CDZ Can the GOP Nominate Someone With Fewer Delegates In His Favor Thank There Are Lined Up Against Him?

[Care4all]

Can the GOP Nominate Someone With Fewer Delegates In His Favor Thank There Are Lined Up Against Him?

Or does the GOP have to nominate someone else? Or does the GOP Convention become absolute chaos like the Democratic Convention was in 1968?

Parliamentary chaos ensues when, after a failure of any candidate to achieve a majority in the initial balloting, the convention is declared open and all delegates are released from their pledged candidate. This may well be the case when the time comes, but it is too early yet to tell.

What does seem certain is that no matter whom the convention picks, a very substantial minority of the delegates and of GOP voters are going to be angry and dissatisfied. The convention is shaping up as the Gettysburg of the Republican Party Civil War and it is hard to see how the fighting can go on after it.

It is quite possible, of course, that the losing side will bolt the GOP for a third party run. This would almost certainly elect a Democrat but in the resulting rubble the Republican will, perforce, end the fighting and reform.

Just my opinion, of course...

Is it a majority or is it at minimum, 50% of the delegates or more? I read a plural majority is not good enough, it can go brokered/contested if the candidate does not reach 50% of the delegates voting for him, if not then the convention can be contested and pledged delegates do NOT have to represent the State and the State's candidate voted on by the people....in the second round of voting...

 

[BULLDOG]

I feel that the people would riot at this point if they past up the person whom they obviously wanted in... We are to our breaking point with the government bullshit.

why would they "riot" if Trump does not hold a majority of available delegates even though he has more than the other candidates? should the majority of the party be unrepresented?

No, that comment was about something I saw on the news the other day...Saying that even if he gets all of the delegates he needs the GOP can still take it away from him..

Sounds like the GOP is screwing you again, yet you still believe everything they tell you.

 

[Fishlore]

Can the GOP Nominate Someone With Fewer Delegates In His Favor Thank There Are Lined Up Against Him?

Or does the GOP have to nominate someone else? Or does the GOP Convention become absolute chaos like the Democratic Convention was in 1968?

Parliamentary chaos ensues when, after a failure of any candidate to achieve a majority in the initial balloting, the convention is declared open and all delegates are released from their pledged candidate. This may well be the case when the time comes, but it is too early yet to tell.

What does seem certain is that no matter whom the convention picks, a very substantial minority of the delegates and of GOP voters are going to be angry and dissatisfied. The convention is shaping up as the Gettysburg of the Republican Party Civil War and it is hard to see how the fighting can go on after it.

It is quite possible, of course, that the losing side will bolt the GOP for a third party run. This would almost certainly elect a Democrat but in the resulting rubble the Republican will, perforce, end the fighting and reform.

Just my opinion, of course...

I bet ya Romney is going to jump in to be the nomination, this is why we see his face in the news...

Romney's observations this morning suggest that, whatever his goal, the VP spot on the Trump ticket isn't it: "Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat," sayeth ye former governor of ye Bay State.

The question is: which of the two men will be on the GOP ticket and which will be the head of the Sore Loser Party?

 

[TNHarley]

I think its the last part more than anything.
Honestly, I don't know many people that actually like Trump. They like the "idea". They just hate the corportism, non-representation and lack of accountability. Some, like me, don't think his lunacy will be any worse than obamas, bushs etc.
The Dems will be next.. They seem to "tow the line" a little more..

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see demo

lol ok

that the best you can respond with, TN?

feel free to point out where democrats question the legitimacy of the federal government.

republicans did it when the court ordered marriage equality

republicans thought it was ok to raise arms against federal offices (I believe you still see every day posts about how the federal government should "give back" the land to "the people"

and how many times have you seen extremists on the board talk about posse comitatus?

so you can lol all you want, but you still haven't responded to the fact that there is a significant minority of GOP voters who hate the federal government... which is where trump derives much of his energy.

Goddamnit Jillian. Have you ever heard of Bernie Sanders?
Why should I waste time typing OBVIOUS things when a hack wont open its eyes and mind long enough to even consider it?
I don't understand how someone CANT hate the way things are. It cant be ANY MORE OBVIOUS they are corrupt, put special and foreign interest above ours and stick to failure. OVER and OVER and OVER
Like I said, fuckin OBVIOUS

Of course you are full of hate. The GOP has been pumping you full of it for years.

