Delegates....a rigged system?

[kaz]

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?

They are not our 2 choices by law. They are our two choices because most voters are too stupid and gullible to think beyond the two crappy choices. Our awful government is the result of that narrow thinking. That the crappy government that is run by the result of the stupid voters is going to go back and fix the voters so they elect better candidates and we get better government is categorically ridiculous

 

[Synthaholic]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

No. No, they shouldn't. We have no need for the government to usurp even more control of the lives and choices of individuals.

How would that translate to government usurping control?

 

[kaz]

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.

Another stupid argument. Thousands of people running across the border is way harder to defend than someone having a weapon big enough to blow a hole in the wall and then we go to the hole. And why are they going to bother to do that when it won't get them anything?

 

[Synthaholic]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

the candidates do not represent they government. they represent the parties. the parties used to just appoint candidates and people had zero say.

The people have a Constitutional right to vote for their representatives in government. Anything impeding that right should be illegal, whether it's a Superdelegate system, or making people jump through hoops to be able to vote, or limiting the number of places to vote.

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

False. This has nothing to do with campaigning. This is a private organization gaming the outcome of the nominating process by setting arbitrary rules, or changing them year to year to ensure they get an approved nominee.

 

[Synthaholic]

The parties get taxpayer funding in the general hence the corrupt bastards are not free to do whatever the hell they want.

The candidates get funding, not the parties. The parties don't control the money, the candidate does. Can the government control your business if one of your investors gets welfare?

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?

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?

There's no Constitutional right, or any legal right, involved in who private organizations present for the consideration of the voters. And I dare you to show me anything in the Constitution that says otherwise, or even MENTIONS political parties and their primaries.

The DNC and RNC should not be private organizations, not accountable to the voters.

 

[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, there are always more than two choices on the Presidential ballot. I've been voting since I was 18, and I've NEVER seen a ballot that didn't have at least four people listed.

That people are willing to view it as a two-party race is THEIR choice. No one's stopping them from voting for someone else, writing someone in, forming a group to put forward their own candidate, etc. The idea that people have a right to assume for themselves the benefits of other people's time and effort is . . . very leftist, like everything else you say.

You're in retard mode, unwilling to actually read what I am writing, so have a great day.

 

[Synthaholic]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

the candidates do not represent they government. they represent the parties. the parties used to just appoint candidates and people had zero say.

The people have a Constitutional right to vote for their representatives in government. Anything impeding that right should be illegal, whether it's a Superdelegate system, or making people jump through hoops to be able to vote, or limiting the number of places to vote.

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

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.

I think I need a scorecard to remind me who the Party Hacks are!

Put your faith in Reince Preibus!!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

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."

Funny, but I'm hearing the same thing from you that CK has: that private, unaccountable organizations should have free reign to set whatever rules they wish, to ensure the nominee they want. Only then can the American voter decide between the two approved nominees.

And I don't want to hear your bullshit about third Parties. No doubt you support their private organizations picking their nominees, also.

 

[cereal_killer]

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."

Funny, but I'm hearing the same thing from you that CK has: that private, unaccountable organizations should have free reign to set whatever rules they wish, to ensure the nominee they want. Only then can the American voter decide between the two approved nominees.

And I don't want to hear your bullshit about third Parties. No doubt you support their private organizations picking their nominees, also.

Yup yup...thats exactly what Cecil LIE has been saying until she says she didn't say it

 

[HUGGY]

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."

I have to disagree. The South, especially Texas, has been carved up and carved up time and time again by what is known as "redistricting". This practice ensures to a high probability the results of local elections and more importantly the election of members of the House of Representatives.

 

[HUGGY]

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?

I believe the guillotine has been outlawed.

 

[jillian]

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

the candidates do not represent they government. they represent the parties. the parties used to just appoint candidates and people had zero say.

The people have a Constitutional right to vote for their representatives in government. Anything impeding that right should be illegal, whether it's a Superdelegate system, or making people jump through hoops to be able to vote, or limiting the number of places to vote.

