RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

Do what for a living, figure out ways to deny people the candidate of their choice?

Run political parties and operate in political circles. What are YOUR expert credentials in the field, Bubba, other than shouting campaign slogans for your Orange Jesus?

I wasn't aware I was required to have "credentials" in the field of political corruption in order to have an opinion. And what are your credentials, asswipe, other than shouting your anti-Trump slogans?

No, opinions are like assholes, have much the same required qualifications for possession, and usually produce similar output.

Now, to have an INFORMED, intelligent opinion on this subject . . . yeah, some sort of credentials would help enormously. Or, you know, at least two brain cells residing in the same section of your empty skull.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

The irony is that the rules were enacted in bad faith, a contrivance designed to ensure smooth sailing for the presumptive nominee after the early primaries to allow the party to unite behind that presumptive nominee.

 

[candycorn]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

 

[Cecilie1200]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

 

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

Do what for a living, figure out ways to deny people the candidate of their choice?

Run political parties and operate in political circles. What are YOUR expert credentials in the field, Bubba, other than shouting campaign slogans for your Orange Jesus?

I wasn't aware I was required to have "credentials" in the field of political corruption in order to have an opinion. And what are your credentials, asswipe, other than shouting your anti-Trump slogans?

No, opinions are like assholes, have much the same required qualifications for possession, and usually produce similar output.

Now, to have an INFORMED, intelligent opinion on this subject . . . yeah, some sort of credentials would help enormously. Or, you know, at least two brain cells residing in the same section of your empty skull.

And your credentials are what, you don't like Trump? Congratulations, asshole, you've just cancelled yourself out.

 

[S.J.]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

How can the will of the people be expressed in the general election if the people of a party are denied their candidate of choice in the primary, stupid?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

Do what for a living, figure out ways to deny people the candidate of their choice?

Run political parties and operate in political circles. What are YOUR expert credentials in the field, Bubba, other than shouting campaign slogans for your Orange Jesus?

I wasn't aware I was required to have "credentials" in the field of political corruption in order to have an opinion. And what are your credentials, asswipe, other than shouting your anti-Trump slogans?

No, opinions are like assholes, have much the same required qualifications for possession, and usually produce similar output.

Now, to have an INFORMED, intelligent opinion on this subject . . . yeah, some sort of credentials would help enormously. Or, you know, at least two brain cells residing in the same section of your empty skull.

And your credentials are what, you don't like Trump? Congratulations, asshole, you've just cancelled yourself out.

Well, for starters, I knew how primary campaigns worked and didn't wake up to a big, ugly mess of surprise reality. I'm not a political operative, and don't pretend to know all the ins and outs and calculations that go into why they do what they do, but I DO know the basic reasoning behind it.

So right off the bat, I'm about ten times more qualified to produce a reasoned opinion on this subject than you are.

 

[candycorn]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

So the Party is some dis-embodied item that exists without members and a bunch of guys in a conference room make it up; not the millions of registered Republicans, the thousands of men and women who attend the state conventions, the thousands who work phone banks, knock on doors, etc??? I understand that the GOP members elect people to act on their behalf but do you honestly feel that the GOP members ever considered that their reps would do something like draft a guy for the nominee who won 1 State or 0 States?

Its rubbish. The Party should let the delegates do their job unfettered and stay out of the discussion.

 

[candycorn]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

 

[Cecilie1200]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

How can the will of the people be expressed in the general election if the people of a party are denied their candidate of choice in the primary, stupid?

Form your own fucking party, stupid. Or support a different party. Or an independent. Or hell, run for office yourself. You have lots of options besides whining and grousing about how other groups of people somehow "owe" it to you to achieve YOUR goals instead of the ones THEY put in the time and effort building a party to achieve, simply because you're too fucking lazy to do what they did.

 

[S.J.]

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

As you proceed to misrepresent me AGAIN. Let me guess, you don't see any rigging or cheating in Colorado either, right?

 

[S.J.]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

How can the will of the people be expressed in the general election if the people of a party are denied their candidate of choice in the primary, stupid?