You hypocritical dumbfuck
"hitler!" "We are going to be underwater in 2000!" "If we don't stop individual liberty, the white men are going to put us in gas chambers" "the right wants to keep black people from voting because they KNOW back people cant get photo ids!" social assassination etc
Don't give me your partisan bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can the GOP Nominate Someone With Fewer Delegates In His Favor Thank There Are Lined Up Against Him?

Or does the GOP have to nominate someone else? Or does the GOP Convention become absolute chaos like the Democratic Convention was in 1968?

Parliamentary chaos ensues when, after a failure of any candidate to achieve a majority in the initial balloting, the convention is declared open and all delegates are released from their pledged candidate. This may well be the case when the time comes, but it is too early yet to tell.

What does seem certain is that no matter whom the convention picks, a very substantial minority of the delegates and of GOP voters are going to be angry and dissatisfied. The convention is shaping up as the Gettysburg of the Republican Party Civil War and it is hard to see how the fighting can go on after it.

It is quite possible, of course, that the losing side will bolt the GOP for a third party run. This would almost certainly elect a Democrat but in the resulting rubble the Republican will, perforce, end the fighting and reform.

Just my opinion, of course...

I bet ya Romney is going to jump in to be the nomination, this is why we see his face in the news...

Romney's observations this morning suggest that, whatever his goal, the VP spot on the Trump ticket isn't it: "Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat," sayeth ye former governor of ye Bay State.

The question is: which of the two men will be on the GOP ticket and which will be the head of the Sore Loser Party?

POPCORN.......GET YER POPCORN!!!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see demo

lol ok

that the best you can respond with, TN?

feel free to point out where democrats question the legitimacy of the federal government.

republicans did it when the court ordered marriage equality

republicans thought it was ok to raise arms against federal offices (I believe you still see every day posts about how the federal government should "give back" the land to "the people"

and how many times have you seen extremists on the board talk about posse comitatus?

so you can lol all you want, but you still haven't responded to the fact that there is a significant minority of GOP voters who hate the federal government... which is where trump derives much of his energy.

Goddamnit Jillian. Have you ever heard of Bernie Sanders?
Why should I waste time typing OBVIOUS things when a hack wont open its eyes and mind long enough to even consider it?
I don't understand how someone CANT hate the way things are. It cant be ANY MORE OBVIOUS they are corrupt, put special and foreign interest above ours and stick to failure. OVER and OVER and OVER
Like I said, fuckin OBVIOUS

Of course you are full of hate. The GOP has been pumping you full of it for years.

You hypocritical dumbfuck
"hitler!" "We are going to be underwater in 2000!" "If we don't stop individual liberty, the white men are going to put us in gas chambers" "the right wants to keep black people from voting because they KNOW back people cant get photo ids!" social assassination etc
Don't give me your partisan bullshit.

You are experiencing the first symptoms of a melt down. I suggest you put your head in the freezer, because it's overheating again.

 

[Care4all]

I feel that the people would riot at this point if they past up the person whom they obviously wanted in... We are to our breaking point with the government bullshit.

why would they "riot" if Trump does not hold a majority of available delegates even though he has more than the other candidates? should the majority of the party be unrepresented?

No, that comment was about something I saw on the news the other day...Saying that even if he gets all of the delegates he needs the GOP can still take it away from him..

they can NOT take it away from Trump IF AND ONLY IF, Donald receives 50% of the delegates...otherwise his candidacy can be contested at the convention...is my understanding...

 

[martybegan]

I tend to think they wont do shit. Just more doom and gloom from the rubes and establishment.

by establishment, I assume you mean the majority of the party..... given that it is a minority of the party that supports trump.

not that your assessment might not be correct....

Trump does best in open primaries, he is feeding on the groundswell of angst in middle america. Most of the upcoming primaries are closed ones, lets see how he does in those before the concept of "majorities of Republicans" supporting him is discussed with any certainty.

that "groundswell" isn't even a majority of republican voters.... I think that's the point of the question I asked in the o/p.

how does the GOP handle it's nominee when that nominee is rejected by the majority of its primary voters - who aren't even a majority of the GOP....and who are generally the most dogmatic --of their own party.

In most multi-candidate primaries over 2-3 leaders the front runner is "rejected" by the majority of voters. Its the whole reason for the primary process. Again, lets see what happens in the closed primaries coming up, and judge then how much of Trumps actual support is coming from the base.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have such odd beliefs about liberals. Did rush tell you all of that?

