GOP Fascists in Colorado

[Cecilie1200]

I dislike Cruz. Nearly as much as I dislike Trump. But, you're simply wrong Jim. Colorado's party cancelled their usual caucus's last August. And it did so to prevent a guy like Santorum running an insurgency campaign and winning. But they did it LAST AUGUST. Trump came in at the last minute. If he wanted to win this thing, he should have had COLORADO people in COLORADO working the rules last fall.

Oh, I know all that. What makes the GOP EStablishment in Colorado out to be totally dick cheese is that they stripped the Trump people off the ballot. The delegates at each level of the party convention was denied the choice to vote for anyone who supported Trump.

You think that is right? That it gave a fair hearing to the GOP candidates?

That explains alot about the Democratic parties 'Hillary is going to win' fiasco.

So why weren't Trump supporters in Colorado in there and involved in making this come off to their advantage nine months ago? Clearly, the people who are active and involved in the Colorado GOP were informed and up-to-speed enough to show up and participate. What was stopping them from doing so all along?

Because they did not think the GOP Establishment would stoop that low?

I dunno, you tell me.

Because they're lazy morons who thought they could bullshit their way through an election the way Donald Trump has bullshitted his way through life thus far.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The government DOESN'T do anything about parties like that which already exist, dumbass. They CAN'T do anything about it, per the First Amendment of the Constitution.
....

Do you actually just wake up in a whole new world every morning and stare around, cow-eyed, going, "Wow, when did THAT happen?"

Lol, of course they can do something about them, but in the case of Third parties like the ones you mention, they dont bother, and they are honey poots for actual aracists anyway, so they wouldnt if they were so inclined because it is useful to them to build their lists of covert racists.

But the way the government does this sort of thing is to get lawsuits filed by various 'victims' of the perceived racism, go to court and then file a friend of the court brief. The government does not act directly, and here are a few examples of such.

They purge the parties of those who would say anything racist with lawsuits.

Lawsuit: Former Georgia GOP staffer claims party official called her the N-word

Georgia GOP chief faces racial discrimination complaint | Political Insider blog

And they can file more broad lawsuits against he party directly.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father (see attachment). In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology, but no monetary damages.
Read more at

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Of course the legal costs are the punitive damages, lol, not the award

So yes, of course the government can and does act against racially discriminatory parties when they feel it is warranted and they act through third parties in cases like these.

 

[Militants]

Maybe Ted win this then he met Hillary of final matches.

This is dramatic in last poll of Republicans.

Ted Cruz have win in Colorado state ??

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you want a political party whose purpose is something other than influencing public policy in a way that benefits the party, then go organize one. But don't try to impose your personal view of what should be onto others as an obligation for them to be what you want.

There's nothing "corrupt" about an organization, any organization, setting rules to benefit and further the goals for which its organized. Nor is there anything "corrupt" about reality being something different than you thought it was, simply because you didn't bother to get yourself educated and informed.

Yeah because all the members of the Republican Party in Colorado knew that their party leadership would deny them choices on the ballot, especially the current front runner, and would strip candidates off the ballot simply because they did not like them or sold their souls to the Bush Corporation.

Yeah, you dumb asses will believe just about anything.

Clearly, the active and involved members of the Colorado GOP - as opposed to the know-nothing voters who just wake up on voting day and wander down to a polling place without bothering to have a clue what's going on - DID know how this was going to work, since they managed to show up and participate. I haven't heard a one of them saying, "Whoa, what, hey, we had no idea it was going to work this way."

Now, admittedly, they had some ballot problems and updates that had to be made on the fly, but the biggest problems were actually with the ballot information that Trump's campaign gave its people, and even perfect balloting wouldn't have helped.

Yeah, like aluminum siding salesmen, you scream that its their own damend fault for not reading the fine print and ignore the obvious fraud inherent to purging valid candidates from the delegate slates.

Blame the victim and shoot the dissenters; same old same ole.

It IS your fault if you don't read the fine print on a contract. It IS your fault if you expect someone else to do the work of getting you elected, instead of doing it yourself. It's YOUR fault if you sail through life, thinking you're entitled to things without any effort on your part.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You can try to make this about the Colorado GOP denying voters some apocryphal "right" that you mistakenly thought they had, and it won't be true. Likewise, you can try to make this about a sinister plot to defraud Donald Trump out of some apocryphal "entitlement" you mistakenly thought HE had, but that won't change the fact that he and his campaign fucked up, and have themselves to blame for it.

Lol, yeah, as though people are going to believe your lies that party members dont have a right within their own party to vote for delegates that support the party leader for PResident.

