Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

by **Soren** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 09:52:52

Bucky wrote:
Bill McNeal wrote: How does compromising with the other party get played as a bad thing?

it's been that way since Jan. 20, 2009.

Since the rise of the tea party really. The whole "you're with us or against us" mantra has become front and center. You other vote conservative or are anti-America etc. It's nearing definition of fascism with Drumpf being the garnish on top of the shit sandwhich.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:14:09

jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Romney says he won't. And they all have to say that.

Perhaps, but when? If all three had declared as you want them to declare last night, you would have actually witnessed the splitting of the Republican Party on stage like a play.

Phrased horribly, but I meant they all have to say they'd support the nominee as long as they're seeking the nomination. If Trump is likely to be nominated, Rubio can take the first opportunity post dropping out when Trump says something awful to say he's changed his mind.

I know it's the conventional wisdom and part of the protocol, but nothing so far has supported conventional notions of how you win a nomination. And protocol flew out the window a long time ago. Rubio's situation I think is dire enough that it may indeed help a bit to say "No, I won't support Trump. He'd be a terrible President, he's unelectable anyway, and voting for him now is voting for Hillary." Follow it up with something like "He'd be worse than Hillary. Calling yourself a conservative and a Republican doesn't make you one. If you care about this party, I'm your only hope."

I know Republicans tend to see their party as a "brand" and thus brand loyalty is an actual thing for them, but still.

by **JFLNYC** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:21:58

They're all just hoping and praying it won't come to Trump being nominated. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the question of support coming up last night in the debate is that it seemed to me none of the others were prepared for the question. It really seemed to catch them all off guard.

by **CalvinBall** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:29:03

Kinda wish you had watched it JH. I watched the first hour and fell asleep, but man, Fox was going hard after Trump. Graphics about his his numbers don't make sense. Basically forcing him to step back from some of his insane "plans." The showed a Kasich attack ad about Trump/Putin at the end too. Not during commercial but as part of a question in the debate. Kudos to them for really stepping up their game.

by **The Dude** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:31:26

it was really awkward when they were going after him bc they kept knocking him off his game. Kelly was prepared with facts, too. He bragged about one of his businesses being rated A by the BBB, and she came back immediately with "The last time it was rated, it was a D". It was very cringey watching

by **JFLNYC** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:38:30

D minus.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:41:56

I'm glad they went after him, but it seems to play into his meme of being attacked and being one man against the establishment. Are we sure they weren't trying to help him? They just solidified him as an outsider, which is what people want right now.

Anyway, going after one candidate and trying to take that candidate down really isn't in the spirit of good journalism, not that we should expect good journalism from Fox. They are supposed to be neutral. It's fair to ask more questions of the frontrunner, but they shouldn't be trying to take him down. Maybe if they reported the news accurately instead of being a lying mouthpiece for the Rep BS of the moment, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:42:04

CalvinBall wrote:Kinda wish you had watched it JH. I watched the first hour and fell asleep, but man, Fox was going hard after Trump. Graphics about his his numbers don't make sense. Basically forcing him to step back from some of his insane "plans." The showed a Kasich attack ad about Trump/Putin at the end too. Not during commercial but as part of a question in the debate. Kudos to them for really stepping up their game.

They did that sort of stuff to Cruz and Rubio in the debate Trump skipped before Iowa

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:42:44

Monkeyboy wrote:I'm glad they went after him, but it seems to play into his meme of being attacked and being one man against the establishment. Are we sure they weren't trying to help him? They just solidified him as an outsider, which is what people want right now.

Anyway, going after one candidate and trying to take that candidate down really isn't in the spirit of good journalism, not that we should expect good journalism from Fox. They are supposed to be neutral. It's fair to ask more questions of the frontrunner, but they shouldn't be trying to take him down. Maybe if they reported the news accurately instead of being a lying mouthpiece for the Rep BS of the moment, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

See above

by **Stripes** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:44:59

Monkeyboy wrote:I'm glad they went after him, but it seems to play into his meme of being attacked and being one man against the establishment. Are we sure they weren't trying to help him? They just solidified him as an outsider, which is what people want right now.