You are not liberals, you are leftists. What I posted is spot on. I can back every line up with posts from the imitation lawyer substitute it was addressed to.

Jillian has specifically stated in the past that the Constitution is whatever the SCOTUS says it is.

Oh, while I like Rush, I don't turn to Canadian Rock bands for my political ideals. You have me confused with Mani.

 

[martybegan]

I do.
yea, but even less support cruz; even less support Rubio; even less support Kasich.
I dont understand that mentality..

the problem has always been that there were too many people running. a smaller field would have allowed the candidates to gather individual support.

fox never should have used national polls to determine who the "frontrunner" was. national polls were irrelevant at that point and only served to reward the name recognition that trump had and the free media he got for saying outrageous things. any other GOP candidate would have been finished when they said that McCain isn't a war hero. That didn't touch Trump because he had a pre-existing "relationship" with these people because of his TV show and name on everything. Some people seem to think that makes him presidential material.... or they just hate their party so much that they don't care.

I think its the last part more than anything.
Honestly, I don't know many people that actually like Trump. They like the "idea". They just hate the corportism, non-representation and lack of accountability. Some, like me, don't think his lunacy will be any worse than obamas, bushs etc.
The Dems will be next.. They seem to "tow the line" a little more..

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see democrats refusing to follow the lawful orders of the court. can you imagine how the GOP would have acted if a democratic court handed the election to a democrat? the dems never questioned the legitimacy of the government. certain parts of the GOP (mostly the trump parts) do it all the time.

Most of the force nowadays comes from progressives not the other way around. Progressives like the federal government, and the courts especially because they are isolated from the people. Thus Progressives don't have to deal with the Proles, they can just sue their way to making people live, act and think JUST LIKE THEY DO!!! For your view to be valid, it would have to be like People in Alabama voting to force people in NY to not allow Gay Marriage, but that's not the case. its the people in NY that are saying "you are going to do it, you are going to like it, and if you don't, here's the handcuffs. "

My sig covers my view on this quite nicely.

For your view to be valid, our form of government would not be valid. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to take your traitorous ass somewhere else.

CDZ Bulldog, try to mind your manners.

It's not the constitution that's the problem, its the progressive idea that it can be changed via the courts without using the amendment process that is the problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

You have such odd beliefs about liberals. Did rush tell you all of that?

You are not liberals, you are leftists. What I posted is spot on. I can back every line up with posts from the imitation lawyer substitute it was addressed to.

Jillian has specifically stated in the past that the Constitution is whatever the SCOTUS says it is.

Oh, while I like Rush, I don't turn to Canadian Rock bands for my political ideals. You have me confused with Mani.

No, I'm not confusing you with anyone. I've had you pegged for a while.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's a pretty broad question.

Liberals follow the ideas of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, et al.

democrats follow the ideas and ideals of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, et al.

You are leftists, there is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you.

 

[martybegan]

I do.
yea, but even less support cruz; even less support Rubio; even less support Kasich.
I dont understand that mentality..

the problem has always been that there were too many people running. a smaller field would have allowed the candidates to gather individual support.

fox never should have used national polls to determine who the "frontrunner" was. national polls were irrelevant at that point and only served to reward the name recognition that trump had and the free media he got for saying outrageous things. any other GOP candidate would have been finished when they said that McCain isn't a war hero. That didn't touch Trump because he had a pre-existing "relationship" with these people because of his TV show and name on everything. Some people seem to think that makes him presidential material.... or they just hate their party so much that they don't care.

I think its the last part more than anything.
Honestly, I don't know many people that actually like Trump. They like the "idea". They just hate the corportism, non-representation and lack of accountability. Some, like me, don't think his lunacy will be any worse than obamas, bushs etc.
The Dems will be next.. They seem to "tow the line" a little more..

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see democrats refusing to follow the lawful orders of the court. can you imagine how the GOP would have acted if a democratic court handed the election to a democrat? the dems never questioned the legitimacy of the government. certain parts of the GOP (mostly the trump parts) do it all the time.

