Delegates....a rigged system?

[Cecilie1200]

Another example of how our primary system is rigged.

Trump had won the 7th districts vote, but the Cruz slimeballs wanted to steal the delegate slots with fraudulent Trump delegates.

Trump Supporters Walk Out of Georgia Delegate Fight After Party Picks Cruz Supporter...'Uproar in the Hall' - Breitbart

A Cruz-Rubio alliance at the district convention in Buford, Georgia helped to knock Trump supporters out of the district’s national delegation altogether. Cruz supporters implied that Trump’s people would “embarrass” the district at the convention in Cleveland. Then things got heated.

“This morning, I attended Georgia 7th Congressional District GOP convention as a delegate and a Donald Trump supporter. We were there to elect the 3 delegates and 3 alternates to the national convention,” Ronnie Kurtz told Breitbart News. “Per the primary results, two slots were for Trump, and one was for Rubio.
Ted Cruz finished third in the primary and had no delegates allotted to him…Nonetheless, the hall was stacked with Cruz delegates.”....

So on the next ballot it came time to replace one or all of those delegates with new people. The Cruz supporters managed to knock out Dooley, the one Trump supporter. Kurtz described what happened:

When it came time for nominations from the floor, the Cruz bloc, which I believe had the numbers to install whoever they wanted, did not challenge the Rubio delegate. Only the true Trump supporter, Debbie Dooley, was challenged. Two Cruz supporters argued in favor of their alternative delegate, a Mr. David Hancock, on the premise that he had ‘been in the party from the beginning’ and ‘wouldn’t embarrass us at the convention.’ The convention was given no time to ask questions of the candidates on the basis that ‘the nominating committee has already interviewed them for you’. The Cruz people succeeded in voting in their delegate over Trump’s Debbie Dooley.

So, completely ignoring the state GOP bylaws that state that Trump should have gotten two of those delegates, the Cruz people elected two people who were fake Trump delegates, which is fraud, no matter how universal the practice may be.

We need national standards for primaries and all delegate allotment based on the results of the primaries with a uniform and reasonable method.

Maybe we can get Trump to stop whining like a little bitch. "Unfair!"

I can see Trump being at a Yankees game and screaming that 'stealing a base' is unfair.

What is up with your constant whines? What is your excuse?

I'd like to know where he gets off saying the delegates have been "bought"? Does he have any evidence of Cruz and his campaign "buying" votes with anything other than showing up, paying attention to them, and making them feel like their support actually mattered, something Donny Boy can't be bothered to do? If I were a delegate, I'd be suing Trump for slander and defamation of character.

The truth is, Trump resents the whole idea that he should "lower" himself to doing anything other than having a big flashy rally with some vague slogans and buzzwords and lots of cheering for him. He finds the idea of treating other people as important to be degrading. The nerve of them, thinking he should actually have to communicate with them and convince them to support him, instead of understanding that they should feel honored to be gifted with the opportunity to support him.

Yeah, it's more than a little ironic that Trump's making an argument that Wyoming's delegates should belong to them, when Wyoming is home to the tea party, small govt (even from the dems), where even the dems are armed, and libertarians. BUT, the system is rigged when delegates are not tied to what the actual vote was in a primary or caucus. Colorado's gop party had a valid point that if all your delegates were tied to a candidate early on, and the candidate dropped out, your state is screwed as far as being part of the nomination process. But the answer to that could be accomplished if the natl gop would amend their rules to release all delegates if a candidate drops out or suspends his/her campaign.

Perhaps, but the RNC is trying to respect the prerogative of the state parties to make decisions according to their individual needs and priorities. And it makes the party potentially more responsive to the rank-and-file, since it's much easier to gain influence in the state party and thus over decisions than it is to gain that same level of influence in the national party.

Really, it's the same concept as state governments versus the federal government.

Well, the state parties really answer to the elite. But, I think overall, the natl party has to have a system whereby anyone who gets 50%plus one of the vote is the nominee, no exceptions. But, if there's just a plurality, then any candidate can try to lobby the delegates of anyone who dropped out or suspended to get there votes. There's no way Trump will ever be able to sway enough delegates to his side to win the nomination, and at this point his campaign is more about delegitimizing the process and his celebrity status than anything else. But, be that as it may, it's impossible to defend the nomination process as being fair, even though SC showed he benefited as well from delegate allocation based on something other than one person one vote.

