Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?

[LetterRip]

The party is reacting to Trump this way, because while he may win the Presidency - he will alienate hispanic voters from the Republican party.  And while they aren't critical for this election - due to demographic shifts the party could permanently lose the white house from 2020 onward if they do alienate the hispanic voters (losing many south western states including Texas).  Similarly alienating black voters could lose a lot of republican southern strongholds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/10/the-demographics-of-2016-look-brutal-for-republicans/

[Pete at Home]

Nevertheless, the fact is that Democrats (e.g. Al on this forum) supports deenfranchisement of violent felons, committers of fraud, and other traditional felons whose rights were revocable under the 14th Amendment.  And why?  Because of the assumption that (contrary to what Al said before) the primary group who commits gun crimes against African Americans are a group that is predominately likely to vote Democrat.

I look forward to the day when you stop making *censored* up just to start a fight.  In the meantime, enjoy yourself as I have no interest in pretending to have a debate with you on this.  Feh, indeed.

Pardon the typo.  I meant RE-enfranchisement.  And I didn't make that up, you said it right here:

 

If that's not true, then why is the Democratic party so intent on getting rid of fully constitutional laws that ban violent felons from voting?  Isn't the assumption that violent felons (who predominantly target black and hispanic victims) will vote Democrat?

They should be allowed to vote because they've paid their debt to society.  Why should that fundamental right be denied them?

DW had just questioned my assertion that Democrats had, on the agenda, the re-enfranchisement of violent felons.  And you had said, rather foolishly, that it was primarily whites that hurt black people with guns. (duh).  Thanks for rebutting both statements.

Also, poking you for using that bromide about serving time in prison being some sort of paying one's debt to society.  Nope.  You gun down some kid in a drive by shooting, then deny you did it in court and claim that the man is targeting you because of your skin color, then spend ten years as part of a prison gang, tell me how the hell you've paid society any restitution?  All that's happened is that your violent impulses have been redirected at the prison population for a few years rather than the community at large.

If someone actually makes restitution to society, on their own initiative, they can appeal to the governor for restitution of rights.  And that's how it ought to be.

[Pete at Home]

Pete, your words, on the post I responded to invited some *censoring* with.   If by “for the hell of it” you mean, “in a silly attempt to get you to make less sensational statements and just make your point”, then yes.  Guilty.

I have no idea what you mean. Do you?

And to your second question, I AM old enough, but honestly didn’t pay as much attention back then.  If you are amending out the “violent” qualifier on felons, then I withdraw my objection.

If Democrats that cry against disfranchisement, such as Al, will modify their arguments and call only for the reenfranchisement of NON-VIOLENT felons, then I will happily not complain that they aren't trying to reenfranchize violent criminals.

[D.W.]

Again, when you slow down, not only do I understand your points but a lot more often than not I agree with them Pete. 

THAT is what I meant, or what I intended.  So your understanding was apparently not required to get the intended result. 

I have reading comprehension problems the more worked up you are.  Maybe it's my problem and not yours.  Judging by some of the other responses that fall on the gradient from WTF? to hostile refutation, I'm betting it's not just me.   

[Pete at Home]

You're right.  It's probably me going into brainspin.  Thank you for persisting until I made sense.

[AI Wessex]

DW had just questioned my assertion that Democrats had, on the agenda, the re-enfranchisement of violent felons.  And you had said, rather foolishly, that it was primarily whites that hurt black people with guns. (duh).  Thanks for rebutting both statements.

Also, poking you for using that bromide about serving time in prison being some sort of paying one's debt to society.  Nope.  You gun down some kid in a drive by shooting, then deny you did it in court and claim that the man is targeting you because of your skin color, then spend ten years as part of a prison gang, tell me how the hell you've paid society any restitution?  All that's happened is that your violent impulses have been redirected at the prison population for a few years rather than the community at large.

Have you looked at the range of voting restrictions different states impose?  It's absurd that there is no uniform standard for any aspect of it.  It even can be applied to misdemeanors or crimes of moral turpitude, depending on where you are and who you are more than what you did.

[Pete at Home]

Have you looked at the range of voting restrictions different states impose? "

Uh, yeah, I just linke4d to the chart.