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

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.

I think I need a scorecard to remind me who the Party Hacks are!

Put your faith in Reince Preibus!!!!

I don't believe that's a correct characterization of what she said.

 

[kaz]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

the candidates do not represent they government. they represent the parties. the parties used to just appoint candidates and people had zero say.

The people have a Constitutional right to vote for their representatives in government. Anything impeding that right should be illegal, whether it's a Superdelegate system, or making people jump through hoops to be able to vote, or limiting the number of places to vote.

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

False. This has nothing to do with campaigning. This is a private organization gaming the outcome of the nominating process by setting arbitrary rules, or changing them year to year to ensure they get an approved nominee.

Wrong, Cryin Donald's problem is he's only getting 37% of the vote. If he were getting a majority, he'd have the nomination already sown up. It's that Trump isn't winning outright that's making it hard, not that he is

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Drumpf is a recipe for more gridlock domestically and potential catastrophe abroad.

 

[kaz]

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, there are always more than two choices on the Presidential ballot. I've been voting since I was 18, and I've NEVER seen a ballot that didn't have at least four people listed.

That people are willing to view it as a two-party race is THEIR choice. No one's stopping them from voting for someone else, writing someone in, forming a group to put forward their own candidate, etc. The idea that people have a right to assume for themselves the benefits of other people's time and effort is . . . very leftist, like everything else you say.

You're in retard mode, unwilling to actually read what I am writing, so have a great day.

The people made it two choices who could win, not the government

 

[jillian]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

the candidates do not represent they government. they represent the parties. the parties used to just appoint candidates and people had zero say.

The people have a Constitutional right to vote for their representatives in government. Anything impeding that right should be illegal, whether it's a Superdelegate system, or making people jump through hoops to be able to vote, or limiting the number of places to vote.

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

False. This has nothing to do with campaigning. This is a private organization gaming the outcome of the nominating process by setting arbitrary rules, or changing them year to year to ensure they get an approved nominee.

the party always votes its own rules... because it's a party nomination.

the fact that trump doesn't believe rules apply to him is the larger problem. and one would think, were he a serious candidate, he'd have taken it seriously and had the people around him to work the delegates.

so much for him being prepared on day one.

 

[jillian]

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, there are always more than two choices on the Presidential ballot. I've been voting since I was 18, and I've NEVER seen a ballot that didn't have at least four people listed.

That people are willing to view it as a two-party race is THEIR choice. No one's stopping them from voting for someone else, writing someone in, forming a group to put forward their own candidate, etc. The idea that people have a right to assume for themselves the benefits of other people's time and effort is . . . very leftist, like everything else you say.

You're in retard mode, unwilling to actually read what I am writing, so have a great day.

The people made it two choices who could win, not the government

could you try that again in English?

 

[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."

I have to disagree. The South, especially Texas, has been carved up and carved up time and time again by what is known as "redistricting". This practice ensures to a high probability the results of local elections and more importantly the election of members of the House of Representatives.

Well, inside your districts, it's one person one vote. But the civil rights acts dictate how many minority majority districts there must be I'd be all for no civil rights act and bipartisan redistricting when population changes mandate a state add or subtract districts.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

They are not our 2 choices by law. They are our two choices because most voters are too stupid and gullible to think beyond the two crappy choices. Our awful government is the result of that narrow thinking. That the crappy government that is run by the result of the stupid voters is going to go back and fix the voters so they elect better candidates and we get better government is categorically ridiculous

Is the LP a private organization like the RP and DP? How about the Greens? How about the Reform Party? Or the Constitution Party?

 

[kaz]

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.

Drumpf is a recipe for more gridlock domestically and potential catastrophe abroad.

True, and sadly he'd still be an improvement over the last eight years. Every despot and terrorist in the world would vote for Obama over Cryin Donald in a heartbeat