Delegates....a rigged system?

[Synthaholic]

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

I'm not clear what you're asking me. Your literal question answer is yes, but point?

I thought you were arguing that if I don't like the private entities RNC and DNC manipulating the process to get their desired result, I can always vote for a third Party. I'm saying that they are all private entities also, are they not?

You're mixing too many issues together and you're not smart enough or open minded enough to waste the time separating them back out

No, you just don't have an answer.

The point I made but you couldn't seem to comprehend is that if they are all private entities you can't escape the arbitrary rule-making. All of them will have their own rules.

I've gotten that point all along. Yes, they each decide how they want to select their own candidate. Then they have to run in a general election to win the office where everyone can vote. Duh. What I don't get is what your point is. Here's how you know that's what I was asking, I keep asking what your point is ...

The point, again, is that these arbitrary rules are designed to squash the will of the voters.

I provided an example, but you ducked from addressing it:

Trump won Louisiana but Cruz got all the delegates.

 

[Contumacious]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster fuck or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

Ron Paul’s lost delegates: Why they may decide the 2016 GOP nomination

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are locked into a death embrace for delegates to the Republican National Convention. The showdown seems headed to California. But there is another block of delegates, big enough to settle the contest on the first ballot. I will call them the lost delegates and whoever finds them first just might be the nominee.

I am talking about the old Ron Paul delegates from the Tampa Convention in 2012. Several hundred of them are even now still in place, re-elected and headed to the 2016 RNC in Cleveland. They are scattered across several States and who they chose is up in the air. You can call it the Ron Paul Primary.

Here’s what I’m talking about. In 2012, candidate Ron Paul led an insurgency campaign to try to get his name nominated at the convention. He wanted a chance to speak in prime time about the issues of corruption that concerned him. The RNC blocked him at every turn, changing the rules to stop him and using the Credentials Committee to disqualify many of his duly elected delegates.

The Ron Paul campaign, with its stealth delegate strategy came far closer to success than the GOP establishment has ever admitted. Without strong arm tactics in the Credentials Committee they would have succeeded, even with the Rule change of 40(5).

John Sununu, Chairman of the Rules Committee in 2012, stood on the Convention floor and told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, “It’s not fair.” And Sununu added, “A million voters are disenfranchised in Iowa.”


So Trump is correct - the system is rigged.


.

 

[Synthaholic]

And even if it did happen, so you have a wall in one spot for 24-48 miles, or you have a thousand mile wall they could cross anywhere permanently ...

This sounds good to you? Really?

I'm for securing the border, but a wall is retarded. Especially after seeing how El Chappo had a tunnel dug, what...2-3 miles long, completely undetected?

My solution to border control is twofold:

#1 - relocate military bases in interior Red states like Idaho, Kansas, Utah to the Texas border and they can patrol the border.

#2 - Pass a law that has steep fines for any company hiring an illegal. Have mandatory minimum prison sentences for the most egregious offenders. (Why haven't Republicans already passed one? The answer is that they want that cheap labor, and all this panic over illegals is purely political, for their racist, dumbass base.)

Your solution is to keep importing voters

How do you get this from my post?

I really have to dumb things down for you. OK, you want an ineffective solution so you can keep getting illegals in because they vote more Democrat. Seriously, you didn't get that?

I don't get how my solutions are ineffective, especially since neither one has been tried yet.

How would the Army patrolling the border be ineffective?

How would slapping devastating fines on companies be ineffective?

If the penalty is great enough, why would any company take a chance on hiring illegals?

 

[Synthaholic]

I keep saying you are constantly mis reading my posts

Kaz has a pattern of doing that. I don't know if it's deliberate or lazy reading or sheer stupidity.

 

[HUGGY]

I keep saying you are constantly mis reading my posts

Kaz has a pattern of doing that. I don't know if it's deliberate or lazy reading or sheer stupidity.

Dude seems ernest in his interest and concerns so I play along but frankly he is trying my patience. I'm about ready to tell him "go ahead then! call me a lib! ..I just don't care any more! "

 

[jillian]

there is no constitutional right to choose the party's nominee

That's because Parties aren't in the Constitution.

Yet there were political parties at the time. And their nominees were hand-picked by the party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Dunno about Kaz, but are you saying private organizations SHOULD be interfered with as they decide who THEY are going to support for President?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Did you just ask me how Congress dictating rules for private organizations is the government usurping control? Seriously?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They aren't "gaming" anything. It's THEIR party, THEIR money, THEIR time and effort, and they set very clear rules well ahead of time as to how they're going to do so. Are they going to set the rules to insure that THEIR time and THEIR money goes to support a candidate acceptable to THEIR party? Of course they are. That's not "gaming". That's common fucking sense, and the only one trying to "game" anything is the blowhard who thinks he's entitled to breeze in and take over a party he's never been associated with and make demands that they change everything to benefit him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why not? Because you hate the whole idea of private anything without government control? Because you should be able to dictate through federal power who and when and how people assemble and petition the government?