Lol, your whole contention is stupid and absurd on its face, cretin.

 

[Militants]

Fascists are better than Communists I am sure ....

 

[kaz]

Gawd, I'd rather have Trump than Santorum. But I was thinking the same thing, this rule is not new, why the Trump whining now like it's targeted at him?

And where are the Trumpettes when Trump gets MORE delegates than his share of a State vote?

Lol, because it is not about the change in rules, but in how it was done and the fact that party members were stripped from the ballot when they met the rules conditions to be on it.

You really dont see anything amiss when a state purges all the people who support their own parties leading candidate at the time?

Seriously?

You really don't see the difference between a political party picking their nominee and an election?

You ducked my question. Why is that? You know it makes the case obvious, that Trump has been fucked over?

As to the final election vrs party primaries and caucuses obviously there is a difference. But the same fairness to all participants in good standing apply, and purging all the supporters of your own parties leading candidate is very plainly a bullshit, ham handed, suppressive tactic that will cost ht e GOP big time.

But here is the kicker to all this broohahah; the class identities of the people involved. I have been hearing about how the GOP needs to purge itself of 'blue collar' supporters who are Tea Party members for years now, the only change this year is that 'Trump supporter' and 'blue collar member' are being used almost synonymously. '

The GOP loves having these blue collar people show up at the polls, but not stay for the caucus afterwards. For decades now, since Nixon, they have gotten way with it as the voters lied to themselves and said 'Well, when we have our guy they will have to get behind them.' And that happened once with Reagan, but they hated Reagan, in private where the public couldnt hear, and swore that htey would never again have another Reagan revolt.

So they have another Reagan uprising in their ranks and all their little tricks have failed them so far with a few local exceptions, and they think they will win and get control of this thing the same old cheating lying way that they have done it for 40 + years. But it isnt going to work this time. People have seen how the Establishment works and they no longer trust the party Establishment.

This time, unless they start sucking Trumps cock over night, Trump is going to lead a lot of voters out of the GOP and the Democratic Party and I think he is going to form a new party. If so I will join it, not so much because it is formed by Trump supporters, but because it will not consist of sold out political whores and their lobbyists.

I didn't duck anything, I said applying the standards of a general election to a political party picking their own candidate is silly. I also pointed out that the rules weren't changed, you had plenty of time to object. And you don't object when Trump gets MORE delegates than vote percentage.

Each State picks it's rules. All the candidates are having wins and losses for that. And also I pointed out again that to me since I'm not a Republican, I'll evaluate what comes out of the end of the pipe. I did agree with you in a way when I said your party sucks at picking nominees, I voted for you once in six elections. Democrats are zero in that time. You both pick candidates who suck. How you do it is up to you.

Not to mention that what you want, Trump, if he comes out the end of the pipe, it'll be up to six times in seven elections I didn't vote for you. Why would I care about helping that?

 

[kaz]

OMG, wow, they are sure naive then, LOL. This is a party that continually picks candidates based on that they would rather lose and maintain their power than win with a candidate they can't control

Lol, so in your opinion, it is the members own damned fault for trusting the GOP?

Well, thats basically the same thing I am saying; and the GOP is going to pay the price for being led by a bunch of lying cheating bastards.

You finally heard me

 

[Cecilie1200]

OMG, wow, they are sure naive then, LOL. This is a party that continually picks candidates based on that they would rather lose and maintain their power than win with a candidate they can't control

Lol, so in your opinion, it is the members own damned fault for trusting the GOP?

Well, thats basically the same thing I am saying; and the GOP is going to pay the price for being led by a bunch of lying cheating bastards.

If you're trusting someone else to work for your best interests without any effort or even awareness on your part, then yeah, it's your fucking fault if your life is a shit sandwich.

And as I'VE said before, this campaign proves that you fools couldn't organize your way out of a wet paper bag, let alone organize any sort of punitive action toward the GOP.

I know you want desperately to think of your fellow Trumpettes as some massive, fearsome army marching in lockstep (probably goosestepping and saluting) with laser focus on a goal, but the truth is, you're a bunch of dithering whiners flouncing around, radiating vague, generalized rage at anything and everything according to which way the wind is blowing at the moment.

By November, the majority of your "movement" is going to have sunk into a Dorito coma on their beanbag chairs and pop into consciousness just long enough to either trundle down to a polling place long enough to cast a hazy vote, or to yawn, scratch their ass, and change the TV channel.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The government DOESN'T do anything about parties like that which already exist, dumbass. They CAN'T do anything about it, per the First Amendment of the Constitution.
....

