After what the stupid party did in Colorado, they will soon be history.

[Iceweasel]

5.35 million people.

Wrong! March 1, 2016
Yes Donald, Colorado Did Vote…On March 1st

Yes Donald, Colorado Did Vote…On March 1st

COLORADO GOP DECIDES VOTERS DON'T NEED TO VOTE. WAIT! WHAT?

Voting in a straw poll that would do nothing anyway. And voters caucused on March 1, 2016

Super Tuesday leaves Colorado GOP guessing

Oh they did? What were the results of their vote?

What do the rules say?

You really need to stop thinking that just because FOX News and ABC say delegates are awarded to candidate A, after a caucus, that they are. Many states will hold state conventions weeks after a caucus and then decide what they will actually do with delegates. Voters and caucus goers only get to pick a preference. The party decides. It is their primary. It is not about democracy. Party primaries are inherently undemocratic

And no one is stealing or playing with unbound delegates

You keep repeating yourself like a parrot. Blaming media outlets isn't going to work for you. CO voters didn't get to pick the candidate and you can spin it to become so.

FAIL.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The GOP, which is correctly known as the stupid party, oh wow, they really did themselves in by screwing the voters in Colorado. From voters burning their GOP papers, to Rush Limbaugh saying the GOP has done itself decades of damage. Where I believe Rush is wrong is, the stupid party would be fortunate to have done themselves decades of damage, because I think the stupid party will soon be history, just like the Whig Party.

Several members of my family, and friends are leaving the GOP over this, and finally going third party. I've always been registered third party because I always knew the GOP was just as big of a pile of shit as the Democratic Party.

I truly hope this the end of the GOP, it would serve them right for decades of hating their voting base, lying to them, stabbing them in the back, betraying America.

Burn in hell GOP

there is a got tar you bring the feathers protest

scheduled for HQ coming soon

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm fine with that. Trump would still win the plurality. Now, stfu, hack.

But plurality has never nominated the GOP candidate. That's not the rules... you don't want a "rigged" system do you? The nominee must receive a MAJORITY of delegates.. been that way since the party's inception in 1856. You say you wan't "will of the people" but the will of the people is they mostly don't want Trump. So do you WANT will of the people or NOT?

You can't honestly make that claim. First off, Colorado changed their game plan last summer, not 1856. The field was very large in the beginning and even now there are three dividing up the delegate count. If you have evidence all the votes that didn't go to Trump was a vote against him then post it up. All we know is people preferred someone else. Trump could have been their second pick for all you know.

 

[Avatar4321]

RNC Rules & Resolutions | GOP

from my notes and sheets/files: March 1, Super Tuesday

********************************************************
Coloradro
Caucus
Number of Delegates: 37 Total Delegates

13 AL - at large delegates
21 CD - congressional delegates
3 RNC - RNC delegates
********************************************************
Colorado (34) [At-large delegates selected (13)]
[Congressional district delegates selected (21): 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th]
April 9:
Colorado state assembly (at-large delegates)

Colorado1, Wyoming1
Delegates in Colorado are selected through a process that starts with the March 1st caucuses and culminates at the state convention on April 9th. Colorado Delegates can go to the national convention as unbound or bound to a candidate. The Wyoming precinct caucuses on March 1st do not bind any delegates, but they start a delegate selection process that culminates at the state convention on April 14-16. Delegates from Wyoming can be bound or unbound.

The Official Guide to the 2016 Republican Nominating Process

Great but that's not relevant to the American voter. Since the rules told them to fuck off.

By telling them to go to the caucus?

BTW why does the Colorado convention need to let all Americans vote rather than the Coloradoans who attended?