" s absurd that there is no uniform standard for any aspect of it. '

That absurdity is called federalism, and it's one of the two key pillars of the US constitution.  The other absurdity is called separation of powers.  The idea is, focus on your own *censored*ing state, We4ssex, and call us when you achieve Utopia.  Then, and only then, we will consider doing things your way.  The 15th amendment explicitly allows states to set that standard re voting.

[AI Wessex]

That absurdity is called federalism, and it's one of the two key pillars of the US constitution.  The other absurdity is called separation of powers.

I just love it when you fling around these grand announcements, as if delivered from a higher podium than I can aspire to.  Federalism is not absolute, nor is separation of powers.  That's why we have the SC to interpret laws and standards against all of the glorious writ in gold standards.  I hope someone brings a test case before the SC to challenge the state's right to deny anyone their franchise.  It has to be one of the most shameful aspects of southern democracy that being black is a hindrance to one's right to vote, almost as bad as being a Democrat.

The 15th amendment explicitly allows states to set that standard re voting.

How does the 15th grant states individual right to impose voting rights?  It guarantees that people cannot be disenfranchised by race, etc.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
 Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Pete at Home]

Al, dont blame me for youur failuure to aspire to higher thought, and failure to read carefully exce4pt for purpose of nitpicking.

You are correct that the license for voting restriction is n ot in 15a as i misspoke. It is in 14a,


Federalism and separation of powers are not a complex.matter beyond your reach. Try harder.

[Pete at Home]

"ederalism is not absolute, '

Of course not.  But 14a apecifically reserves a power to disfrnchise those who commit treason or other legislator designated crimes.

[AI Wessex]

But 14a apecifically reserves a power to disfrnchise those who commit treason or other legislator designated crimes.

Yes, I realize. I'm saying it's shameful the way it is used.  Is that statement clear?

[Pete at Home]

But 14a apecifically reserves a power to disfrnchise those who commit treason or other legislator designated crimes.

Yes, I realize. I'm saying it's shameful the way it is used.  Is that statement clear?

No.  I rarely get clarity from a Passive voice Pronoun statement wrapped inside another passive voice pronoun statement. 

Can you give me a specific example of some "non shameful" way a state could use that 14a clause?

[AI Wessex]

The shameful aspect is due to the wide differences in how states choose to apply this rule and how many people are barred from voting even though they served their time, sometimes for a single event or minor offenses, and have not been convicted of later crimes.  I'll give a few examples. You don't need to point out again that states are allowed to do this, or challenge my opinion that I think it needs to be changed.  You have already done that.

Except for Wyoming, all states with over 5% voter disenfranchisement are in the south, and all disproportionately use these laws to target blacks.  All states with high percentages have conservative and Republican legislatures and Governors.  About 2.5% of all potential voters in the country can't vote, but that includes 7.6% of blacks.  It's obvious that even if blacks disproportionately are convicted of crimes (another racist issue), the laws allow states to suppress black voting.

Florida's rules have flip-flopped from one extreme to another over the past 8 years.  The current policy was instituted with no clear reason, other than to be punitive to ex-cons who would most likely vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans.  That covers over 1.5 million people in Florida, or about 10% of the population, and a mind-boggling 23% of the black population.  Really?  It's clear that if the state ever swings Democratic (which is harder to do with so many potential Democratic voters barred from the polls), the law will be reversed again.  If that happens, it's likely the state will never elect a Republican Governor or Senators again, which is why  todays Republican government of the state has such a strict law.  This is the nastiest kind of Jim Crow in the country, and as you point out, it's allowed by the Constitution.

Florida - On Mar. 9, 2011 the Florida rules of Executive Clemency were toughened. Automatic restoration of civil rights and the ability to vote will no longer be granted for any offenses. All individuals convicted of any felony will now have to apply for executive clemency after a five year waiting period. Individuals who are convicted, or who have previously been convicted, of certain felonies such as murder, assault, child abuse, drug trafficking, arson, etc. are subject to a seven year waiting period and a clemency board hearing to determine whether or not the ability to vote will be restored.

Prior to the Mar. 9, 2011 rule change some individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies were re-enfranchised automatically by the Clemency Board upon completion of their full sentence, including payment of fines and fees.

Kentucky similarly recently reversed the policy for no apparent reason.  That state also can withhold voting privileges of people who have been convicted of "high misdemeanors", but as best I can determine that term means that the person was convicted of a crime that made them "infamous".:

Kentucky - On Nov. 24, 2015, Kentucky Gov. Steven L. Beshear issued executive order 2015-871 to automatically restore the right to vote to nonviolent felons who have completed probation, parole, and who have no outstanding court-ordered restitution payments. On Dec. 22, 2015, newly elected Gov. Matthew G. Bevin issued executive order 2015-052, rescinding the previous Governor’s executive order.