Form your own fucking party, stupid. Or support a different party. Or an independent. Or hell, run for office yourself. You have lots of options besides whining and grousing about how other groups of people somehow "owe" it to you to achieve YOUR goals instead of the ones THEY put in the time and effort building a party to achieve, simply because you're too fucking lazy to do what they did.

MY goal is for the American people to decide who they want to represent them, NOT who a bunch of insider politicians want to represent THEM. You don't believe in democracy, you're content with corrupt politicians choosing your candidates for you. And you think I'M the lazy one. Screw you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

So the Party is some dis-embodied item that exists without members and a bunch of guys in a conference room make it up; not the millions of registered Republicans, the thousands of men and women who attend the state conventions, the thousands who work phone banks, knock on doors, etc??? I understand that the GOP members elect people to act on their behalf but do you honestly feel that the GOP members ever considered that their reps would do something like draft a guy for the nominee who won 1 State or 0 States?

Its rubbish. The Party should let the delegates do their job unfettered and stay out of the discussion.

Political parties are groups of like-minded people organizing together around common principles and goals. Like any private organization, they are made up much more of the people who have put in the time and work to get into a position to lead and run the party than they are by people who wander by and punch a ballot for a candidate every four years. Voters are welcome to join the party and get as involved as they care to be, even work to become part of the leadership if they wish, but YOU join THEM. They don't join you. That means YOU join THEIR goals, and THEIR system, at least until and unless you get into a position of leadership that lets you set the goals and system.

By the by, the people who attend state conventions ARE part of the party leadership. That's why THEY got to vote in Colorado. Whatever you think, the Colorado convention wasn't decided by a handful of guys in a conference room. And the delegates to the national convention are ALSO part of the party leadership, which is why THEY get to vote on the nominee.

There is no private organization in the country that is in any way obligated, morally or otherwise, to turn their organization over to the whims of random, casual members.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

At what point have they chosen a candidate who HASN'T won more than one state? I feel sure if a GOP nominee had been selected already, it would have been in the news.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

As you proceed to misrepresent me AGAIN. Let me guess, you don't see any rigging or cheating in Colorado either, right?

Nope. They followed the rules and worked with the system. Trump could have done that, but he chose not to. His mistake.

 

[S.J.]

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

As you proceed to misrepresent me AGAIN. Let me guess, you don't see any rigging or cheating in Colorado either, right?

Nope. They followed the rules and worked with the system. Trump could have done that, but he chose not to. His mistake.

So, you're fine with this?
DISGUSTING! Colorado Trump Delegates Scratched From Ballots at GOP Convention - Cruzers Listed TWICE - The Gateway Pundit

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

How can the will of the people be expressed in the general election if the people of a party are denied their candidate of choice in the primary, stupid?

Form your own fucking party, stupid. Or support a different party. Or an independent. Or hell, run for office yourself. You have lots of options besides whining and grousing about how other groups of people somehow "owe" it to you to achieve YOUR goals instead of the ones THEY put in the time and effort building a party to achieve, simply because you're too fucking lazy to do what they did.

MY goal is for the American people to decide who they want to represent them, NOT who a bunch of insider politicians want to represent THEM. You don't believe in democracy, you're content with corrupt politicians choosing your candidates for you. And you think I'M the lazy one. Screw you.

Yeah, well, no one gives a shit about your goal, and that's the part you're not getting. Your goal is YOUR goal, and no one else is obligated to share it. If you want to have a political party that just throws open the doors for anyone to wander in and decide who and what the party is going to be according to the wild hair across their ass THIS week, then you go on and form one. But no one else is obligated to do that for you.

And no, I DON'T believe in democracy. It's chaotic, populist bullshit that would crash the country in record time. That's why the Founding Fathers didn't believe in it, either, and set up a republic, instead.

It's not a matter of "being content with politicians choosing my candidate", dumbass. It's a matter of understanding that I'm not the only person in the country, and to some extent, I'm going to have to accommodate the wishes and will of citizens other than myself. I also understand that I don't own or run the Republican Party. I can join them, or I can go my own way, but I have no right whatsoever to demand that they conform to me, nor do I have a hope in hell of making that demand stick. I haven't put in the effort to acquire a position to do more than give them my opinion, so I have no right to expect to do more than that.