 

[Avatar4321]

shut up moron..I never had a problem with Trump, until he started acting a fool. I 'll still vote for him over the witch so STFU...You don't know me you old fool

I won't... I'm done! Done with whiny and petulant Trump AND his supporters. I'll stay home or vote 3rd party before I vote for Trump... you can thank his sleazy despicable tactics and his equally sleazy despicable supporters.
#NeverTrump

Don't stay home. We need conservatives to check whoever wins

 

[Avatar4321]

COLORADO GOP DECIDES VOTERS DON'T NEED TO VOTE. WAIT! WHAT?

And show me your links about the DNC stealing the nomination from Bernie.

Bernie seems to be doing just fine. Waaaaay better than expected. You want to see something the Democrats have that the GOP doesn't?

Colorado Caucus Election Results

What I want to see is you calling out Hillary for her cheating; otherwise you're just a cherry picking asshole.

You want to know how much I care about Hillary? I spend zero seconds of my day thinking about Hillary. I have 2 priorities for this election. Convincing people that Cruz is a lying, cheating asshole lunatic (which he is); and convincing people that supporting Sanders, an open and unapologetic communist is a disaster for this country.

If it's Trump vs. Hillary I can stay home and laugh and laugh and laugh. If it's Cruz vs. Sanders then it's time to start thinking maybe the crazies are right and the country really is lost.

HIllary and Cruz are virtually the same person.

That is literally the stupidest statement I've ever seen

 

[Avatar4321]

Boss

I don't think you're a serious poster. You're just some asshole with a cheap agenda. I don't have time to just keep feeding you.

In other words you don't give a crap about the majority winner getting the nominee! You just want Trump even if he fails to do it.

 

[Avatar4321]

George Washington was elected with far, FAR less democracy than this. And no one seemed to have a problem then.

But, that isn't fair to the Donald

What's not fair? He went into the contest with the rules laid out for him. He didn't complain before he started, he complained half way through.

But he's greater than Washington. And they didn't hand him the victory even though he made no effort to win it. It's not fair that Donald has to play by the same rules as everyone else

 

[Avatar4321]

Wrong! March 1, 2016
Yes Donald, Colorado Did Vote…On March 1st

Yes Donald, Colorado Did Vote…On March 1st

COLORADO GOP DECIDES VOTERS DON'T NEED TO VOTE. WAIT! WHAT?

Voting in a straw poll that would do nothing anyway. And voters caucused on March 1, 2016

Super Tuesday leaves Colorado GOP guessing

Oh they did? What were the results of their vote?

What do the rules say?

You really need to stop thinking that just because FOX News and ABC say delegates are awarded to candidate A, after a caucus, that they are. Many states will hold state conventions weeks after a caucus and then decide what they will actually do with delegates. Voters and caucus goers only get to pick a preference. The party decides. It is their primary. It is not about democracy. Party primaries are inherently undemocratic

And no one is stealing or playing with unbound delegates

You keep repeating yourself like a parrot. Blaming media outlets isn't going to work for you. CO voters didn't get to pick the candidate and you can spin it to become so.

FAIL.

The people elected delegates in 8 separate votes.

 

[Boss]

I'm fine with that. Trump would still win the plurality. Now, stfu, hack.

But plurality has never nominated the GOP candidate. That's not the rules... you don't want a "rigged" system do you? The nominee must receive a MAJORITY of delegates.. been that way since the party's inception in 1856. You say you wan't "will of the people" but the will of the people is they mostly don't want Trump. So do you WANT will of the people or NOT?

You can't honestly make that claim. First off, Colorado changed their game plan last summer, not 1856. The field was very large in the beginning and even now there are three dividing up the delegate count. If you have evidence all the votes that didn't go to Trump was a vote against him then post it up. All we know is people preferred someone else. Trump could have been their second pick for all you know.

Uhm... Yes I can honestly make that claim because it's the truth. Colorado can change it's game plan, so can every other state party, so can the national party. Heck, the national party can change it's game plan at the convention. This has also always been the case since 1856. What has never changed is the requirement for the nominee to get a majority of delegates and not simply a plurality.

