Posted on 04/15/2016 9:46:00 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
I don’t have a problem with your debate proposal, but there’s only one candidate complaining about the GOP primary process. Interestingly, that candidate has won 37% of the popular vote but 45% of available delegates. It seems the process has benefited the front runner. As designed.
So rather than have a nationally televised debate over a problem that doesn’t exist, I’d rather see one on taxes, national security, illegal aliens, ethanol subsidies, SCOTUS, Obamacare, etc.
The political parties belong to the Chamber of Commerce and big union bank accounts. The politicians are the reps for big busines and big union. They have the media in their pocket. International money also plays a role.
The dems and reps both have levers to get their candidate in place. The dems rely on superdelegates. The reps rely on rules, which are changed fluid and changed on a whim.
This year, folks are waking up to some uncomfortable facts.
I predict more universe shattering fact will become known before December
Agreed!
And you need to counter the impact of the old msm, and now google and facebook!
Google and facebook, like the msm, meter, filter, and control what information you read, thus adjusting your perception of the truth.
Remember how the tea parties were reported, versus occupy wall street.
Citizens get gaslighted each and every day
If memory serves me I think they recieve money for the convention, plus the city provides securty
It’s crazy. I’m a Trump guy (used to be a Cruz guy, after I was a Walker, then a Carson guy) defending the legal (but not moral) right of the GOPe to stack the deck in their favor.
But the voters must understand: a contested convention candidate almost never wins in the modern era. I refer you to my post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3416210/posts, and add a few additional thoughts here.
In the last 100 years (after 1916), there have been 8 contested-convention candidates. 6 have lost outright. Harding won in 1920 only because he was up against another contested candidate, Cox. That leaves only a single contested candidate who won against a non-contested candidate in 100 years...
That was FDR in 1932. Remember that was after the stock-market crash (think 2008) in which a Republican had a snowball’s chance in he11. If you look further though, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Democratic_National_Convention, you will see that the candidate, FDR, went into the convention as the top vote getter, already having a majority of the delegates in round-1 voting. But back then, a candidate needed 2/3 of the delegates to secure the nomination, according to the convention rules. It took 4 rounds of voting for him to be named.
Bottom line. Anyone who has a notion that the party can pick someone other than the lead vote getter (Trump) and still win the election is just not aware of history. We can’t control what the GOPe does in the end, but I would appeal to Cruzers that when he is numerically eliminated from achieving the lead on Tuesday, that people support a voting strategy that will avoid a contested convention. And that means supporting Trump.
Pure BULL SHIT.
The method pointed out by those like myself follows the Electoral college and I suppose you would be in favor of eliminating that also.
In Fact chummy ol chap, if we were to follow aportionment set forth in the constitution, we should have in excess of 2 to 3 thousand represetatives in congress.
Never mind the democRAT crossover-that should not be allowed as well as vice versa.
“Pure BULL SHIT.”
Spare us the foul language and stuff it back in your own orifice.
“The method pointed out by those like myself follows the Electoral college and I suppose you would be in favor of eliminating that also.”
There you go with yet another strawman argument. There is a world of difference between the Electoral College and the caucus-convention delegates, although both are subject to the same corruptions up to and until you get to the bound delegates. The fact is your suggestion gives little states and voters more powers than the voters in the more populous states. The House of Representatives was created in the first place to remedy that kind of problem, and here you are trying to reinvent the problem. There are many possible remedies to the present system of caucus-convention corruption that do not entail throwing the baby out with the baby’s bathwater.
“In Fact chummy ol chap, if we were to follow aportionment set forth in the constitution, we should have in excess of 2 to 3 thousand represetatives in congress.”
Which is a strawman argument, because no one suggested such a course of action, so don’t be ridiculous.
Since you havent even considered the remedy, your arguement is as worthless as the bandwith you submitted.
But one should expect that from a loyalist.
Get lost.
PURE BULL SHIT!
Alright then, how do you propose to prevent them from crossing over to obtain the vote?
All other elections, outside of presidential, are left to the states.
It would result in a court case which would overturn the “Rule” put forth by whichever party tried to enforce it.
