Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
    Yeeeaaaaa, one of the worst set ups I can think of.

    Has it ever happened where the candidate with the primary votes did not get the party nomination? It doesn't seem to me that the GOP is at all backing Trump, so....what happens then?
    Not all of the gop is voting for/likes Trump but it doesnt matter. Hes getting independents and gopers that would normally stay home to turn out. Its all about turn out. Trumps going to win. Hes even polling well in NY.
    Dems primary is pointless because of super delegates. I know Sanders creamed Hillary and NH but she still got the same amount of delegates. I dont even know why dems vote in the primary. They should change that.

    Delegates and the electoral college, I hate them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
      Not all of the gop is voting for/likes Trump but it doesnt matter. Hes getting independents and gopers that would normally stay home to turn out. Its all about turn out. Trumps going to win. Hes even polling well in NY.
      Dems primary is pointless because of super delegates. I know Sanders creamed Hillary and NH but she still got the same amount of delegates. I dont even know why dems vote in the primary. They should change that.

      Delegates and the electoral college, I hate them.
      It's certainly a strange system.....it's also complained about every election lol...
      Oderint Dum Metuant

      It's too bad, I'm too good....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
        Yeeeaaaaa, one of the worst set ups I can think of.

        Has it ever happened where the candidate with the primary votes did not get the party nomination? It doesn't seem to me that the GOP is at all backing Trump, so....what happens then?
        If Trump gets to 1237 deligates there is nothing they can do. They have foolishly rigged the system with some winner take all states (starting with Fl and Ohio) so a guy who never gets 50% of the vote can sweep the primaries.
        The only shot the GOP leadership has to stop Trump is if he comes to the convention with less than 1237. The deligates are committed by rule to their candidate for the first ballot only. After that they are free to vote for whoever they choose. The non Trump deligates would probably try to join forces to get behind someone else.
        Then of course Trump will cry foul and run as an independent just to **** the GOP. So either way we are ****ed.

        It's going to be Hillary as president because there are enough GOP voters who will NEVER vote for Donald Trump (I am on of them) and there will probably be a conservative independent run as well.
        Trump is ****ing the country over. Folks don't understand just how dangerous he is to the principles of small government conservativism. The notion that the citizens should have the power and not the State.
        He's a friggin nightmare.
        Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
          If Trump gets to 1237 deligates there is nothing they can do. They have foolishly rigged the system with some winner take all states (starting with Fl and Ohio) so a guy who never gets 50% of the vote can sweep the primaries.
          The only shot the GOP leadership has to stop Trump is if he comes to the convention with less than 1237. The deligates are committed by rule to their candidate for the first ballot only. After that they are free to vote for whoever they choose. The non Trump deligates would probably try to join forces to get behind someone else.
          Then of course Trump will cry foul and run as an independent just to **** the GOP. So either way we are ****ed.

          It's going to be Hillary as president because there are enough GOP voters who will NEVER vote for Donald Trump (I am on of them) and there will probably be a conservative independent run as well.
          Trump is ****ing the country over. Folks don't understand just how dangerous he is to the principles of small government conservativism. The notion that the citizens should have the power and not the State.
          He's a friggin nightmare.
          If what you're saying is true about how if he is short on delegates and runs independent....well then it should be safer if you think about it. I'd like to think that a huge portion of voters who are generally uneducated on candidates and their platforms just blindly vote for whatever party they align themselves with. It's stupid, but you know that's a huge section of voters.
          Oderint Dum Metuant