I never try to defend anything as "fair", because I consider that a childishly subjective word to the point of being meaningless. "Fair" literally means something different to each and every person, according to what they want at the moment. It's useless for any practical purposes.

 

[kaz]

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

The solution is not to limit people's right to spend their own money on political participation. The solution is to make politicians less valuable in general.

Bang, exactly!

 

[bendog]

Maybe we can get Trump to stop whining like a little bitch. "Unfair!"

I can see Trump being at a Yankees game and screaming that 'stealing a base' is unfair.

What is up with your constant whines? What is your excuse?

I'd like to know where he gets off saying the delegates have been "bought"? Does he have any evidence of Cruz and his campaign "buying" votes with anything other than showing up, paying attention to them, and making them feel like their support actually mattered, something Donny Boy can't be bothered to do? If I were a delegate, I'd be suing Trump for slander and defamation of character.

The truth is, Trump resents the whole idea that he should "lower" himself to doing anything other than having a big flashy rally with some vague slogans and buzzwords and lots of cheering for him. He finds the idea of treating other people as important to be degrading. The nerve of them, thinking he should actually have to communicate with them and convince them to support him, instead of understanding that they should feel honored to be gifted with the opportunity to support him.

Yeah, it's more than a little ironic that Trump's making an argument that Wyoming's delegates should belong to them, when Wyoming is home to the tea party, small govt (even from the dems), where even the dems are armed, and libertarians. BUT, the system is rigged when delegates are not tied to what the actual vote was in a primary or caucus. Colorado's gop party had a valid point that if all your delegates were tied to a candidate early on, and the candidate dropped out, your state is screwed as far as being part of the nomination process. But the answer to that could be accomplished if the natl gop would amend their rules to release all delegates if a candidate drops out or suspends his/her campaign.

Perhaps, but the RNC is trying to respect the prerogative of the state parties to make decisions according to their individual needs and priorities. And it makes the party potentially more responsive to the rank-and-file, since it's much easier to gain influence in the state party and thus over decisions than it is to gain that same level of influence in the national party.

Really, it's the same concept as state governments versus the federal government.

Well, the state parties really answer to the elite. But, I think overall, the natl party has to have a system whereby anyone who gets 50%plus one of the vote is the nominee, no exceptions. But, if there's just a plurality, then any candidate can try to lobby the delegates of anyone who dropped out or suspended to get there votes. There's no way Trump will ever be able to sway enough delegates to his side to win the nomination, and at this point his campaign is more about delegitimizing the process and his celebrity status than anything else. But, be that as it may, it's impossible to defend the nomination process as being fair, even though SC showed he benefited as well from delegate allocation based on something other than one person one vote.

I never try to defend anything as "fair", because I consider that a childishly subjective word to the point of being meaningless. "Fair" literally means something different to each and every person, according to what they want at the moment. It's useless for any practical purposes.

I don't agree with that at all. Fair is one person one vote. And the real reason the dems lost the South for several more generations is they forced us into a system where one person's vote is more important that another is considered "fair."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd like to know where he gets off saying the delegates have been "bought"? Does he have any evidence of Cruz and his campaign "buying" votes with anything other than showing up, paying attention to them, and making them feel like their support actually mattered, something Donny Boy can't be bothered to do? If I were a delegate, I'd be suing Trump for slander and defamation of character.

The truth is, Trump resents the whole idea that he should "lower" himself to doing anything other than having a big flashy rally with some vague slogans and buzzwords and lots of cheering for him. He finds the idea of treating other people as important to be degrading. The nerve of them, thinking he should actually have to communicate with them and convince them to support him, instead of understanding that they should feel honored to be gifted with the opportunity to support him.