Do you actually just wake up in a whole new world every morning and stare around, cow-eyed, going, "Wow, when did THAT happen?"

Lol, of course they can do something about them, but in the case of Third parties like the ones you mention, they dont bother, and they are honey poots for actual aracists anyway, so they wouldnt if they were so inclined because it is useful to them to build their lists of covert racists.

But the way the government does this sort of thing is to get lawsuits filed by various 'victims' of the perceived racism, go to court and then file a friend of the court brief. The government does not act directly, and here are a few examples of such.

They purge the parties of those who would say anything racist with lawsuits.

Lawsuit: Former Georgia GOP staffer claims party official called her the N-word

Georgia GOP chief faces racial discrimination complaint | Political Insider blog

And they can file more broad lawsuits against he party directly.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father (see attachment). In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology, but no monetary damages.
Read more at

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Of course the legal costs are the punitive damages, lol, not the award

So yes, of course the government can and does act against racially discriminatory parties when they feel it is warranted and they act through third parties in cases like these.

So basically, no. They can't do a fucking thing about people organizing together for whatever purpose they like, including racism. All they can do is throw their two cents' worth of bitching in when someone pitches a fit about individual behavior which violates the rules of a group which do NOT include those precepts.

Thank you for proving my point, however clumsily.

The government doesn't ignore racist groups because "they're too small". They ignore them because they have a Constitutional right to exist. I realize that, what with worshiping someone like Donald Trump who likely wouldn't recognize the Constitution if you smacked him with it, you probably don't have much interest in the concept of actual, codified rights, but they do still exist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gawd, I'd rather have Trump than Santorum. But I was thinking the same thing, this rule is not new, why the Trump whining now like it's targeted at him?

And where are the Trumpettes when Trump gets MORE delegates than his share of a State vote?

Lol, because it is not about the change in rules, but in how it was done and the fact that party members were stripped from the ballot when they met the rules conditions to be on it.

You really dont see anything amiss when a state purges all the people who support their own parties leading candidate at the time?
Seriously?

You really don't see the difference between a political party picking their nominee and an election?

You ducked my question. Why is that? You know it makes the case obvious, that Trump has been fucked over?

As to the final election vrs party primaries and caucuses obviously there is a difference. But the same fairness to all participants in good standing apply, and purging all the supporters of your own parties leading candidate is very plainly a bullshit, ham handed, suppressive tactic that will cost ht e GOP big time.

But here is the kicker to all this broohahah; the class identities of the people involved. I have been hearing about how the GOP needs to purge itself of 'blue collar' supporters who are Tea Party members for years now, the only change this year is that 'Trump supporter' and 'blue collar member' are being used almost synonymously. '

The GOP loves having these blue collar people show up at the polls, but not stay for the caucus afterwards. For decades now, since Nixon, they have gotten way with it as the voters lied to themselves and said 'Well, when we have our guy they will have to get behind them.' And that happened once with Reagan, but they hated Reagan, in private where the public couldnt hear, and swore that htey would never again have another Reagan revolt.

So they have another Reagan uprising in their ranks and all their little tricks have failed them so far with a few local exceptions, and they think they will win and get control of this thing the same old cheating lying way that they have done it for 40 + years. But it isnt going to work this time. People have seen how the Establishment works and they no longer trust the party Establishment.

This time, unless they start sucking Trumps cock over night, Trump is going to lead a lot of voters out of the GOP and the Democratic Party and I think he is going to form a new party. If so I will join it, not so much because it is formed by Trump supporters, but because it will not consist of sold out political whores and their lobbyists.

I didn't duck anything, I said applying the standards of a general election to a political party picking their own candidate is silly.

Lol, yes,but that was not my question. My question was "You really dont see anything amiss when a state purges all the people who support their own parties leading candidate at the time?"

To which you responded "You really don't see the difference between a political party picking their nominee and an election?"

So you did duck my question, asking a new question instead of answering the question first asked of you.

And my point still stands and any lurkers reading this thread will see you for ducking the whole thing as you did and then engage in deflection.

PArty members, as dues paying delegate members, have a right to see all intended viable candidates ont he ballot, unless the candidate failed to meet qualifying criteria, which Trump did not fail to meet. The delegates were systematically purged from the ballots at each level of the caucus in the state of Colorado.

And whether you ever get honest and wrap your brain around what I am saying or not, the GOP is going to lose tons of voters and they will likely see Trump lead a very enthusiastic Third Party run when it is all over.

And the GOP takes a very serious risk of failing to finish in the top two parties in the US Presidential election; do you know what that will mean to the GOP? Among many other things like automatic ballot access, they will lose FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS, lolol.