I never claimed that delegates not going to Trump were delegates against Trump. The nominee is not chosen on the basis of how many or few delegates are against them. The nominee is also not chosen on the basis of who is second most popular. Since the party's inception in 1856, it has been the candidate with a majority of delegates. There is a process to follow if no one gets the majority on the first ballot.

If the GOP based the nomination on plurality, we would have never nominated Abraham Lincoln, the GOP candidate in 1860 would have been William Seward. He had the plurality of delegates on the first ballot.... but that's not how the GOP nominates a candidate. That's not the process. They MUST get a majority, not a plurality.

Now, you Trumpettes will whine about "will of the people" and how it's not fair but the rules are a majority and not a plurality precisely because of "will of the people." If the majority of delegates support someone other than Trump, that's the will of the people. Some of the candidates they are bound to support are no longer in the race. Some have no chance of securing a majority of delegates. After the first ballot, if no one has a majority, the delegates are released from their obligation to support a specific candidate.

You'll say, but that's not fair, the people voted for the delegates and their vote should count... but that's not how political parties select candidates. The GOP is not obligated to a democratic process. This is not a "one-man-one-vote" process. Even the presidency itself is not determined on the basis of popular vote. So the GOP has a process as do the Democrats and the process will be followed as it always is. I'm sorry that so many Americans seems to be confused or lack the education to understand the process but that's life... it's not always fair.

I would think that Mr. Trump would be comfortable with a brokered convention. After all, isn't his big claim to fame his ability to cut deals and negotiate? Well, this is where that will come into play. After the first ballot, the front-runners will lobby delegates to come over to their camp. Trump has the same opportunity as Cruz, Kasich or others. The problem as I see it is, Trump hasn't made too many friends. Maybe I am wrong... maybe people deep down love Trump? Maybe Trump has the ability to apply his masterful negotiation and deal making skills in order to secure the needed delegates?

In any event, the GOP nominee will be the first person to obtain a majority of the delegates at the convention. This isn't a democratic process, it never has been. This is not the NFL playoffs or American Idol. Who people voted for has no real bearing on who the party nominates as their candidate. Just as the president is not elected by the popular vote, that's the process... that's how this works.

 

[Boss]

CO voters didn't get to pick the candidate and you can spin it to become so.

Neither did the voters in Nevada or Hawaii. In Florida, Trump got 45% of the vote but 100% of the delegates. How was that fair? In Ohio, Kasich got 47% of the vote but 100% of the delegates and he can't even win the nomination. How is that fair?

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm fine with that. Trump would still win the plurality. Now, stfu, hack.

But plurality has never nominated the GOP candidate. That's not the rules... you don't want a "rigged" system do you? The nominee must receive a MAJORITY of delegates.. been that way since the party's inception in 1856. You say you wan't "will of the people" but the will of the people is they mostly don't want Trump. So do you WANT will of the people or NOT?

You can't honestly make that claim. First off, Colorado changed their game plan last summer, not 1856. The field was very large in the beginning and even now there are three dividing up the delegate count. If you have evidence all the votes that didn't go to Trump was a vote against him then post it up. All we know is people preferred someone else. Trump could have been their second pick for all you know.

Uhm... Yes I can honestly make that claim because it's the truth. Colorado can change it's game plan, so can every other state party, so can the national party. Heck, the national party can change it's game plan at the convention. This has also always been the case since 1856. What has never changed is the requirement for the nominee to get a majority of delegates and not simply a plurality.

I never claimed that delegates not going to Trump were delegates against Trump. The nominee is not chosen on the basis of how many or few delegates are against them. The nominee is also not chosen on the basis of who is second most popular. Since the party's inception in 1856, it has been the candidate with a majority of delegates. There is a process to follow if no one gets the majority on the first ballot.

If the GOP based the nomination on plurality, we would have never nominated Abraham Lincoln, the GOP candidate in 1860 would have been William Seward. He had the plurality of delegates on the first ballot.... but that's not how the GOP nominates a candidate. That's not the process. They MUST get a majority, not a plurality.