Yeah, it's more than a little ironic that Trump's making an argument that Wyoming's delegates should belong to them, when Wyoming is home to the tea party, small govt (even from the dems), where even the dems are armed, and libertarians. BUT, the system is rigged when delegates are not tied to what the actual vote was in a primary or caucus. Colorado's gop party had a valid point that if all your delegates were tied to a candidate early on, and the candidate dropped out, your state is screwed as far as being part of the nomination process. But the answer to that could be accomplished if the natl gop would amend their rules to release all delegates if a candidate drops out or suspends his/her campaign.

Perhaps, but the RNC is trying to respect the prerogative of the state parties to make decisions according to their individual needs and priorities. And it makes the party potentially more responsive to the rank-and-file, since it's much easier to gain influence in the state party and thus over decisions than it is to gain that same level of influence in the national party.

Really, it's the same concept as state governments versus the federal government.

Well, the state parties really answer to the elite. But, I think overall, the natl party has to have a system whereby anyone who gets 50%plus one of the vote is the nominee, no exceptions. But, if there's just a plurality, then any candidate can try to lobby the delegates of anyone who dropped out or suspended to get there votes. There's no way Trump will ever be able to sway enough delegates to his side to win the nomination, and at this point his campaign is more about delegitimizing the process and his celebrity status than anything else. But, be that as it may, it's impossible to defend the nomination process as being fair, even though SC showed he benefited as well from delegate allocation based on something other than one person one vote.

I never try to defend anything as "fair", because I consider that a childishly subjective word to the point of being meaningless. "Fair" literally means something different to each and every person, according to what they want at the moment. It's useless for any practical purposes.

I don't agree with that at all. Fair is one person one vote. And the real reason the dems lost the South for several more generations is they forced us into a system where one person's vote is more important that another is considered "fair."

No, that's your personal perception of "fair". It has pros and cons, like anything else.

 

[jillian]

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

The solution is not to limit people's right to spend their own money on political participation. The solution is to make politicians less valuable in general.

I disagree. For the simple reason that neither you nor I could ever donate sums sufficient to make us visible and our interests paramount. The ideal solution, IMO, is to have government fund elections and keep all money out of it. Then maybe they'll do what they're elected to do. At least we'd get the chance to find out

And if money did equal speech, shouldn't things be open and above board and dark money be illegal?

 

[hadit]

Of course the process is rigged. The sad thing is, EVERY candidate knew that going in, so to cry foul now just looks like sour grapes. Bernie KNEW that Hillary was picked by the party and that he had no true fair shot. Same with Trump. The difference being that Trump actually has a shot at beating the establishment while Bernie doesn't.

The problem is that cynical realism should not disuade us from demanding ideal behavior in our system.

We, the American Middle Class, stopped doing that with the various scandals that have been publicized since Watergate, and now we have allowed things to get out of hand and we are paying the price for that with a firmly established Corporate Crony Network that robs the federal treeaury of hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and stole literally Trillions with the 'recovery' from the subprime mortgage crash.

Trump is the best shot the American voter has for disrupting the establishment, and is why the establishment is terrified.

 

[kaz]

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

The solution is not to limit people's right to spend their own money on political participation. The solution is to make politicians less valuable in general.

I disagree. For the simple reason that neither you nor I could ever donate sums sufficient to make us visible and our interests paramount. The ideal solution, IMO, is to have government fund elections and keep all money out of it. Then maybe they'll do what they're elected to do. At least we'd get the chance to find out

And if money did equal speech, shouldn't things be open and above board and dark money be illegal?

You disagree because you're a socialist leach and politicians show you the love

 

[hadit]

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

The solution is not to limit people's right to spend their own money on political participation. The solution is to make politicians less valuable in general.

I disagree. For the simple reason that neither you nor I could ever donate sums sufficient to make us visible and our interests paramount. The ideal solution, IMO, is to have government fund elections and keep all money out of it. Then maybe they'll do what they're elected to do. At least we'd get the chance to find out

And if money did equal speech, shouldn't things be open and above board and dark money be illegal?

There is no way to take money out of politics. Is anyone going to stop Hillary from taking money from a multi-million dollar "foundation" that is raking in big bucks while she's not only running for president, but is Secretary of State?

