Posted on 04/05/2016 9:04:28 PM PDT by Windflier
DO NOT VOTE ON THIS THREAD.
This is the nightly DISCUSSION thread for the ongoing 2016 Free Republic Caucus. Per caucus rules, no comments are allowed on the caucus thread itself - hence this open chat thread.
If you'd like to vote in the caucus, please look in the sidebar for the link, or check downthread here.
Thanks, and let 'er rip!
Windy
“Yes, Trump eliminating Ted in 13 days, is evidence of someone pooping out.”
Again, you really need help with your calculator. It’s not working right.
BTW, let me educate you. It’s not an “elimination” unless someone gets to 1237. I know you want a special rule just for Donnie to delete that requirement, but it’s not going to happen.
Yes. Donnie is pooping out. He’s a 69 year old man running a mile, and he just won’t be able to quite get those last 100 yards.
What a shame...
Candidate Not-Trump. And if Not-Trump has more delegates at the convention, then Not-Trump will be the nominee.
“Candidate Not-Trump. And if Not-Trump has more delegates at the convention, then Not-Trump will be the nominee.”
Donnie Deceptive and his Trumpbots would like to nullify the votes of Candidate Not-Trump.
There have been many elections, and unfortunately your brain didn’t notice.
37% of the vote went to Trump.
Please name the person that got more votes or delegates.
In a general election, are the losing voters deemed more important than the winning candidate’s voters?
Did Perot and Bush prevail over Bush, because Clinton didn’t get over 50%?
Dang, you folks sure are armed with blanks today.
“Did Perot and Bush prevail over Bush, because Clinton didn’t get over 50%?”
Boy, you really are missing the point. You need a civics lesson, so here it is.
You do realize you just gave an excellent example of the process we are now going through, right?
The 50% needed for Clinton was the electoral votes, not the popular vote. He was required to get 270.
You know what would have happened if no one got the 270 electoral votes? It would go to the House of Representatives to vote for the President. And guess what? It wouldn’t have had to be Clinton or Bush or Perot. It would have been whoever received the 270 votes from the HORs.
I hope you’re not suggesting you would give Clinton the election, because he had the most popular votes, if he failed to get 270.
BTW, you didn’t answer my previous question. Do you want to invalidate the 2000 election, since Bush received less popular votes than Gore, even though Bush received 270 votes?
I hope this lesson is resonating.
Capeche?
The answer was, no Bush and Perot didn’t prevail.
And yet here you go hoping Ted Cruz will.
And you wonder why we dismiss you clowns for the GOPe/RNC waterboys you are.
How’s that civics lesson?
And 63% went to Not-Trump, albeit spread out over a whole bunch of candidates. If the vast majority of the delegates representing those 63% choose Cruz over Trump at the convention, then Cruz wins, and the votes of the 63% who do not want Trump will not be nullified.
Aww, there you go again.
Trump won 37% of the vote in a field of 17, but Ted deserves the nomination because he got 27% of the vote in a field of 17.
Are you an illegal alien? I only ask because you keep making arguments most U. S. Citizens won’t make.
So I take it, you think Gore got robbed!
Aww, still trying to defend the defenseless.
I’m getting misty...
“The answer was, no Bush and Perot didn’t prevail.”
They didn’t “prevail”, because they didn’t get to 270. Clinton did, so he “prevailed”.
Trump won’t “prevail” unless he gets to 1237.
Cruz can “prevail” if he gets to 1237, whether that’s before or during the convention.
You getting the hang of it now?
“And 63% went to Not-Trump, albeit spread out over a whole bunch of candidates. If the vast majority of the delegates representing those 63% choose Cruz over Trump at the convention, then Cruz wins, and the votes of the 63% who do not want Trump will not be nullified.”
This is a concept the Trumpbots just cannot comprehend.
Brings back sore memories for you, huh?
Was Al a close personal friend of yours?
So you’re saying a guy who gets 25% of the vote should be the victor.
Well, if the guy with the least votes should win, Huckabee Fiornia and Paul are in a three-way tie.
You can take it any way you like.
Smearing me isn’t going to make your case any stronger champ.
Reinse? Is that you?
“So you’re saying a guy who gets 25% of the vote should be the victor.”
You’re still not getting this.
I’m saying whoever gets 50% of the delegate count is the victor. Just like the general election requires 50% of the electoral count.
The popular vote is irrelevant in both cases.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Donnie, you better start deal making now.
You’re running out of time...
You are shoving the idea that a guy with 27% of the votes versus Trump’s 37% of the vote and a guy with 41% of the delegates to date versus a guy with 61% of them, should get the nomination.
That is absurd.
This is Karl Rove, Riense Priebus logic.
Seems only one guy thinks he can subvert the will of the Republican voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.