Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

What matters is "among delegates" rather than the entire Republican electorate. I'd link an article about the campaigns' supporters trying to ensure that their people are elected as delegates instead of their opponents', but it was very very boring.

[mainiac]

The world is run by the people who bother to show up.

[Baffler]

I've seen a number of stories (I'll find them later, on mobile right now) about establishment delegates using undemocratic means to suppress Trump supporters' election in those races. Things like changing the location/time of the meeting in counties he won and "forgetting" to tell the Trump campaign, so supporters of other candidates are chosen. They have to vote for him in the first round, but if there's a contested convention and all that's true there's no way in hell he's going to win.

[smjjames]

I've seen a number of stories (I'll find them later, on mobile right now) about establishment delegates using undemocratic means to suppress Trump supporters' election in those races. Things like changing the location/time of the meeting in counties he won and "forgetting" to tell the Trump campaign, so supporters of other candidates are chosen. They have to vote for him in the first round, but if there's a contested convention and all that's true there's no way in hell he's going to win.

Sounds like the usual smoke-filled backroom horse trading. Plus the fact that Trump is really behind in the whole 'gaining the favor of the delegates' game.

This is probably going to end up with the Republican version of the 1968 Democrat convention, except maybe worse because the convention is going to be under so many cameras.

[Amperzand]

See, what matters here is we don't give Trump a nuclear arsenal.

[Reelya]

The whole "nuke ISIS" thing is dumb, but it's dumb on literally every possible level.

Firstly, ISIS basically haven't won a battle in a long time, and they're gradually being pushed back. Their heyday is long gone, and will be even longer gone by the time America has a new president. Anti-ISIS rhetoric is already kinda getting out of date.

Secondly, using nukes against ISIS is a dumb idea whichever way you look at it. It's just not a good idea in terms of tactics or international relations, and it's certainly worse than just about any other method you could use. Wholesale destruction of what little infrastructure there is would make cleaning up and rebuilding even more expensive than it already is.

Thirdly, we could easily destroy ISIS tomorrow. Lack of firepower isn't the problem. The problem is planning for what happens after ISIS is gone. There are Iranian-backed Shiite militia fighting ISIS right now. They, or someone like them, would be more likely than pro-American forces to fill the power vacuum left by destroying ISIS. This concern is the main reason everyone doesn't just destroy ISIS already.

[Cthulhu]

See, what matters here is we don't give Trump a nuclear arsenal.

I'm sure the guy who was nay-saying the war on terror back when it started and wants to disband NATO is gonna be going hog wild with the nukes.

It's true though, I've heard lots of interesting stories about shenanigans in the delegate process.  It doesn't help that Trump, like Sanders, is attracting a lot of first-time and otherwise less-informed voters who don't really get how it works and are gonna be blindsided if the convention's brokered. 

[EnigmaticHat]

Oh god.  The rage if a brokered convention happens for either side.  Probably the only thing that will beat the rage if superdelegates decide the democratic primary.

[Reelya]

See, what matters here is we don't give Trump a nuclear arsenal.

I'm sure the guy who was nay-saying the war on terror back when it started and wants to disband NATO is gonna be going hog wild with the nukes.

But ... he never was a naysayer:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Trump, Sept. 11, 2003: It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq.

And he wasn't actually much a naysayer on the war either, until a while after it started, and even then, he only cared about the cost, not the effects.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/

Trump indicated his support for war in a radio interview with shock jock Howard Stern on Sept. 11, 2002 — a little more than six months before the war started.

Stern asked Trump directly if he supported going to war with Iraq, and Trump hesitantly responded, “Yeah, I guess so.”

Trump, March 21, 2003: Well, I think Wall Street’s waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they’re obviously taking it a little bit for granted that it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you’re going to see after the war is over.

Cavuto: What do you mean?

Trump: Well, I think Wall Street’s just going to go up like a rocket even beyond and it’s going to continue and – you know we have a strong and powerful country and let’s hope it all works out.

