing the illogical, rationalization filled, and poorly thought out pieces that tgt was skilled at producing…
Dear me, we must have two different commenters in mind. The one I was thinking of was a good match for you: informed, relevant, lucid, often witty and wonderfully quick on the draw, just as correct as the best of his opponents (since the debates were most often on unresolvable matters) and just a tad more stubborn than you are. (I seem to remember Comment Wars fought all the way down to column inches – his only flaw.) Following both sides was a lesson in politics, philosophy, religion (or not) and the ontology of complex thought, and a major reason I became involved here at all …. though of course, under the circumstances, you might think that a minus.
You have to give it to Trump though…. He’s amazing at branding. The same system that’s given him 48.6% of the delegates with slightly less than 40% of the popular vote is designed to be against him. Meanwhile, 894 delegates (51.4%) have been pledged elsewhere. Does anyone really think that any of the voters who voted for Bush or Rubio would have gone to Trump? TRUMP? Of course not.
So the reality is this:
1) More people prefer someone who is not Trump to Trump.
2) The only reason he’s as far ahead as he is is because the 217,000 other candidates split the not-idiot vote too hard, and early. Had the race been Trump, Cruz and Kasich from the beginning, it’s almost mathematically impossible for Trump to have been the front-runner.
3) So the reality is that the same reason he won’t get to 1237 is the only reason he’s ahead: The reasonable people vote was split.
And somehow, he’s got people buying into this ‘plurality’ nonsense as if it’s somehow profound, never taking into account that the system that is rigged against him is the only reason he’s not running last.
Careful, you’re about to draw the ire of charlesgreen and Tom McDaniel!
I’ve been desperately trying to open their eyes on this very topic.
“The reasonable people vote was split.”
You mean, the “reasonable people” who preferred Ben Carson? True, at one point he was tied for Donald Trump for first place. That’s a lot of “reasonable people” who then dumped him – while Trump then went up in the polls.
Or do you mean the reasonable people who preferred Carly Fiorina? Or Huckabee? Or Santorum?
What “reasonable people?” If you mean Bush or Rubio or Kasich, you’ll notice they didn’t do so well – even up against some of what a former GOP candidate for President called “wacko birds.”
Careful Charles, or your face might stay that way.
All those names you mentioned, I’m going to guess you consider them unreasonable candidates? Fine. 10 delegates. And heck, even I was duped by Fiorina, she really impressed me early on, until it became horrifyingly obvious that she was a one trick pony.
What you saw over time was a shift as people got to know the candidates and started figuring out where to vote strategically. Was Ted really the first choice for Republicans? Hell no. Ask Lindsay Graham. But is he a much more reasonable compromise compared to Trump? I think so. Is he a better candidate than Bernie? I think so. Is he a better candidate than Hillary? She’s a serial liar, only out for herself, and had absolutely no principles, but at least she’s sane. I’m so glad I don’t get to vote in your elections, I have no idea what I’d do.
Lemme repost this here:
By reasonable, what is meant is “people smart enough to know a con man and a dolt when they see one.” Anybody but Trump is reasonable by comparison.
Well, maybe not Carson.
Am I the only Democrat who wants a brokered convention? I don’t want the nominee to be Trump or Cruz — one of them might actually win the general election! I’d rather a decent candidate be chosen — even if it means that the Democrat has a greater shot at losing.
I’m sure there are other Democrats who can think clearly and patriotically.
Yes, but you know the Write-Ins never win.