[Aristotle]

http://www.msnbc.com/tamron-hall/watch/c...7097027786

I didn't see a thread on this yet. It seems interesting enough to warrant discussion.

Cruz has said on several occasions that a brokered convention would cause a revolt.

While I'm certainly not surprised to see such a statement made here, a political candidate saying it is somewhat alarming. My question is this: Does he actually believe this? Or is this just fear mongering to get people to vote for him?

What do you guys think: Would people literally revolt in the event of a brokered convention? And if so, do you think it would play out against the people? Would the media just spin it as "crazy Trump/Cruz supporters" or would it make a difference?

One thing is for sure....we live in interesting times.

[spokepoker]

I think it was already covered quite a few times in the Trump thread.

[Rutting Elephant]

^^ A forum google search for "Cruz convention revolt" produced several results on that thread.

[Aristotle]

(03-07-2016 03:55 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

^^ A forum google search for "Cruz convention revolt" produced several results on that thread.

I guess I wasn't clear. There wasn't a thread on this topic itself. As in, there is no thread about this particular topic.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Define "revolt".

In modern parlance "revolt" runs a scale of grey from "people writing angry letters" to "government officials hanging from streetlights".

[The Beast1]

I don't think there would be an open fighting in the streets revolt. However it would be the death of the republican party. Trump could then gather people around a new party with him as its head. Enough people would quickly jump ship and the GOP would go the way of the Wig party.

[Aristotle]

(03-07-2016 05:06 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I don't think there would be an open fighting in the streets revolt. However it would be the death of the republican party. Trump could then gather people around a new party with him as its head. Enough people would quickly jump ship and the GOP would go the way of the Wig party.

I like where you're going with this, and I'm inclined to agree, except that Trump is nearly 70 years old already. By the time the next election rolls around, he'll be 73. Obviously, he's in great health for his age, but one can't expect him to keep kicking ass forever. My wishful thinking is that Donald Jr would pick up the mantelpiece, but honestly, I don't think any of his kids have the amount of balls as Donald does.

[Fast Eddie]

There would certainly not be any violent revolt. There is basically nothing that the government could do that would cause a violent revolt, as a matter of fact.

Let's say Bernie Sanders somehow won the Presidency and declared a state of emergency, followed by an executive order imposing a flat tax of 85% exclusively on white males while making all other groups exempt from all taxation.

What would happen the next day? Nothing. Dudes wouldn't walk out in the middle of the street and start shooting rifles in the air. There is no leadership or organization to make a violent rebellion possible. Everyone is completely fragmented and atomized. In order for an uprising to occur, there needs to be something to coalesce around, and no such thing exists at this point.

[Paracelsus]

Good, Cruz just guaranteed either (a) he ain't going to be amenable to winning the nomination via a brokered convention or (b) he will never become President if he does.

[The Beast1]

(03-07-2016 05:58 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

There would certainly not be any violent revolt. There is basically nothing that the government could do that would cause a violent revolt, as a matter of fact.

Let's say Bernie Sanders somehow won the Presidency and declared a state of emergency, followed by an executive order imposing a flat tax of 85% exclusively on white males while making all other groups exempt from all taxation.

What would happen the next day? Nothing. Dudes wouldn't walk out in the middle of the street and start shooting rifles in the air. There is no leadership or organization to make a violent rebellion possible. Everyone is completely fragmented and atomized. In order for an uprising to occur, there needs to be something to coalesce around, and no such thing exists at this point.

Not right off the bat, but there would still be unintended consequences of such a move.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

somehow won the Presidency and declared a state of emergency, followed by an executive order imposing a flat tax of 85% exclusively on white males while making all other groups exempt from all taxation.

I think most would consider that to violate the 14th amendment as well as Article I of the Constitution.

[Aristotle]

(03-07-2016 05:58 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

There would certainly not be any violent revolt. There is basically nothing that the government could do that would cause a violent revolt, as a matter of fact.

I've been thinking the same thing. But not because of lack of leadership----I think there's simply too much entertainment/contentment available. Media is just too cheap for people to care. Even at an 85% tax, people could still binge-watch Netflix. And download and play computer games. We've become too desensitized to real sacrifice. And it's wonderful that we don't have to work hard or worry about REAL problems like our grandfathers did, but at the same time, it has the effect of making many men soft and effeminate.

[weambulance]

Come on guys, of course there's stuff the government could do to cause a violent revolt.

Suppose President Hillary Clinton declared martial law and called in UN troops (there aren't nearly enough military + LE personnel in the US) to go door to door confiscating firearms and other weapons. Many Americans would not resist, but a significant percentage would go out guns blazing. And as soon as word spread about what was going on, by CB radio if nothing else, there'd be snipers scattered in every city in the country just waiting for a blue helmeted trooper to step outside.