 

[HUGGY]

"So if I can "prove" that they could have saved the Ambassador, then we can investigate it?"

You REALLY do have problems with basic understanding of the English language don't you. No! What I meant for you to understand is that you should go ahead and investigate it to your heart's content. When and if you find something worth the general public knowing then by all means report it. If your enthusiasm for this "mission" is just speculation please try to stay out from under people's feet. Your "tin foil hat" is not some special entitlement to bring everyone's/anyone's life to a grinding halt. There have already been several congressional hearings on the matter. Not enough? I am more than satisfied that enough energy and resources have been consumed on this matter.

You say "no" then confirm what I said ...

I say "no" because you got it backwards. You do that a lot.

No, you keep repeating that if we can prove it was murder, then we can investigate it, after we prove it was a crime.

What about the lamest controversy ever, "yellowcake." That one never made sense even if you believed everything the Democrats said. Just a few.

- Bush said THE BRITISH reported it, a claim they stood by. What "lie" was there in the first place?

- Why would the Bush administration send anyone to investigate Bush's statement? Why would they send anyone to investigate a claim where they didn't know what it was based on?

- And if they did, why would they send a partisan Democrat?

- How can you disprove a claim you don't know what it was based on?

- How were lives endangered by a woman who told people in the media (e.g., DEMOCRAT Tim Russert) she worked for the CIA?

WTF? The whole thing was just flat out lame, it didn't even make sense. Was that a waste of money too? Or did we need to nail the SOB W to the wall for lying us into a war?

"No, you keep repeating that if we can prove it was murder, then we can investigate it, after we prove it was a crime."

The congressional committees have already determined that there was no crime. That is unless you believe that the GOP was hiding something. How many investigations were there anyway? I lost count a long time ago.

I clearly did not suggest that WE call for another investigation. I clearly said YOU can go on investigating until you are blue in the face. When/if you come with something incriminating murder/bad taste in pants suits ..whatever please bring it forward. I'm sure Paul Ryan is waiting on the edge of his chair in anticipation.

Now! Can you turn your attention to the OP? Or is that too difficult?

I found the RNC chair's statements on Meet The Press enlightening to say the least and maybe a tad to restrained. He should have just told the Donald to shut the fuck up.

Trump is STILL whining about the rules. Can you imagine a Trump arguing with other countries over "the rules" in negotiations with our friends and enemies?

I see the media pundits visibly shaking their heads attempting to take Trump seriously. What Donald? You don't know the rules? And you want to be president?

Now Cruz will be jostled from his perch over the lying about what he did or didn't hear Swanson say(at the top of his lungs) at the gay hate conference Cruz attended. Rules or no rules we have some seriously flawed candidates. Will anyone be left standing by the time the convention rolls around?

Fortunately there is such a thing as a contested convention because it appears they will need some type of orderly way to reboot the presidential candidate selection.

LOL, I can see Cryin Donald calling Putin, you're not fair, whaaa

I understand Putin is a fool for a super bowl ring. It all depends on what you are bringing to the table I guess.

 

[bendog]

Yeah, it's more than a little ironic that Trump's making an argument that Wyoming's delegates should belong to them, when Wyoming is home to the tea party, small govt (even from the dems), where even the dems are armed, and libertarians. BUT, the system is rigged when delegates are not tied to what the actual vote was in a primary or caucus. Colorado's gop party had a valid point that if all your delegates were tied to a candidate early on, and the candidate dropped out, your state is screwed as far as being part of the nomination process. But the answer to that could be accomplished if the natl gop would amend their rules to release all delegates if a candidate drops out or suspends his/her campaign.

Perhaps, but the RNC is trying to respect the prerogative of the state parties to make decisions according to their individual needs and priorities. And it makes the party potentially more responsive to the rank-and-file, since it's much easier to gain influence in the state party and thus over decisions than it is to gain that same level of influence in the national party.

Really, it's the same concept as state governments versus the federal government.