All of that because they would rather cheat than play honest and fair?

roflmao, America deserves a better pair of parties than the Democrats and Republicans.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you're trusting someone else to work for your best interests without any effort or even awareness on your part, then yeah, it's your fucking fault if your life is a shit sandwich..

But that would not cover deliberate fraud and bad faith that is involved in purging qualified delegates from the ballot.

Lol, please continue to demonstrate what a complete hack you are. A lot of Republicans still trust the GOP and this is very educational for them.

 

[Zander]

It's the illusion of choice.

 

[bendog]

Interesting posts by Kaz and Jim about the gop establishment. But I don't see any support for a belief that Trump could win in the general if he was the gop candidate. But Cruz is not the establishment's candidate. Rather, he's the lesser of two evils for the establishment. I'd agree gop establishment's protection of low wages and low taxes on the 1%, and buying votes on anti-libertarian views on social issues, has painted the party into a corner of facing demographics that make it difficult to impossible to win a natl election. The establishment knows Lyin' Ted won't raise their taxes.

 

[kaz]

Gawd, I'd rather have Trump than Santorum. But I was thinking the same thing, this rule is not new, why the Trump whining now like it's targeted at him?

And where are the Trumpettes when Trump gets MORE delegates than his share of a State vote?

Lol, because it is not about the change in rules, but in how it was done and the fact that party members were stripped from the ballot when they met the rules conditions to be on it.

You really dont see anything amiss when a state purges all the people who support their own parties leading candidate at the time?
Seriously?

You really don't see the difference between a political party picking their nominee and an election?

You ducked my question. Why is that? You know it makes the case obvious, that Trump has been fucked over?

As to the final election vrs party primaries and caucuses obviously there is a difference. But the same fairness to all participants in good standing apply, and purging all the supporters of your own parties leading candidate is very plainly a bullshit, ham handed, suppressive tactic that will cost ht e GOP big time.

But here is the kicker to all this broohahah; the class identities of the people involved. I have been hearing about how the GOP needs to purge itself of 'blue collar' supporters who are Tea Party members for years now, the only change this year is that 'Trump supporter' and 'blue collar member' are being used almost synonymously. '

The GOP loves having these blue collar people show up at the polls, but not stay for the caucus afterwards. For decades now, since Nixon, they have gotten way with it as the voters lied to themselves and said 'Well, when we have our guy they will have to get behind them.' And that happened once with Reagan, but they hated Reagan, in private where the public couldnt hear, and swore that htey would never again have another Reagan revolt.

So they have another Reagan uprising in their ranks and all their little tricks have failed them so far with a few local exceptions, and they think they will win and get control of this thing the same old cheating lying way that they have done it for 40 + years. But it isnt going to work this time. People have seen how the Establishment works and they no longer trust the party Establishment.

This time, unless they start sucking Trumps cock over night, Trump is going to lead a lot of voters out of the GOP and the Democratic Party and I think he is going to form a new party. If so I will join it, not so much because it is formed by Trump supporters, but because it will not consist of sold out political whores and their lobbyists.

I didn't duck anything, I said applying the standards of a general election to a political party picking their own candidate is silly.

Lol, yes,but that was not my question. My question was "You really dont see anything amiss when a state purges all the people who support their own parties leading candidate at the time?"

To which you responded "You really don't see the difference between a political party picking their nominee and an election?"

So you did duck my question, asking a new question instead of answering the question first asked of you.

And my point still stands and any lurkers reading this thread will see you for ducking the whole thing as you did and then engage in deflection.

PArty members, as dues paying delegate members, have a right to see all intended viable candidates ont he ballot, unless the candidate failed to meet qualifying criteria, which Trump did not fail to meet. The delegates were systematically purged from the ballots at each level of the caucus in the state of Colorado.

And whether you ever get honest and wrap your brain around what I am saying or not, the GOP is going to lose tons of voters and they will likely see Trump lead a very enthusiastic Third Party run when it is all over.

And the GOP takes a very serious risk of failing to finish in the top two parties in the US Presidential election; do you know what that will mean to the GOP? Among many other things like automatic ballot access, they will lose FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS, lolol.

All of that because they would rather cheat than play honest and fair?

roflmao, America deserves a better pair of parties than the Democrats and Republicans.

I've answered the question twice, I'm not doing it again. You don't get to assign me what I do and don't care about

 

[JimBowie1958]

The government DOESN'T do anything about parties like that which already exist, dumbass. They CAN'T do anything about it, per the First Amendment of the Constitution.
....