It's not the job of any private organization to be "accountable to the voters". That's what the government is for, and projecting government responsibilities onto people and groups not affiliated with them, simply because those people and groups wish to influence the government's policies - as, in fact, most people in this country do at one time or another - is ludicrous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, default answer from you. "You don't recognize my brilliance, you OBVIOUSLY just aren't reading, so I'm going to stop talking to you until you agree with me, damn it!"

Contemplate the possibility that 1) I did read your entire post, and yet I STILL thought it, and you, were stupid, and 2) you're a big, crying girl in ruffled panties who needs a blankie and safe space.

Your surrender is, as always when you try to play with the grown-ups, duly noted and accepted. You're free to go until the next time. Run along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Funny, but what I SAID was, "There are never just two candidates, and no one's forcing you to vote for just a Democrat or a Republican", so I can't imagine how you fucking heard me say anything else, unless you're brain-damaged or too busy listening to the voices in your head because they're easier to argue against. Well, they would be, since nothing coming out of YOUR head is particularly difficult to tear to shreds.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I support freedom for all groups of Americans to assemble peaceably and choose their own candidates to support in any way they wish. I find it hilarious that you seem to think there's something shocking and scandalous about that idea.

I love that whole "Tell me what you think, but don't you DARE say you think this. You have to express a different opinion RIGHT NOW, because I've decided. And then I'm going to pretend I never heard it and say you said something else, anyway" thing. You may be stupid, but you're consistent.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Funny, but what I SAID was, "There are never just two candidates, and no one's forcing you to vote for just a Democrat or a Republican", so I can't imagine how you fucking heard me say anything else, unless you're brain-damaged or too busy listening to the voices in your head because they're easier to argue against. Well, they would be, since nothing coming out of YOUR head is particularly difficult to tear to shreds.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I support freedom for all groups of Americans to assemble peaceably and choose their own candidates to support in any way they wish. I find it hilarious that you seem to think there's something shocking and scandalous about that idea.

I love that whole "Tell me what you think, but don't you DARE say you think this. You have to express a different opinion RIGHT NOW, because I've decided. And then I'm going to pretend I never heard it and say you said something else, anyway" thing. You may be stupid, but you're consistent.

Bravo!! Very well said.

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

Did you just ask me how Congress dictating rules for private organizations is the government usurping control? Seriously?

You are continuously running with the political parties are like private businesses like grocery chains meme. That isn't what we are discussing. The political parties are deeply involved in government, you are either propagandizing or stuck on stupid.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

You want a say in the republican party? Become a republican and get active. Other wise stop whining like a bitch that the republicans wont let you run their party.

 

[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.

You want a say in the republican party? Become a republican and get active. Other wise stop whining like a bitch that the republicans wont let you run their party.

damn.... i freaking agree with you.

*shakes head*

 

[hadit]

I think it's pretty disproportionately left and you'd admit that if you were honest. So think about it, the party that you hate, who fucked you and your family, the people who continue to strongly support that policy, they are thanking you for continually agreeing with them. Remind me to not worry about you getting pissed at me ...

OK I am starting to understand that you are a paranoid schizophrenic. You obviously cannot help yourself.

My complaints with the current and recent(2-3 decades) direction taken by the GOP what with the fundamental christian over reaching and the systematic ass kissing of so called U S corporations which are in fact multi nationals has drawn some actual libs to thank some of my posts. They probably do so misunderstanding me the same way you do thinking any crumb they come across is a trail to a goldmine.

Many of my posts are/have been generally about the need to support American manufacturers and the survival of American business and American jobs. For the last couple of decades I have been involved with machining so I have a particular hard on against out sourcing and the destruction of U S manufacturing businesses and jobs. Having been a farm boy I have been very much against 3M and their destruction of family farming by patenting and prosecuting accidental cross planting. It is deplorable as it is intended to force compliance to buy their seed product. I get thanks from many sources for many reasons. Stop trying to bully me into accepting your accusations as true. Just keep it between yourself and your psychiatrist.

You're not contradicting me yet again. Democrats fucked you. Then the SC said the Florida SC had to follow their own laws. Then you said, WTF, I'm a socialist! Give me my way! I'm going to endlessly support the people I hate who sole my family's legacy by supporting the people who support the policy that did that!