Most of the force nowadays comes from progressives not the other way around. Progressives like the federal government, and the courts especially because they are isolated from the people. Thus Progressives don't have to deal with the Proles, they can just sue their way to making people live, act and think JUST LIKE THEY DO!!! For your view to be valid, it would have to be like People in Alabama voting to force people in NY to not allow Gay Marriage, but that's not the case. its the people in NY that are saying "you are going to do it, you are going to like it, and if you don't, here's the handcuffs. "

My sig covers my view on this quite nicely.

you seem to forget that we have a form of government that requires all states to extend the minimal rights granted by our constitution and federal laws. it has always been that way. that's the point of the court... to keep the torch and pitchfork crowd from taking away rights from unpopular people or things.

there would never be any reason for the court to have to protect the popular.

you can't simply say you don't like our form of government.

well, you can, but it's kind of pointless

So why does it take me 6 months to get a handgun, and $1000 as well, when my "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

it's not our form of government that's an issue, it's the current progressive "Everyone should act and think like meeeee!!!" implementation that is the issue.

 

[BULLDOG]

the problem has always been that there were too many people running. a smaller field would have allowed the candidates to gather individual support.

fox never should have used national polls to determine who the "frontrunner" was. national polls were irrelevant at that point and only served to reward the name recognition that trump had and the free media he got for saying outrageous things. any other GOP candidate would have been finished when they said that McCain isn't a war hero. That didn't touch Trump because he had a pre-existing "relationship" with these people because of his TV show and name on everything. Some people seem to think that makes him presidential material.... or they just hate their party so much that they don't care.

I think its the last part more than anything.
Honestly, I don't know many people that actually like Trump. They like the "idea". They just hate the corportism, non-representation and lack of accountability. Some, like me, don't think his lunacy will be any worse than obamas, bushs etc.
The Dems will be next.. They seem to "tow the line" a little more..

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see democrats refusing to follow the lawful orders of the court. can you imagine how the GOP would have acted if a democratic court handed the election to a democrat? the dems never questioned the legitimacy of the government. certain parts of the GOP (mostly the trump parts) do it all the time.

Most of the force nowadays comes from progressives not the other way around. Progressives like the federal government, and the courts especially because they are isolated from the people. Thus Progressives don't have to deal with the Proles, they can just sue their way to making people live, act and think JUST LIKE THEY DO!!! For your view to be valid, it would have to be like People in Alabama voting to force people in NY to not allow Gay Marriage, but that's not the case. its the people in NY that are saying "you are going to do it, you are going to like it, and if you don't, here's the handcuffs. "

My sig covers my view on this quite nicely.

For your view to be valid, our form of government would not be valid. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to take your traitorous ass somewhere else.

CDZ Bulldog, try to mind your manners.

It's not the constitution that's the problem, its the progressive idea that it can be changed via the courts without using the amendment process that is the problem.

Thank you for the reminder. I have edited my post. Nobody said the constitution can be edited without the amendment process, but the constitution does say the supreme court would interpret it's meaning.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's a pretty broad question.

Liberals follow the ideas of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, et al.

democrats follow the ideas and ideals of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, et al.

You are leftists, there is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you.

Really? You got any rational way to back that up? A limbaugh quote isn't acceptable.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? You got any rational way to back that up? A limbaugh quote isn't acceptable.

Quick, say something "liberal."

Oh, and my views are more from Hayek.

You see, I am a liberal. I support liberty, Laissez Faire economics, property rights, the knowledge that trade, uncoerced and free, is the foundation of all that benefits society.

You are a leftist, an advocate of government control of all things. A state managed economy where all things, including people, are ultimately the property of the state. Of course strict social regulations to ensure that favored groups such homosexuals are paid proper deference by bakers, et al.

 

[BULLDOG]

So that's what you think I support? If any of that was true, I would probably hate me too. I don't know where you're getting your information, but they are lying to you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you for the reminder. I have edited my post. Nobody said the constitution can be edited without the amendment process, but the constitution does say the supreme court would interpret it's meaning.

Actually, Jillian has said exactly that. The belief of the left is that the Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means. Sadly, the nation is ruled in this way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So that's what you think I support? If any of that was true, I would probably hate me too. I don't know where you're getting your information,

I get my information from your posts.

but they are lying to you.

That is likely.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for the reminder. I have edited my post. Nobody said the constitution can be edited without the amendment process, but the constitution does say the supreme court would interpret it's meaning.

Actually, Jillian has said exactly that. The belief of the left is that the Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means. Sadly, the nation is ruled in this way.

Can you name one time when the constitution was edited without the amendment process, or is your imagination just running wild again?