As a result, people convicted of any felony in Kentucky must individually apply with the Governor to have their voting rights restored.

In Hunter v. Underwood (1985), the SC ruled in favor of two men who were convicted in Alabama of "moral turpitude" for trying to cash a bad check.  Amazingly, when they first sued in Federal Court, they lost with the decision noting:

Edwards and Underwood sued the Board of Registrars at a Federal District Court, which found that indeed the outspoken purpose of the constitutional change was "the disenfranchisement of blacks", but could not find it proven that this was based on racism, and decided against the plaintiffs.

The south is so twisted when it comes to matters of black repression that it's possible to believe that systematic attempts to deny blacks the right to vote is somehow not due to racism.

[AI Wessex]

Well, we needn't worry about Trump's ability to get his way with a recalcitrant Congress or the leaders of other countries, as last night he pointed out in the debate that as far as having a big penis, you can be assured that he doesn't have a problem in that area.

[Pete at Home]

The shameful aspect is due to the wide differences in how states choose to apply this rule and how many people are barred from voting even though they served their time, sometimes for a single event or minor offenses, and have not been convicted of later crimes.  I'll give a few examples. You don't need to point out again that states are allowed to do this,

To the extent that you are essentially saying that federalism (the ability of different states to enact different laws within constitutional limits) is shameful, the shame rests on you.

To the extent that you use a single law of over 30 years ago to stand for a whole class of laws today, well, come on.

However, you have raised other valid issues such as disfraqnchisement for bouncing a check, etc, where basic crimes of poverty disfranchise.  But if you doctrinaire Democrats dont care about the poor enough to represent their plight (rather than laundering it as racism) then who do you expect to nominate justices who care about them?  Republicans?  Not no one. 

As for 7.5% vs 2.5%, that"s a function of blacks being more poor.  As is most of the effect of disproportionate violence by police (both justified and nonjustified). 

[AI Wessex]

To the extent that you are essentially saying that federalism (the ability of different states to enact different laws within constitutional limits) is shameful, the shame rests on you.

You're diverting. I'm not attacking federalism, but a weakness in the 14A that allows states to selectively disenfranchise a group of citizens it wants to keep away from the polls.

As for 7.5% vs 2.5%, that"s a function of blacks being more poor.

You're ignoring the cultural suppression (aka racism) that pushes more blacks into poverty and crime.  Nobody is blameless, in that if you do the crime you should do the time, but this is a lifetime sentence that wealthy or middle class whites don't suffer in the same proportions.

But if you doctrinaire Democrats dont care about the poor enough to represent their plight (rather than laundering it as racism) then who do you expect to nominate justices who care about them?

If I am reading you right this time, you're saying that although I'm raising this issue and liberal groups like the ACLU (not really liberal, but Constitutional) are driving to find solutions for this issue, that it's our fault for not raising this issue and driving to find solutions for it.  So doing something about it is not doing anything about it.   At least you agree that Republicans have no interest in fixing this problem, as it serves their purposes to keep certain classes of people away from the polls where they would vote them out of office if they could.

[D.W.]

Well, we needn't worry about Trump's ability to get his way with a recalcitrant Congress or the leaders of other countries, as last night he pointed out in the debate that as far as having a big penis, you can be assured that he doesn't have a problem in that area.

He apparently has no problem in the balls department either...

The highlight that shocked me, as his vulgarity really doesn't at this point, was his insistence that, the military WOULD follow his orders, because he knows how to lead.  This was in response to, "what do you say to those in the military who have said they would disobey orders you have proposed because they are illegal. 

Obama is a menace that must be stopped when he bends the law (in some's opinions) but Trump will just ignore them and get others to do what he says despite them.  Well, at least Trump informed us in advance he intends to rule not govern.  That was generous of him.

[Pete at Home]

You're ignoring the cultural suppression (aka racism) that pushes more blacks into poverty and crime

You fail to show any evidence that present racism rather that past racism resulting in blacks being disproportionately born into poverty is the cause.  You live in too much privilege and rub shoulders with too few poor to grasp that poverty crosses generations.  In this, talking to you is as painful as talking to a devout tea partier.