          It's too bad, I'm too good....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
            If what you're saying is true about how if he is short on delegates and runs independent....well then it should be safer if you think about it. I'd like to think that a huge portion of voters who are generally uneducated on candidates and their platforms just blindly vote for whatever party they align themselves with. It's stupid, but you know that's a huge section of voters.
            He won't run as an independent if he feels he didn't get screwed. But if he does he will.
            Unfortunately, uneducated voters would blindly vote for Trump.
            Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
              If Trump gets to 1237 deligates there is nothing they can do. They have foolishly rigged the system with some winner take all states (starting with Fl and Ohio) so a guy who never gets 50% of the vote can sweep the primaries.
              The only shot the GOP leadership has to stop Trump is if he comes to the convention with less than 1237. The deligates are committed by rule to their candidate for the first ballot only. After that they are free to vote for whoever they choose. The non Trump deligates would probably try to join forces to get behind someone else.
              Then of course Trump will cry foul and run as an independent just to **** the GOP. So either way we are ****ed.

              It's going to be Hillary as president because there are enough GOP voters who will NEVER vote for Donald Trump (I am on of them) and there will probably be a conservative independent run as well.
              Trump is ****ing the country over. Folks don't understand just how dangerous he is to the principles of small government conservativism. The notion that the citizens should have the power and not the State.
              He's a friggin nightmare.
              As well he should...if the GOP establishment is willing to dump the guy by hook or by crook regardless of what the people vote for, they deserve to lose the election. I'm not a Trump fan (or anyone left in the GOP for that matter) but people are voting for him specifically because they're sick of these crooked establishment weasels, and if Preibus and the RNC truly pull this crap or do this brokered convention to overrule people's votes, they deserve to lose the election. I wouldn't even be surprised if people riot, they've had enough of this garbage.

              As for your second part, both Hillary and Rubio are identical with regards to their big government. They're both pro-war neocons, they're both for big government spending, they're both for foreign interventions, sure they disagree on small cultural issues like abortion, but on the big issues especially foreign policy, they're the same. Ted Cruz and Sanders are probably the only non-establishment outsiders left and they will both not win. MSNBC and other Democratic party outlets are full Hillary propaganda stations at this point, Sanders hasn't got a chance. And as for Fox News they might as well call it Rubio News. It's a joke, and people are sick of it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by egyptian420 View Post
                As well he should...if the GOP establishment is willing to dump the guy by hook or by crook regardless of what the people vote for, they deserve to lose the election. I'm not a Trump fan (or anyone left in the GOP for that matter) but people are voting for him specifically because they're sick of these crooked establishment weasels, and if Preibus and the RNC truly pull this crap or do this brokered convention to overrule people's votes, they deserve to lose the election. I wouldn't even be surprised if people riot, they've had enough of this garbage.

                As for your second part, both Hillary and Rubio are identical with regards to their big government. They're both pro-war neocons, they're both for big government spending, they're both for foreign interventions, sure they disagree on small cultural issues like abortion, but on the big issues especially foreign policy, they're the same. Ted Cruz and Sanders are probably the only non-establishment outsiders left and they will both not win. MSNBC and other Democratic party outlets are full Hillary propaganda stations at this point, Sanders hasn't got a chance. And as for Fox News they might as well call it Rubio News. It's a joke, and people are sick of it.
                I disagree. If he doesn't have enough deligates to get the nomination on the first ballot he has no lock on the nomination. Especially since half of the GOP hates him. He will kill the conservative movement for years. No one believes more in big government that Donald Trump. Not only is he not a conservative, he doesn't even understand what it is. He thinks if he takes a couple positions on issues that he thinks conservatives would take that makes him a conservative. It doesn't.
                He believes that HE will provide us with things. This goes against everything conservatives believe. We believe that WE have the power and not the State.

                There is no one running other than Bernie Sanders who believes more in big government than Donald Trump.
                Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                  I disagree. If he doesn't have enough deligates to get the nomination on the first ballot he has no lock on the nomination. Especially since half of the GOP hates him. He will kill the conservative movement for years. No one believes more in big government that Donald Trump. Not only is he not a conservative, he doesn't even understand what it is. He thinks if he takes a couple positions on issues that he thinks conservatives would take that makes him a conservative. It doesn't.
                  He believes that HE will provide us with things. This goes against everything conservatives believe. We believe that WE have the power and not the State.

