Trumps is in!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Well said.

No.

DonQuixote's Law: whoever tries to win on the Internet immediately loses.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by noonereal

and if you allow someone to introduce opinion for fact while shifting the conversation through question instead of rebutting you will lose... not on merit but on style

It's like attacking the poster not the comment to win a point.

Nothing is learned nor shared.

I also concur, it's good to have a rational discussion.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The Republican Convention should just adjourn rather than nominate Trump, if it comes to that.

It's too late.

They're caught in a trap.

They can't walk out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v6amx7HjbE

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

No.

DonQuixote's Law: whoever tries to win on the Internet immediately loses.

Yes.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

It's too late.

They're caught in a trap.

They can't walk out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v6amx7HjbE

Not at all. A motion to adjourn is always in order, and a pledge to vote for someone on the first ballot does not mean you can't vote for adjournment before the first ballot comes up.

Alternativly, enough delegates could walk out that the remainder does not constitute a quorum.

The all assumes the Convention's rules adhere to Robert's Rules of Order. Their by-laws may vary, of course.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

It's too late.

They're caught in a trap.

They can't walk out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v6amx7HjbE

Can Karl Rove un-pledge a few delegates handing out a million here and there?
There has to a loophole or two.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Not at all. A motion to adjourn is always in order, and a pledge to vote for someone on the first ballot does not mean you can't vote for adjournment before the first ballot comes up.

Alternativly, enough delegates could walk out that the remainder does not constitute a quorum.

The all assumes the Convention's rules adhere to Robert's Rules of Order. Their by-laws may vary, of course.

Whether or not Roberts' covers this, adjourning the convention before a vote would accomplish nothing positive. For starters, what's the next step? Do you start the primary process all over again and hope for a different result? Do you reconvene the convention with a bunch of RNC-selected delegates pledged to being "faithless" and ignore the results of the primaries?

Most importantly, the troglodytes who support Drumpf would absolutely and violently take to the streets.

[donquixote99]

The line between principles and pragmatism can get blurred, because principles are not the only thing there is. Results matter too.

On principle, were I a Republican delegate, I'd see the party go down in flames before nominating Trump. Pragmatically, I might try to preserve order and democracy by letting him be the Republican nominee, and then working for his defeat. That might be the least-dangerous course. Not sure.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Worst Republican is better than any Democrat school of thought?
Care to speculate on the GOP convention when Trump is leader in delegates or are you an adherent of the 11th Commandment?

I think there's far more hysteria and hyperbole for those examining Trump than there is balance and a desire to get at the facts. Sadly, while much of that comes from the Dems, too much of it comes from the Repubs. Romney is an excellent example: more than willing to speak fondly of Trump when seeking his endorsement or his money, but willing to throw him under the bus 4 years later. I think that kind of behavior speaks worse about Romney and others than it does about Trump.

I think Trump represents the greatest threat not to the country but to the entrenched political machinery and establishment that has grown up around Washington DC. That's where most of the noise is coming from, as far as I can see, because I suspect those are the folks who feel like they've got the most to lose if a Trump presidency comes to pass.

...and yeah, that's a good thing.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

I think Trump represents the greatest threat not to the country but to the entrenched political machinery and establishment that has grown up around Washington DC. That's where most of the noise is coming from, as far as I can see, because I suspect those are the folks who feel like they've got the most to lose if a Trump presidency comes to pass.

...and yeah, that's a good thing.

In other words you see the inevitable and you are now going to "Embrace the Trump".