[Pete at Home]

that it's our fault for not raising this issue and driving to find solutions for it.

Causally it's as much your fault as the Republicans.  Morally, it's more your fault because of the hypocrisy problem, since you.pretend to stand for the downtrodden against the forces of privilege, when you are really raising the walls around the ghetto while welcoming a handful of token race representatives into the elites.

No sir, you dont get to take credit for the ACLU. They are their own collection of constitutional and anticonstitutional ecclectics, and neither conservative nor or liberal at heart.

[AI Wessex]

You fail to show any evidence that present racism rather that past racism resulting in blacks being disproportionately born into poverty is the cause.  You live in too much privilege and rub shoulders with too few poor to grasp that poverty crosses generations.  In this, talking to you is as painful as talking to a devout tea partier.

You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.  And then you pointedly accuse me of somehow ignoring the generations that they have suffered the consequences.

No sir, you dont get to take credit for the ACLU. They are their own collection of constitutional and anticonstitutional ecclectics, and neither conservative nor or liberal at heart.

That's what I said , if you ignore the anti-constitutional eclectic thing, which I don't understand.

Morally, it's more your fault because of the hypocrisy problem, since you.pretend to stand for the downtrodden against the forces of privilege, when you are really raising the walls around the ghetto while welcoming a handful of token race representatives into the elites.

That's just a rhetorical flourish, and oh by the way a stupid thing to say.

[Pete at Home]

"f you ignore the anti-constitutional eclectic thing, which I don't understand"

I said aclu pursues an ecclectic assortment of constitutional and anticonstitutional positions.  For example, they defend seven amendments of the bill of rights, ignore two, and staunchly oppose one (ie. The 2nd amendment). They are like shakespeare's "sanctimonious pirate" parable... See Measure for Measure.  He set to sea with the ten commandments, but "Razed" one of them, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

[Pete at Home]

You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism

How can i have ignored it, brainiac, when i said it before you did?  "PAST RACISM resulting in blacks being disproportionately born into poverty is the cause."

The fire has been followed by a flood, and those burnt out by fire are suffering more from the flood, yout you arent doing them any *censored*ing good with that stupid fire extimguisher.  And where were you when the fire was raging?

[Seriati]

[You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.

Except that's a false story.  The current "trend" of being born into poverty is the direct result of the expansion of social programs advocated by the left, which altered the trajectory of an entire people from upwards to downwards. 

Shouldn't the "party of science" base their policies on actual results rather than feel good beliefs?

[AI Wessex]

[You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.

Except that's a false story.  The current "trend" of being born into poverty is the direct result of the expansion of social programs advocated by the left, which altered the trajectory of an entire people from upwards to downwards. 

Shouldn't the "party of science" base their policies on actual results rather than feel good beliefs?

Sure .  Thank goodness the right wing is there to protect blacks from the ravages of social programs and civil rights protections. 

[Wayward Son]

[You're ignoring that their being born into poverty is the result of generations of discrimination and racism.

Except that's a false story.  The current "trend" of being born into poverty is the direct result of the expansion of social programs advocated by the left, which altered the trajectory of an entire people from upwards to downwards. 

Shouldn't the "party of science" base their policies on actual results rather than feel good beliefs?

Really?  In the past, people who were born poor were less likely to be poor when they were old?

What is your source for this?

[Fenring]

The fire has been followed by a flood, and those burnt out by fire are suffering more from the flood, yout you arent doing them any *censored*ing good with that stupid fire extimguisher.

This is a good line, I may steal it some day. I also think it applies fairly well to the issue you're discussing.

[Pete at Home]

Thank you Fenring. At least 2/3 of the credit belongs to Uncle Screwtape as channeled by CS Lewis. 

“The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under.

I just weaponized Screwtape's analogy for this discussion with a scenario where flood follows fire, as here intergenerational ghetto poverty has followed racism. 

I can only imagine what it must feel like for someone old enough to have participated at Selma to deal with the fact that it happened without them.  Hence, I think the institutional denial among DNC old-timers that the racial problems of today are not identical to those of 1965... particularly since it's safe to march now.

[Fenring]

Thank you Fenring. At least 2/3 of the credit belongs to Uncle Screwtape as channeled by CS Lewis. 

Another reference I missed from something I read recently

For what it's worth I like your phrasing better.

