Maybe we should just elect Trump president

hutch wrote:
do you really want to argue that you are free to call me a piece of shit on this board??? when i didn't say anything about you to begin with?

I mean, within reason. People insult each other on here every day; people are not banned daily. Res ipsa loquitor.

You're free to call me a piece of shit. Go ahead, you might like it.
killsaly wrote:
Anybody going to Abbath tomorrow????   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Hey Jaded, commentary?

8)
John Kasich's jumper is trash
He has such disdain for the press.  What the hell is wrong with him?
https://youtu.be/WBQvvTBg2Ek
killsaly wrote:
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/710065948657635328?ref_src=twsrc

Donald seems to think there will be riots if he does not get the nomination.  And other "bad things." 

paraphrasing here, but trump said "if i'm 100 votes short, but closer to the needed number than the next guy, i can't see how i shouldn't be given the nomination automatically".  actually, you dolt, that's how the system works.  if you didn't get 50% you don't get it automatically.
sweetcell wrote:
killsaly wrote:
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/710065948657635328?ref_src=twsrc

Donald seems to think there will be riots if he does not get the nomination.  And other "bad things." 

paraphrasing here, but trump said "if i'm 100 votes short, but closer to the needed number than the next guy, i can't see how i shouldn't be given the nomination automatically".  actually, you dolt, that's how the system works.  if you didn't get 50% you don't get it automatically.
I'll actually sort of defend Trump on this. While, yes, that is not how the system works, he's speaking more on a "fairness" level not a procedural one. He would be the clear choice of the voters. If Trump has 48% of the delegates and they go and give the nomination to Rubio or Bush, that's totally acceptable legally/procedurally, but it's also clearly giving a giant middle finger to the will of the people.
https://youtu.be/59biNi9cDAo
How can anybody trust this guy?
killsaly wrote:
https://youtu.be/59biNi9cDAo
How can anybody trust this guy?


A lot of people see what they want to see in Trump… which makes him very dangerous..
Julian, wrote:
He would be the clear choice of the voters.

but he wouldn't be the clear choice.  if a candidate gets less than 50%, that means more people don't want him than do.  hence the need to do multiple rounds of voting until a candidate does get an actual majority.
sweetcell wrote:
Julian, wrote:
He would be the clear choice of the voters.

but he wouldn't be the clear choice.  if a candidate gets less than 50%, that means more people don't want him than do.  hence the need to do multiple rounds of voting until a candidate does get an actual majority.
Maybe "clear choice" wasn't the right way to put it. He would be – let's agree – the most popular choice. There's no way he has a distinctive lead on second place, loses it in the convention because he fell just short of 50%, and that huge number of people who went out and voted for him aren't going to feel disenfranchised, rules be damned.

From a pure "fairness" standpoint, I agree with him. Taking it out of the hands of the actual voters so people can make some backroom deal seems, on its face, very much against the democratic process. Lots of general elections end with people not getting to 50%; I think if that situation was handled the way a primary handles it, people would be so outraged they'd demand the system change going forward.
… aaaaaaand that's exactly what the GOP establishment is wrestling with.
Hillary had a pretty funny cameo on Broad City.