There doesn't need to be some kind of central leadership for people to resist such direct tyranny.

I don't think such a scenario would turn into a hot civil war, but America would simply break up into several pieces.

As for the 85% tax thing, there would be widespread disobedience at the very least, and how it ultimately turned out would depend on how stupid the government decided to be in trying to enforce it.

[ball dont lie]

(03-07-2016 05:58 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

There would certainly not be any violent revolt. There is basically nothing that the government could do that would cause a violent revolt, as a matter of fact.

Let's say Bernie Sanders somehow won the Presidency and declared a state of emergency, followed by an executive order imposing a flat tax of 85% exclusively on white males while making all other groups exempt from all taxation.

What would happen the next day? Nothing. Dudes wouldn't walk out in the middle of the street and start shooting rifles in the air. There is no leadership or organization to make a violent rebellion possible. Everyone is completely fragmented and atomized. In order for an uprising to occur, there needs to be something to coalesce around, and no such thing exists at this point.

Agree completely. Men are being accused of raping old women just by looking at them. Men are being accused of racism, bigotry, sexism. Losing their jobs. The economy is tanking. The USA is in a decade long war that cost trillions of dollars. Bills are signed every year that absolutely fuck the man on the street: one example would be Obamacare where the USA pays more for medical treatment that any other country because the lobbyists made sure to pay off everyone.

None of these things matter much to most people. Sure they might guffaw a little and be pissy. That is a long, long way from open revolt in the streets and hanging people.

I cant think of anything that would cause people to revolt in the streets are start murdering politicians and top company CEOs as they actually should be doing.

[dispenser]

(03-07-2016 05:58 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

There would certainly not be any violent revolt. There is basically nothing that the government could do that would cause a violent revolt, as a matter of fact.

Let's say Bernie Sanders somehow won the Presidency and declared a state of emergency, followed by an executive order imposing a flat tax of 85% exclusively on white males while making all other groups exempt from all taxation.

What would happen the next day? Nothing. Dudes wouldn't walk out in the middle of the street and start shooting rifles in the air. There is no leadership or organization to make a violent rebellion possible. Everyone is completely fragmented and atomized. In order for an uprising to occur, there needs to be something to coalesce around, and no such thing exists at this point.

Some provincial leaders would refuse to implement the tax, especially southerners.
They might also obey without complying, taxing as ordered by the capital, but immediately disbursing the money back to the people in pork barrel projects.

Some people without existing leaders would refuse to volunteer the money, and the most outspoken would begin to assume the role of local leader.
Prohibition created gangs and corruption. Insane taxes would create the same.

Now, back to the plausible. A brokered convention; what might that produce?
Mass disillusionment. Both parties would effectively merge in the public view, which would mean the South and Midwest would feel as if they were being governed by hostile outsiders and their local quislings.

Voting suddenly seems irrelevant, but people need their pride and sense of autonomy.
Where would they find that? Brotherhoods, associations, secret societies, public marches, parades, riots - which would become race riots.
It would take time to incubate, of course, and it's hard to say how it would end. Random but picturesque events caught on camera can change the course of history these days - who can say where the cameras would be rolling, or who the footage would inspire, and in what way?

[The Lizard of Oz]

Cruz is a very intelligent guy, and he is not hysterical unlike so many of the GOP pundit/writer crew. He is really making two points at the same time. The first point is self-serving but the second point is a call to sanity and reason.

The self-serving point is that he wants all the anti-Trump forces to unite around him as the Trump alternative. The anti-Trump forces have a choice: they could try to back a single candidate and call for everyone else to leave, hoping that that candidate defeats Trump one on one. Or they could try to keep everyone in the race for as long as possible and try to deny Trump a majority of delegates and then try to win a contested convention. For obvious reasons, Cruz prefers that they make the first choice: call on Rubio and Kasich to leave (after next Tuesday) and unite around him as the Trump alternative.

The ancillary point that Cruz is making is that you don't blow up the party over a possible Trump nomination. A contested convention which denies Trump the nomination despite a clear plurality of delegates would blow up the party (that is what he means by a "revolt"). It's a very dumb idea, and unlike some of the more hysterical voices, Cruz understands this. That is the second point of his remarks.

[Fast Eddie]

(03-07-2016 09:34 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Cruz is a very intelligent guy, and he is not hysterical unlike so many of the GOP pundit/writer crew. He is really making two points at the same time. The first point is self-serving but the second point is a call to sanity and reason.

The self-serving point is that he wants all the anti-Trump forces to unite around him as the Trump alternative. The anti-Trump forces have a choice: they could try to back a single candidate and call for everyone else to leave, hoping that that candidate defeats Trump one on one. Or they could try to keep everyone in the race for as long as possible and try to deny Trump a majority of delegates and then try to win a contested convention. For obvious reasons, Cruz prefers that they make the first choice: call on Rubio and Kasich to leave (after next Tuesday) and unite around him as the Trump alternative.