[Pete at Home]

I think my version better captures what's being done with racism, but Lewis' original really captures the essence of the trendiness compulsion currently repackaged as social and political "progressivism." 

[AI Wessex]

March 5, 2016:

A day after announcing he would not order the American military to make any moves that would break international law, Trump said he would instead seek to "broaden" such laws to allow the U.S. to use tactics that are currently banned.

"I will obey the laws, but I will try to get the laws extended," the billionaire businessman and former Atlantic City casino tycoon said during a news conference Saturday night. "I will try and get the laws broadened. Because it's very hard to be successful in beating someone when you're rules are very soft and their rules are unlimited."

Donald Trump on Saturday led a mass rally in taking a pledge affirming their commitment to voting for him, and vowed to broaden existing laws regarding the interrogation of captured terrorist suspects.
...
"Let's do a pledge. Who likes me in this room?" Trump asked the crowd. "I've never done this before. Can I have a pledge? A swearing? Raise your right hand."

The Republican front-runner then had the audience repeat after him.

"I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there are hurricanes or whatever, will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for President."

The crowd ended the pledge with cheers.

"Now I know. Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did," Trump said before continuing with his speech.

This one swings both ways:

"God bless Kansas. And God bless Maine," Cruz said, and argued that his performance on Saturday represented an important pivot point in the GOP race. "What we are seeing is Kansas is a manifestation of a real shift in momentum."

Trump lobbed criticism at his GOP rivals. He said Rubio had a "very, very bad night" and called on him to drop out of the race. And he took at shot at Cruz, after spending months saying the Texas senator is ineligible to run for President because he was born in Canada.

"He should do well in Maine because it is very close to Canada," Trump said.

[Pete at Home]

"Now I know. Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did," Trump said before continuing with his speech. "

That's pretty gentle stuff compared to Mad "Easter-Cluster-Bomber" Albright saying that there's a "special place in hell" for women who don't vote for Hilary Clinton.

[AI Wessex]

Really?!  A comment by supporter Madeleine Albright at a rally is somehow more egregious than candidate Donald Trump mockingly asking people at his rally to swear to vote for him, come hell or high water?  Really!  Here's her explanation:

I have spent much of my career as a diplomat. It is an occupation in which words and context matter a great deal. So one might assume I know better than to tell a large number of women to go to hell.

But last Saturday, in the excitement of a campaign event for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, that is essentially what I did, when I delivered a line I have uttered a thousand times to applause, nodding heads and laughter: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” It is a phrase I first used almost 25 years ago, when I was the United States ambassador to the United Nations and worked closely with the six other female U.N. ambassadors. But this time, to my surprise, it went viral.

[Pete at Home]

25 years ago stuff didn't go viral so you didn't have to think through the morality of what you were saying.  You could say crap at a political function, counting on the fact that most everyone in the room already agreed with you.

But if you look non-carelessly at what I said, you might note that I have a chip on my shoulder about Albright that goes back to the Kosovo war where we dropped cluster bombs on children to support slave-trading terrorists.

Time Magazine: "The Kosovo conflict is often referred to, by both her fans and foes, as Madeleine's War."

slate: Ever since Kosovo, Putin has planned revenge

From this point on, Russian President Boris Yeltsin's administration, already weak and embattled, would be unable to justify its friendly, perennially de-escalating posture toward the West. Anti-American feelings ran so high you would have thought the U.S. were bombing Russia. By turning his plane around, Primakov had endeared himself to the nationalist opposition and turned his back on Yeltsin. The liberals in Moscow were in a panic. The nationalists were mobilizing not only politically but also militarily: Men lined up outside the Yugoslav Embassy in Moscow to sign up to volunteer to defend Serbia.

Thus I blame Albright for Putin's ascension as well as for the damage of Kosovo proper.  In short, Albright and the Clintons rebooted the Cold War with Russia. 

Internationally, the choice seems to be a Trump who will antagonize China and kiss Putin's ass, or a Clinton who will antagonize Putin and kiss China's ass. 

Hey, Fenring, which do you think is worse?

[Fenring]

Internationally, the choice seems to be a Trump who will antagonize China and kiss Putin's ass, or a Clinton who will antagonize Putin and kiss China's ass. 

Hey, Fenring, which do you think is worse?

