Wrath of Dagon

We don't need a parliamentary system, but we do need viable third parties. The two major parties are incredibly corrupt, and the voter has nowhere to go because the other party is pretty much diametrically opposed to everything the voter believes. If we had more parties, they would actually have to compete for voters, instead of telling them to go pound sand as they do now. All that's needed is to add run offs to the general election (since the voter doesn't hurt the biggest party he's ideologically closest to by voting for someone else in general). Of course the major parties aren't interested in anything like that, so seems unlikely. Although the West Coast states now have a primary in which everyone can run, making the general election the run-off (not for president though, also that system seems unconstitutional). Edit: For example, if we had run-offs now, Bloomberg could run. If wouldn't matter if he lost and took away votes from the Democrat because in the run off his voters could still vote for the Democrat.

As of now, I'd say Cruz is the more likely nominee over Trump. If Trump can't get the majority and win on the first ballot, Cruz has succeeded in placing his double-agents as Trump delegates, giving him a clear path to victory on later ballots.

I seriously doubt it. Unless the concept of "person-hood" become a complete joke. That would mean no more meat, animal products (farm animals would be slavery), or even pets (also slavery). Remember, if animals are, "people", then they'd be entitled to all the rights humans are. Common sense has never stopped Progressives before.

Creeping in on Mitt Romney at the convention? What the hell does that mean? Time to upgrade the Putin-bots.

I can see animals being given personhood over the next 20 years, and veterinary care costing the same as medical care, to the point of having to put pets on your medical insurance. Of course no one will be able to afford medical insurance by then anyway.

An even bigger problem is going to be when Pennsylvania elects a bunch of non-committed delegates. But them's the rules. There's really nothing which tells a state party how the delegates have to be selected. Which would've been OK if they were private parties, but the system is rigged for two parties, so they're not really private.

Subotai was easily triggered though, "don't kill the messanger" and all that. Link for the Wyoming caucus http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wyoming It seems like a state were they don't believe in losers and give the same delegate amount either way. Sounds like Socialism to me.

Anyone who's been played by John Wayne can't be all bad.

Says an Obola/Clinton operative. Has he ever heard of valid ID?

Source? I can't be expected to remember a source for everything I ever heard. Google is your friend. That is a pretty narrow way to view Temujin though. Although I may be missing your point. That's right, he killed so many people he actually reduced the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. He's the greenest conqueror in history! In other news, we can't afford to secure our borders, but we sure can afford to secure someone else's : http://intelligencebriefs.com/us-to-fund-24-9-million-electronic-security-surveillance-on-the-tunisia-libya-security-wall/

Apparently you can't be on a lot of state ballots as an independent once you were on the ballot as a Republican, and it's difficult to get on the remaining ballots this late in the game, and he'd have to spend a lot of his own money, and all this basically for nothing because there's no way to win splitting the Republican vote unless Sanders is the Democrat nominee and Bloomberg decides to get in (which in itself is too late by then). So I don't see Trump doing that just to get revenge.

There you hit on the essence of why all hell might break lose at the Republican convention.

From what I understand all rules expire just before the convention. Then it's up to the rules committee to propose new rules which will be voted on by the delegates. Since Cruz has so far been very successful in getting his own people picked for everything (even in the states he lost) he's got a good shot of making all rules favor him. Also he might win a majority of delegates in 8 states, if he hasn't already. Normally you vote for the candidate, you have no idea who the delegates will be. 50 years ago the popular vote mattered very little, the party organization actually picked the delegates. In some states that's still the case. In most other states the party organization still decides who the delegates will be, although they're bound to their candidate on at least the first ballot.

Saw this on Twitter, so true: David Frum Verified account  ‏@davidfrum The immigration issue elevated Trump. Now Trump's own flaws are bringing him down. How to save the enforcement cause, post-Trump? The Anti-Gnostic ‏@Anti_Gnostic · 13h13 hours ago @davidfrum Trump is it. If he doesn't win, then your kids get to raise their kids in Northern Brazil and pay kidnap insurance premiums.

Under the current system we should just let Florida and Ohio vote, everyone else is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

They would if they could, they've even admitted it on occasion. People believe in freedom so long as they like what you are doing with it and you don't have something they think you shouldn't. We are just as free as we are told to be. Thankfully you americans have a constitution that your betters have to check each time before telling you how free you should be. No one really cares though so long as they get their way. Not debating that the Constitution is a major step, but lets not forget that it did recognize slavery. As a whole, we are all much better off than we were 200+ years ago. Actually it only recognized slavery in that it gave less voting power to the slave-holding states, else Virginia would be even more powerful than it already was.

Ummm, I've written and deleted at least five sarcastic responses to this but rather than do that I'll just suggest you rethink what you just posted there. I think you'll find... that you will wish you had worded that differently. Maybe after visiting wikipedia. Just a suggestion. I think you misunderstand me. Valsuelm claimed the issue here it the 10th amendment, my point is that 10th amendment is not in dispute in the abortion issue. 10th amendment doesn't preclude any rights granted under the Constitution. If that's not what you mean feel free to explain yourself. Why can't Trump talk like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1qOA2PVDS8&feature=youtu.be ? Miller should be running for President.

If the Court reverses itself (as Scalia, Alito and Thomas were pretty much on record wanting) and decides that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution, then the issue goes back to each individual state, 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it. Edit: Looks like Trump isn't the only one who can't keep his talking points straight: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/ The sound you hear is 100 million SJW's shrieking "lump of tissue".

This illustrates perfectly why I don't trust Cruz one bit: http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3302/The-PCE-Pt-15-Charles-C-Foster-Ted-Cruzs-Pro-Amnesty-Money-Man.aspx#.VwBoeDxfqRU.twitter

That article is a good example of a hit piece by mainstream media. It's an issue that largely does not matter in the context of a Presidential race yet polarizes many people, and takes what Trump says out of context in order to make him look bad to the polarized. Trump is hardly trying to lose. The establishment has been throwing everything it has at him though. The abortion question, especially in contrived form, is a perennial favorite. It's not going to get much traction, and then will fall off. The majority of people stupid enough to fall for this manufactured type of anti-candidate X crap have already fallen for the other manufactured anti-Trump crap. It's a hit Trump performed on himself. It's perfectly reasonable to ask a question about the platform he's running on. And when you can't answer a simple question with a simple standard answer that almost any Republican politician would easily give, you have to ask yourself what's really going on. Moreover, the abortion debate isn't settled as you say. If a Republican wins (seems almost impossible right now, but things happen, like in my sig) he could easily appoint two conservative Supreme Court justices, and then the issue goes back to the states.

GOP needs to be burned down to the ground and a new party needs to be formed. GOP isn't a party anymore, it's one huge scam. I'm vaguely aware of your issues. I realize we're far ahead right now, but we're going towards you, not forward.

I'm still for Trump if he manages to win, but it seems increasingly unlikely. My next choice is "none of the above".

Just the stuff he's been saying for the last couple of weeks. And it keeps getting worse: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dont-change-abortion-laws/

So Cruz will get blown out of the water, and Trump is clearly trying to lose on purpose. Kasich it is then.

She was not his top strategist, nowhere near. She worked for a Trump-supporting Super Pac in communications, not for the campaign. She notably didn't get hired by the campaign when the Super Pac was shut down.