The one where the people below me know their place, and stay silent as I lift up the ladder after I climbed it.
The one where the wife doen’t kick me under the table every time I start to talk at Christmas dinner with the family.
The one where I’m not confronted with a multitude of weird foreigners with weird foreign names and weird foreign accents and weird foreign foods, and am instead comforted by good American neighbors with good American names like Marino and Polanski, with good American backgrounds from American places like Texas and Europe, and good American foods, like pizza and bratwurst.
As Marco claims he lost because ‘it was God’s will’, and Cruz and his whack family claim ‘God wants Cruz to win’, and even though Trump hasn’t read the Bible, (because he’s not in it,) clearly when Trump says:“I’m speaking with myself, I have a very good brain” … He must really believe that he’s talking to God anyway. Amirite?
But you knew that. You just decided to boringly remind everyone how STUPIDEVIL the Republicans are, exactly like I asked you not to, because signalling that you have the Right Opinions is more important than actually any sort of interesting discussion.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Bernie wins a majority of the elected delegates (still slightly possible) and Hillary’s superdelegates give her the nomination.
This is an acceptable outcome because primary “elections” are actually an intra-party selection process that are a quasi-private matter similar to a corporate board selection process. Trump and Hillary did not “win” a single vote in all of this. Delegates to the respective conventions “won” the right to vote in favor of their candidate on the first round. None of this is enshrined in the US Constitution and only a few bits are codified in State Law.
Over the next few weeks the actual delegates will be selected by the State/Local political parties, so it’s important that each candidate now make sure that the individual people chosen will adhere to the candidate, preferably beyond the first round of votes at the convention. The individual people who go to the conventions are typically people who have been active participants in their party for a very long time, or have donated large sums of money over a very long time, or are local politicians who have represented their party for a very long time.
This part of the process is not “democratic” in terms of the popular vote. (It’s arguable that the general election isn’t either with the electoral college.)
My guess is that him saying it isn’t a big deal. The fact that it’s true regardless of if he says it or not is a big deal. It’s just confirming their fears. This isn’t a threat, it’s a promise, even a prophecy.
They can’t STOP him from getting the nomination. The smarter among them are already making plans for how to deal with a Trump candidacy (and likely thinking about what to do in 4 years when they get ANOTHER chance to take out Clinton that they can possibly do much better on when Trump crashes and burns now). Minimize the damage to the brand. Stop it from tainting Republicans in 2018. Even tap into it a bit (if there’s any big bogeyman for big government evil, Hilary Clinton will sit in that costume comfortably). The shift from “Do we allow this?” to “How do we deal with the fact that this is going to happen?” has probably already happened. Him promising riots is just rubbing it in.
Well, it’s “acceptable” as in “legal”. It would also encourage voters into open hostility against the party and hamstring Clinton in the general election. In the long term it might cause the party to rebound leftward and/or present a golden opportunity for a truly progressive third party, but at the cost of 4 years of Trump.
I don’t know how I missed that, but good call. I personally think that gold will be the official military uniform colour, but I guess we can just wait and see.
Do you perhaps mean the good guys with guns? If they are coming then none of us unarmed good guys have anything to worry about.
Wait, will there be uniforms?
Does camo mean bad, good, or just harder to see? Does a “Pedro” mean bad?
I get so confused.
No. It seems part of the confusion here is over the definition of “direct physical threats”: the Southern Strategy was racist and morally reprehensible, but it was not a direct call for violence. Subtly playing on people’s racist fears for votes is not even remotely the same as threatening that your own supporters will be violent if you don’t get your way. I can understand the confusion because taking political advantage of racism has the long term effect of increasing the likelihood of violence, but there’s no evidence it was the intent-- by the 70’s the GOP understood that violence worked against them in public opinion. Current Republican leaders have come out and explicitly said Trump hinting at violence is"unacceptable."
I’m not defending the GOP here, they’re craven and greedy, but if we’re going to have a substantive and intelligent discussion of politics it doesn’t help to mischaracterize the other side, they already have plenty legitimately wrong with them (besides, exaggerating the threat and implying malevolence is exactly what conservatives do when discussing liberals.) That is what my “STUPIDEVIL” comment was addressing: saying the RNC likes violence “dumbs down” the debate.
Funnily enough in Illinois Trump had some issues with some of his voters not voting for all his delegates
Illinois Republicans hold a convoluted “loophole” primary: The statewide primary winner earns 15 delegates, but the state’s other 54 delegates are elected directly on the ballot, with three at stake in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts. Each campaign files slates of relatively unknown supporters to run for delegate slots, and each would-be delegate’s presidential preference is listed beside his or her name. As a result, the top presidential candidate in each congressional district usually claims all three of the district’s delegates.
Except on Tuesday, a handful of congressional districts split their delegates in ways that cast doubt on voters’ racial motivations. Did voters have genuine personal preferences for the mostly anonymous individuals running for these slots, or was it a case of “what’s in a name?”
A FiveThirtyEight analysis of the dozen highest vote differentials within district-level Trump slates reveals a startling pattern: In all 12 cases, the highest vote-getting candidate had a common, Anglo-sounding name. But a majority of the trailing candidates had first or last names most commonly associated with Asian, Hispanic or African-American heritages. Of the 54 Trump delegate candidates in the state, two of the three worst-trailing candidates were the only two Trump candidates with Middle Eastern-sounding names.
There will be increased risk of violence regardless of what happens. No one in the Drumpf campaign is rationally controlling what happens. They’re just escalating thoughtlessly and compulsively.