I thought of making a joke here about kissing Trump's ass but instead I'll answer. China is already half an antagonist and the TPP furthers that, sidelining their market in favor of other developing Asian markets. The apparent divide between the IMF and BRICS highlights this shift away from good business with China, as does the hijinx in the SA Sea. Since Trump is against TPP this would actually be more welcome to China than anything Clinton might do for them. Regarding Putin, Trump has issued far less aggressive rhetoric regarding both him and Syria than Clinton has, so I guess you'd be right that he would try to avoid being opponents of them, but I doubt he'd kiss anyone's ass, as in, actually giving in to them just like that. Trump strikes me as far more likely to strike a mutually beneficial deal with Putin than Clinton would. She can talk the talk, but she's too beholden to make any agreements that aren't in the company line. If the company doesn't want common cause with Russian then she wouldn't broker it. Trump might, since he doesn't care what they think. At least that's what he says. Back when candidates like Fiorina stupidly said they would close off dialogue with Putin and dictate terms, Trump was the one saying that he'd absolutely talk to Putin because they understand each other. Take that to mean what you want, I call that a good thing.

The other side of the coin is the military war-hawk agenda, and between Trump and Clinton I think Clinton is by far the bigger war-hawk. Trump talks tough, especially about domestic security, but he's never said anything I head that's aggressive regarding foreign sovereign powers. He said a lot of tough talk about attacking ISIS, but never about usurping Syria or going toe to toe with Russia like Clinton has. That puts him more in the peacemaker camp than her, and that's saying something.

In short, antagonizing anyone is worse, and I think Trump is a deal-maker. This can include bad deals too, but at least it might mean he won't trade in little more than threats.

[AI Wessex]

Internationally, the choice seems to be a Trump who will antagonize China and kiss Putin's ass...

More likely that both will play him for the clown he is.  Clinton at least has a shred of sense and a boatload of international experience.  This election process has and will continue to embarrass the US on the world stage and will diminish our standing unless Trump is utterly wiped out in the election.  If it looks like close to half of US voters pull the lever for him the rest of us look like morons for letting him ride around performing his Clown act and taking him seriously.

[Pete at Home]

Fenring, my understanding is that Putin and Trump have publicly said very kind words about each other.

[Fenring]

Fenring, my understanding is that Putin and Trump have publicly said very kind words about each other.

Ok?

[Gaoics79]

Really?!  A comment by supporter Madeleine Albright at a rally is somehow more egregious than candidate Donald Trump mockingly asking people at his rally to swear to vote for him, come hell or high water?

Feminists generally get a pass on their rampant bigotry. If I were to apply the same standards to them as they do to men like Trump, it wouldn't be pretty.

I am not really too worked up over Albright's comment frankly, although it's always delicious on the rare occasion where man bites dog and a feminist gets raked over the coals by the media.

My personal preference would be that the media would not create stories out of nothing, create narratives and shape campaigns by piling onto supposed "gaffes" and blowing every stray comment into national news.

[Pete at Home]

Clinton at least has a shred of sense and a boatload of international experience.  This election process has and will continue to embarrass the US on the world stage and will diminish our standing unless Trump is utterly wiped out in the election.

True on Clinton . probably true on Trump, but since Europe made exactly the same noises about Reagan and Bush Jr, the parable of the boy who cried wolf kicks in.   

[AI Wessex]

Now it's both sad and pathetic.  Trump *may* not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but a second ballot can only have candidates who won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses and/or primaries.  Right now no one but Trump qualifies, but Cruz may well qualify by the convention.  In other words, it's very conceivable that he will be the *only* alternative to Trump on the second ballot, and it's therefore a certainty that one of them will win on that ballot.  The question is whether Cruz can convert enough of Trump's delegates to his side.  It truly is a choice between being shot or poisoned.

[Fenring]

I

Now it's both sad and pathetic.  Trump *may* not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but a second ballot can only have candidates who won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses and/or primaries.  Right now no one but Trump qualifies, but Cruz may well qualify by the convention.

If Cruz doesn't qualify by the convention is Trump the candidate by default? Or can two other candidates do something like merge their wins by naming themselves as a 'ticket'?

[Pete at Home]

Clinton at least has a shred of sense and a boatload of international experience.  This election process has and will continue to embarrass the US on the world stage and will diminish our standing unless Trump is utterly wiped out in the election.

