Offline
Well, so says Donald:
With the prospect of a contested convention looming over the Republican presidential primary, Donald J. Trump on Sunday complained about the party’s rules requiring a candidate to have a majority of delegates to clinch the nomination outright.
Asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” why he should be “guaranteed the nomination” if he failed to amass the 1,237 delegates needed to win it on the first ballot, Mr. Trump said that he might be unable to clear that threshold. But he blamed the number of contenders in the Republican field.
“If I’m a little bit short – and one of the reasons was we had so many candidates,” he said. “I mean, we started off with 17 candidates.”
He added: “There are so many candidates, so it’s very hard to get over that number. It’s very unfair.”
He said that denying him the nomination under those circumstances would “disenfranchise” people who voted for him.
Is the GOP being unfair to Trump as he suggests?
Last edited by Just Fred (3/20/2016 4:58 pm)
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Is the GOP being unfair to Trump as he suggests?
Nope
Offline
Can call that either way. According to the rules of the convention, however, IF he comes up short, then he is NOT GUARANTEED the nomination.
I think the D-tribe would LIKE him to win the Republican nomination.
Last edited by tennyson (3/20/2016 5:03 pm)
Offline
These same rules prevented Ronald Reagan from receiving the nomination in 1976.
They are partly to blame for the first strike of modern Islamofascism, the 1979 seige of the US Embassy in Iran. American would not have been held hostage for 444 days if President Reagan had begun to serve in 1977.
Last edited by Tarnation (3/20/2016 6:22 pm)
Offline
Tarnation wrote:
These same rules prevented Ronald Reagan from receiving the nomination in 1976.
They are partly to blame for the first strike of modern Islamofascism, the 1979 seige of the US Embassy in Iran. American would not have been held hostage for 444 days if President Reagan had begun to serve in 1977.
Perhaps not, but Reagan had approximately 6 or more Americans kidnapped by Iranian supported Beruit regime early in his term. In an effort not to look weak Reagan negotiated arms sales directly as well as through Israel proxy to Iran. What was a backhanded deal is that some of the money got funneled to the Contras in Nicaragua (Reagan claims to not have had direct knowledge of this but it can neither be totally confirmed or denied), but did authorize the arms sales. As a result of the arms sales, most of the hostages were release over time. As a result of the whole thing the Iran-Contra affair later became public and almost destroyed the Reagan Presidency.
lt is interesting and should be duly noted that Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in the November 1980 Presidential election with pressure being added to the negotiations (whlich were ultimately successful) by the then President-Elect Reagans talk of not paying "ransom for people who have been kidnapped by barbarians", yet, when the same thing happened to Reagan, the whole rhetoric went "out the door" as noted above.
Offline
Tennyson is right. Reagan and his team negotiated a deal that Iran would have the hostages released after he would be elected.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Tennyson is right. Reagan and his team negotiated a deal that Iran would have the hostages released after he would be elected.
That second statement is only speculation that has gone back and forth for years. My statement was about what occurred AFTER his inauguration concerning hostages taken during his tenure and his handling thereof (which was in complete contrast to his campaign rhetoric)
Offline
If Trump shows up at the convention a few votes short and then the games start..... In this election year environment. I would think there would be a complete disintegration of the convention. My guess would be that at least at the presidential level the RNC would be finished.
Even with all the problems (presidential) at the national level the republican party at the local level is strong. Actually the house and senate are not doing too bad. Majority's in both.
Just look at the state level. Governors, State Houses.