Moreover, to disenfranchise these voters by, say the gop, would in fact allow the other party to gain even more in popularity and win ever election held there after.
I am not sure that is the case. The GOP or the dems get to pick their candidates not the general population. There are lots of primaries were you must be a registered party member to vote in the primary.
Independents can vote in the primary if there is a independent running. No one is disenfranchised at all. You just need go register with a party.
This is not the general election where you are selecting some one for office. You are selecting who you want to represent the party.
So I think you are wrong when you say you can not limit who votes in a primary.
If you are saying that independents can register with a party some time before a primary to vote for a particular party, then I concur.
But, if you are suggesting that they may NOT register and vote for a party because of their non affiliation, then it becomes a problem for the courts to decide.
BTW, I am a registered Independent and registered as a republican to vote for the republican I favored. As is my entire family since GW Bush. After his term, we ALL switched to independent. Brothers, sisters and most cousins.
After the GW Bush and the spending free for all by the GOP we had enough. Thats the reason.
The law is the law. No party, No entity, can violate the constitution in regards to the civil right to vote, for whatever reason. And we are choosing the person we wish to obtain the office of the president of the United STATES. So it does not matter whether it is a primary, or the general election.
This office is the only election that is actually covered under the constitution for the whole of the nation. All the others are states rights issues.
One way to continually lose an election of such, would be to disenfranchise these voters or even appear to do.
Want a Oligarchy? That would be the best way to do it..not that we dont live under one now, and that is the way they have got it...by shutting the voters out of the process.
I am saying what you said. During a primary only the party holding the primary should be allowed to vote. If you want to vote you need to join the party to vote. So yes we are saying the same thing.
During the election is when anyone can vote regardless of party. And this does not bother me at all. The problem I have is cross over voting. This happens in my state because it almost always goes dem. So we get crappy candidates so that the dem has a better chance to get elected.
As for being in the GOP I am not happy but I can be more effective in the party as a delegate than just voting for what ever they put up for the election. Totally sucks but it is what I have to do if I want something to change for the better.
I have been unhappy since the early 2000’s when the GOP failed to close the border then failed to reform SSA and went on a free spending spree.
Now I have lost another 12 or so years of my SSA contributions, increased the debt about 15 trillion and brought in tens of millions of criminals. So not happy with the party that had the house senate and presidency.
The blew my kids future. Thanks GOPe you suck.
Who did you vote for in 2000? Obviously NY put up some stellar candidates that you just drooled over. NOT...
I voted Alan Keyes and wrote him in for November. Tell me again just who you voted for...
Perhaps you can tell me just how you voted 2004. Wasn't much offered. I wrote in Alan Keyes again.
In 2008, I met my dream candidate. Duncan Hunter. I voted for him and have wrote him in numerous times since.
now pushing that phony preacher Ted Cruz on us.
Now that is a laugh, it doesn't get more phony than Trump. Hell the man can't even get a Bible quote right. He recently said his favorite verse was "don't bend to envy" which doesn't even exist. He has gone all over the country saying the Bible is his favorite book yet has proven time and time again that he doesn't know anything between the covers. Even Obama pulled off religion better than Trump. Hard to imagine a "God Damn America" Black Muslim liberation listener as more religious than Trump.
I used to post this comic of Obama holding a Bible with a caption of something along the lines of he knew nothing in-between the covers. I can't seem to find it to post, but one could exchange Trump and Obama and the comic today and it would still be relevant.
For such a Conservative state Texas are easily fooled by phonies
Any fool would take Texas's voting record any day over NY. There is a reason for that. I will let Trump explain it himself.
Wow, a 17 year old clip of Trump is the best you got?
Vote
get a receipt with a number that is unique to your vote, time and where....and a system where you can find your vote. You should also see your vote ID on a real time board.
We need to use technology to ensure that our votes are counted.
After the vote if you have doubts you could get 100 people to go to the Church or School where you voted and see if they counted your votes there. For example if you got 50 people who voted for X but that voting place on had 40?
Caucus is great but you need to have a tabulated vote.
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.