Wow, you are a Republican ...

It is clear that you have no idea how crazy your posts are. "WTF, I'm a socialist Give me my way! I'm going to endlessly support the people I hate who sole my family's legacy by supporting the people who support the policy that did that! " ???

I don't "endlessly" support anyone or any thing. I take things as they come and as they are. I used to support Dubya and his dad. Then as their actions were proven to be nearly the end of ours and the world's financial system and the wars and the talking to god and on and on I had to be realistic and reject what I once thought to be honorable and good for America.

Now DON"T go off the deep end. That does NOT mean I had to run over to the dems and sign up. It just means as my faith applied to the Bush's I felt betrayed. Since I have NEVER voted democratic they are not so much of a problem.. I just say no. I certainly don't take the GOP for granted anymore. My general trust in them has vanished. If they want my vote they need to be transparent and telling the truth and stop talking crazy like the Donald. Otherwise I won't waste my time voting.

For me to vote for Trump he would have to publicly admit his thoughts on the huge wall are nonsense. Congress will not pay for this wall no matter how the Donald attempts to sell it. Getting Mexico to pay for the wall in advance is about as likely as something not likely at all. But THAT is the only way this super wall would ever be financed. Remember Elliot Ahbrams telling us that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion? Fool me once...yada yada yada

Another position from you, another agreement with the Democrats. And the wall is way cheaper than not building it. The people thanking you tell you what you are, and you sure aren't getting thanks from Republicans

The current power structure of the GOP favors christian fundamentalists. This offers the average member of the god squad an elevated platform. They feel a sense of entitlement to drown out all disagreement. These people rarely discuss down to earth issues and mostly devote their presence to a big circle jerk mutual admiration society. You are correct in noting I rarely get any props from this coalition. To them atheism is worse than being a muslim. In many muslim countries an atheist can be executed. Christians fear atheism as no other mind set and affiliation. This is for good reason in that atheists reject the whole christian idea. Not so from muslims who recognize Jesus as being a prophet. THAT is why the GOP members here do not accept my posts. I am the enemy that cannot be boxed in or cornered. They just damn me out of hand.

Actually the power structure of the GOP would rather Christian Fundamentalists shut up and vote. It certainly does not "favor" them.

 

[hadit]

True, and sadly he'd still be an improvement over the last eight years.

I'll never understand the delusional conservative mind. By almost every measure Obama has improved American life from the day he took office.

Black economic status. Go.

 

[kaz]

Cruz talks mostly about the economy.

Bullshit. What's his stated solution to Too Big To Fail? What's his stated position on interest rates?

I'm a Cruz supporter, dumb ass. And it sure the hell isn't for military or social policy. But a kid who hates him and doesn't remember the W administration has so much credibility with me, I may have to rethink that, LOL

 

[kaz]

True, and sadly he'd still be an improvement over the last eight years.

I'll never understand the delusional conservative mind. By almost every measure Obama has improved American life from the day he took office.

It's not that hard to fathom the christian fundamentalists that have taken over the GOP. Every thing about them is based on a lie no mater how hard they continue to sell it. They claim ownership of American morality as if they invented it and own the patent. Growing up believing in total nonsense has prepared the neo cons for going with "the group" on all issues and beliefs, including that Obama is the worst American president in history. They have always rejected facts. When faced with facts they come back with their "faith" as the supposed equal theory to everything. They do not need nor accept any information that crosses what they take on faith. Practically ALL of their "information" is religion based or religists generated. They are the lowest and poorest informed group of people in American history. It has been a sad several decades for what was once a proud and strong political party. People like Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater were well informed and based in reality.

Only a fool can deny the progress towards solvency of our economy. The only fly in the ointment that stands out remains the bubble that Wall street is continuing to build. Obama has done little to nothing in reigning in this dangerous development. In all fairness the republicans in the position of power would do nothing to help him addressing Wall street's and the bank's influence in congress.

What are you talking about? What social issues have Republicans passed?

"What are you talking about? What social issues have Republicans passed?"

I'm sorry. I keep saying you are constantly mis reading my posts so I had to read this one again because I don't want to accuse you of being stupid without evidence. I didn't find a single word or group of words within the reply that states "social issues the republicans have passed". You are close though as they have ATTEMPTED to pass numerous pieces of legislation with versions of their moral agenda embedded within. That is one of their favorite tricks. They pretend to be addressing a valid need and almost without fail poison the bill with a stupid religist amendment that side rails the legislation. If you do not know what I am referring to you are as dense as you are repetitive.

OK then, smart ass. What social legislation have they "attempted" to pass.

And I'm repetitive because you are evading the question