Well, the state parties really answer to the elite. But, I think overall, the natl party has to have a system whereby anyone who gets 50%plus one of the vote is the nominee, no exceptions. But, if there's just a plurality, then any candidate can try to lobby the delegates of anyone who dropped out or suspended to get there votes. There's no way Trump will ever be able to sway enough delegates to his side to win the nomination, and at this point his campaign is more about delegitimizing the process and his celebrity status than anything else. But, be that as it may, it's impossible to defend the nomination process as being fair, even though SC showed he benefited as well from delegate allocation based on something other than one person one vote.

I never try to defend anything as "fair", because I consider that a childishly subjective word to the point of being meaningless. "Fair" literally means something different to each and every person, according to what they want at the moment. It's useless for any practical purposes.

I don't agree with that at all. Fair is one person one vote. And the real reason the dems lost the South for several more generations is they forced us into a system where one person's vote is more important that another is considered "fair."

No, that's your personal perception of "fair". It has pros and cons, like anything else.

Nah, I think one person one vote is pretty much engrained in American society.

 

[hadit]

At the end of the day, the two big political parties are private organizations that can, and do, set their own rules regarding nomination whenever and however they feel like doing so. The fact that voters are convinced "the government" is running the primaries is evidence of the success the parties have had in entrenching themselves as quasi-governmental entities. They can control who gets to debate, how to apportion delegates, heck, whether to hold primary votes at all. Don't be surprised by anything the RNC pulls to deny Trump the nomination and what the DNC does to ensure Bernie doesn't disrupt Hillary's coronation, because it's all legal.

 

[cereal_killer]

Synthaholic I've been around the block with Cecilie1200. She doesn't believe Americans have any right to vote for their representatives in Government if the parties don't deem it necessary. thanatos144 echo's this sentiment as well.

They wish to keep the system where the parties select the nominee not the American people. If you wish to attack this system where hundred of thousands of voters are being disenfranchised then you are a whiner. In other words take a good ass reaming and shut up, these are the rules.

No, dumbass, YOU WANT TO BELIEVE that's what I said and think, and assiduously avoid ever hearing what I'm ACTUALLY saying so that you can keep saying, "Oh, see, you don't want people to vote."

You wish to keep flailing around in your emotionally satisfying tantrum so you can justify making demands for things you haven't put any effort into.

Ha! Don't back peddle Cecil LIE

I haven't backpedaled anything (and learn the fucking difference between "pedal" and "peddle", halfwit). Again, there's a huge difference between what I've said and you've ignored, and what you've determined you're going to hear no matter WHAT my words are.

Oh yes you have and you're burning up massive amounts of calories in the process. Keep up the lie Cecil LIE

Like I said, you will hear what you want to hear, no matter what I actually say. Believe whatever you like, because there's a hard limit on the effort I will expend on someone addicted to and proud of their own ignorance and dishonesty, and you just exceeded it. Wallow happily in the manure pile that is being you. No more pearls before lying swine.

Prove me wrong. I've made it simple for you Cecil LIE and you continue to peddle nonsense and evade.

I'll give you one more chance to answer the question without rambling about what I want and whatever other diversions you can conjure up. It's a simple and straight forward question now answer it.

Should every American (registered voter), in every state, be allowed to cast their vote in a primary/caucus to decide who will be their parties nominee? Yes or no?

The answer should look like this:

Yes_this, that, and everything else
No_this, that, and everything else

NOTE: "this, that, and everything else" denotes whatever the you want to add to your answer. You can even throw in your usual straw man or 10 as well.

 

[HUGGY]

You say "no" then confirm what I said ...

I say "no" because you got it backwards. You do that a lot.

No, you keep repeating that if we can prove it was murder, then we can investigate it, after we prove it was a crime.

What about the lamest controversy ever, "yellowcake." That one never made sense even if you believed everything the Democrats said. Just a few.

- Bush said THE BRITISH reported it, a claim they stood by. What "lie" was there in the first place?

- Why would the Bush administration send anyone to investigate Bush's statement? Why would they send anyone to investigate a claim where they didn't know what it was based on?

- And if they did, why would they send a partisan Democrat?

- How can you disprove a claim you don't know what it was based on?

- How were lives endangered by a woman who told people in the media (e.g., DEMOCRAT Tim Russert) she worked for the CIA?