Cavuto: … Why are you so optimistic?

Also, him talking about leaving NATO (and the UN) isn't necessarily an anti-war move: it's more likely to move to a unilateral stance than an isolationist stance.

[Amperzand]

The whole "nuke ISIS" thing is dumb, but it's dumb on literally every possible level.

Firstly, ISIS basically haven't won a battle in a long time, and they're gradually being pushed back. Their heyday is long gone, and will be even longer gone by the time America has a new president. Anti-ISIS rhetoric is already kinda getting out of date.

Secondly, using nukes against ISIS is a dumb idea whichever way you look at it. It's just not a good idea in terms of tactics or international relations, and it's certainly worse than just about any other method you could use. Wholesale destruction of what little infrastructure there is would make cleaning up and rebuilding even more expensive than it already is.

Thirdly, we could easily destroy ISIS tomorrow. Lack of firepower isn't the problem. The problem is planning for what happens after ISIS is gone. There are Iranian-backed Shiite militia fighting ISIS right now. They, or someone like them, would be more likely than pro-American forces to fill the power vacuum left by destroying ISIS. This concern is the main reason everyone doesn't just destroy ISIS already.

Exactly.

[Shadowlord]

Even George Wedontneedalliesexcepttonyblair Bush didn't threaten to withdraw from the UN or NATO.

Reelya: You can figure out how they're thinking: You just have to think simpler. If you simplify things enough, you can justify anything:

1. ISIS is evil
2. ISIS has territory, and they're so evil that anyone who remains must surely be collaborators
3. Therefore, we can bomb them all with clean consciences
4. They can't recruit if they're dead!
5. Coincidentally, we also need to test our nukes. Can we really trust those computer simulations?
6. Hey, if we accidentally get fallout all over the middle east's oil producers, maybe they won't be able to sell their oil on the world market anymore! It'll be a win-win for our own oil and gas industry!
7. We can talk Russia into supporting us by pointing out our plan to irradiate the middle eastern oil fields to revive both our oil companies. While we're at it, let's end the sanctions on them.
8. Nobody understands China except maybe Obama and Jon Huntsman, and we're not talking to either of them, so we're just going to assume China won't nuke us because they also have an islamic terror problem.

or:

1. The people want to hear STRENGTH. What's stronger than nukes?
2. It's not like I'll actually have to nuke anyone, since IS won't have any territory left in Iraq or Syria by the time January 2017 rolls around...

[Sheb]

Nah, it's just that even before Trump, the GOP primary process is not about discussing serious policy question. It's about signaling. The policy proposals don't have to make sense, they're symbolic ways to explain how warlike you are. Nuking ISIS is dumb, so is carpet-bombing it. And they're not going to do it. But they need to show they are though.

It's like the tax plans. They don't have to make sense they're just tax-plans-shaped symbols of how much they want the federal government to shrink.

[BFEL]

Wholesale destruction of what little infrastructure there is would make cleaning up and rebuilding even more expensive than it already is.

Since when have Americans cared about cleaning up and rebuilding things anywhere other then America?

Also, in "Delegate Tampering" news apparently a bunch of Cruz supporters in suits pretending to be Trump delegates locked out all the other Trump delegates of their own meeting.
At least if you believe the things my mom reads (and her alarmist interpretation of them).

Also Also apparently Obama recently told everyone, terrorists included, exactly how much nuclear material we have, and Fox News went a step further by broadcasting how to make a bomb out of this.
Also from "Mom News Network"

[mainiac]

Since when have Americans cared about cleaning up and rebuilding things anywhere other then America?

Hard to pin down exactly.  You could make an argument for 1919 (Europe, at great american expense).  You could make an argument for 1865 (Mexico, at very little american expense but to great effect).

[BFEL]

I would argue that anything before the invention of television doesn't count as America. Or at least as MURRICA, which is what I should have noted in the previous post.