Now, you Trumpettes will whine about "will of the people" and how it's not fair but the rules are a majority and not a plurality precisely because of "will of the people." If the majority of delegates support someone other than Trump, that's the will of the people. Some of the candidates they are bound to support are no longer in the race. Some have no chance of securing a majority of delegates. After the first ballot, if no one has a majority, the delegates are released from their obligation to support a specific candidate.

You'll say, but that's not fair, the people voted for the delegates and their vote should count... but that's not how political parties select candidates. The GOP is not obligated to a democratic process. This is not a "one-man-one-vote" process. Even the presidency itself is not determined on the basis of popular vote. So the GOP has a process as do the Democrats and the process will be followed as it always is. I'm sorry that so many Americans seems to be confused or lack the education to understand the process but that's life... it's not always fair.

I would think that Mr. Trump would be comfortable with a brokered convention. After all, isn't his big claim to fame his ability to cut deals and negotiate? Well, this is where that will come into play. After the first ballot, the front-runners will lobby delegates to come over to their camp. Trump has the same opportunity as Cruz, Kasich or others. The problem as I see it is, Trump hasn't made too many friends. Maybe I am wrong... maybe people deep down love Trump? Maybe Trump has the ability to apply his masterful negotiation and deal making skills in order to secure the needed delegates?

In any event, the GOP nominee will be the first person to obtain a majority of the delegates at the convention. This isn't a democratic process, it never has been. This is not the NFL playoffs or American Idol. Who people voted for has no real bearing on who the party nominates as their candidate. Just as the president is not elected by the popular vote, that's the process... that's how this works.

I'm a Trumpette because I asked you to back up the claim that a vote for anybody else was a vote against Trump? You're just trying to make facts fir your beliefs. No one said the party acted illegally, why trot out that strawman? Whether it's legal for them or not doesn't make it ethical.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And show me your links about the DNC stealing the nomination from Bernie.

Bernie seems to be doing just fine. Waaaaay better than expected. You want to see something the Democrats have that the GOP doesn't?

Colorado Caucus Election Results

What I want to see is you calling out Hillary for her cheating; otherwise you're just a cherry picking asshole.

You want to know how much I care about Hillary? I spend zero seconds of my day thinking about Hillary. I have 2 priorities for this election. Convincing people that Cruz is a lying, cheating asshole lunatic (which he is); and convincing people that supporting Sanders, an open and unapologetic communist is a disaster for this country.

If it's Trump vs. Hillary I can stay home and laugh and laugh and laugh. If it's Cruz vs. Sanders then it's time to start thinking maybe the crazies are right and the country really is lost.

HIllary and Cruz are virtually the same person.

That is literally the stupidest statement I've ever seen

What will you get different with Cruz than Hillary?

 

[Boss]

I'm a Trumpette because I asked you to back up the claim that a vote for anybody else was a vote against Trump? You're just trying to make facts fir your beliefs. No one said the party acted illegally, why trot out that strawman? Whether it's legal for them or not doesn't make it ethical.

I didn't claim that. A vote for anybody else is not a vote for Trump. Common sense ought to tell you that. Trump needs a majority... a plurality won't cut it. The only fact that is relevant is, the GOP nominee has to get a majority of the delegates to win. You're free to think the party system is not ethical. It's the system we have and the system we'll likely continue to have... and it's certainly the system we'll have for 2016.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Boss

I don't think you're a serious poster. You're just some asshole with a cheap agenda. I don't have time to just keep feeding you.

In other words you don't give a crap about the majority winner getting the nominee! You just want Trump even if he fails to do it.

No. We've been discussing this just fine. I know when someone is blatantly trolling though. I know you're serious about you're positions even if you are rationalizing. That's the difference.