Do you actually just wake up in a whole new world every morning and stare around, cow-eyed, going, "Wow, when did THAT happen?"

Lol, of course they can do something about them, but in the case of Third parties like the ones you mention, they dont bother, and they are honey poots for actual aracists anyway, so they wouldnt if they were so inclined because it is useful to them to build their lists of covert racists.

But the way the government does this sort of thing is to get lawsuits filed by various 'victims' of the perceived racism, go to court and then file a friend of the court brief. The government does not act directly, and here are a few examples of such.

They purge the parties of those who would say anything racist with lawsuits.

Lawsuit: Former Georgia GOP staffer claims party official called her the N-word

Georgia GOP chief faces racial discrimination complaint | Political Insider blog

And they can file more broad lawsuits against he party directly.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father (see attachment). In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology, but no monetary damages.
Read more at

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Of course the legal costs are the punitive damages, lol, not the award

So yes, of course the government can and does act against racially discriminatory parties when they feel it is warranted and they act through third parties in cases like these.

So basically, no. They can't do a fucking thing about people organizing together for whatever purpose they like, including racism. All they can do is throw their two cents' worth of bitching in when someone pitches a fit about individual behavior which violates the rules of a group which do NOT include those precepts.

Thank you for proving my point, however clumsily.

The government doesn't ignore racist groups because "they're too small". They ignore them because they have a Constitutional right to exist. I realize that, what with worshiping someone like Donald Trump who likely wouldn't recognize the Constitution if you smacked him with it, you probably don't have much interest in the concept of actual, codified rights, but they do still exist.

Lol, your reading comprehension sucks as bad as your general lack of integrity and rationality also sucks.

The government has and would recruit a third party to bring a lawsuit that they will then file a friend of the court breif to support all the way to SCOTUS if they have to. They have done it before.

Poor Cecile, cant understand these little ambiguities, lol. just like it cant understand what 'fiduciary duty' is. The whole thing about duty and integrity just confuses it!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Interesting posts by Kaz and Jim about the gop establishment. But I don't see any support for a belief that Trump could win in the general if he was the gop candidate. But Cruz is not the establishment's candidate. Rather, he's the lesser of two evils for the establishment. I'd agree gop establishment's protection of low wages and low taxes on the 1%, and buying votes on anti-libertarian views on social issues, has painted the party into a corner of facing demographics that make it difficult to impossible to win a natl election. The establishment knows Lyin' Ted won't raise their taxes.

Its a little more complex than that.

What you are seeing is likely a mitosis of the GOP.

 

[kaz]

Interesting posts by Kaz and Jim about the gop establishment. But I don't see any support for a belief that Trump could win in the general if he was the gop candidate. But Cruz is not the establishment's candidate. Rather, he's the lesser of two evils for the establishment. I'd agree gop establishment's protection of low wages and low taxes on the 1%, and buying votes on anti-libertarian views on social issues, has painted the party into a corner of facing demographics that make it difficult to impossible to win a natl election. The establishment knows Lyin' Ted won't raise their taxes.

Thank you for your comment on the debate, but not wanting to single out the "1%" for punishment is not protecting them in the way you imply. And Democrats way more drive down low end wages by endlessly illegally importing low skill employees

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Purges all the people"? Don't exaggerate, dumbass,

But then again, you know that that is not what I said, liar.

and keep your sinister conspiracy theories to yourself. Tinfoil hats make my head itch.

So now you think that party elites do not 'network' together to shun some candidates? What the hell do you think they GOP has been doing to Trump for the past two months? You think that is fair and even handed?

Well, you are a Democrat, right, so maybe you do.

I think it's a damned shame that the Colorado GOP is such a disorganized mess right now. I think it's a much bigger problem that a Presidential candidate is such a clueless, lazy buffoon, and his followers are such a bunch of whining, goggle-eyed dimwits.

Lol, keep it up, you do know that you are confirming what I ahve been saying for the past 8 years about the GOP leadership and the Democrats also?

I thank you for giving me more quotes to use. lololol

 

[bendog]

If you're trusting someone else to work for your best interests without any effort or even awareness on your part, then yeah, it's your fucking fault if your life is a shit sandwich..

But that would not cover deliberate fraud and bad faith that is involved in purging qualified delegates from the ballot.

Lol, please continue to demonstrate what a complete hack you are. A lot of Republicans still trust the GOP and this is very educational for them.

I've read the Denver Post and both the Colorado Springs and Canyon City papers, and there's nothing about stealing votes or not letting people vote or purging qualified delegate candidates. I'm curious as to where you get this.