                  There is no one running other than Bernie Sanders who believes more in big government than Donald Trump.
                  You've made a good case for why you don't like him and why he's not conservative, but not a justification for the rule change because someone outside the establishment is actually winning. You don't think it's entirely hypocritical and un-democratic that they will join forces to take him down but if some establishment guy like Rubio had the same exact numbers they would have no problem with it?

                  What a joke lol.....this same corrupt GOP establishment changed the rules in 2012 to make sure Ron Paul also doesn't win and he sued them. That actually set the precedent for this rule they're now pondering about using if their guy doesn't win. Totally corrupt and pathetic if you ask me. And don't even get me started on Hillary who shouldn't even be winning if it weren't for super delegates and the DNC putting these debates on Saturday nights.

                  Both political establishments are corrupt as hell and serve the same interests and try to fool the people into thinking they're different. "Oh look, the first black guy! The first female!"....give me a break. People woke up and they're going to outsiders and the establishment can't take it and will lower themselves to any degree to steal the election from the people.
                  Last edited by egyptian420; 03-01-2016, 12:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Again, I'm not for Trump, I think he's a circus clown, you can't even put him in the liberal/conservative categories because he's so random depending on the time of the day.

                    I was always for Rand Paul but since he's gone, they're all terrible. Cruz is probably the lesser of all the evils because he actually doesn't want to send the US military to fight the worlds problems and overthrow regimes and spread "democracy".

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by egyptian420 View Post
                      You've made a good case for why you don't like him and why he's not conservative, but not a justification for the rule change because someone outside the establishment is actually winning. You don't think it's entirely hypocritical and un-democratic that they will join forces to take him down but if some establishment guy like Rubio had the same exact numbers they would have no problem with it?

                      What a joke lol.....this same corrupt GOP establishment changed the rules in 2012 to make sure Ron Paul also doesn't win and he sued them. That actually set the precedent for this rule they're now pondering about using if their guy doesn't win. Totally corrupt and pathetic if you ask me. And don't even get me started on Hillary who shouldn't even be winning if it weren't for super delegates and the DNC putting these debates on Saturday nights.

                      Both political establishments are corrupt as hell and serve the same interests and try to fool the people into thinking they're different. "Oh look, the first black guy! The first female!"....give me a break. People woke up and they're going to outsiders and the establishment can't take it and will lower themselves to any degree to steal the election from the people.
                      Ron Paul was never going to win the GOP nomination no matter what the rules. he's a guy who always gets about 15% of the vote. I am probably more aligned in my philosophy with Ron and Rand Paul with the exception of the isolationism that Ron Paul advocates.
                      But I definitely have a Libertarian streak in me. Rand Paul simply doesn't have the leadership ability or temperament to be President. My choice is still John Kasich but it's not looking good right now.
                      Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                        Ron Paul was never going to win the GOP nomination no matter what the rules. he's a guy who always gets about 15% of the vote. I am probably more aligned in my philosophy with Ron and Rand Paul with the exception of the isolationism that Ron Paul advocates.
                        But I definitely have a Libertarian streak in me. Rand Paul simply doesn't have the leadership ability or temperament to be President. My choice is still John Kasich but it's not looking good right now.
                        Truthfully I don't think Ron Paul would have won either but it's still despicable that his own party would treat him like that. They changed the rules specifically to disqualify him, people dubbed it the "Ron Paul rule". Not to mention how he was treated by Fox News and the mainstream media. Disgusting.

                        Imo Rand tried too much to get away from his father's values and try to be more conservative to hedge his bet, and it backfired badly because both sides saw him as not true to himself.