True on Clinton . probably true on Trump, but since Europe made exactly the same noises about Reagan and Bush Jr, the parable of the boy who cried wolf kicks in. 

Note also today the UK was making angry noises about a US military dude voicing doubts about the UK leaving the EU, and how that might affect NATO's alliance against DAESH.  So it's not just Americans that don't like to be told what to do by foreigners

[AI Wessex]

If Cruz doesn't qualify by the convention is Trump the candidate by default? Or can two other candidates do something like merge their wins by naming themselves as a 'ticket'?

Interesting question. Most likely, even if it's just Trump and Cruz, the two monotone monotheme monosyllabic candidates, I would expect Kasich to bring forward a request for a rules change to allow him in.  That isn't such an unlikely or rare maneuver.  The last time it happened was the last time in order to pry delegates loose from Ron Paul for Romney.  It worked.

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee in Tampa adopted some changes to the rules of the national Republican Party that shift power from the state parties and the grassroots to the RNC and the GOP presidential nominee. Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire touted the new rules as providing “a strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years. But in fact the new rules should be very troubling and disappointing to conservative grassroots activists, because they move the national Republican Party away from being a party that is decentralized and bottom-up toward becoming one that is centralized and top-down.

The Romney rules effectively disenfranchise grassroots delegates, and will thus tend to weaken and splinter the party over time. They specifically represent a blow to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul insurgency -- movements that have sprung up precisely because Washington insiders (of both parties) have abandoned the traditional bedrock principles of the Republican party, namely, economic freedom, fiscal common sense, and smaller, constitutionally limited government.

[Wayward Son]

I

Now it's both sad and pathetic.  Trump *may* not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but a second ballot can only have candidates who won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses and/or primaries.  Right now no one but Trump qualifies, but Cruz may well qualify by the convention.

If Cruz doesn't qualify by the convention is Trump the candidate by default? Or can two other candidates do something like merge their wins by naming themselves as a 'ticket'?

It appears that the Republicans can do do just about anything they please, if they are willing to pay the political cost.

(This is the same link I put in the Trump the Reality Show thread, but I fear it may have been lost in the bickering there.  )

[Fenring]

I understand they can change the rules, but I was asking about what the current rules say, since I'm not familiar with them.

[rightleft22]

If you think the rest of the world is making the same noise about a possible Trump Presidency as they did for Reagan and Bush Jr your not paying attention.
Perhaps equating noise as noise and not listening to what is actually being said.

[Pete at Home]

If you think the rest of the world is making the same noise about a possible Trump Presidency as they did for Reagan and Bush Jr your not paying attention.
Perhaps equating noise as noise and not listening to what is actually being said.

I quoted what they said here on Ornery, silly boy.  I read the BBC more than any US news source.  And I don't watch TV news except in links and only when I can't find what I need in text. 

I concede that what they said about Bush Jr isn't the same.  But Reagan was voted in when I was in an international school in Mexico City and I remember very well what they said.  I doubt you can say the same.

[AI Wessex]

(This is the same link I put in the Trump the Reality Show thread, but I fear it may have been lost in the bickering there.  )

Yep, it may have been because I posted it before you did .

Here's today's dose of the Trump polivirus, for which so far there's no treatment or antidote: "Donald Trump just threatened more violence. Only this time, it’s directed at the GOP."

[Pyrtolin]

If they change or bend the rules, Trump goes 3rd party and carries off most of their voting base. He's already told them that was coming, so they can do it, but they know what the cost will be.

[Seriati]

I want to go on the record, there is no way President Obama makes a neutral or midline pick.  He doesn't have it in him to compromise or to go for anything other that a salted earth victory.  Nothing in his 7 years as President would indicate otherwise.  This is one of the rare times I make a prediction.  I don't see any chance he goes for the "clever" strategy of nominating someone the Republicans can't afford to pass up, just in case Hilary is the next President.  (In fact, I think they'd rather take their chances with a Hillary appointment with a majority, but not super-majority Democrat Senate than with an Obama pick).

And this may explain why I rarely try to make predictions.  I was wrong, he clearly nominated someone far more midline than I anticipated.  Garland would have been an uncontroversial appointment for either of his first two slots.  Not sure if I'd vote against him now, but he definitely should get his hearings.

I can see why he appeals to President Obama, notwithstanding his other credentials he appears to be completely on the side of administrative agencies making law, which for an authoritarian like the President has to be appealing.