WTF? The whole thing was just flat out lame, it didn't even make sense. Was that a waste of money too? Or did we need to nail the SOB W to the wall for lying us into a war?

"No, you keep repeating that if we can prove it was murder, then we can investigate it, after we prove it was a crime."

The congressional committees have already determined that there was no crime. That is unless you believe that the GOP was hiding something. How many investigations were there anyway? I lost count a long time ago.

I clearly did not suggest that WE call for another investigation. I clearly said YOU can go on investigating until you are blue in the face. When/if you come with something incriminating murder/bad taste in pants suits ..whatever please bring it forward. I'm sure Paul Ryan is waiting on the edge of his chair in anticipation.

Now! Can you turn your attention to the OP? Or is that too difficult?

I found the RNC chair's statements on Meet The Press enlightening to say the least and maybe a tad to restrained. He should have just told the Donald to shut the fuck up.

Trump is STILL whining about the rules. Can you imagine a Trump arguing with other countries over "the rules" in negotiations with our friends and enemies?

I see the media pundits visibly shaking their heads attempting to take Trump seriously. What Donald? You don't know the rules? And you want to be president?

Now Cruz will be jostled from his perch over the lying about what he did or didn't hear Swanson say(at the top of his lungs) at the gay hate conference Cruz attended. Rules or no rules we have some seriously flawed candidates. Will anyone be left standing by the time the convention rolls around?

Fortunately there is such a thing as a contested convention because it appears they will need some type of orderly way to reboot the presidential candidate selection.

LOL, I can see Cryin Donald calling Putin, you're not fair, whaaa

I can see a lot of world leaders hanging up on him when he starts sputtering enraged insults and telling them they're fat, ugly losers.

The general election typically mirrors the state of the economy, not superfluous issues like gays and abortion. Most Americans vote with their pocketbook. In spite of the constant droning of Obama's failures, mostly made up hyperbola, The economy is clearly better than when he took office and compared with the rest of the world we live in an extremely safe economic haven.

Screaming "Make America Great Again" begs the question of when it really wasn't so great and THAT wasn't so very long ago and who was at the helm when the bottom dropped out. It is WAY too soon to demand risky change. Things are not so bad. I suggest we reject the hyperbole and avoid rocking the boat. A message to "build" on the success of averting total economic disaster would be a much more responsible message.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

The solution is not to limit people's right to spend their own money on political participation. The solution is to make politicians less valuable in general.

I disagree. For the simple reason that neither you nor I could ever donate sums sufficient to make us visible and our interests paramount. The ideal solution, IMO, is to have government fund elections and keep all money out of it. Then maybe they'll do what they're elected to do. At least we'd get the chance to find out

And if money did equal speech, shouldn't things be open and above board and dark money be illegal?

Yes, well, life is always going to be easier when one has more of whatever it is the community in question values. That's just a fact of existence, and not something you can change.

The ideal solution is simply to make money less of a factor by making politicians less valuable. Limiting the ability of people to engage in political activity simply because some are able to do so more effectively is just as "unfair" in its own way. As long as politicians control obscene amounts of power and wealth distribution, they are always going to be vulnerable to people wanting - and finding - ways to manipulate them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course the process is rigged. The sad thing is, EVERY candidate knew that going in, so to cry foul now just looks like sour grapes. Bernie KNEW that Hillary was picked by the party and that he had no true fair shot. Same with Trump. The difference being that Trump actually has a shot at beating the establishment while Bernie doesn't.

The problem is that cynical realism should not disuade us from demanding ideal behavior in our system.

We, the American Middle Class, stopped doing that with the various scandals that have been publicized since Watergate, and now we have allowed things to get out of hand and we are paying the price for that with a firmly established Corporate Crony Network that robs the federal treeaury of hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and stole literally Trillions with the 'recovery' from the subprime mortgage crash.

Trump is the best shot the American voter has for disrupting the establishment, and is why the establishment is terrified.

Trump is also the best shot the American voter has of plunging the nation into chaos, and that is why intelligent people in general are terrified.