 

[Kat]

I didn't claim that. A vote for anybody else is not a vote for Trump. Common sense ought to tell you that. Trump needs a majority... a plurality won't cut it. The only fact that is relevant is, the GOP nominee has to get a majority of the delegates to win. You're free to think the party system is not ethical. It's the system we have and the system we'll likely continue to have... and it's certainly the system we'll have for 2016.

And IMO it is as corrupt as it can be. I think that has really come to the forefront this year. It matters NOT who we vote for...the establishment will put in who THEY want.
Just because it has been this way for years, doesn't make it right, but it does answer a lot of questions.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm a Trumpette because I asked you to back up the claim that a vote for anybody else was a vote against Trump? You're just trying to make facts fir your beliefs. No one said the party acted illegally, why trot out that strawman? Whether it's legal for them or not doesn't make it ethical.

I didn't claim that. A vote for anybody else is not a vote for Trump. Common sense ought to tell you that. Trump needs a majority... a plurality won't cut it. The only fact that is relevant is, the GOP nominee has to get a majority of the delegates to win. You're free to think the party system is not ethical. It's the system we have and the system we'll likely continue to have... and it's certainly the system we'll have for 2016.

That's a lot of words for saying nothing. It's rigged for the establishment and I am free to call it what it is, corrupt!

 

[Iceweasel]

I didn't claim that. A vote for anybody else is not a vote for Trump. Common sense ought to tell you that. Trump needs a majority... a plurality won't cut it. The only fact that is relevant is, the GOP nominee has to get a majority of the delegates to win. You're free to think the party system is not ethical. It's the system we have and the system we'll likely continue to have... and it's certainly the system we'll have for 2016.

And IMO it is as corrupt as it can be. I think that has really come to the forefront this year. It matters NOT who we vote for...the establishment will put in who THEY want.
Just because it has been this way for years, doesn't make it right, but it does answer a lot of questions.

Ha, I sent my response before reading that. Exactly right. It's why we've had milk toast candidates all along, Dole, McCain, Romney. Democrat lites that will go along with the power brokers. They do well no matter what, regardless of who's at the helm. And the middle class keeps taking it in the shorts.

 

[Kat]

I didn't claim that. A vote for anybody else is not a vote for Trump. Common sense ought to tell you that. Trump needs a majority... a plurality won't cut it. The only fact that is relevant is, the GOP nominee has to get a majority of the delegates to win. You're free to think the party system is not ethical. It's the system we have and the system we'll likely continue to have... and it's certainly the system we'll have for 2016.

And IMO it is as corrupt as it can be. I think that has really come to the forefront this year. It matters NOT who we vote for...the establishment will put in who THEY want.
Just because it has been this way for years, doesn't make it right, but it does answer a lot of questions.

Ha, I sent my response before reading that. Exactly right. It's why we've had milk toast candidates all along, Dole, McCain, Romney. Democrat lites that will go along with the power brokers. They do well no matter what, regardless of who's at the helm. And the middle class keeps taking it in the shorts.

Totally agree. I never could figure out why, but now I get it. Disgusting.

 

[Boss]

And IMO it is as corrupt as it can be. I think that has really come to the forefront this year. It matters NOT who we vote for...the establishment will put in who THEY want.
Just because it has been this way for years, doesn't make it right, but it does answer a lot of questions.

You're right... in the party primaries it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's merely a suggestion. It's not "corrupt" it's the system that has been in place for over a century.... really, longer than that... .as long as we've had political parties in America.

Now... the "establishment" doesn't get to put in who they want or the GOP would be nominating Jeb Bush. There is a process and a set of rules. Each state has their own process and set of rules and the parties are run by the state membership. If you are a registered Republican in Colorado, you had the opportunity to participate in the March 1st caucus.

To claim something is "corrupt as it can be" you need to somehow define or delineate the corruption and you've not done that. There is a system and process... that's not corruption just because you don't like the system and process. We have a criminal justice system... it's not corrupt unless you pinpoint corruption within the system. You may not like the system but that doesn't make it corrupt.