The ancillary point that Cruz is making is that you don't blow up the party over a possible Trump nomination. A contested convention which denies Trump the nomination despite a clear plurality of delegates would blow up the party (that is what he means by a "revolt"). It's a very dumb idea, and unlike some of the more hysterical voices, Cruz understands this. That is the second point of his remarks.

I agree with this analysis except that the second point is as self serving as the first. Cruz is pointing out how destructive to the Republican party a brokered convention would be not out of some love of sanity or reason, but in order to support his first point. Cruz is threatening the collapse of the Republican party as a reason to rally around his own candidacy, nothing more self serving than that.

[blacknwhitespade]

Cruz is campaigning hard in Florida to put the nail in Rubio's coffin. Kasich is mathematically too far behind in delegates/votes for the GOPe to turn to him as a realistic alternative. Cruz knows this, and he is clarifying this reality to the still delusional GOPe. Self-serving? Yes. But after next Tuesday, it's also going to be the COLD. HARD. TRUTH. In plain English, this message reads: "If you absolutely don't want Trump, then you can get behind me (Cruz), or you can obstruct us both and watch the party disintegrate."

Both men have enough support from their respective coalitions to send the RNC to it's grave if the elites don't co-operate. Cruz and Trump supporters are the overwhelming majority of the Republican party voters. Yet delusional elites are still refusing to acknowledge this!!! Romney's horrid statements about forcing a contested convention are too funny. A failed past presidential candidate nullifying the voice of millions and telling them to shift their support to him or some other appointed "true republican" as the appointed nominee?? The RNC would lose whatever remaining credibility and trust they have as a legit party that offers democratically elected leaders. Cruz (and Trump) knows this, the GOPe's hands are tied. Unless they all wanna lose their jobs for good, they need to make a choice between one of these two men and support him accordingly.

[rpg]

The spark that ignites bloodshed on a massive scale is when masses of people lose all their possessions. When the masses have nothing then they kill. In the meantime government during the decline puts more and more people in jail until that spark is ignited.
A brokered convention will be the death knell of the party. It is a suicide move.
Trump is a deal maker not a lunatic. He will do everything in his talent set to make sure the party can have faith in what he is going to do. But as smart as he is, he is still dealing with idiots.

[LeeEnfield303]

(03-07-2016 05:06 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I don't think there would be an open fighting in the streets revolt. However it would be the death of the republican party.

The GOP is already dead, as far as its current form. It's all aftershocks and where the rubble falls from here on out.

[BIG BOSS]

I've made up my find that if the gov came for my guns I'd go down guns blazing. It'd be worse to live in their world than to die like that.

[Roosh]

Speculation is that Mitt Romney will steal the candidacy at a brokered convention:

Quote:

In the end, a “brokered convention” would almost certainly result in an establishment candidate being chosen as the nominee. Needless to say, the names “Trump” and “Cruz” would not be on that list.

Have you noticed that Mitt Romney has started to put himself out there lately? His verbal attacks on Trump have been absolutely scathing, and he told Fox News that he would not say no if he was “drafted” to become the nominee at the Republican convention…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-07...g-election

[dispenser]

(03-07-2016 08:12 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Speculation is that Mitt Romney will steal the candidacy at a brokered convention:

Quote:

In the end, a “brokered convention” would almost certainly result in an establishment candidate being chosen as the nominee. Needless to say, the names “Trump” and “Cruz” would not be on that list.

Have you noticed that Mitt Romney has started to put himself out there lately? His verbal attacks on Trump have been absolutely scathing, and he told Fox News that he would not say no if he was “drafted” to become the nominee at the Republican convention…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-07...g-election

Artist's rendition of a Romney bid

[Leonard D Neubache]

A breakup of the USA is inevitable based on financial mathematics.

The real question is how bad the globalist police-state gets before the secession hits the fan.

[Aristotle]

(03-07-2016 08:12 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Speculation is that Mitt Romney will steal the candidacy at a brokered convention:

Quote:

In the end, a “brokered convention” would almost certainly result in an establishment candidate being chosen as the nominee. Needless to say, the names “Trump” and “Cruz” would not be on that list.

Have you noticed that Mitt Romney has started to put himself out there lately? His verbal attacks on Trump have been absolutely scathing, and he told Fox News that he would not say no if he was “drafted” to become the nominee at the Republican convention…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-07...g-election

The question then is: Does the GOP really believe people would vote for a failed presidential candidate over Hillary? I mean, I had forgotten about Romney until he started bashing Trump. That's how irrelevant he's been the past 4 years.

Frankly, it's clear as day that he wouldn't get nearly the votes needed to become President. Why would the GOP self-destruct like that? Is there a deeper, more sinister plot underneath the surface?