 

[hadit]

Of course the process is rigged. The sad thing is, EVERY candidate knew that going in, so to cry foul now just looks like sour grapes. Bernie KNEW that Hillary was picked by the party and that he had no true fair shot. Same with Trump. The difference being that Trump actually has a shot at beating the establishment while Bernie doesn't.

The problem is that cynical realism should not disuade us from demanding ideal behavior in our system.

We, the American Middle Class, stopped doing that with the various scandals that have been publicized since Watergate, and now we have allowed things to get out of hand and we are paying the price for that with a firmly established Corporate Crony Network that robs the federal treeaury of hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and stole literally Trillions with the 'recovery' from the subprime mortgage crash.

Trump is the best shot the American voter has for disrupting the establishment, and is why the establishment is terrified.

Trump is also the best shot the American voter has of plunging the nation into chaos, and that is why intelligent people in general are terrified.

The two are not exclusive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At the end of the day, the two big political parties are private organizations that can, and do, set their own rules regarding nomination whenever and however they feel like doing so. The fact that voters are convinced "the government" is running the primaries is evidence of the success the parties have had in entrenching themselves as quasi-governmental entities. They can control who gets to debate, how to apportion delegates, heck, whether to hold primary votes at all. Don't be surprised by anything the RNC pulls to deny Trump the nomination and what the DNC does to ensure Bernie doesn't disrupt Hillary's coronation, because it's all legal.

Don't think I don't appreciate the irony of the two major parties being hoist to their own petard of rhetoric and brainwashing.

Nevertheless, you are essentially correct.

I honestly don't expect the RNC to do anything more to stop Trump than to campaign vigorously against him and hold him to the letter of the rules (which I actually think will work), and I refuse to get my panties in a twist over hypothetical scenarios of what they MIGHT do as though they've already done it. It just amazes me, the level of bitterness and vituperation being level at the RNC for things that haven't happened, and don't show any serious evidence will happen. It would be nice if we could confine ourselves to hating them for sins they've actually committed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course the process is rigged. The sad thing is, EVERY candidate knew that going in, so to cry foul now just looks like sour grapes. Bernie KNEW that Hillary was picked by the party and that he had no true fair shot. Same with Trump. The difference being that Trump actually has a shot at beating the establishment while Bernie doesn't.

The problem is that cynical realism should not disuade us from demanding ideal behavior in our system.

We, the American Middle Class, stopped doing that with the various scandals that have been publicized since Watergate, and now we have allowed things to get out of hand and we are paying the price for that with a firmly established Corporate Crony Network that robs the federal treeaury of hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and stole literally Trillions with the 'recovery' from the subprime mortgage crash.

Trump is the best shot the American voter has for disrupting the establishment, and is why the establishment is terrified.

Trump is also the best shot the American voter has of plunging the nation into chaos, and that is why intelligent people in general are terrified.

The two are not exclusive.

Believe me, I know. Do you think I keep drawing analogies between the frothing mob mentality in America today and the French Revolution just to show off what I learned in college?

 

[Synthaholic]

Since the party controls the candidate and the candidate is bought and paid for by the party, well there you have it.

Well, wow, that's your opinion, clearly a justification for government to take over parties and tell them how to operate. Due process schmu process

Why shouldn't Congress set rules for the Parties who are currently in control of a Constitutional right?

Parties are in control of a "Constitutional right?" What does that mean?

What would be your reaction if there was a group not specified in the Constitution controlling who gets a gun or not, based solely on their whims?

To be a relevant analogy, the parties would have to control whether you get to vote in the general election or not. The parties themselves aren't government, you don't get to control them

According to you, voters don't get to decide the nominees from the two Parties? They only have a right to choose between two people that private organizations have chosen?

No Arnold, I think that the internal workings of the parties aren't a government agency. How stupid are you?

So, you believe that private organizations should not be interfered with as they decide who our 2 choices for POTUS will be?

 

[Synthaholic]

And the wall is way cheaper than not building it.

What's going to keep Mexican drug smugglers from knocking down or blowing up a section of the wall?

If we could monitor the whole length of the wall we wouldn't need the wall.