Anyway, going after one candidate and trying to take that candidate down really isn't in the spirit of good journalism, not that we should expect good journalism from Fox. They are supposed to be neutral. It's fair to ask more questions of the frontrunner, but they shouldn't be trying to take him down. Maybe if they reported the news accurately instead of being a lying mouthpiece for the Rep BS of the moment, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

News flash! NONE of the news organizations are "neutral"

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:47:22

jerseyhoya wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:I'm glad they went after him, but it seems to play into his meme of being attacked and being one man against the establishment. Are we sure they weren't trying to help him? They just solidified him as an outsider, which is what people want right now.

Anyway, going after one candidate and trying to take that candidate down really isn't in the spirit of good journalism, not that we should expect good journalism from Fox. They are supposed to be neutral. It's fair to ask more questions of the frontrunner, but they shouldn't be trying to take him down. Maybe if they reported the news accurately instead of being a lying mouthpiece for the Rep BS of the moment, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

See above

Thanks, I didn't see that debate. I was afraid it would kill brain cells, like being in an enclosed space with a scarcity of oxygen.

by **JFLNYC** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:48:11

And some are less neutral than others.

by **Gimpy** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:48:37

Isn't calling people on bullshit exactly what a good journalist would do?

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:51:15

Stripes wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:I'm glad they went after him, but it seems to play into his meme of being attacked and being one man against the establishment. Are we sure they weren't trying to help him? They just solidified him as an outsider, which is what people want right now.

Anyway, going after one candidate and trying to take that candidate down really isn't in the spirit of good journalism, not that we should expect good journalism from Fox. They are supposed to be neutral. It's fair to ask more questions of the frontrunner, but they shouldn't be trying to take him down. Maybe if they reported the news accurately instead of being a lying mouthpiece for the Rep BS of the moment, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

News flash! NONE of the news organizations are "neutral"

I'm not going to get into the same tired debate, except to give my opinion once. Fox News is about 10 times worse about it than the others. People literally become less informed watching their news program.

But I do agree that news in general has become about ratings and picking sides to some degree. TV stations used to be required to do the news as a public service in exchange for having the right to broadcast. Now it's all about ratings and money. It's really bad for the country. Democracy only works if you have an informed public.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:53:21

Gimpy wrote:Isn't calling people on bullshit exactly what a good journalist would do?

yes, but Cruz and Rubio are also peddling a load of crap. I feel a bit better about the debate with JH pointing out that the other candidates got the same treatment in Iowa.

But yeh, calling them on bullshit is exactly what they should do. All of them, equally.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:56:56

Yeah, I gotta say the Fox innovation of showing clips of things candidates did or said is a pretty solid one. There is the obvious problem of selectivity entering into it, but I think it's preferable to just letting candidates getting away with lying about their record.

I don't think bias is in and of itself a problem. I do think fairness something we should expect, and it's probably best if one makes their biases evident. But it's hard to imagine any question of substance that does not at least potentially favor one candidate over the other.

The only way to remove a moderator's bias from the proceedings is to let the candidates go at one another, and the only job of the moderator would be to ensure each candidate has equal time.

by **Phred** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:31:14

Can somebody please explain to me

- Why Obamacare is such a job killer?
- What makes Hilary such a terrible person that people think that we are better off with Trump than her?

by **slugsrbad** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:34:00

Phred wrote:Can somebody please explain to me

- Why Obamacare is such a job killer?
- What makes Hilary such a terrible person that people think that we are better off with Trump than her?

She set up an e-mail server in Benghazi!

by **JFLNYC** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:42:34

Phred wrote:Can somebody please explain to me

- Why Obamacare is such a job killer?

http://obamacarefacts.com/impact-of-obamacare-on-jobs/

by **Phred** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:48:01

JFLNYC wrote:
Phred wrote:Can somebody please explain to me

- Why Obamacare is such a job killer?

http://obamacarefacts.com/impact-of-obamacare-on-jobs/

Got it. Thanks.

Archived

Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics

Re: Brokered Convention is the GOPs Trump Card: Politics