                        I will however agree to disagree on our foreign policy views. I've never seen him as isolationist, rather a non-interventionist. We're so used to intervening abroad and overthrowing regimes and whatnot that when a person says "maybe we should only use our military and risk US citizens' lives when necessary to defend our nation" they're seen as a radical isolationist. I wholeheartedly disagree but I concede that I'm in the minority. I just think history (especially recent history) has shown the US' military involvement abroad has been a disaster of epic proportions.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by egyptian420 View Post
                          Truthfully I don't think Ron Paul would have won either but it's still despicable that his own party would treat him like that. They changed the rules specifically to disqualify him, people dubbed it the "Ron Paul rule". Not to mention how he was treated by Fox News and the mainstream media. Disgusting.

                          Imo Rand tried too much to get away from his father's values and try to be more conservative to hedge his bet, and it backfired badly because both sides saw him as not true to himself.

                          I will however agree to disagree on our foreign policy views. I've never seen him as isolationist, rather a non-interventionist. We're so used to intervening abroad and overthrowing regimes and whatnot that when a person says "maybe we should only use our military and risk US citizens' lives when necessary to defend our nation" they're seen as a radical isolationist. I wholeheartedly disagree but I concede that I'm in the minority. I just think history (especially recent history) has shown the US' military involvement abroad has been a disaster of epic proportions.
                          We are in a war whether we like it or not, what would you have us do?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                            We are in a war whether we like it or not, what would you have us do?
                            Well technically you're not because congress has to declare war which hasn't happened since 1941....but lets forget about that constitution because why not.

                            So who exactly are you at war with? Those guys you armed to fight the Soviets in the 80's who later attacked you on 9/11? Those "moderate rebels" who you armed and helped overthrow Gaddafi, who sodomized and murdered him in the street constituting a war crime, who then turned Libya into a terrorist hotbed and failed state? Those "moderate rebels" cutting people's heads off in Syria?

                            If I didn't know any better, I would actually believe the mainstream media and think Assad is at war with us and we need to overthrow him. I mean, look at the danger he poses to the US, surely we need to be at war with that secular leader and help those "moderate" terrorists take over Syria.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by egyptian420 View Post
                              Truthfully I don't think Ron Paul would have won either but it's still despicable that his own party would treat him like that. They changed the rules specifically to disqualify him, people dubbed it the "Ron Paul rule". Not to mention how he was treated by Fox News and the mainstream media. Disgusting.

                              Imo Rand tried too much to get away from his father's values and try to be more conservative to hedge his bet, and it backfired badly because both sides saw him as not true to himself.

                              I will however agree to disagree on our foreign policy views. I've never seen him as isolationist, rather a non-interventionist. We're so used to intervening abroad and overthrowing regimes and whatnot that when a person says "maybe we should only use our military and risk US citizens' lives when necessary to defend our nation" they're seen as a radical isolationist. I wholeheartedly disagree but I concede that I'm in the minority. I just think history (especially recent history) has shown the US' military involvement abroad has been a disaster of epic proportions.
                              I definitely am not an interventionist. Rand and especially Ron went far beyond that.
                              I remember Ron Paul suggesting that Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear weapon.
                              There is a difference between being a not interventionist and being completely naive about the world.
                              I could go on for days about our ridiculous use of military, especially in the middle east.
                              Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by egyptian420 View Post
                                Well technically you're not because congress has to declare war which hasn't happened since 1941....but lets forget about that constitution because why not.

                                So who exactly are you at war with? Those guys you armed to fight the Soviets in the 80's who later attacked you on 9/11? Those "moderate rebels" who you armed and helped overthrow Gaddafi, who sodomized and murdered him in the street constituting a war crime, who then turned Libya into a terrorist hotbed and failed state? Those "moderate rebels" cutting people's heads off in Syria?

                                If I didn't know any better, I would actually believe the mainstream media and think Assad is at war with us and we need to overthrow him. I mean, look at the danger he poses to the US, surely we need to be at war with that secular leader and help those "moderate" terrorists take over Syria.
                                We are at war with Jihadism. We can argue about that. What we can't argue with is that THEY are at war with us.
                                Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X